that the differences were not constant, and that all the 
specimens exhibited might belong to one species and 
merely represented individual variation. ’’ This, inciden- 
tally, does not constitute a reduction by Hemsley of 
Hevea confusa, as Ducke (in Bol. Técn. Inst. Agron. 
Norte no. 10 (1946) 18) and Seibert (I. ¢. 8301) have in- 
timated; but it does indicate that Hemsley was uncer- 
tain. Uncertainty still persists. That the majority of the 
British Guiana specimens are different from typical 
Hevea pauciflora cannot be denied, but whether the dif- 
ference is of a specific, varietal, or formal nature is the 
question. 
In 1947, Seibert (I. c. 300) reduced Hevea pauciflora 
var. coriacea to synonymy under A. pauciflora, stating 
(1. c. 801): ‘*The [Hevea pauciflora] complex has gone 
through various phases of taxonomic splitting, in which 
the Guiana material is usually considered as H. confusa. 
The Brasilian material from the Rio Negro and Solimdées 
is referred to H. pauciflora, with coriaceous-leaved speci- 
mens as H. pauciflora var. coriacea. Although Hemsley 
described AH. confusa as distinct from H. pauciflora, he 
later (1901) came to the conclusion that it was synony- 
mous with the latter. More recently the feeling has been 
that HZ. confusa is synonymous with HZ. pauciflora var. 
coriacea.”” 
Seibert stands alone in lumping together the coriace- 
ous-leaved British-Guianan concept with the finer-leaved 
concept so common along the Rio Negro. He has pointed 
out (in Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 85 (1948) 120) that Hevea 
pauciflora is highly variable. It is true that there is a 
high degree of variability within this species over its 
widespread and disrupted range, but the two concepts in 
question are definitely distinct. This distinctness, recog- 
nized first in herbarium material by Hemsley, has been 
appreciated in the field by Ducke, Baldwin, and Schultes. 
[ 265 | 
