— 174 — Dyer, J. Bot. 3 : 154 (1874), concluded that his Hopea longifolia, Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 : 309 (Jan. 1874), based on Beddome s.n. from Tinnevelly, S. India, was conspecific with Balanocarpus utilis Beddome, Fl. Sylv. : tab. 330 (1874) and Gamble accepted the reduction, Fl. Madras : 84 (1915). Bole (Kew Bull. 1951 : 145-146) discussed the status of Dioticarpus barryi Dunn (Kew Bull. 1920 : 337), a genus which Dunn had separated from Balanocarpus because of the 2-winged fruit. Bole examined the two only fruit bearing specimens of Dioticarpus barryi Dunn in the Madras Herbarium, Coimbatore 3464 (the type specimen in Kew has no fruit, neither drawing of fruit) and arrived at the following conclusion, after having studied the literature of the Malesian species : « Foxworthy, J. Arn. Arb. 27 : 347 (1946), in his account of the distribution of Dipterocarpacese, is inclined to consider Balanocarpus erosa Bedd. as a species of Hopea Boxb. The author (Bole) of the present note very reluctanth has to disagree from such a view until further anatomical and morphological evidence l.e brought forward. The fruit morphology of these two species of Balanocarpus (i.e. B. erosa Bedd. and B. heirnii King) is so different from that of Hopea Boxb., that their retention in a separate genus seems to How Ashton, Blumea 20 (2) : 369 (1972), who quotes Bole can conclude : « Bole's correct reduction of the genus Balanocarpus to Hopea » is a riddle as Hole concluded just the opposite ! Of Balanocarpus utilis Bole believed, that it was conspecific with Dioticarpus barryi Dunn, but as he was aware, that fruit of Dioticarpus had 2 wings and Balanocarpus no wings, he made the nonsensical assumption, that both kinds of fruit could occur on the same tree, " this point needs further elucidation from field-workers » (Bole). Bole apparently never was in the field ! But notwithstanding Bole's own suggestion for waiting for confirmation, he proceeded to refer Balanocarpus utilis to Hopea. giving Dioticarpus horryi as a synonym. It goes without saying, that Balanocarpus utilis is not a Hopea and that Dioticarpus barryi is not conspecific with it. The latter should be compared with Hopea wigh-If Balanocarpus has to be accomodated in another genus, the logical choice is Shorea, not Hopea, because of the three slightly larger, at base thickened sepals under the fruit. The number of stamens militates against Shore't. but since Ashton included Doona with 15 stamens in Shorea, also this obstacle is gone. I am not inclined to make hasty conclusions, and as Balanocarpus with its 2 Indian and 2 ("eylonese species is a close unit, I prefer to retain it as a separate genus. In his Manual of Dipterocarp trees of Brunei State : 91 19b'. . Ashton included the 3 Ceylonese species of Hopea (including Balanocarpus brevipetiolaris) in the section Hopea, characterized by a scalariform nervation and a smooth bark or regularly flaky. Since then he included Balanocarpus brevipetiolaris in Hopea with reticulate venation, which upsets the sectional subdivision. Moreover B. brevipetiolaris is very close to B. kitulgallensis, the latter with scalariform reticulation. By creating sections, based on nervation, closely related species may become