scription of an individual collection and does not repre- 
sent a biological entity. 
Were the confusion which has been created by the re- 
duction of Hevea microphylla to synonymy under H. 
minor confined to nomenclature, it would probably not 
be so urgently in need of clarification. It has led to serious 
misunderstanding of the fundamental biology of the two 
plants. 
When Hemsley described Hevea minor, his basic diag- 
nosis was: ‘‘pro genere omnibus partibus parvis, semini- 
bus albis immaculatis,’’ and, following the description, 
he observed: ‘‘This is so very distinct in the smallness 
of all its parts, and particularly in its small white seeds, 
that we have not hesitated to establish it on incomplete 
material.’’ Later, Pax emphasized this unusual condition 
of the seed when he wrote, under Hevea minor: ‘‘. 
semina laevia, immaculata, triangulari-oblonga, alba. ... 
(Engler Pflanzenr. 4, 147 (1910) 125). Hemsley and 
Pax, both without field experience in Hevea studies, had 
not realized that the seeds which they were describing 
were white and without spots because they were unripe. 
Huber had pointed this out in 1906 (Bol. Mus. Goeldi 
4 (1906) 633), explaining that he had noted in his own 
field work with Hevea brasiliensis and other species that 
unripe fruits can ripen and even open after separation 
from the tree, in which case the seeds do not develop 
normally. The fact that the seeds of the type specimen 
of Hevea minor were unripe was also stated by Ducke 
(Arch. Instit. Biol. Veget. 2, no. 2 (1985) 242). I have 
examined the seeds carefully and, basing my judgment 
on field experience in the collection and study of several 
tons of seed of Hevea brasiliensis, find that, while they 
were slightly short of complete maturation when Spruce 
collected the specimen, the hardness of their testa and 
their fully rounded out appearance are convincing evi- 
[ 5 ] 
99 
