Chevalier remade it. Ina further discussion of the prob- 
lem of the sterile Bonpland collection, Chevalier (I.c. 622) 
reported that it is very similar to Spruce 2691, the speci- 
men upon which Hevea pauciflora and H. membranacea 
were based. The Paris material of Spruce 2691 was anno- 
tated ‘‘Hevea pauciflora Muell.-Arg. ?’’ by Hemsley and 
** HT. brasiliensis Muell.-Arg.’’ by Poisson. Chevalier in- 
clined to the belief that Hemsley’s opinion was correct, 
but he decided to conserve the name Hevea Kunthiana. 
In 1906, Huber (in Bol. Mus. Para. 4 (1906) 622) did 
not feel certain enough to assign a position to Hevea 
Kunthiana in his scheme of the genus. He placed Hevea 
Kunthiana in his Series Obtusiflorae under ‘‘ Incertae 
sedis’’ together with AH. nitida and H. viridis, both of 
which were, like H. Kunthiana, based on sterile material. 
He further stated (I. c. 648) that Hevea Kunthiana was 
a very poorly known species in spite of the fact that it 
seemed to him to be a source of rubber, but that it was 
certainly different from H. Benthamiana of the same 
area. In 1913, Ule (in Engler Bot. Jahrb. 50, Beibl. 114 
(1913) 17), who had previously dismissed Stphonia Kunth- 
lana as a nomen nudum, employed the binomial Hevea 
Kunthiana in an enumeration of species found in the 
northern Amazon. 
Most recently, Baldwin has discussed the application 
of the binomial Hevea Kunthiana. In 1947, he wrote (in 
Journ. Hered. 88 (1947) 55) that ‘‘specimens collected 
on the Orinoco by Aimé Bonpland and early confused 
with A. brasiliensis are possibly correctly referred to HZ. 
paucyflora,’’ in accord with Chevalier’s suggestion. Two 
years later, he definitely accepted this suggestion (in 
Journ. Hered. 40 (1949) 48); he took up H. Kunthiana 
‘for the Orinoco plant, for the ‘seringa da serra’ of 
the upper Rio Negro, and for certain collections from 
British Guiana and Surinam. ’’ 
[ 259 ] 
