V--' 
7 ^ 
On the nomenclature of the Rubber 'free 
Several corr espondents have called my attention to a recent 
article of O.F. Cook: ( in Jour* Washington Acad. 3c. .31:46-65. 1941 ) 
in which this author renames the cultivated Rubber Tree Siphonia Ridleyana 
a nd &&&&** e oiii- le n t s ogttore&afea g its h is t or y , nome nc 1 a tur e and classification. 
It is evident that this article proves to be confusing to 
economic botanists and agronomists who are not especially interested in ^ 
taxonomy. Few of its reade^for instance,are aware that 
Cook,in addition to renaming the Rubber Tree^does something else,as follows: 
(1} He certainly publishes a new combination. Caoutchoua gu^j^nensis ( Aubl.) 
Cook; (2) He seemingly effects a transfer calling for a second combination, 
Siphonia .jane^irensis -(Mueller Arg.) Cook ; (3) He implicitly breaks up 
Hove a into Caoutchoua and Siphonia . 
In his treatment Cook sharply dissents with everyone of the 
botanists and taxonomists who (before hin fliave dealt) with the cultivated 
<rZy+/*c*> /%.cf~ 
Rubber Tree. His conclusions are altogether novel and 
discussion is frequently interrupted by digressions that mMm puszlfitg z$> 
a casual reader as they involve controversial issues of nomenclature. To 
verify Cook's statements rare texts must be consulted and the Rules of Inter 
national Nomenclature must be throughly understood. 
Since Hevea is one of the most important of our economic trees, 
not only,but belong J to a family,the Euphorbiaceae,in which are ither economi 
cally important genera such as Aleurites . Manihot , Ricinus and Euphorbia I 
expect to deal briefly in the coming pages with some of the fallacies of 
