history of these two binomials may help to clarify my 
reasons for relegating Hevea Kunthiana to synonymy 
under Hi. pauciflora. 
In 1858, Baillon (1. c. 826) pointed out that Siphonia 
brasiliensis K., based upon the collection Bonpland 5022, 
was not the same concept as S. brasihensis Willd. He 
proposed anew name forthe Kunth concept, publishing 
it as follows: ‘“S. Kunthiana + = S. brasiliensis K. non 
W. (Coll. Bonpland, n. 5022).”" In accordance with 
Article 44 of the International Rules of Botanical No- 
menclature, we must consider this as a validly published 
name, for ‘‘the name of a species . . . is not validly pub- 
lished unless it is accompanied... by the citation of a 
previously and effectively published description of the 
group... .’’ Although Baillon did not refer to the 
Kunth description by the work and the page where it 
was published, there can be no doubt that his citing of 
Kunth as authority constitutes a citation of the actual 
description (Humboldt, Bonpland & Kunth Nov. Gen. 
et Sp. 7 (1825) 171). 
The specimen upon which the Kunth description was 
based and which Baillon cites in his substitution of ‘%S?- 
phonia Kunthiana’’ for ‘8. brasiliensis K.’* was collected 
in the upper reaches of the Orinoco in Venezuela and 
represents the same concept which was later collected 
by Spruce in the neighboring regions of the upper Rio 
Negro basin of Brazil and described as Stphonia pauci- 
flora. This binomial and, more recently, Hevea pauci- 
flora have gained wide acceptance, whereas H. Kunth- 
iana has been largely ignored (Ducke in Arch. Inst. Biol. 
Veg. Rio Janeiro 2 (1935) 217), or relegated to synonymy 
with reserve under HZ. brasiliensis (Seibert in Ann. Mo. 
Bot. Gard. 84 (1947) 306). Ule (in Engler Bot. Jahrb. 35 
(1905) 665) considered Stiphonia Kunthiana a nomen nu- 
dum, and Pax (in Engler Pflanzenr. IV, 147 (1910) 
[ 257 ] 
