and the tree was named thus in honour of the Spanish botanist 

 Castillo, who had died the previous year, while he was working on 

 a flora of Mexico. In 1805 an English translation of the paper 

 was published anonymously, and now the name was changed to 

 Castilloa. The translator (who is believed to have been CHARLES 

 KOENIG, the keeper of the mineralogical department of the British 

 Museum) had no right to alter the name. A Mexican botanist had 

 already, with just as little right, proposed to change the name to 

 Castella, shortly after the plant had been described. Now we have 

 in systematic botany certain recognized rules of nomenclature, and 

 one of these is that of priority. As Castillo, was the first name 

 given, it should remain so. This question was discussed and settled 

 in 1903 by O. F. COOK, in "The Culture of the Central American 

 Rubber Tree" or Bulletin No. 49, Bureau of Plant Industry, 

 United States Department of Agriculture, but it seems to have 

 been overlooked. 



Different Forms of Castilla. 



Another question which is causing considerable misconception 

 as regards our Central American rubber tree is that of species. 

 Castilla elastica Cerv. in a very wide species, containing numerous 

 forms. A species-making botanist could easily divide it into a 

 dozen species or more. I have personally observed nine fairly 

 distinct forms, but I still hesitate to recognize them as good varieties. 

 KOSCHNY, a Costa Rica planter, who has written considerably in 

 " Der Tropenpflanzer " about Castilla in certain parts of Central 

 America, speaks of several " species," but does not give satisfac- 

 tory descriptions that would warrant his forms to receive the 

 distinction of species. COOK described the form occurring on and 

 near La Zacualpa rubber plantation in Soconusco, Mexico, as a. 

 new species, C. lactiflua. In Hawaii I saw a form planted from 

 seeds obtained from a seed merchant in Paris under the name var. 

 nicaraguensis. It certainly was different from any other form I 

 have seen elsewhere. C. markhamiana is generally considered to be 

 a separate species, and the Castilla grown in Ceylon is sometimes 

 referred to as this species. Certain is that the Ceylon Castilla is 

 not identical to any Mexican Castilla that has come under my 

 notice. 



From the planter's point of view it is of little significance 

 whether one or more species are cultivated so long as the rubber is 

 obtained. But it is in this fact of the existence of many different 

 forms in which we have to find an explanation of the reputed 

 failure of Castilla in different places, where its success had been 

 presupposed. 



If we plant seeds of the Castilla of the Atlantic side of Southern 

 Mexico, with an almost continuous rainfall, on the Pacific slope of 

 the Sierra Madre, where we have a distinct dry season of six 

 months, the tree does not succeed in growth, the amount of latex is 

 smaller, and a planter would soon find out that he had made a 

 great mistake, had he tried this experiment on a large scale. It 

 seems to me probable that if attention had been paid to this 

 ircumstance, Castilla would be more of a favourite than it is. 



