generally’? (in Timehri 1 (1882) 44), Jenman quoted 
Oliver as follows: ‘‘With regard to the Heveas sent by 
Mr. Jenman (No. 621 and 725), I have examined them 
carefully and believe they both belong to the same spe- 
cies, and that they are identical specifically with HZ. 
paucifiora Muel. Org. [sic] Siphonia pauciflora, Bnth.) 
and HT. Spruceana Muel. Org. (Siphonia Spruceana 
Bnth.). Of these two names, the latter should be adopted 
—the type specimen of HZ. pauciflora being evidently 
abnormal as to the inflorescence, and the plant flowering 
in copious panicles... The name to adopt here is Hevea 
Spruceana Muel. Org. This satisfactorily settles the iden- 
tity of the plant.”’ 
These rubber trees were later described by Hemsley 
(in Hooker Ie. Pl. 6 (1898) t. 2570, t. 2575, figs. 1-3, 
12-18) as Hevea confusa. As a synonym of Hevea con- 
Jusa, he included ‘‘ HZ. Spruceana Oliv. in Timehri, 1882, 
p. 50, non Muell.-Arg.’* It should be pointed out that, 
in reality, there is no Hevea Spruceana of Oliver, for 
Oliver himself definitely stated that he believed the speci- 
mens to represent H. Spruceana of Mueller-Argoviensis ; 
the problem is nothing more than a mere misidentifica- 
tion of material. 
Farther on in his book, Jenman (l.c. 51) offers an ex- 
cellent ecological note on this Hevea: ‘They are very 
plentiful. The situation is a tract of low alluvial land 
along the bank of the river, which in the rainy season is 
quite submerged, often apparently deeply... The forest 
was high and dense, producing a gloomy shade within, 
and there was little undergrowth. The Hevea was scat- 
tered irregularly among other subjects. The plants varied 
much in size; the largest observed and measured did not 
exceed 18 to 21 inches in diameter, or from 40 to 60 feet 
in height. As a natural result of confinement in dense 
forest, the trunks were here straight and unbranched, 
Ear 
