in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 11 (1982) 344; in Arch. 
Jard. Bot. Rio Janeiro 6 (1938) 60, tab. 6, fig. 8. 
Cunuria Uleana Pax et Hoffman in Engler Pflanzenr. 
IV. 147. xIv (Heft 68 in part) (1919) 51. 
When Pax and Hoffman described this concept and 
referred it to Cunuria, they had only fruiting material 
at hand. From flowering and fruiting material which he 
had collected at the type locality, Ducke described the 
genus A nomalocalyx to accommodate the concept which, 
up to that time, had been accepted as Cunuria Uleana. 
We are in agreement with Ducke that this genus has no 
relationship with Cunuria. A study of the remarkably 
complicated flowers of Anomalocalyx Uleanus, well fig- 
ured by Ducke, indicates this fact. The structure and 
texture of the capsule likewise substantiates such a 
conclusion. 
Cunuria ? casiquiariensis Croizat in Journ. Arnold 
Arb. 26 (1945) 192. 
When Croizat described this concept, placing it with 
reservation in Cunuria, he stated clearly: ‘*‘Cunuria is 
suggested by the intangibles of habit and the characters 
of the foliage, but the inflorescence is somewhat uncon- 
ventional.’” The inflorescence would appear to diverge 
so widely from that which is usual for Cunuria, that we 
feel that this plant cannot be included, even provisional- 
ly, in the genus. For several valid reasons, Croizat has 
excluded it from Conceveiva and Concevastrum. In many 
respects, it suggests Pogonophora, but the lack of stam- 
inate flowers makes it impossible to be certain of proper 
generic reference. In a number of other respects, it 1s 
extremely similar to Micrandra. 
Cunuria Gleasoniana Croizat in Bull Torr. Bot. 
Club 57 (1940) 289. 
[ 348 ] 
