Mus. Leafl. Harvard Univ. 12 (1945) 10; ibid. 18 (1948) 
117). 
On a specimen of the collection Richard Schomburgh 
1381 preserved in the Paris Herbarium, there is an an- 
notation of an unpublished binomial, under S?phonia, 
honoring the collector. The date and authorship of this 
annotation are unknown, but it represents apparently 
the earliest recognition of the concept as distinct from 
typical Hevea pauciflora. 
In 1898, Hemsley described, after much study and 
hesitation, certain coriaceous-leaved specimens from 
British Guiana as Hevea confusa. Several of these collec- 
tions (Robert Schomburgk 817, Richard Schomburgk 
1381) had been cited by Mueller-Argoviensis (in Linnaea 
34 (1865) 203; in DC. Prodr. 15, pt. 2 (1866) 717; in 
Martius FI. Bras. 11, pt. 2 (1874) 800) as representing 
Hevea pauciflora, along with the type of this species 
(Spruce 2691); and Bentham himself considered these 
specimens to represent the same concept as the Spruce 
collection, for, in discussing AZ. pauciflora, he wrote that 
‘‘apparently the same species is found also in British 
Guiana (Parker, and also Hancock in herb. Hook.- 
Robt. Schomburgk, 2nd coll. n. 817, Rich. Schomb. n. 
1381).’” [ have spoken with botanists at Kew who con- 
ferred with Hemsley at the time he decided to publish 
Hevea confusa and have learned that he was not at all 
certain that he was dealing with a variant of specific rank. 
This is brought out in a report of a talk by Hemsley at 
the Linnean Society of London on April 4, 1901 (Journ. 
Bot. 89 (1901) 189: ‘‘It was formerly supposed that 
two species of Hevea might be distinguished in British 
Guiana, one (Hevea pauciflora) having thin leaves and a 
hairy ovary, the other thick, coriaceous leaves and a 
glabrous ovary, but, after examining a large number of 
specimens, Mr. Hemsley had come to the conclusion 
[ 264 ] 
