Watson: THE GENUS HELIOCARPUS i13 
are from Sinaloa, near Culiacan, as stated on the label. Bran- 
degee describes his plant as “leaves glabrous” and his type is so, 
but the other is by no means glabrous, though otherwise the two 
specimens are identical. I have carefully compared Rose’s 
H. laevis with Brandegee’s H. glaber and, except for slightly 
varying degrees of pubescence, I am unable to separate them. 
Moreover, these two groups do not differ in any important 
character from H. polyandrus. The fruit in all three is charac- 
teristic and similar, having a narrow fringe and a shallow longi- 
tudinal groove on the faces. After careful consideration, I have 
come to believe that the three groups are one species, and have 
united them under the name H. polyandrus S. Watson. 
I am unable to accept Loesener’s H. Caeciliae, published in 
1913. The type is Seler 4976, which I have not seen. Loesener’s 
description is very complete except for the flowers. He admits 
its near relationship to H. Donnellsmithii and points out the dif- 
ference to be, “der [H. Donnellsmithii] durch breitere mehr 
dreieckig kreisférmige Blattspreiten und lockerere Bliitenstande 
von H. Caeciliae abweicht.’’ Nothing in his description would 
prevent his plant from being classified as H. Donnellsmithu, and 
the differences he mentions are well within the limits of fluctu- 
ating variation. He mentions, indeed, the densely hirsute faces 
of the fruit, but says, ‘‘videtur nondum plane matura.’”’ Keller- 
man 6068, from Guatemala, answers to this description per- 
fectly but is plainly H. Donnellsmithii. Rose, describing the 
latter species, says the densely hirsute faces of the fruit become 
rugose and glabrate with age. 
Hochreutiner, in 1914, published six new species: H. diclinus 
H. boliviensis, H. glabrescens, H. Rosei, H. stipulatus, and H. 
ligrinus. The latter proves not to belong to the genus, and I 
have strong suspicions about H. stipulatus. He describes also 
a variety of H. popayanensis, which he calls grandifolius, the 
difference being that in the variety the leaves are larger and 
usually not lobed, while the panicle issmaller. There is such vari- 
ation in these characters throughout the whole group that I am 
unable to accept the variety and have reduced it to synonymy. 
Also, Hochreutiner’s H. glabrescens proves to be identical with 
Robinson’s H. glanduliferus and is accordingly united with it. 
The only difference between these two species is in the degree of 
pubescence of the leaves which, as I have already pointed out, 
