available, he published a drawing of the leaf of the spec- 
imen from Panama (fig. 71, on p. 91). 
If Bailey’s tentative identification be correct, it is 
evident that Desmoncus chinantlensis represents not an 
endemic, but rather a very wide-ranging and variable 
species. At the present time, however, most authorities 
are of the opinion that Desmoncus is made up of a num- 
ber of very localized endemic species. In this respect, 
Desmoncus appears to agree with several of the related 
genera of palms which are noteworthy because of the 
large number of endemic species which they contain. The 
genus Desmoncus contains about fifty known species at 
the present time. 
In this connection, Bartlett wrote in his Certain Des- 
monet ( Palmae) of Central America and Mewico (Journ. 
Wash. Acad. Sci. 25 (1935) 81-82): ‘‘It appears that 
the species of Desmoncus are in reality rather local in dis- 
tribution. ... Kither there are many local species with 
rather slight distinctions, as the writer believes, or else 
there is a very wide-spread species, Desmoncus chinant- 
lensis Liebm., made up of a group of varieties, or (as 
some botanists might even conclude) of taxonomically 
negligible variations.’’ Bartlett was of the opinion that 
Bailey’s Panamanian material did not represent JD. chi- 
nantlensis. 
In identifying his Panamanian material of Desmon- 
cus, Bailey (l.c.) discovered that there were apparent 
discrepancies between the type of D.chinantlensis ( Lieb- 
mann 6595) at Copenhagen and the two collections 
(Liebmann 6594 and 6596) inthe United States Nation- 
al Herbarium. Inasmuch as difficulty has been experi- 
enced in identifying specimens of Desmoncus because of 
the uncertainty which these discrepancies have caused, 
Bartlett (l.c.) designated the two Liebmann collections 
in the United States National Herbarium as cotypes. 
[ 136 ] 
