BLAKE—REVISION OF RINOREA, 493 
The flowers of several species are known to be fragrant, and this 
is probably true of all. The capsules, when boiled, give forth the 
characteristic odor of slippery elm (Ulmus fulva), and this is some- 
times apparent in the dried specimens. 
The only treatment of the American species which is of any value 
in the determination of specimens is that of Eichler (1871) in the 
Flora Brasiliensis, and in this only 11 species are described, while 
the number of species now known from America is about 39. Of 
these, I have been able to examine 25, of which 16 or 17 are repre- 
sented by types or by specimens or fragments of the type collections. 
In addition to the material in the U. S. National Herbarium, that 
in the Gray Herbarium and the herbarium of the New York Botani- 
cal Garden has been examined, through the kindness of the curators, 
and Dr. Otto Stapf has forwarded single flowers from the types 
of four of Bentham’s species in the Kew Herbarium. Mr. E. G. 
Baker, of the British Museum (Natural History), has sent drawings 
of Aublet’s types and notes which have been of great assistance in 
settling the identity of three species described by Aublet under as 
many generic names. 
The status of most of the American species can now be regarded 
as definitely established. In several cases, however, it will be neces- 
sary to examine original specimens or more extensive series before 
the validity of some forms can be regarded as decided. Closely 
related pairs of species are Rinorea dichotoma and RK. andina, 
R. quianensis and R. paniculata, R. hymenosepala and R. ulmifolia, 
R. pubipes and R. squamata. Rinorea brevipes may yet prove to 
intergrade with 2. passoura, as may FP. pilosula with &. guatemalen- 
sis. Rinorea gracilis is known only from fruiting material, like 
several apparently new species of which I have seen specimens in 
herbaria, but which I have omitted, since their description from 
fragmentary material would serve merely to swell the list of doubt- 
ful species without adding to our knowledge of the group. 
In this revision the genus is taken in the limits given it by Ben- 
tham and Hooker, which were followed by Taubert in the Pflanzen- 
familien. The fact that the apparently opposite leaves of enorea 
are not morphologically so has been demonstrated by Kichler,? but 
for brevity’s sake I have described the leaves in these species as op- 
posite. All measurements of floral details are taken from boiled 
parts spread flat. In the case of the petals the measurements are 
often considerably greater than they appear in pressed specimens, 
since the tips are reflexed in nearly all the species. The descriptions 
of staminal details are based in nearly every case on repeated dis- 
sections. The measurements given for length of anthers apply to 
®In Mart. Fl. Bras, 13*: 384. 1871. 
