128) followed him in this rejection of the name. 
It is curious that Baillon failed to mention Siphonia 
Kunthiana in an article (in Adansonia 4 (1863-64) 284) 
which he published somewhat later than his proposal of 
the new binomial. This omission may possibly be attrib- 
uted to the fact that the article in question dealt with 
the American Muphorbiaceae of eastern South America 
(‘‘Brésil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Patagonia, etc.’’) and 
may not have been meant to include material from the 
Orinoco. Therefore, I do not believe that the omission 
has any real significance, especially since other species of 
Hevea (e.g. Hevea guianensis Aubl.) were likewise not 
included. 
In 1865, Mueller-Argoviensis (in Linnaea 84 (1865) 
204), when making the combination Hevea brasiliensis, 
considered Siphonia Kunthiana as asynonym of Kunth’s 
S. brasiliensis. 
In considering the problem of the real meaning of the 
binomial Hevea brasiliensis, Huber concluded (in Bol. 
Mus. Para. 8 (1902) 849; in Rev. Cult. Col. 10 (1902) 
99; in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 49 (1902) 45) that the 
Orinoco material which Kunth had described as Siphonia 
brasiliensis should be called Hevea Kunthiana, and he 
accordingly made the indicated new combination from 
Siphonia. 
Pointing out that the specimens which Kunth de- 
scribed as Siphonia brasiliensis were not referable to 
Willdenow’s S. brasiliensis, Chevalier (in Rev. Bot. 
Appl. 16 (1986) 621) stated that their identity was still 
uncertain. He admitted the possibility that they may be 
referable to another Brazilian species already described, 
but he decided that, pending further material in flower 
and fruit from the original localities, it would be advisa- 
ble to call it Hevea Kunthiana provisionally. Apparently 
unaware that Huber had made the combination in 1902, 
[ 258 ] 
