to be of great value in the classification of the species of 
this genus. 
Hitherto, (in Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harvard Univ. 12 
(1945) 7) I have believed Hevea nitida to represent the 
concept which Ducke described as HZ. brasiliensis (H BK.) 
Muell.-Arg. var. suwbconcolor. 1 am now, however, in 
complete agreement with Seibert’s point of view that 
Hevea nitida is a distinct concept representing the same 
species as that which has been known as AZ, viridis. 
Seibert writes: ‘*They [certain specimens of Hevea 
viridis| appear to represent topotypical cultivated mate- 
rial from Huber’s type locality of HZ. viridis. The one 
flowering collection made by Archer is quite referable 
to H. nitida in floral morphology, the short-shoots, and 
in general, the leaflets. The lower leaf surfaces of this 
and other specimens of the cultivated plant, however, 
tend to show a minute lepidote condition slightly atypi- 
cal of H. nitida. The scales, notwithstanding, are neither 
of sufficient size nor density to affect the concolorous 
aspect. There remains some question, since the leaflets 
do show a slight AH. brasiliensis aspect, whether or not 
Huber’s A. viridis had some admixture of AH. brasilien- 
sis germ-plasm. 
‘Through the excellent photograph (made by the 
Chicago Field Museum) of the entire type specimen of 
Martius’ collection deposited in the Herbarium at Mu- 
nich, it has been possible to identify HZ. nitida with HZ. 
viridis with some degree of certainty. The presence of 
interflush short-shoots as well as the glossy under surface 
of the leaflets leaves little doubt that HZ. viridis should 
henceforth be referred to HZ. nitida.”’ 
In view of this new understanding of Hevea nitida, 
it is necessary to alter the name of the diminutive, shrub- 
by Hevea, described as H. viridis var. toaicodendroides 
[ 10 | 
