binomial Hevea Benthamiana might have to be given up 
in favor of HZ. discolor. He stated: ‘‘Hevea discolor 
(Spruce ex Bentham) Muell.-Arg. was based on type 
material now usually referred in part to H. Spruceana 
(Benth.) Muell.-Arg. and in part to HZ. Benthamiana 
Muell.-Arg.; since 77. discolor antedates the last name, 
H. Benthamiana would seem to be invalid.”’ 
This very problem has perturbed me for several years. 
In 1947, when [ had an opportunity of studying abun- 
dant typical material of Hevea in various British her- 
baria, it appeared to me that the name AH. discolor re- 
ferred to a confused concept based upon two different 
species. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the problem is funda- 
mentally nomenclatorial and can be settled only by con- 
sultation with the literature and type specimens, I de- 
cided to let definitive studies of the question lie in abey- 
ance pending a visit to and asojourn in the type localities, 
during which a critical examination of many living in- 
dividuals and the collection of ample topotypical material 
could be effectuated. This field work has been carried 
out, and the literature and type material have been stud- 
ied again in the light of knowledge gained in the field. 
I am now convinced that, in accordance with the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, Hevea 
discolor may be rejected and that the well-established 
names, H. Benthamiana and H. Spruceana, may con- 
tinue in an unaltered status. 
A study of the status of Hevea discolor as a binomial 
necessitates a careful examination of Bentham’s descrip- 
tion and discussion (in Hooker’s Kew Journ. Bot. 6 
(1854) 369): 
S. discolor, Spruce, MC.; foliolis breviter petiolulatis discoloribus 
subtus pubescentibus, glandulis parvis, panicula tomentosa, pedicellis 
Yr 
flore brevioribus, calycibus obtusis, antheris 7-10 duplici serie verti- 
[ 250 | 
