opposition,or by ignorance and negLect of what the Articles say,is not 
to be made the subject of philosophical discussions# However,out of a 
decent resp act for tie opinions of mankind let^insurgents and 
. y 
secessors read the law against which they lift their hands before,, tixfm 
the first shoot. One is often amazed hearing arguments about the Rules which 
have no reason to be for the simple reason that the Rules do not say what 
their accusers or self-appointed expounders try to have than say. There are 
three kinds of offenders against the Rules , namely:(1) those who occasionally 
violate Art. 16 because they overlook a previous publication; (2) those who 
do"not^or^can not redd the Articles as they stand,hut build up castles in 
Spain to suit their cwn notians A iiow the r? articles n should rea&$ (3) those 
who' 'Rules overloadirg thembarnacles 
wWaiAtMte/ilLsot v&’MzsMw to foresee 
any petty and extreme contingency that may arise under any and all Articles* 
jS> I •» ere /c a j 
It is that thefsinners against Art. 16 are almost the 
only one who get caught and summarily . executed. 
In pointing out sane of the errors in Cook's treatment it is 
not my intention to minimize^e value of the data he contributes outside of 
nomenclature. The classification of Hevea.like that of many other euphorbia- 
«#**£*-’ - *cj /» ya / -w — - i 
ifw.-hh 
_ > j 
ceous gen era, suffers from an initial over -sp li tt i ng>,that is, the TTrst authors 
CTf cJ-G- Or 1 - ^— 
who have treated it .Mueller Argoviensis especially,had no-concept of specific 
limits in this genus. Thus,the work of these authors has created precedents 
and methods that raust be radically revi 
sed and 3 if need he .reversed before any real approach to correct classifica- 
tion can he me.de* 
To simplify the coning taxonomic work on this genus I affirm 
here the following synonymies: 
