these genera ‘‘may to acertain degree be related to each 
other.’ Huber later described the monotypic fifth genus. 
Croizat, however, in a manuscript report on the Hu- 
phorbiaceae of the Tafelberg expedition, has stated of 
Cunuria: ‘*This genus would seem to be improperly 
placed in the Huphorbiaceae Gelonieae. 1 should be in- 
clined to think that Garcia Vohl, Sagotia Baill., Ostodes 
BL.,and Cunuria Baill., are not too far distantly related.’ 
From Micrandra, Cunuria may be distinguished by 
its glandular stipules; by differences in the form of the 
petiole glands, as well as of the disks and staminodes ; 
and by the number and form of the stamens. Cunuria 
is at once set apart from Hevea by having simple rather 
than compound leaves; by having stipules; and by lack- 
ing a staminate disk. It likewise differs from Joannesia 
by having entire leaves as well as by being apetalous. 
Joannesia appears to be diploid, whereas Cunuria, Mi- 
erandra, and Hevea are, in great measure, tetraploid 
(Baldwin in Journ. Heredity, oc. cit.). From Nealchor- 
nia, Cunuria can very readily be separated by its having 
a pistillate disk; by the presence of a rudimentary ovary 
in the staminate flower; and by differences in the form 
of staminodes and styles. Cunuria, at first considered to 
be completely dioecious, was recognized by Ducke (in 
Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 11 (1982) 586) as having 
monoecious representatives. 
As now known and interpreted, Cunuria comprises 
four species and one variety. Two species are established 
in the present paper, and one concept, recently described 
as a species, is here reduced to varietal rank. 
II 
The distribution of Cunuria is indicated on the ac- 
companying map (Fig. 1). Strictly speaking, Cunuria 
is not a characteristic element of the flora of the great 
[ 826 ] 
