256 
TTTE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Philip Miller was evidently annoyed at the change of name: 
“ Dr. J Annaeus has altered the name of this plant to Heliocarpos 
and given another genus the title of Montia ; hut for what reason I 
cannot say, unless to confound the knowledge of plants ” (Gard. 
Diet. ed. 6, sub Montia ; 1752). In Gard. Diet. ed. 7 and later 
editions, however, he accepted Heliocarpos. 
Linne’s generic description of Meliocarpos in Gen. PI. ed. 1 was 
based, as regards the dower, on the Hartecamp plant; and,as regards 
the fruit, on material sent him by Miller. In Hort. Cliff, he gave a 
detailed account of the vegetative characters of the Hartecamp plant, 
of which he figured a leafy branch and dowers. The fruit, however, 
was figured and described from the specimen communicated by 
Miller. * 
lleliocarpus americamis L., Sp. PI. 448, was defined by citation 
of Hort. Cliff., and accordingly consisted of three elements : (I) the 
synonym, Montia Houst.; (2) the specimen sent to Linne by Miller ; 
(8) the Hartecamp plant. The type-specimens of (1) and (2) are. 
preserved in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), and are conspecific 
with H. tomentosus Turez., as has already been pointed out by 
Mr. E. G. Baker (Journ. Bot. 1898, 130). No type-specimen of 
(3) is in existence, and its native country and fruit are unknown. 
As some of the most important specific characters in lleliocarpus 
arc derived from the fruit, it is probable that the identity of the 
Hartecamp plant will always remain doubtful. 
Mr. Watson has apparently overlooked the fact that the fruiting 
specimen sent to Linne by Miller, which is the t} r pe of Hort. Clift*, 
t. 16, fig. d, is preserved in the Clifford herbarium, and that it 
is II. tomentosus (Journ. Bot. 1898, 181). He seems to be under 
the impression that the Apothecaries’ Garden at Chelsea and Clifford’s 
Garden at Hartecamp were identical—his remarks “It is not ex¬ 
plicitly stated that the two drawings [Hort. Cliff, fig. * and fig. d] 
were made from parts of the same plant. Nor does it appear from 
Linnaeus’ writings just what was the source of the plant in the 
Clifford Garden at Chelsea ” seem susceptible of no other interpre¬ 
tation. 
Mr. Watson considers that Heliocarpos Hort. Cliff, could not be 
II. tomentosus , on the ground that “it is simply impossible that 
Linnaeus could have failed to notice the dense tomentum of the lower 
surface of the leaves.” Precisely because Linne did notice this 
tomentum on the single leaf accompanying the fruits sent him by 
Miller, he was careful to state that Montia Houst. ( Heliocarpos ) 
and the plant cultivated in Clifford’s garden seemed to be the same, 
instead of definitely treating them as synonymous. “ Ilanc videtur 
Houstonus Montia nomine indigitasse in manuscriptis apud Cl. Mil- 
lerum visis.” 
As the synonym, Montia Houst., cited by Linne under Ilelio- 
carpos , is li. tomentosus Turez., and one of the specimens seen and 
figured by him is also II. tomentosus , while the other has not been 
preserved and —pace Mr. Watson—cannot be identified from the 
description and figure, it is evident that, if the name II. americanus 
