obovoid, much wider at the base than at the apex, is sub- 
quadrangular in cross section, has obsolete flat surfaces 
ventrally and absolutely no ridge dorsally. The seeds 
which accompany the topotypical specimen Ducke 
HJIBR 23750, which is, indeed, a very close match for 
Ule 6023 and 6025, are in complete agreement with those 
described by Ule and measure 25-28 mm. long, 15-16 
mm. thick, 17-18 mm. wide at the widest point. The 
valves of Duchke HJ BR 23750 are large, measuring up 
to 45 mm. in length. They have an extraordinarily thin 
endocarp which is only 0.8 mm. thick! In dehiscence, 
they twist very tightly, due probably to the almost 
papery consistence of the endocarp. If we are to judge 
from Ule’s figure, the capsule of Hevea microphylla is 
elongate-ovoid-pyramidal with a very acute apex, slight- 
ly trisuleate with a conspicuous dorsal keel in each carpel, 
40-50 mm. long, 830-40 mm. in diameter. It is borne on 
a robust peduncle 6-7 cm. long. 
There appear to be no significant distinguishing char- 
acters in the leaves of the two concepts except that the 
leaves of Hevea minor are definitely concolorous, whereas 
those of all collections of H. microphylla are very dis- 
colorous. Floral characters which might further separate 
them will not be available until AZevea minor is found in 
flower. I believe that the seeds of the two are so utterly 
distinct in size and shape that we are justified in regard- 
ing them as distinct species. 
There are no valid reasons whatsoever for Pax’s crea- 
tion of Hevea microphylla var. major. Pax gives as his 
basis for the variety ‘‘foliola majora, angustiora,’’ but 
Ule 6023 and 6025 as well as Ducke 7027 and Ducke 
HJBR 23750 show all possible intergradations in the 
size of the leaflets, and this is known to be a character 
of little taxonomic value in Hevea. It is clear that the 
description of Hevea microphylla var. major is the de- 
[ 4] 
