THYMUS LANUGINOSUS 
137 
“ Hort. Chels.” (being collected there by Houstoun and sometimes 
dated and with the original labels). The same applies to those 
labelled “ ex herb. Dni Gronovii,” apparently acquired by Houstoun in 
1729, for this date is found wherever the original labels are dated; 
the same probably applies to those labelled “ Hort. Lugd. Bat.” and 
occasionally to others, of which the onty evidence of connexion with 
Miller is the “ L. M.” on the sheet: it is not impossible that even 
this evidence was omitted sometimes. In fact, all these specimens 
form part of the 10,000 sheets of Herb. Miller, which 1 should not 
now consider as a bad estimate (cf. Britten, l. c.). 
Now there are some labelled “ ex agro Parisiensi ” which are just 
as certainly part of Herb. Miller, being doubtless collected by Hous¬ 
toun during his visits to Paris. There is little doubt that the 
specimen of Thymus lanuginosus was collected by Houstoun at Fon¬ 
tainebleau, and had originally a label similar to the others of Herb. 
Houstoun which are occasionally preserved. But it must be remem¬ 
bered that Miller took his descriptions from the plants in the Chelsea 
Garden, as was pointed out by Britten, l. c. These garden plants 
were therefore the types of the names in such cases, and they may 
not have been preserved in the herbarium; for when Miller was 
satisfied that the specimen in Herb. Houstoun was identical with the 
one in the garden he may not have troubled to dry another. The 
specimens in Herb. Miller may not be types when they form part of 
Herb. Houstoun, even if Miller’s name has been added to the Hous¬ 
toun label in Miller’s own handwriting. True, they will in such cases 
be syntype material, but they should not be made lectotype if they 
differ from the original description. They are thus in the same 
position as the specimens in Linnaeus’s herbarium. It therefore 
seems probable that in the present case there was a plant grown in 
Chelsea Garden which was Miller’s T. lanuginosus, and agreed with 
Miller’s description. It also seems probable that Miller considered 
Fontainebleau specimens to be the same, adding the habitat where it 
“ grows naturally” to his account in the Dictionary. As I can find 
no other specimens from Fontainebleau to which Miller could have 
been referring, it seems probable that he was referring to those 
already mentioned, but they cannot be used as type. There is no 
means of discovering whether any plant was grown at Chelsea Garden, 
or what it was and whence it came—for 1 am told that T. lanugi¬ 
nosus auct. does not occur at Fontainebleau—and we must therefore 
regard Miller’s name as a nomen dubium, probabiliter etiam confusum, 
and use the next valid name. What this may be I leave to the 
specialists, with the hope that they will find an unambiguous one. 
[Teems for Types. 
The terms “ syntype ” and “ lectotype,” employed above by 
Mr. Wilmott, may not be familiar to all British botanists, and a note 
upon them may be useful. They form part of a long series of terms 
proposed by Charles Scliuchert in his Introduction to the Catalogue 
of ... . Fossils in the Department of Geology, U.S. Nat Museum, 
where, under the heading “ Classification of Type Specimens ” it 
occupies pp. 9-18 (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 53, part 1, Washington, 
