112 Watson: THE GENUS HELIOCARPUS 
there; and since we do not know the source of Linnaeus’ plant 
more clearly than that it came from the warmer parts of America, 
it is not at all impossible that it came from Venezuela. Accord- 
ingly, I consider Fendler 1277 B, from Venezuela, the true 
H. americanus, the type of the genus, and I cannot concur in 
Baker’s reduction of H. tomentosus to synonymy. 
Baker also adds a variety of H. popayanensis which he calls 
Purdiei, stating that in this variety ‘‘the leaves are much more 
densely tomentose,” but without mentioning a type. The 
degree of pubescence varies greatly in this genus, and it does not 
seem to me that such a variable character as degree of pubescence 
is sufficient to establish the separate identity of even a variety, 
especially with no type cited. I suppose if there had been other 
differences they would have been mentioned. — 
In 1901, J. Donnell Smith published Rose’s description of 
H. Donnellsmithii, and in 1905 appeared the second paper by 
Rose, in which he described H. Jaevis, H. microcarpus, and H. 
velutinus. I am unable to separate Rose’s H. microcarpus from 
his H. reticulatus, published in his first synopsis. Both have 
tuberculate-appendaged sepals and a short style, and the 
reticulations of the leaves vary throughout the two groups. 
There seems at first sight to be a difference in the fruits, but such 
difference as there is is one of degree. Both are sessile ‘and 
orbicular, and the faces of both are provided with plumose hairs, 
but the fruit of the group called microcarpus is smaller. On 
one of Pringle’s specimens, No. 9693, are two inflorescences, 
presumably, error eliminated, from the same plant. If these 
are from the same plant, it is impossible to separate the two 
groups. The fruit in this genus remains a long time on the 
tree, and it is more than probable that the weather might have 
a marked effect upon such fragile structures as exposed, plumose 
hairs. I have, therefore, united H. microcarpus and H., reticu- 
latus under the latter name. 
In April, 1904, Brandegee described H. glaber from Sinaloa, 
and in 1905, as already noted, Rose published H. laevis from 
Batanos in the state of Jalisco. In the Gray Herbarium are 
two specimens from Sinaloa labeled H. glaber, one marked 
“Type”’ from Cerro Colorado, and the other from the vicinity of 
Culiacon. There is no town in Sinaloa named Cerro Colorado, 
but I assume this to be a local name and take it that both plants 
