26) discussed this same problem and resolved, in ac- 
cordance with what appeared to him to be priority, to 
keep the name Hevea brasiliensis for the Orinoco species 
and to give the cultivated plant an entirely new name 
(Hevea Sicberi Warb.). 
Shortly thereafter, Huber (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 
49, ser. 2 (1902) 43) thought it a better policy to con- 
serve Hevea brasiliensis for the cultivated species, and 
he actually made the proposal that it be so conserved, 
In 1905, Ule studied the circumstances and also con- 
cluded (in Engler Bot. Jahrb. 85 (1905) 664) that the 
name Hevea brasiliensis should be kept for the Brazilian 
species and Hevea Kunthiana used for the concept rep- 
resented by the Venezuelan collections. 
In reviewing the problem recently, Burkill (Dict. 
Econ. Prod. Malay Penins. 1 (1985) 1159), stated that: 
‘It would lead to much confusion were botanists at 
this date to displace the... . name [ Hevea brasiliensis), 
on the ground that Siphonia brasiliensis Kunth is not the 
plant which everyone now calls Hevea brasiliensis; yet, 
if the rules of nomenclature are followed strictly, that, 
it seems, should happen. ”’ 
In 1986, Chevalier (in Rev. Bot. Appl. Agric. Trop. 
16 (1936) 620) published a most complete review of the 
historical aspects of the problem. Basing his opinions 
ona study of the literature, combined with an examina- 
tion of authentic collections preserved in Paris, he came 
to the conclusion that the valid name for the cultivated 
species of Hevea is H. brasiliensis. In his own words, 
his conclusion is: ‘‘Celle [the collection] du Para [as 
opposed to the Orinoco material] doit garder le nom de 
Hevea brasiliensis (Willd.) Muell.-Arg. (excl. syn. 
ALK.) 
Although Chevalier intimated that Willdenow’s Sv 
phonia brasiliensis had been validly published to denote 
[ 80 | 
