1IELI0CARPUS AMERICANUS 
257 
is to bo retained, it should be applied to II. fomentosus , and that 
II. americanus E. E. Wats, requires a new name. The synonymy 
and geographical distribution of the two species in question are 
given below. 
H. americanus L., Sp. PL 448 (1753), emend, (excl. pi. cult, in 
hort. Cliff.)— II. tomentosus Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1858, 
xxxi. 225; E. E. Wats, in Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1923, 1. 123. 
Montia Houst. MS. ; Mill. Gard. Diet. ed. 6 (1752). Heliocarpos L. 
Hort. Cliff. 211, t. 1(3, tig. d, quoad syn. et fruct. 
Mexico: Vera Cruz; Old Vera Cruz, Houstoun (Herb. Cliff.; Herb. 
Banks ; Herb. Sloane ccxcii. fol. 62) ; found elsewhere in Vera Cruz by 
various collectors. According to Mr. Watson, it occurs also in the 
states of Puebla and Oaxaca, and in Panama. The Panama record, 
if confirmed, will furnish an interesting case of discontinuous geo¬ 
graphical distribution. One would like to know whether the speci¬ 
mens are in fruit. 
H. subtrilobus, nom. nov.— H. americanus E. E. Wats, in 
Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1923, 1. 123, non L. 
Venezuela, Eendler 1277 b (Gray Herb.). 
I have not seen Eendler 1277 b, the type of II. americanus 
E. E. Wats., but the species seems to be sufficiently distinct from 
II. popayanensis, judging from the description. 
CARMICHAELIA AUSTBALIS R. Br. 
By James Britten, F.L.S. 
In the recently-issued part of the Botanical Magazine , under 
t. 8972, Dr. Stapf gives an account of the history of this plant, to 
which in some details it seems necessary to take exception. For 
that purpose it is desirable to reprint his text, so far as this relates 
to the points at issue; this runs as follows :— 
“ C. australis was discovered by Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. 
Solander on the east coast of the North Island in 1769, but was not 
described until 1825, when Bindley figured it from a plant in Colvill’s 
nursery with a description and notes by R. Brown. R. Brown 
identified it with [George] Forster’s Lotus arboreus , but Forster’s 
specimen of that species in the Kew Herbarium is evidently C. flagelli- 
for mis, under which C. arboreus is also quoted by Cheeseman. 
Brown’s description covers probably both, the part referring to the 
fruits being drawn up from Forster’s specimen or drawing which 
shows fruit, the remainder from Colvill’s plant.” 
I. The Banks and Solander Type. 
I am not in a position to question Dr. Stapf’s identification of 
Forster’s specimen in the Kew Herbarium with C. flag ell if or mis, 
but the ample material in the British Museum Herbarium lends no 
support to the view that Brown’s description “ probably covers both 
that and C. australis,' 1 '' and it assuredly was not in part “ drawn up 
from Colvill’s plant.” As to this I can speak with some certainty, 
