the genus west of the Andes; it is undoubtedly a coastal intrusion 
that proceeded inland up the Magdalena Valley. 
Micrandra bracteosa, described from material collected in 
Bahia, Brazil, was presumed to differ from M. e/ata by lacking 
glands at the base of the leaves or of having them only weakly 
developed and by having a panicle shorter than the leaves. Both 
are unreliable characters, and it seems advisable to treat M. 
bracteosa as a synonym of the widespread and variable M. elata. 
The distinguishing characters between Micrandra elata and 
the Surinam material described as M. brownsbergensis are of a 
minor and inconstant nature. Lanjouw did not distinguish M. 
brownsbergensis from M. elata when he described the concept. 
He did distinguish it from the very distinct M. siphonioides. 
Thanks to the very active Dutch collectors in Surinam, there is a 
wealth of herbarium material from the Brownsberg Forest 
Reserve. Careful examination of this ample material fails to 
provide one with any major character of distinction. The leaves 
are occasionally larger than is expected in M. e/ata and there are 
often fewer secondary nerves, but these and other fine differ- 
ences are too trivial to separate M. brownsbergensis even as a 
variety. 
Perhaps the most interesting collections of Micrandra are 
those made in 1936 and 1937 by O. Haught in Colombia and 
described by Croizat as M. santanderensis. When these collec- 
tions are viewed alone, they do look different; their distinction 
fades, however, when one has the whole series of collections 
from Colombia to southern Brazil along the coastal lowlands. 
Croizat stated that this species was distinct from all other known 
species because of its “differently colored foliage, but there are 
no floral differences. The conspicuously axillary tufts of hairs on 
the leaves of this new species are not found on M. elata Muell.- 
Arg. or... M. siphonioides Benth., to judge from the photo- 
graphs of the type specimens . . .” Haught 2189, the type of M. 
santanderensis, is, indeed, a good match for the type of M. 
brownsbergensis, although its leaves are somewhat larger; in 
Haught 2011, however, the leaves are very similar in size, shape 
and colouration to those of the type of M. brownsbergensis. 
We should point out the inexactness in several points of the 
103 
