dence that full size, or very nearly so, and mature shape 
had been obtained. These, after all, are the characters 
of fundamental significance; the type of coloration which 
the seed would have had when ripe is of much lesser 
importance. 
It is necessary to consider the mode of dehiscence of 
Hevea minor and H. microphylla because great signifi- 
cance has been placed on this in the classification of the 
genus. 
Ducke (Arch. Instit. Biol. Veget. 2, no. 2 (1985) 243) 
interpreted the fruit of Hevea minor as follows: ‘*'This 
species was created... . on a specimen... . without 
flowers and with no mature capsule (the seeds are still 
white!) but sufficiently characterized by the form of the 
leaves and chiefly by the form, the consistence and the 
slow dehiscence of the capsule (see the half-opened cap- 
sule reproduced in Hemsley’s work, a feature which 
would be impossible in the case of any other known 
Hevea species).”’ In his key to the species of Hevea, 
Ducke (loc. cit. 225) says of H. minor: ‘‘Capsule.... 
opens with a slow dehiscence and lets the seeds fall in the 
water; the capsule then twists itself and remains for a 
long time adherent to the peduncle... .°” He separates 
Hevea minor from all other species on the basis of the 
presumed slow dehiscence of the capsule of the former 
as against an explosive shedding of seed in the latter 
(loc. cit. 221). This erroneous stand results from the 
belief that Hevea minor and H. microphylla are one and 
the same. 
Judging from the structure of the thick, woody valves 
of the capsule of Hevea minor, the capsule opens, as in 
all other species with comparably strong valves, more or 
less explosively. The valves are not strongly twisted, due 
to their shortness and their extremely strong ligneous 
endocarp which measures, as stated above, up to 8 mm. 
[6] 
