adjectival form of the same epithet to designate two dif- 
ferent species. In view of this interpretation, I am re- 
luctantly making the indicated new combination. [ am 
certain that only confusion can come from having, in 
such a small genus, two different species growing in the 
same geographical area—indeed, sometimes in close as- 
sociation with each other—with the names Micrandra 
Spruceana and M. Sprucei. Although the situation cre- 
ated is an absurdity, I am sure that the greatest overall 
good in systematic botany will result from a strict ad- 
herence to the Rules rather than from a surrender to 
personal preference. 
The type collection of Micrandra Sprucei did not have 
abundant flowering material. None of the collections 
made since Spruce’s expedition and cited by Baldwin 
and Schultes (loc. cit. 336) were in flower. Consequently, 
the only available description of the floral parts of this 
species was extremely inadequate. [ quote from Pax’s 
treatment in Pflanzenr. IV, 147 (1910) 17: ‘‘Flores 3 
aperientes ovoidei, 8 mm. longi, in cymulis fere sessiles, 
tantum pro 2/5 5-fidi.’’ There is no description at all 
of the pistillate flower. 
In the course of my field work in the upper Rio Negro 
basin, a large number of flowering collections of Micran- 
dra Sprucet were made. Additional evidence that the 
generic characters of Cunuria are not stable is provided 
by the flowers of Micrandra Sprucei. The staminate 
flowers of this species have seven stamens and an extraor- 
dinarily distinct glandular-lobate disk which is such a 
bright scarlet that it may be seen in life through the pale 
yellow calyx. These are characters formerly attributed 
to Micrandra, while Cunuria was based, in great part, 
upon ten stamens and an absence of the staminate disk. 
In addition to dried herbarium specimens, abundant 
material of the inflorescences was preserved in alcohol; 
{ 219 } 
