86 BLAKE: NEOMILLSPAUGHIA 
5. PODOPTERUS Humb. & Bonpl. Pl. Aequin. 2: 89. pl. 107. 
1812* 
The characters of this genus have been indicated with sufficient 
detail in the discussion and key given above. The three species 
now known may be separated by the following key. 
Flowers in fascicles; leaves obovate or oval-obova 
Leaves glabrous beneath or merely ee at base of 
midrib, acute at base. 1. P. mexicanus. 
Leaves rather densely pilosulous on the surface as well as 
e veins beneath, rounded or cordate at base. 2. P. guatemalensis. 
Flowers in short axillary racemes; leaves oval-ovate or ovate, 
cordate at base. 3. P. cordifolius. 
I. PODOPTERUS MEXICANUS Humb. & Bonpl. Pl. Aequin. 2: 89. 
pl. 107. 1812 
The type of this species came from the State of Veracruz, 
between Veracruz and La Antigua. No material from Veracruz 
is in the National Herbarium, but the species is represented from 
Tamaulipas, Yucatan, Oaxaca, and also from Armeria, Colima, on 
the western coast, where it was collected by Palmer in 1891 
(No. 1290). 
Podopterus mexicanus was originally described and figured as 
having six perianth segments, six stamens, and leaves slightly 
hairy at base. In the later description of Kuntht the leaves and 
petioles were said to be glabrous. I have already discussed the 
question of the number of floral parts. It may noted that none 
of the specimens examined has leaves or petioles which can be 
called glabrous, there being always some pubescence at least on 
the margin of the petiole, which is sparsest in the two collections 
from Oaxaca now before me, and usually also at the base of the 
costa beneath. Dr. H. Lecomte, to whom I sent specimens for 
* The date given for this name is taken from Sherborn & Woodward’s paper on 
the dates of Humboldt and Bonpland’s a Jour. Bot. 39: 203. 1901. The 
page reference, which is the only one I have cited, has been verified for me by 
Dr. J. arnhart. As the — . Congres copy of this work Podopterus and 
P. ica bl refe: I have had occasion 
to look odes a similar ae (p. 132 instead of a. usually cited 139 for 
dhcsaehrase It is evident that there were two editions of this work, both in 
folio, a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of bibliographers. 
H. B. K. Nov. Gen. et Sp. 2: 181. 1817. 
