On the evidence from the collections available in 1947, 
it seemed advisable to recognize Ducke’s Cunuria brac- 
feosa as a variety of Cunuria Spruceana, although Ducke 
himself (loc. cit.) had reduced it to synonymy under C. 
Spruceana. K.xamination of many hundreds of trees in 
the Rio Negro and its tributaries, the Rio Caqueta and 
the Rio Amazonas leads me to conclude that the charac- 
ters upon which the variety were based are, in general, 
variations of a seasonal nature. The variety, in conse- 
quence, is herewith reduced to synonymy. 
Micrandra Sprucei (Muell.-Arg.) R. EF. Schultes 
comb. nov. 
Clusiophyllum Sprucei Mueller-Argoviensis in Flora 
57 (1864) 518. 
Cunuria crassipes Mueller-Argoviensis in Martius FI. 
Bras. 11, pt. 2 (1874) 510. 
In Baldwin and Schultes’ treatment of Cunuria in 
1947, an argument was advanced for the retention of the 
well established and very descriptive name C. crassipes 
(loc. cit. 888): ‘.... Cunuria crassipes is being con- 
served, in conformity with Recommendation XIV of the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, over 
the earlier Clusiophyllum Sprucei. Were the indicated 
combination to be made, a new name would enter into 
the taxonomic literature. This name would be unfortu- 
nate because of its resemblance to Cunuria Spruceana, 
and endless confusion would be the result.” 
| had interpreted the wording of Recommendation 
XIV to permit this action. Since 1947, however, I have 
had an opportunity of discussing the problem with many 
American and European colleagues. They are in almost 
unanimous agreement that the rule of priority should 
take precedence over the recommendation advising 
against “‘the use in the same genus”’ of the genitive or 
[ 218 ] 
