study, it is his opinion that the number of species listed 
by Standley for Peru, and probably elsewhere, may be 
increased, for among the innumerable forms, varieties, 
and hybrids represented in the enormous literature of 
the genus, there are certain well-defined concepts which 
appear to be more or less stable and are easily recognizable 
especially in the field. Kven among such a notoriously 
variable assemblage as is contained in the complex of 
Cinchona pubescens Vahl sensu lat., there are entities 
which appear to be very stable. As an example, one 
might select the tree known as C. succirubra Pavon 
ex Klotzsch which was originally collected by Richard 
Spruce in Ecuador. This tree wherever grown, in the 
Far East, in Guatemala, and elsewhere, although often 
under ecological conditions quite different from its home- 
land, remains apparently true to type, not only in its 
general morphological characteristics, but also in such 
physiological features as the patterns of alkaloidal yield. 
This is understandable, for the Andean terrain, like 
any lofty highly-dissected mountain mass, offers an ex- 
traordinary range of very localized and disjunct habitats 
which have permitted active speciation to occur. Cer- 
tainly if adjacent Andean hoyas, isolated as they often 
are from their neighbors, can be marked by considerable 
local endemism among some groups of plants, why then 
cannot they be so considered as to their cinchonas as 
well? 
The writer feels that certain entities at present con- 
sidered as synonyms in the genus Cinchona were reduced 
to synonymy often without sufficient study and clearly 
must be resurrected if any semblance of order is to come 
out of this chaotic group. Rusby (in Bull. Torrey Bot. 
Club 58 (1981) 523-5380) already has protested Standley’s 
recent treatment of the genus for Bolivia (in Field Mus. 
Bot. 4 (1981) 266-278), and the present writer agrees 
[ 138 ] 
