Negro as representing Hevea minor, Huber published 
an amplified description of this species, which included 
a description of the flowers of the Ducke specimens (loc. 
cit. 684-635). He indicated that the two species appeared 
to be closely allied, although the flowers of Hevea micro- 
phylla were not known. In 1918, Huber still maintained 
them as distinct concepts, including them with Hevea 
brasiliensis (HA BK.) Muell.-Arg. in his series Intermediae 
as he had done previously (loc. cit. 622), but intimating 
that further studies might make it necessary to remove 
AZ. microphylla and H. minor from series Intermediae (he 
considered series Luteae and Intermediae to represent 
provisional classifications and not natural groups) and, 
together with Hl. rigidifolia (Spruce ex Bentham) 
Muell.-Arg., to form a new group (Bol. Mus. Goeldi 
7 (1918) 202). 
Apparently accepting Huber’s determination of his 
flowering collection (Duchke 7027) as Hevea minor, 
Ducke, who had collected topotype material of HZ. mi- 
crophylla (Ducke HJ BR 23750) which agreed in all 
characters with Ducke 7027, reduced H. microphylla and 
AZ. microphylla var. major to synonymy under HZ. minor 
(Arch. Instit. Biol. Veget. 2, no. 2 (1985) 242). Re- 
cently, he has maintained this opinion (Bol. Teen. Instit. 
Agron. Norte no. 10 (1946) 20). Baldwin enumerated 
nine species which he accepts as valid: he includes Hevea 
minor but makes no mention of AZ. microphylla, thereby 
suggesting agreement with Ducke’s treatment of the 
latter as representing the same concept as the former 
(Journ. Hered. 88, no. 2 (1947) 54. 
W hile engaged in a study of Hevea in the Kew Her- 
barium in June, 1947, | was able to consult the type of 
HI, minor (Spruce 3457) as well as a sterile duplicate type 
(Ule 6025) and a topotype (Ule 60.23) of H. microphylla. 
It is now apparent that Hevea minor and H. microphylla 
[2] 
