The identity of this name is unclear and problematic. The type specimen at NY is a mixed collection, as noted by Liogier in his annotation there: the fruits represent Stenostomum but the stems and leaves represent another family, perhaps Malpighiaceae. The type specimen at A is a disarticulated specimen of Stenostomum, but it seems inadequate to determine to species, especially among the various, subtly distinct, Cuban Stenostomum species described by Borhidi. This name seems not to have been lectotypified. and was not treated by Borhidi & Fernández (1993-1994) nor Borhidi et al. (2017). Given Britton's expertise in the Antillean flora, it seems unlikedly he studied and described in Rubiaceae what is clearly a mixed collection on the NY sheet, so this collection may have gotten mixed up with another after he saw it. The resolution in the scanned image ot the NY specimen is not adequate to determine if the leaves and stems here are or are not Malpighiaceae (A. Pool, pers. comm.) so physical material will need to be checked for that question.