I Q P5G AN INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE -fSl BY E. D. MERRILL 144971 MANILA BUREAU OF PRINTING 1917 PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE BY THE BUREAU OF SCIENCE, MANILA, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ETHNOIjOGX A VOCABULARY OF THE IGOROT LAN- GUAGE AS SPOKEN BY THE BONTOC IGOROTS By Walter Clayton Clapp Order No. 40S. Paper, 89 pages. $0.75, postpaid. The vocabulary is given in Igorot-English and English-lgorot. THE NABALOI DIALECT By Otto Scheereb and THE BATAiCS OF PALAWAN By Edward Y. Miller Order No. 403. Paper, $0.25; half nio- rocco, $0.75; postpaid. The Nabaloi Dialect (65 pages, 29 plates) and the Bataks of Palawan (7 pages, 6 plates) are bound under one cover. THE BATAN DIALECT AS A HEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE GROUP OF LANGUAGES By Otto Scheereb and "F" AND "V* IN PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES By Carlos Everett Conant Order No. 407. These two papers are Issued under one cover, 141 pages, paper, $0.80, postpaid. ETHNOLOGY— Continued STUDIES IN MORO HISTORY, LAW, AND RELIGION By Najeeb M. Saleeby Order No. 405. Paper, 107 pages, 16 plates, 5 diagrams, $0.25; half mo- rocco, $0.75; postpaid. This volunie deals with the earliest vvrltten records of the Moros in Mindanao. The names of the rulers of Magindanao are recorded In five folding diagrams. NEGRITOS OF ZAMBALES By William Allan Reed Order No. 402. Paper, 85 pages, 62 plates, $0.25; half morocco, $0.75; postpaid. ^^ Plates from photographs, many of which were taken for this publication, show orna- ments, houses, men making fire with bamboo, bows and arrows, dances, and various types ©f the people themselves. INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINE HATS By C. B. Robinson Order No. 415. Paper, 66 plates, $0.50 postpaid. This paper Is a concise record of the history and present condition of hat making in the Philippine Islands. pages, S THE SUBANUNS OF SINDANGAN BAY By Emerson B. Christie Order No. 410. Paper, 121 pages, 1 map, 29 plates, $1.25, postpaid. Sindangan Bay is situated on the north* ern< coast of Zamboanga Peninsula. The Su- banuns of this region were studied by Mr. Christie during two periods of five and six weeks, respectively. The 29 plates illustrate the Subanuns at work and at play; their Industries, houses, altars, and Implements; and the people' themselves. THE HISTORY OF SULU By Najeeb M. Saleeby Order No. 406. Paper, 275 pages, 4 maps, 2 diagrams, $0.75, postpaid. In the preparation of his manuscript for The History of Sulu, Doctor Saleeby spent much time and effort in gaining access to documents in the possession of the Sultan of Sulu. This book is a history of the Moros in the Philippines from the earliest times to the American occupation. THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE ISLAND OF NEGROS By Herbert S. Walker Order No. 412. Paper, 145 pages, 10 pJates, 1 map, $1.25, postpaid. Considered ,from the viewpoint of prac- tical utility, Mr. Walker's Sugar Industry in the Island of Negros is one of the most important papers published by the Bureau of Science. This volume is a real contribu- tion to the subject; it is not a mere com- pilation, for the author was In the field and understands the conditions of which he writes. A MANUAL OF PHILIPPINE SILK CULTURE By Charles S. Banks Order No. 413. Paper, 53 pages, 20 plates, $0.75, postpaid. In A Manual of Philippine Silk Culture are presented the results of several years' actual work with silk-producing larvae to- gether with a description of the new Philip- pine race. AN INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE BY E. D. MERRILL 144971 MANILA BUREAU OF PRINTING 1917 Department op Agriculture and Natural Resources BUREAU OF SCIENCE Manila Publication No. 9 (Actual date of publication, November 1, 1917.) Dedicated to the Memory OF Charles Budd Robinson, Jr. Pictou, Nova Scotia, October 26, 1871 t Amboina, December 5, 1913 CONTENTS Par*. Illustrations 7 Preface 9 Introduction 11 The importance of the Herbarium Amboinense 11 Rumphius and his work 15 Amboina 18 The genesis of the plan and the botanical exploration of Amboina 20 Errors in the interpretation of Rumphian species 27 The interpretation of Rumphian species as types 29 The interpretation of the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense by various authors 31 Linnaeus and Stickman 31 Burman 34 Buchanan-Hamilton 35 Henschel 36 Hasskarl 36 The present status of Rumphian species 38 Difficulties in interpreting Rumphian species 40 Nomenclature 43 Overlooked binomials 46 Acknowledgments 50 Systematic Enumeration 53 Thallophyta ~ 53 Pteridophyta 63 Spermatophyta 74 Gymnospermae 74 Angiospermae 79 Monocotyledonae 79 Dicotyledonae 179 Species described or mentioned by Rumphius that cannot be definitely referred to their proper families 504 Sequence of Species in Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense with THEIR Binomial Equivalents 511 Addenda 549 Index 551 5 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate I. Map, showing Amboina and the surrounding islands. II. Map of Amboina. Text figure 1. Form of field label. PREFACE It was with considerable diffidence and great regret that I assumed the task of interpreting the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense, as it was at my suggestion that Doctor Robinson undertook this task, in the prosecution of which he met his untimely death. Doctor Robinson arrived in Amboina July 15, 1913, and immediately commenced his field work, which was actively prosecuted up to the time of his death. On the morning of December 5, 1913, he departed from the town of Amboina, un- accompanied, for a botanical excursion through the country south of the town, passing through Amahoesoe, Eri, Silalei, Latoelahat, and Aerlo. While on his return trip he was murdered by the Boetonese residents of a small settlement between Aerlo and Seri, about 15 kilometers from the town of Amboina. The crime was wholly due to a local superstition, the ignorant natives mistaking Doctor Robinson for the notorious potong kapala (the decapitator) , who is currently believed to wander about during November and December for the purpose of cutting off human heads.* When Doctor Robinson left Manila for Amboina in June, 1913, he fully expected to complete the task of interpreting the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense, but he lived to finish only a part of the necessary field work. His un- foreseen death, while he was actively prosecuting his field woric, placed an entirely different aspect on the problem, and in order that his untimely death might not have been in vain, I felt constrained to take up the task, at the point where Doctor Robinson's labors were ended, and to carry the project to completion, so far as this could be done from the material and data available. The qualifications necessary to obtain the best results in this special field are exacting. A wide knowledge of the Malayan flora is essential, as is a thorough understanding of Latin, of Dutch, and of the native names of plants in the Malay Archi- pelago, qualifications to which I can lay claim only to a limited ♦ Merrill, E. D. Charles Budd Robinson, Jr. Philip. Joum, ScL 9 (1914) Bot 191-197. >1.^ "sj:' 9 10 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE degree. Under the circumstances the future investigator will doubtless find in the present work errors both of omission and of commission. Much remains to be done before all the species that are typified by the Rumphian descriptions are thoroughly understood, but a great part of this work will depend on .a continued and comprehensive botanical exploration of Amboina and of the neighboring islands with special attention to this object. The actual working up of the results could best have been done at one of the large European botanical institutions, where access could be had to large libraries, to comprehensive collec- tions of botanical material from all parts of the world, and to type and authentically named specimens, as well as^ the oppor- tunity of consulting specialists in various groups. As a trip to Europe was impracticable, the work was done in Manila, utilizing the local library and herbarium. In the prosecution of the task I have been obliged to interpret numerous species from their published descriptions, as herbarium material representing them was not available in Manila. Like- wise, there are a number of botanical works containing refer- ences to the Herbarium Amboinense that I have been unable to consult, as no copies of these were to be had in Manila. This difficulty has been overcome in part by borrowing certain es- sential works, and in part by sending to various botanical institutions for copies of original descriptions, which have gener- ously been supplied by botanists in the United States and in Europe. In general, while it is realized that the present inter- pretation of the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense is incomplete and imperfect, it is also realized that completeness and perfection in this difficult task are relative terms and that many of the species that I have been obliged to enumerate as of more or less doubtful status could not have been more de- finitely placed, even if I had had access to all of the botanical literature and an opportunity to examine all of the extant botanical material from the Indo-Malayan region. It is felt, however, that the present treatment of the Rumphian species meets a real requirement and that, to a very large degree, it will clear the way for the more intensive study of the problems in connection with each individual species of doubtful status. E. D. Merrill. INTRODUCTION THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The Herbarium Amboinense consists of twelve books, published in six volumes. The purpose of each book is expressly stated, thus: Liber primus. Qui continet arbor es, quae fructus esculentos ferunt, ac culturam humanam requirunt. Liber secundus. Continens arbores aromaticus, quae aut fructum aromaticum, corticemve, aut odoratum aliquod praebent lignum. Liber tertius. Continens arbores, quae Resinam, speciososque dant Flores, aut noxium aliquod lac fundunt. Liber quartus. Arbores continens silvestres, quarum pars aliqua fab- rilis est. Liber quintus. De Arboribus agens silvestribus promisque. Liber sextus. De fruticibus agens tarn domesticis, quam silvestribus. Liber septimus. De funibus agens silvestribus & Fruticibus reptan- tibus. Liber octavus. De plantis agens domesticis, tarn victui, quam Medi- cinae, & decori inservientibus. Liber nonus. De Convolvulis, & Herbis reptantibus. Liber decimus. De Herbis agens silvestribus promiscue. Liber undecimus. Agens de reliquis herbis silvestribus. Liber duodecimus. De arbusculis agens marinis, & plantis saxosis, seu de Lithodendris & Lithophjrtis. To the above should be added the *'Auctuarium," cited in this work as volume seven of the Herbarium Amboinense, which contains additional notes on species described in the above twelve books as well as figures and descriptions of plants not included in them. The classification is primarily the ancient one of trees, shrubs, and herbs, with subdivisions according to habitats and uses. There is no system based on other than the most evident, gross characters. While the purpose of each book is definitely in- dicated, it is important to understand the object of the work as a whole. Rumphius expressly states that it was based, not on Amboina alone, but on all of the Dutch East Indies. How- ever, as the work was done on plants or parts of plants either growing in Amboina, sent to him from other regions, or brought in from other countries for commercial purposes, he selected the title Herbarium Amboinense. Numerous species now growing 11 12 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE in Amboina are not described in the Herbarium Amboinense, for Robinson's collection alone presents more than 350 species of ferns and flowering plants not considered by Rumphius.* Some of these have undoubtedly been introduced into Amboina since Rumphius's time, but very many of them are indigenous and were certainly as common there in the seventeenth century as they are to-day. Some of the species not appearing in the Herbarium Amboinense are small and might have been ignored as being of slight importance; but others are large trees, shrubs, or vines, often with rather showy flowers, and in many cases they are abundant. Doctor Robinson's final conclusions as to the methods used by Rumphius in selecting the species described are expressed in a letter written early in November, 1913, as follows: I think more and more that the Herbarium Amboinense was not at all a complete flora of Amboina as Rumphius found it and that he selected on four bases: Economic plants and others that resembled them; plants that were very different from those he had seen in Europe; plants that greatly resembled those of Europe; plants regarding which there was some superstition or legend. A fifth heading might be made for the very showy plants, but I think that this really belongs under the second group. The Herbarium Amboinense is a classical work on the Malayan flora, and one that is absolutely essential to the systematist to-day. This is not because of any system of classification pro- posed, for the work follows no definite system, nor on account of priority of its names, as the work is pre-Linnean, and binomial names appearing in the text are merely accidental. The great importance of the work is due to the fact that later authors have made the Rumphian descriptions and figures the actual "types" of many binomials. As an original source the Herbarium Am- boinense stands preeminent among all the early publications on Malayan botany. In more than 800 original "publications" of species of plants under the binomial system from 1753 to 1908 the Rumphian names or figures, or both, are quoted as synonyms, and in about 350 cases the proposed binomials are based wholly on data given by Rumphius. In no case is a species typified by Rumphian figures and descriptions intelligible without reference to the Herbarium Amboinense. These nu- merous species not represented by any "type" specimens must, of course, be interpreted primarily by the data given by Rumphius, supplemented by a study of botanical specimens from the sam€ ♦ Merrill, E. D. Eeliquiae Robinsonianae. Philip, Journ. ScL 11 (1916) Bot 243-319. INTRODUCTION 13 general region from which Rumphius secured his material. In spite of what has been accomplished in the past hundred years on the Moluccan flora and the intensive field work prosecuted in Am- boina for four and one-half months by Doctor Robinson, num- erous species typified by Rumphius's descriptions and figures are still of doubtful status and must so remain, until in each case they are definitely connected with botanical material orig- inating in the classical locality for each species and agreeing with the descriptions and figures, the native names, the economic uses, and the other characters indicated by Rumphius. The work already prosecuted in Amboina and the neighboring islands has yielded material by which the essential characters of very many of the Rumphian species can be definitely deter- mined, but much remains to be done in this field. In botanical literature there are scores of species whose only published de- scriptions are the brief general statements compiled from the Herbarium Amboinense, from which data alone it is usually im- possible for the working systematist to gain any definite idea of the true characters of the species. This is especially true in such critical genera as Calamus, Elaeocarpus, Citrus, Bambusa, Canarium, and in many others. Botanists generally have been content to work on the Malayan flora, describing as new the various forms that have appeared in current collections, without making any serious attempt to determine the exact status of species in the same groups based on Rumphian descriptions. Stability in nomenclature demands that the status of these early species be determined as soon as possible, for otherwise many reductions must be eventually made. The Herbarium Amboinense was very extensively cited by Lin- naeus's contemporaries and successors, especially by Burman f., Loureiro, and others, who wrote on the floras of regions geo- graphically allied to Amboina, and by all authors of general works on systematic botany up to the middle of the nineteenth century. In the more recent works on systematic botany the Herbarium Amboinense is not so frequently quoted as in older ones, references to this work being to a large degree those necessary to explain synonymy. However, binomials based wholly on the Rumphian descriptions and figures continue to be proposed, the latest ones observed being Sindora galedupa Prain, 1897, and Calamus addus Beccari^ 1906. It is by no means certain that the importance of the Her- barium Amboinense is fully appreciated. The number and the size of the volumes, seven, folio; the number of printed pages, 14 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE over 1,660; and the number of plates, about 695, give but an inadequate idea of the immense amount of data contained in this work. Rumphius described in greater or less detail and named about 1,700 forms. His descriptions, while sometimes scarcely more than casual mention, are more often very ample, and to these are often appended discussions of the economic uses of the various plants described. Few works on Indo-Malayan botany, published since the Herbarium Amboinense was written, can compare with it in amount and variety of original data. When it is fully realized that practically all of the immense mass of data included in the Herbarium Amboinense represents the observations and accumulated knowledge of one man, the great energy and ability displayed by Rumphius in preparing this monumental work, which was accomplished under very adverse circumstances, can be more fully appreciated. The work is immensely more than a discussion of the plants of Amboina. While it is true that most of the descriptions and the greater part of the figures were based on Amboina specimens, copious references are found to other regions, extending from Madagascar to China and Japan, southeast to New Guinea, and even to Mexico and South America. It is very evident that Rumphius's colleagues and correspondents transmitted material to him from the whole Orient, and he incorporated his descrip- tions of this material in the Herbarium Amboinense. Among Doctor Robinson's papers were found the following compiled data, which will give some definite idea of the regions covered by the work. The most important references to Java comprise 125 entries ; to Celebes, 83 ; to Ceram, 77 ; to Bali, 74 ; to Banda, 53; to Buru, 42; to the Moluccas proper, including Ternate, Tidore, Batchian, and Halmaheira or Gilolo, 58; to the Philippines, 20; to Boeton, 12; to Borneo, 8; to Sumatra, 8; to Madura, 4; to Manipa, 15; to the Sumbawa-Timor group, including Sumbawa, Timor, Nussa Radja, Solor, Wetter, and Rottea, 23 ; to the Aru Islands, 6 ; to the Key Islands, 3 ; to New Guinea, 4 ; to the Sula Islands, 8 ; and to the small islands near Amboina, 8. There are numerous references to China, but fewer to Japan, Indo-China, Malacca, Madagascar, southern Africa, Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. A number of the species figured and supplied with ample descriptions were based on this extra- Amboina material, although others are only casually mentioned* It is at once evident that by no means all the Rumphian species can be interpreted from Amboina material and data alone. INTRODUCTION 15 RUMPHIUS AND HIS WORK George Everhard Rumphius, as the family name Rumpf or Rumph is Latinized, well named "the Pliny of the Indies/' was born in 1627, apparently in Hanau, Hesse Cassel, Germany, and died in Amboina, June 15, 1702, at the age of 75 years. Detailed accounts of his life and work are available in the writings of numerous authors* so that it is unnecessary to enumerate here more than the most important facts in connection with the preparation and publication of his most renowned work, the Herbarium Amboinense. Rumphius entered the service of the Dutch East India Com- pany as a young man, proceeded to Batavia, Java, in 1653, and in the latter part of the same year to Amboina, where he resided for the remainder of his life. Perhaps for the first two years of his stay in Amboina he was stationed at Larike, but later he was transferred to Hila. It is evident that he commenced the preparation of the Herbarium Amboinense shortly after his arrival in Amboina, his active work being continued practically until his death, in spite of the great handicap of blindness after the year 1670. In 1670, while still stationed at Hila, he had the work about completed, and it was then his intention to return to Europe. To make a more definite study and comparison of all his species, he undertook a final series of journeys along the coasts and in the hills, and to this he himself attributes his blindness which followed almost at once. His published works are manifestly based largely on observations made by him between 1653 and 1670. The handicap of blindness was some- what lessened by aid given him by his wife and by assistants assigned to him by the Dutch East India Company. In 1673 he removed to the town of Amboina and commenced to translate the original Latin text of the Herbarium Amboinense into Dutch. In the following year, however, his wife and eldest child were killed in the great earthquake of that year, and subsequent to that date he had less other assistance, some of it of little real value. The original illustrations for the Herbarium Amboin- ense were apparently made by Rumphius himself, but on Jan- uary 11, 1687, Amboina was visited by a disastrous fire, in which Rumphius's house was destroyed, including his library, many of his manuscripts, and the plates of the Herbarium Am- * See Rouffaer and Muller "Biographien van Rumphius" in their: Eerste proeve van een Rumlphius-Bibliographie. Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 176-185. 16 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE boinense. Undaunted by this last catastrophe, he replaced the destroyed illustrations by new drawings, some made by his son, P. A. Rumphius, others made by various assistants supplied by the East India Company. Thus in attempting to interpret Rumphian species the fact must be constantly kept in mind that the illustrations were not made from the actual specimens on which the corresponding descriptions were based. In this con- nection I venture to give the following translation of Rumphius's own statement : * The plates were drawn by various artists, some of the figures larger, some smaller, but each marked with its name, which I myself never saw [italics mine] ; but I have learned from the skilled, and am informed that they sufficiently agree with the plants themselves, but what ought some- times to be changed I have marked on the plates themselves or in the text. However, the reader may take these as sufficiently faithful and pleasing, while perchance they may be corrected by others, or better ones produced, for he will readily perceive that in this country I have not been provided with the best artists, for which reason also I have not been ashamed to refer him to other works with larger and better plates, especially Rheede, which has recently been published. This passage explains much in connection with the Herbarium Amboinense, such as the very crude execution of some figures and the excellent reproduction of others; the union, in a few cases, of the characters of totally different species on a single drawing such as Pemphis and Aegiceras, and Urena and Triumfetta; the fact that certain drawings do not conform to the characters given in the description that they are supposed to represent ; the absence of drawings to illustrate species that are fully described ; why certain species, certainly as common in Amboina in Rumph- ius's time as they are to-day, are not mentioned in the work; and perhaps the rather striking discrepancies in the magnifica- tions or reductions of parts of various species so evident on many of the drawings. In 1690 the manuscript of the first six books was delivered to the Dutch East India Company, the remaining parts being de- livered in 1695. The manuscript of the first six books was forwarded to Holland from Batavia, Java, in 1692 on the Water- land. This ship was destroyed by the French in transit, and the manuscript was lost with the ship. Fortunately a copy had been retained, and thus the fruit of Rumphius's many years of labor was not lost. A copy of these six books was finally sent to Holland in 169&> the manuscript of the remaining six books was ♦Herb. Amb. 1 (1741) author's prefac«» last page. INTRODUCTION 17 sent the following year. The manuscript of the "Auctuarium," completed by Rumphius in 1701, a few months before his death, was copied at Batavia and sent to Holland in 1704. This im- portant manuscript remained in the archives of the Dutch East India Company until 1736, when the company granted permis- sion to Professor J. Burman to prepare it for printing, the six volumes appearing between 1741 and 1750 and volume seven^ the "Auctuarium," in 1755. The general title of the published work, taken from volume three, is as follows: Georgii Everhardi Rumphii, | Med. Doct. Hanavensis, Mercatoris Sen- ioris, & in Amboina Consulis, nomine | Plinii Indici Celebris, & Membri Inlustris Societatis Aca- | demiae Naturae Curiosum Germaniae, | Herba- rium I Amboinense, | Plurimas complectens Arbores, Frutices, Herbas, Plan- tas terrestres & aquaticas, | quae in Amboina, | et ajdacentibus reperiuntur insulis, I Adcuratissime descriptas juxa earum formas, cum diversis denom- inationibus, | cultura, usu, ac virtutibus. | Quod & insuper exhibit | varia insectorum animaliumque genera, | Plurima cum naturalibus eorum figuris depicta. | Omnia magno labore ac studio multos per annos conlecta, | & duodecem conscripta libris. | Nunc primum in lucem edita, & in Latinum sermonem versa, | Cura & Studio | Joannis Burmanni, | Med. Doct. et in Horto Medico Amstelaedamensi Professoris | Botanici, Academiae Caesareae Naturae Curiosum Socii; | Qui varia adjecit Synonyma, suasque Observa- tiones.* Volume seven, the Auctuarium, issued five years after volume six was printed, bears the following title page : Georgii Everhardi Rumphii | * * * | jjerbarii | Amboinensis | Auctuarium, | Reliquas complectens Arbores, Frutices, ac Plantas, | quae in Amboina, et adjacentibus demum repertae sunt insulis, | Omnes accu- ratissime descriptae, & delineatae juxta earum | formas, cum diversis In- dicis denominationibus, | cultura, usu, ac viribus; | Nunc primum in lucem editum, & in Latine sermonem versum, | Cura & Studio | Joannis Bur- manni 1***1 Qyj varia adjecit Synonyma, suasque Observationes.f In the present paper the Auctuarium has been consistently cited as volume seven of the Herbarium Amboinense. While Rumphius's fame rests largely on the Herbarium Am- boinense, this by no means represents all that he accomplished. * 1 (1741) 1-200, t, 1-82, preface, introduction, etc.; 2 (1741) 1-270, t. 1^87; 3 (1743) 1-218, t. 1-Ul; 4 (1743) 1-154, t. 1-82; 5 (1847) 1-492, t. 1-18U; 6 (1750) 1-256, t. 1-90, The title page varies somewhat in the different volumes and between editions one and two, a second edition, not essentially different from the first, having been issued in 1750. The Dutch title page is not here repeated. t(1755) 1-74, t. 1-29, Index Universalis [1-20]. The Dutch title page is not here repeated. 144971 2 18 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE His Rariteitkamer * is in itself a remarkable book, in which are figured and described numerous crustaceans, echinoderms, starfishes, several hundred mollusks, both univalves and bivalves, crystals, fossils, and other forms. This work passed through several editions, and the figures are in general distinctly better than those in the Herbarium Amboinense. His Amboinische Historic and Amboinische Land-Beschrijving still remain in manuscript. His Amboinische Dierboek was planned, accord- ing to Leupe, to consist of three books, in which the birds, the land animals, and the marine animals were to be described and figured, this to supply for the animal kingdom what the Kruidboek (that is, the Herbarium Amboinense) did for the plant kingdom. This work, however, was never published as such, although Valentijn apparently utilized much of Rumphius's data, perhaps not always acknowledging its source. His manu- script reports on the agriculture of Amboina, on the fortifications of Castle Victoria, description of the Amboina earthquake, a Malay dictionary, and other writings are still extant. Rumph- ius's activities as an investigator other than as a student of plants are here briefly mentioned merely to emphasize the ability, energy, and broad interest of the man, for his record as an inves- tigator is a most remarkable one, more especially so when we take into consideration the period in which he lived and worked and the great handicaps under which he struggled. AMBOINA Amboina, Amboyna, or Ambon, as the name is variously spelled, is a small island situated about 128° east and 4° 40' south, a short distance south of the western end of Ceram on the north side of Banda Sea and not far from the western end of New Guinea. In the history of Malayan botany it is of preeminent importance, as it is the type locality of several hundred species, many of which were very imperfectly character- * D*- Amboinsche | Rariteitkamer, | Behelzende eene beschryvinge van allerhande | zoo weeke als harde i Schaalvisschen, | te weeten raare | Krabben, Kreeften, | en diergelyke Zeedieren, | als mede allerhande | Hoorntjes en Schulpen, | die men in d' Amboinsche Zee vindt: | Daar bene- vens zommige | Mineraalen, Gesteenten, 1 en soorten van Aarde, die in d' Amboinsche, en zom- | mige omleggende Eilenden govonden worden. | Ver- deelt in drie Boeken, | En met nodige Printverbeeldingen, alle naar 't leven getekent, voorzien. i Beschreven door | Georgius Everhardus Rum- phius, I van Hanauw, Koopman en Raad in Amboina, mitsgaders Lid van het Kyzerlyke kweekschool der | onderzookers van de Natuurkuunde in 't Duitsche Roomsche Ryk opgerecht onder den naam van | Plinius Indicus | (1705) XXVIII + 1-340 [43], t 1-60. INTRODUCTION 19 ized by the early authors. From a botanical standpoint it owes its great importance almost wholly to the preparation and publication of Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense. (See Plates I and II.) During the early colonial period Amboina was of great com- mercial importance on account of the dominance of the spice trade, of which it was the center for a long time. It was first visited by the Portuguese in 1511, who established a factory there in 1521. The Portuguese were dispossessed by the Dutch in 1609, who have since retained control of the island except for the periods 1796-1802 and 1810-1814, when it was occupied by the British, being finally restored to the Dutch Government in 1814. The island is only 51 kilometers long and has an area of approximately 950 square kilometers. Salahoetoe, the highest mountain on the island, attains an altitude of 1,027 meters. The flora of Amboina is typically Malayan, although a few Australian types are present as in other parts of the Malayan region. Practically all of the species found along the seacoast are of general distribution from India to Malaya and Polynesia, Likewise most of the species found in the settled areas at low and medium altitudes, weeds of cultivation, and the generally cultivated economic and ornamental plants are the same as those usually found throughout Malaya, very many of which are now distributed in all tropical regions. The primeval forest to a large extent has been destroyed at low and medium altitudes, at least in those regions best adapted to agricultural pursuits, and has been replaced over large areas by cultivated or semicultivated plants, second-growth forests, thickets, and open grasslands characterized by the dominance of the cogon or lalang grass (Imperata) . In the interior on the slopes of the higher moun- tains, such as Salahoetoe, some forest still persists. The island presents a considerable endemic element, but a thorough botanical exploration of the Moluccas will doubtless show that most of the species now known only from Amboina inhabit also the neighboring islands, such as Ceram, Buru, Boeton, Celebes, Gilolo, western New Guinea, and the numerous smaller islands of the Moluccas. From the standpoint of en- demic species most of the neighboring islands are probably of much greater interest than is Amboina, but from the standpoint of the history of Malayan botany, no part of the Moluccas can be compared with it. No description of the vegetation of Amboina is here attempted, as I have not personally visited the island, and Doctor Robinson 20 ROMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE left no notes regarding the general character and appearance of the plant life of Amboina. However, a brief, general description has been given by Karsten.* The general appearance of the vegetation is apparently the same as that of similar regions in the Malay Archipelago and the Philippines, not subject to a prolonged dry season, where the original vegetation has not been entirely destroyed by man. THE GENESIS OF THE PLAN AND THE BOTANICAL EXPLORATION OF AMBOINA The logical and simple plan of exploring Amboina with the special object of collecting and studying the Rumphian species in their native habitat in connection with all data given by Rumphius, while perhaps conceived by other botanists, has previ- ously been carried into effect only by the late Dr. J. G. Boerlage of the botanic garden at Buitenzorg. In 1900 Doctor Boerlage, accompanied by Dr. J. J. Smith, made a trip to Amboina for the explicit purpose of collecting in the classical localities the plants described by Rumphius, more especially material represent- ing those species on which binomials of later authors had been based. Most unfortunately Doctor Boerlage contracted a fever while in Amboina, which resulted in his death at Ternate, August 25, 1900, while returning to Java, with the consequence that the results of his field work were never made available. Unquestionably, many botanists who have visited Amboina and carried on field work there have realized that it was a clas- sical locality in Malayan botany and that botanical specimens from that island would be of special value in interpreting Rumph- ian species, yet no single large collection has ever been made in Amboina of which the duplicates were given a wide distribu- tion, so that the general results of previous botanical work in Amboina have not been available to many botanists who have had occasion to discuss Rumphian species. While the present consideration of the species described and figured in the Her- barium Amboinense is of necessity incomplete, and doubtless errors in interpretation have been committed both in reference to Rumphian species and to binomials, yet it is felt that the work, somewhat in the nature of an innovation in systematic botany, is a step in advance and that it should prove to be merely preliminary to more intensive field work in relation to the same * Morphologische und biologische Untersuchungen uber einige Epiphy- tenformen der Molukken. Ann. Jard, Bot. Buitenzorg 12 (1895) 117-195, INTRODUCTION 21 general problems not only in reference to the Herbarium Amboinense, but also to other pre-Linnean works of similar importance. Certain post-Linnean works are susceptible of the same general treatment, especially those, like Blanco's Flora de Filipinas, in which the various species described are not represented by extant botanical material or types, but must be interpreted solely by the descriptions and data given by the author. In this con- nection I have in the past four years made an intensive study of all the Philippine species described by Blanco and have prepared for distribution to the larger botanical institutions of the world an extensive exsiccata which I have called "Species Blancoanae.'' The specimens selected for this exsiccata are those which I have determined to represent the Blancoan species, and to a large degree these specimens will take the place of Blanco's types, none of which were preserved by him. My Philippine experience in attempting to interpret Blancoan species logically lead to the application of the same general methods in reference to those figured and described by Rumphius. In 1902, on commencing botanical work in the Philippines, I was immediately confronted with the problem of interpreting the numerous forms described by Blanco in his Flora de Fili- pinas,* totaling about 1,130 species and varieties, of which not a single one is represented by type material, for Blanco preserved no herbarium specimens. Blanco's species, often very imper- fectly described and frequently placed in the wrong genus, have for the most part not been clearly understood by subsequent authors and as a result very many of them appear in botanical literature as doubtful or imperfectly known ones. The average botanist, working in Europe or America from dried specimens alone, with few or no field notes and with no personal knowledge of the Philippines and its vegetation, has found it impossible properly to interpret very many of Blanco's species. The clue to the identity of a Blancoan species is frequently found, not in the description itself, but in the appended economic data, native names, and other information given by Blanco. My experience in the interpretation of Blanco's species con- vinced me that the same methods, if applied to Amboina in connection with all the data given by Rumphius in the Herbarium Amboinense, would certainly yield material by which a high percentage of the several hundred species proposed by various * Blanco, M. Flora de Filipinas (1837) LXXVIII-f 1-887; ed. 2 (1845) LXIX+ 1-619. 22 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE authors from 1753 to date might be elucidated. Rumphius's species, like those of Blanco, are not represented by extant botanical material, although it is manifest that Rumphius pre- served, at least temporarily, specimens representing some of the forms that he described.* Thus, in interpreting Rumphian species, we must utilize the same general methods as those devised in securing material and data to locate Blanco's species. In the interpretation of many Rumphian species the investigator has the great advantage of the published figures, but it should be carefully noted that the figures do not always correspond with the characters of the species indicated in the descriptions (see p. 41). In interpreting Blancoan species there is the distinct advantage of his use of technical terms and the rather doubtful advantage of the binomial nomenclature; doubtful not because of the system, but from Blanco's erroneous interpreta- tions of so many genera. At various times, as it became necessary to interpret species in critical genera by consultation of the Herbarium Amboinense, the necessity of securing botanical material from Amboina be- came apparent. The desirability of securing Amboina material was discussed by Doctor Robinson and myself at various times during his first tour of duty in the Philippines, 1908-1911. As work on the Philippine flora progressed, the necessity for a definite knowledge of the Rumphian species became more and more evident, until finally the matter was taken up with the Philippine authorities, approval of the Amboina project secured, and cooperation with the authorities of the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, arranged. In preparation for his work in Amboina, Doctor Robinson made an exhaustive examination of the Herbarium Amboinense, and compiled on index cards all data that might be of assistance in his actual field work. He arranged all native names cited by Rumphius, for he realized that the clue to the identity of a Rumphian species would often be found in the native name or names cited. Regions and localities from which Rumphius secured his material were also classified, so that before com- mencing field work in Amboina, Doctor Robinson could deter- mine to a great extent what species he might hope to find in Amboina and what would have to be sought for in other islands. * Martelli, U. Le collezioni di Giorgio Everardo Rumpf acquistate dal Granduca Cosimo III de'Medici, una volta esistenti nel Museu di Fisica e Storia Naturale di Firenze, estratto da un catalog© manoscritto dal Prof. Giovanni Targioni-Tozzetti (1903) 1-213. INTRODUCTION 23 A special field label was prepared for the work, on which he recorded data of value in connection with the problem of the determination of Rumphian species and the results of his pre- FLORA OF THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO HERBARIUM, BUREAU OF SCIENCE, MANILA. P. I. Common name Dialect Field No Herbarium No Collector, C. B, Hobinson. Island Locality Habitat Altitude above the sea m. Tree; shrub; woody vine; herbaceous vine; herb Height of plant m; diameter cm. Flower Fruit Supposed to represent - Rumph. Herb. Amb. Identification considered certain; probable; possible; very doubtful. Date / 9 13. Fig. 1. Form of field label. liminary comparison of the actual specimens with the Rumphian figures and descriptions. This field label is shown in fig. 1. His material, as collected, was compared with the Rumphian descriptions, and his conclusions were noted on the field labels. Specimens that were certainly, probably, or possibly identical 24 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE with forms that Rumphius considered were placed in one series, and those that could not be referred to Rumphian species were placed in another. As material was matched with forms named and described by Rumphius, such species were checked on a special list. The two series established by Doctor Robinson in the field have been the basis of the two series into which the collections were finally divided for purposes of study. The specimens that could certainly or with a fair degree of cer- tainty be referred to Rumphian species were placed in the series 'Tlantae Rumphianae Amboinenses,'' thus cited in the present work, while the remainder were placed in the series * 'Reliquiae Robinsonianae'' and are the basis of a separate re- port.* Of the Plantae Rumphianae Amboinenses, the labels of which bear both the Rumphian name and reference and the binomial as determined by the accepted code of nomenclature, there are about 600 numbers; of the Reliquiae Robinsonianae, including the cellular cryptogams, there are about 960 numbers. In arranging this material and in its critical study, a few speci- mens have been transferred from one series to the other. In both series collections made at different dates and with separate field numbers have been combined when presenting the same stage of development and unquestionably representing the same form. The data compiled by Doctor Robinson, as a result of his field observations and the comparison of the fresh material with the Rumphian descriptions, has been of immense value in the preparation of the present work. During the prosecution of his field work in Amboina, it became evident to Doctor Robinson that he could not expect to find all the forms figured and described by Rumphius, nor even all of those that were from Amboina. In his progress report, written from day to day, he frequently mentioned the slow progress of the work and his disappointment in not being able to locate this or that species. He commenced his field work with the idea of taking specimens only from plants found in flower or in fruit, but he occasionally collected single specimens from sterile plants for purpose of check. It is evident that he had located a number of species described by Rumphius of which he collected no botanical material, but which he was watching in the hope that he could later find them in flower or in fruit. At various times he indicated his purpose to collect sterile material of the species that he could not find in flower or in fruit before * Merrill, E. D. Reliquiae Robinsonianae. Philip. Journ. Set. 11 (1916) Bot. 243-319. INTRODUCTION 25 his final departure from Amboina, a plan that was never carried out on account of his sudden and unexpected death. Many of the very common species, such as the coconut, the betle nut palm, the papaya, and numerous cultivated ornamentals, are lacking in the collection chiefly for the reason that the actual preparation of specimens of these common and well-known plants was pur- posely deferred until the more important and critical species had been secured. In the prosecution of his field work in Amboina, Doctor Rob- inson was handicapped by the same factors that have hindered our attempts to secure material in the Philippines to clear up the status of Blanco's species. With the increase of population in Amboina, as in the Philippines, the original vegetation has been totally destroyed over large areas, the virgin forest being replaced by grasslands, thickets, and second-growth forests of a type entirely different from the original vegetation. Many species definitely mentioned by Rumphius as occurring in specific local- ities can no longer be found in the indicated places. It is by no means improbable that many species, common in Amboina in the seventeenth century, have now become extinct there, or at least are very rare and local, even as various Philippine species mentioned by Blanco as occurring in definite localities can no longer be found within many miles of the respective places mentioned by him. Native names given by Rumphius have in many cases become obsolete or are so altered as to be hardly recognizable, although in many cases the name cited by Rumphius is still in use and for the same species under which it was cited by him. Rumphius, like Blanco, secured most of his material from the settled areas and from the forests at low altitudes, and it is unfortunately true that, in the Malayan region, the forest vegetation at low altitudes is the vegetation most rapidly destroyed by the encroachment of man. The practical extermination of the original vegetation of those regions best adapted to agricultural pursuits is a subject that deserves more consideration than it has received.* Unquestion- ably, many species of plants have been exterminated in various parts of the Malayan region within the past century as the population has increased. The areas devoted to agriculture are rapidly being enlarged in many parts of this vast region, and the consequent destruction of primeval forests over large areas is a strong argument in favor of a vigorous and intensive botanical * Merrill, E. D. Notes on the flora of Manila with special reference to the introduced element. Philip, Journ. Sci, 7 (1912) Bot. 145-208. 26 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE exploration of Malaya, in order that representatives of certain elements of the flora shall be secured while they are still available or at least easily accessible. A continued and intensive explora- tion of the Moluccas is greatly to be desired before the actual plants that will yield material to clear up various Rumphian species of doubtful status shall have become extinct or at best local and of rare occurrence. It was originally planned that Doctor Robinson should pro- secute his field work for about four months, but as the work progressed it became increasingly evident to him that this period of time was altogether too short. On the basis of representations made by him, Doctor Robinson was authorized to continue his field work until June, 1914, thus giving him practically a year in the field. It was planned that he should also extend his field work to neighboring islands, and at the time of his death he had made arrangements to visit Buru Island, as for the season he had secured a high percentage of the Amboina species to be found in flower or fruit. It was fully realized that his time could be more profitably spent in exploring neighboring islands, utilizing the intermediate periods between trips for a reexamina- tion of the various parts of Amboina for the purpose of locating in flower or fruit those species that had not been detected during his first period, July to December, of intensive field work. His wholly unexpected death prevented the fulfillment of these plans. This work has been based on the material and observations secured in a period of four and one-half months. It is evident that could the revised plan have been carried out and field work extended until June, 1914, much more material and data would have been available for study, with the result that the interpreta- tion of the Herbarium Amboinense would have been more satis- factory and more nearly complete than it is. Botanists and collectors who have actually prosecuted field work in Amboina* include LaBillardiere, the first naturalist to visit the island after Rumphius's death, Christopher Smith, the younger Roxburgh, Lahaie, Reinwardt, d'Urville, Zippel, Lesson, Hombron, Forsten, de Vriese, Teysmann, Naumann, Binnendyk, de Fretes, Beccari, Forbes, Warburg, Karsten, Boerlage, Treub, J. J. Smith, and Robinson. Some were there but for a few days, others for longer periods; and their collections, now widely scattered in difl*erent herbaria, comprise several thousand speci- mens. Were it possible to segregate from the various herbaria * Warburg, 0. Die botanische Erforschung der Molukken seit Rumpf s Zeiten. Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 63-78. INTRODUCTION 27 all of the AmboiriEt material extant, doubtless many other obscure points regarding Rumphius's species could be elucidated, which in the following critical consideration I have been obliged to interpret from published descriptions alone. Doctor Robinson's four and one-half months of field work in Amboina were insuf- ficient in which to secure the necessary material and data to settle all of the doubtful points in connection with the forms de- scribed by Rumphius from Amboina material alone, and he had no opportunity to visit neighboring islands to search for special material that might serve to determine the status of Rumphius's rather numerous extra-Amboina species. ERRORS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES The early botanical authors, such as Linnaeus, Burman f ., Lour- eiro, Lamarck, and numerous others, had but a slight conception of the principles of geographic distribution of plants, and ac- cordingly in their reductions of Rumphius's species many grave errors were committed. Very often in the early literature one finds the illustrations of an Amboina plant quoted as an exact synonym of a species of Indo-China, when in reality the two are totally different and not infrequently have been found to repre- sent different genera. It is not at all certain that in quoting illustrations of various species as synonyms Linnaeus and his contemporaries and immediate successors intended them as exact synonyms ; it would seem, in many cases at least, that the cita- tions of illustrations as synonyms was intended to convey to other botanists some conception of what the species was like, and not necessarily to indicate that it was an exact equivalent of the species under which it was cited. In the first two or three decades following the death of Linnaeus systematists were conservative in the matter of describ- ing new species. There was a very strong tendency to refer specimens to species already named by Linnaeus, rather than to describe material, even from distant and relatively unknown parts of the world, as new. Thus we find Loureiro in his Flora Cochinchinensis, published in 1790, erroneously referring num- erous Cochin-China specimens to Linnean species and likewise attempting to match his Cochin-China material with the Amboina species described and figured by Rumphius, apparently on the assumption that if a plant grew in Cochin-China, it should also grow in Amboina. In Loureiro's work there are scores of cases where the Rumphian name and figure are quoted as an exact synonym of a Cochin-China species described by him as new. 28 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE In very many cases Loureiro took his specific name from Rumph- ius, yet in not a single case is a species described by Loureiro to be interpreted by the reference to Rumphius, as his descrip- tipns were not based on data supplied by the Herbarium Amboinense, but on actual specimens from Cochin-China or southern China. We find the same condition in Burman f., Flora Indica (1768), where Burman's conception of the species proposed was not gained from the Rumphian synonym cited, often the only one given, so much as from actual specimens from Java or from some other part of the Indo-Malayan region; in few cases are Burman's species, as published in his Flora Indica, to be typified by the Rumphian reference cited. In the early volumes of Lamarck's Encyclopedie we find likewise numerous cases where species actually described from specimens originating in the Mascarene Islands, in the Philippines, and in other regions remote from Amboina are supplied with a Rumphian synonym, which usually has proved to be misplaced. Error after error has crept into systematic botany by interpretation of species by a Rumphian synonym, wrongly placed, rather than by consulta- tion of the actual type specimen. These errors, once published, have been perpetuated by other authors, sometimes because of failure to interpret types properly, sometimes because of lack of interest in problems of nomenclature, sometimes because of non-accessibility of type specimens for purposes of comparison, and for other reasons. By way of illustration I need cite only one or two extreme cases. The type of Fagara triphylla Lam. is a Philippine specimen collected by Sonnerat, and a recent examination of it in Lamarck's herbarium at the Museum d'histoire Naturelle, Paris, shows it to be identical with the endemic Philippine Melicope luzonensis Engl. De Candolle, however, apparently interpreting Fagara tri- phylla Lam. chiefly from the Rumphian synonym, Ampacus angustifolius Rumph., cited by Lamarck in the original descrip- tion, transferred it to Evodia as Evodia triphylla DC. ; and later authors, also interpreting it from the Rumphian synonym, have given Evodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. a range extending from India to Japan southward through Malaya to New Guinea. In clearing up this question of synonymy * I have shown that Fagara triphylla Ijam.,=Evodia triphylla DC.=Melicope triphylla Merr. is a species confined to the Philippines; that Evodia tri- * On the identity of Evodia triphylla DC. Philip. Joum. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot 373-378. INTRODUCTION 29 phylla of various authors includes at least three distinct species in two different genera; and now the occurrence of true Ampacus angustifolius Rumph. in the Amboina collection shows that this Rumphian species, while a true Evodia, represents still another distinct species. Evodia triphylla DC. as interpreted by various authors has included at least four distinct species in two different genera. Another case is that presented by Ricimis mappa Linn., based wholly on Folium mappae Rumph. This is the basis of Maca- ranga mappa Muell.-Arg., Mueller extending the range of the species to the Philippines by the erroneous reduction of Croton grandifolitis Blanco as a synonym. I have shown that Maca- ranga grandi folia (Blanco) Merr. is a species entirely distinct from Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., yet Pax and K. Hoffman* in their recent monograph of this group interpret Macaranga mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. wholly from Philippine specimens, erroneously citing Croton grandifolius Blanco, Macaranga por- teana Andre, and Macaranga grandifolid Merr. as synonyms, and even figuring the species from Philippine material. A casual comparison of Philippine material with Rumphius's figure, the type of Ricinus mappa hinn.^Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., shows that two totally different species are involved. The occur- rence of typical Folium mappae Rumph. in Robinson's Amboina collections shows conclusively that I was correct in separating the Philippine form, that Mueller was wrong in reducing Ricinus grandifolius Blanco to Macaranga mappa, and that Pax and K. Hoffman were entirely wrong in their interpretation of Maca- ranga mappa Muell.-Arg. The two species involved are so entirely different that they belong in distinct sections of the genus. THE INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES AS TYPES In the interpretation of the species of older authors under which Rumphian names are cited as synonyms one point must constantly be kept in mind. This is, as to whether the species was based on an actual specimen in the hands of the author or, by citation, wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. In nearly every case it is possible to determine this point merely by an examination of the description, for even when no specimen is actually cited, if the species was based on an actual specimen, data are usually given that could not have been derived from * Euphorbiaceae-Acalypheae-Mercurialinae. Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 320. 30 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE either Rumphius's description or figure. Even in Linnaeus's works descriptions based on actual specimens rather than on cited synonyms are usually thus determinable. I have already noted that none of Loureiro's species, even when the specific name is taken from Rumphius, are to be interpreted by the Rumphian synonym cited. The same is true of most of Burman's species published in his Flora Indica, many of those proposed by Lamarck, and those of many other authors. Where a species was based on an actual specimen supplemented by a reference to Rumphius, the specimen is manifestly the type, but it then becomes necessary to determine whether or not the specimen represents the same species as the Rumphian synonym cited. In a very high percentage of such cases the actual specimen described has been found to represent a species different from the one figured by Rumphius, due to the fact that the early authors, having little conception of the geographic distribution of plants, failed to distinguish between the in- digenous and endemic elements in the Amboina flora and those species of wide distribution. Among all of the earlier workers there was a strong tendency to refer the Rumphian illustrations to species described from actual specimens, even if there was only a superficial resemblance between the specimen and the figure. None of them realized the necessity of interpreting Moluccan species from Moluccan specimens ; and, even if the value of such procedure were realized, no botanical material from Ambonia was available to European botanists until the close of the eighteenth century and, even then, only a limited amount. In the present consideration of the Herbarium Amboinense those species and their synonyms that were based solely on plants described and figured, or merely described, by Rumphius have been indicated by the term ''type !'' in parentheses following the citation. The list of such species could doubtless have been extended if in the course of the preparation of the manuscript, I had had access to all the literature. As it is, nearly 350 such ''types" have been indicated. From the standpoint of taxonomy then, the Herbarium Amboinense is of relatively very great im- portance, for its descriptions and figures typify a very large number of binomials of later authors. Only two other pre- Linnean works on the Indo-Malayan flora can be compared with the Herbarium Amboinense in this respect, these being Rheede's Hortus Malabaricus and Linnaeus's Flora Zeylanica, and most of the actual specimens on which the later work was based are extant. INTRODUCTION 31 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIES DESCRIBED IN THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE BY VARIOUS AUTHORS LINNAEUS AND STICKMAN Citations of Rumphian synonyms are found in the first pub- lished work on the binomial system,* but these are few and of slight importance, as Linnaeus did not secure a copy of the Herbarium Amboinense until his manuscript was completed: Upus eximium beati Rumphii cufa amplissimi D. Burmanni orbi botanico redditum, ad me accessit primum absolute a typographo opere, cujus itaque synonymia seorsim tradere animus est.f About nineteen Rumphian synonyms are cited in the first edition of the Species Plantarum, of which four are in volume one, the remainder in volume two, but in only four cases are the Linnean species based wholly on the Rumphian synonyms, and these are all found in the Appendix. The list is as follows : Cynometra cauliflora Linn. Areca catechu Linn. Cynometra rami flora Linn. Caryota urens Linn. Averrhoa carambola Linn. Plukenetia volubilis Linn. Averrhoa bilimbi Linn. Hibiscus surattensis Linn. Garcinia mangostana Linn. Rubus parvifolius Linn. Acrostichum siliquosum Linn. Rubus moluccanus Linn. Borassus flabellifer Linn. Convolvulus peltatus Linn. Corypha umbraculifera Linn. Quercus molucca Linn. Cycas circinalis Linn. Croton variegatus Linn. Cocas nucifera Linn. The last four are based wholly on Rumphius's figures and descriptions. The new genus and species, Rumphia amboinensis Linn., is not based on Amboina material, contains no reference to the Herbarium Amboinense, and is the Indian Cordia tiliaefolia (Poir.) Warb.J Linnaeus realized the great importance of Rumphius's work and at once assigned to one of his students, Olaf Stickman, a study of the Herbarium Amboinense. In the following year, 1754, Stickman's dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense was printed, this being probably the first work published following the binomial system of nomenclature after the system was pro- posed. Stickman's publication is discussed below. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum § Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense is listed among the ''Auctores Reforma- * Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum (1753) 1-1200. t Linnaeus, C. Op. cit. 1199. JRumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 78. § Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762-63) 1-1684. 32 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE tores'' and is placed in the group of 'Tundadores/' Numerous reductions of Rumphian species had already been made in Stick- man's dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754), in the 1759 reprint of this work,* and in the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae (1759) , most of which are repeated in the second edition of the Species Plantarum; in all there are about 275 references to the Herbarium Amboinense in this work. Additional refer- ences are included in Linnaeus's later works. The first attempt to interpret the species described and figured in the Herbarium Amboinense as a whole in terms of the binomial system of nomenclature was made one year after the system was proposed. This was nominally the work of Olaf Stickman, one of Linnaeus's pupils, but it is manifest that the actual work was largely that of Linnaeus himself. Stickman's dissertation,! as originally published, is a very rare work, and copies of it are known in but few libraries. Rouffaer and Muller | cite only two copies, one in the University Library at Upsala, Sweden, and one in the Konigliche Hof- und Staatsbibliothek, Munich. There is a copy in the library of the Linnean Society, London ; one in the library of the British Museum; one in the library of the New York Botanical Garden; and on^ in the private library of Dr. J. H. Barnhart, of the New York Botanical Garden ; and I was so fortunate as to secure a copy from a European dealer for our work on the Amboina project. Doubtless other copies will be found in the older European libraries. In this work an attempt was made to reduce only those species figured by Rumphius in volumes one to six of the Herbarium Amboinense; volume seven, the Auctuarium, was not printed until the year following the appearance of Stickman's work and is, accordingly, not included. The species are arranged in the Rumphian sequence, giving the Rumphian name, the numbers of the plates, and the binomial equivalents of the various species so far as they could be determined. About three hundred of the forms figured by Rumphius are referred to binomials already proposed in the first edition of the Species Plantarum of Linnaeus, *Amoen, Acad. 4 (1759) 112-143. t Herbarium Amboinense, | quod | consens. experient. Facult. Medicae I in Regia Academia Upsalensi, | sub praesidio | viri nobilissimi atque experientissimi, | Dn. Doct. Garoli | Linnaei, | . . . . | publico examini submittit, | Alumnus Regius | Olavus Stickman, | Smolandus. 1 In auditorio Car. Majori d X. Maji, | anno MDCCLIV | Upsaliae | . . . . (1754) IV -f- 1-28. X Eerste proeve van eene Rumphius-Bibliographie. Rumphius Gedenk- boek 1702-1902 (1902) 196. INTRODUCTION 33 or published for the first time in this dissertation. In addition to these three hundred specific reductions, many others are referred to generic names under the Linnean system, about twenty to species characterized by Rheede in his Hortus Mala- baricus, and a few are connected with other pre-Linnean names. As is to be expected many of the proposed reductions have since been shown to be wrong. In this work more than twenty binomials appear for the first time, and these, typified by the Rumphian figures and descrip- tions, although validly published, were overlooked by the com- pilers of Index Kewensis and do not appear in that work or, if included, are credited to later publications. Among these are the following : Garcinia celebica Linn. Lens phaseoloides Linn. PsidiuTYi cujavus Linn. Menispermum flavum Linn. Myrtus leucadendra Linn. Adenanthera falcata Linn. Momordica indica Linn. Hernandia ovigera Linn. Plumbago indica Linn. Convallaria fruticosa Linn. Tragia scandens Linn. Piper decumanum Linn. Erythrina variegata Linn. Bromelia comosa Linn. Rhizophora caseolaris Linn. Dolichos pruriens Linn. Rhizophora corniculata Linn. Momordica trifolia Linn. Ricinus mappa Linn. Pothos latifolius Linn. Ricinus tanarius Linn. Pancratium narbonense Linn. Under modern conditions there would be no question whatever as to the authority for these names, for unless otherwise stated in the text the authority would be the author of the Dissertation. In this case the work was done under Linnaeus's inspiration and direction, and the reductions of the Rumphian species must have been made largely, if not wholly, by him. I have accordingly quoted Linnaeus as the authority for all new combinations appearing in Stickman's dissertation. In 1759 Stickman's Dissertation was reprinted under the title "Herbarium Amboinense, sub praesidio D. D. Car. Linnaei, pro- posuit Olavus Stickman, Smolandus''* Whatever doubt there may be as to the actual authorship of the original edition of Stickman's work in 1754, the 1759 reprint must certainly be credited to Linnaeus. This differs from the original edition notably in that the contents of volume seven of the Herbarium Amboinense, the Auctuarium, are included, while appended to the treatment of the Rumphian species is the 'Tlora Amboinensis,'' in which the species recognized are arranged under the Linnean classes Monandria, Diandria, etc., to which in turn an "Appendix" * Linnaeus, C. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 112^143. 144971 3 34 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE is added to include the Palmae and *'Singulares/' In the treat- ment of the species figured in volumes one to six of the Herbarium Amboinense, the 1759 reprint differs from the original edition in certain respects. Some corrections are made in the indicated binomials, and a few new ones are added. The number of Rumphian species reduced in this work is about 330, an increase of about 30 over the original edition, but this includes 12 from the Auctuarium that were not included in the 1754 edition. As in the original edition, certain binomials which have not been listed in Index Kewensis, appear in the 1759 reprint. Among these are Muntingia bartrmnia, Phaseolus cylindricus, Panicum vulpinum, Justicia bivalvis, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Varneria augusta, Lagerstroemia chinensis, and Canarium indicum. In the present work Linnaeus has been quoted as the authority for these binomials, as well as for those appearing in the original, 1754, edition. BURMAN Burman, in editing the Herbarium Amboinense, added various notes on the identity of the Rumphian species and at the end of volume seven, the Auctuarium (1755), added his **Index univer- salis in sex tomos et auctuarium herbarii Amboinensis CI. Georgii Everhardi Rumphii,'' in which he reduced about 311 of the Rumphian species to the Linnean binomial system, for the most part following the reduction proposed by Linnaeus in Stickman's dissertation issued the preceding year. Here he also published a few new binomials typified by Rumphius's figures, which have been entirely overlooked by all later authors. Those in the vegetable kingdom are Mespilus silvestris Burm., Phaseolus rrmrinus Burm., Pepo indicus Burm., and Aurantium maximum Burm. This index consists of twenty pages, unnumbered, the species being alphabetically arranged under their Rumphian names with references to the book, the chapter, and the volume in which they are described. In 1769 a second edition of this index was issued by Burman, under the title — Index alter in omnes tomos Herbarii Amboinensis CI. G. Everhardi Rumphii quern de novo recensuit, auxit et emendavit Joannes Burmannus, M. D. Botanices Professor, Academiae Caesareae Naturae Curiosum, nee non Regiae Scientiarum Academiae Upsaliensis membrum. It consists of twenty-two unnumbered pages, folio, and is apparently a rare work. Rouffaer and Muller * in their biblio- graphy cite an example of it which they examined in the library * Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 200. INTRODUCTION 35 of the K. Svenskt Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm, and one in the private library of Doctor Greshoff, late director of the Colonial Museum at Haarlem, Holland ; they consider it remark- able that the work is lacking in such libraries as those of Leiden, Upsala, Halle, and Munich. There are copies in the libraries of the British Museum ; the Linnean Society, London ; and the Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, England ; and I have been supplied with a photostat copy of it by Dr. Walter T. Swingle, of the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. The second edition differs from the original chiefly in the additional reductions included. A total of about 458 binomials appear in this work, nearly 150 more than in the first edition. The reduc- tions included are chiefly those indicated in the second and the third editions of Linnaeus's Species. Plantarum and in the younger Burman's Flora Indica, the latter having been published in 1768. Two new binomials appear, Achyranthes spiciflora Burm. and Verbesina aquatica Burm., the former, from the reference given, manifestly a misprint for Acalypha spiciflora Burm. f . ; while of the four pu^)lished in the first edition in 1755 Aurantium maximum Burm. is eliminated in favor of Citrus decumana Linn. BUCHANAN-HAMILTON Doctor Francis Buchanan-Hamilton commenced a critical con- sideration of the Rumphian species, which, however, was never completed or, at least, except for the first two parts, never published. The first part is entitled A Commentary on the Herbarium Amboinense, Liber Primus; and the second part, A Commentary on the Second Book of the Herbarium Am- boinense.* The work is of considerable interest and value. Each species described by Rumphius is discussed to a greater or less length with critical notes on the identity of the individual species and with reasons for and against the various proposed reductions. Hamilton was handicapped by lack of knowledge of the Malayan flora and attempted to interpret the Rumphian species largely from his experience with the Indian flora. The various forms actually described from Indian material are usually specifically distinct from the Rumphian species under which they were placed; but Hamilton usually does not claim that the Rumphian species is identical with the one he describes; he merely says that the two resemble each other or are manifestly allied. In a few cases, in the first part of his work, he proposed binomials typified by the Rumphian species, but none of these *Mem. Wern. Soc. Edinburgh 5 (1826) 307-383; 6 (1832) 286-333. 36 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE appear in the second part. Unlike his predecessors who had attempted to interpret the Rumphian species, he did not confine his comments to the species figured, but also attempted to account for those described but not figured. HENSCHEL HenscheFs * attempt to interpret the species described by Rumphius is merely an enumeration of the Rumphian species by volumes in the order in which they appear in the Herbarium Amboinense, with their binomial equivalents, so far as deter- mined, in parallel columns. He considers chiefly the species figured by Rumphius. The enumeration, a mere compilation, is very faulty and untrustworthy, as is to be expected, for Henschel was not a botanist and had no personal knowledge of the Indo-Malayan flora. New binomials, with one or two excep- tions, do not occur in this work, nor is there any critical discus- sion of the various species. The Clavis Herbarii Amboinensis of Henschel in arrangement compares closely with the sequence of Rumphian species published in the present work at the end of the systematic enumeration (p. 511 to 547), except that through the work of numerous botanists on the Malayan flora a very much higher percentage of the Rumphian species can now be placed than Henschel found possible. HenscheFs work is, in general, of very slight value, so far as it applies to the species Rumphius described and their binomial equivalents. HASSKARL The most pretentious attempt heretofore made to interpret the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense is that by Doctor J. K. Hasskarl, entitled Neue Schliissel zu Rumph's Herbarium amboinense.f In this work the species are arranged under the Rumphian names in Rumphius's sequence, citing the page and plate numbers for each, the native names, and a chronological arrangement of the reductions proposed by various authors, with citations of literature. HasskarFs work is scarcely more than a compilation, but is a remarkable example of patience and perseverance on the part of the author. The mere matter of *Henschel, A. G. E. T. Clavis Herbarii Amboinensis pp. 139-202, in his Vita G. E. Rumphii, Plinii indici accedunt specimen materiae Rumphianae medicae clavisque herbarii et thesauri Amboinensis. (1833) XIV 4- 1-216. t Abhandlungen der Naturf. Gesellschaft Halle 9 (1866) 145-389; Re- print (1866) 1-247. INTRODUCTION 37 searching the literature from 1753 to 1866 for references to the Herbarium Amboinense must have entailed many months of exacting labor. Where numerous synonyms are cited, or at least numerous names are listed, to which a Rumphian species has been reduced, usually no opinion is expressed as to which is the correct one. Many of those suggested by Hasskarl himself are palpably wrong, due perhaps to his lack of knowledge of the Malayan flora. It is not evident that Hasskarl ever had a very wide knowledge of the flora of the Malay Archipelago in spite of his residence in Java and his published botanical contributions. Many of his errors of interpretation were primarily due to the same factor that caused others to fail in properly interpreting Rumphius's species; that is, a lack of botanical material from Amboina and the neighboring islands. On account of the method of arranging his data, Hasskarl's work is difficult to consult, is entirely unsatisfactory in aiding the botanist to gain a definite idea of which species are actually included in Rumphius's work and which are not, and because of the numerous errors in reduc- tions is, it is feared, more or less discredited among botanists familiar with the Malayan flora. Hasskarl's work performed one distinct service that his pre- decessors failed in. Stickman, Linnaeus, Burman, and Henschel dealt only or largely with the species figured by Rumphius, ignoring the descriptions to a large extent; Hasskarl, however, brought out clearly the fact that Rumphius described very many more forms than he figured. He perhaps went to extremes in enumerating all the variants of such plants as the coconut palm, sugar cane, rice, banana, and other cultivated forms, and cer- tainly went to extremes in attempting to reduce the Rumphian descriptions of these variants to named forms and varieties under the binomial system. Several binomials were proposed by Hasskarl, typified by citation of Rumphius's descriptions and figures, in attempting to account for Rumphius's species. These were overlooked in compiling Index Kewensis, but invariably fall as synonyms. In consulting HasskarFs work, it should be noted that the numerous citations of Loureiro, Flora Cochinchinensis, are of the second, or Willdenow's, edition, 1793; that the references to Linnaeus are not to the original works of this author, but to Richter's Codex Botanicus Linneanus (1840) ; while Stickman's 1754 dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense, and usually also the 1759 reprint, is not cited. 38 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE THE PRESENT STATUS OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES Rumphius named and described approximately 1,700 plants that he considered to represent distinct forms. However, many of the plants he named and characterized are "forms" or 'Varieties'' rather than ''species" in the generally accepted sense of these words. Slight variations in the color of the leaves, of the flowers, or of the stems of plants ; equally slight differences in the size of certain parts; and other trivial characters were deemed by him to be of sufficient importance to warrant the characterization of the form and the bestowal of a distinctive name. Thus, in the case of cultivated plants, such as the coconut, the betel-nut palm, the sago palm, the sugar cane, taro, rice, and balsam, both slight and prominent variants were distinguished, while in wild plants equivalent distinctions were often made. In terms of the binomial system, as species are understood to-day, the 1,700 forms named and to a greater or less degree characterized by Rumphius can be reduced to about 1,200 species, including those that, while, apparently distinct, are of more or less doubtful status and have not been definitely referred to any genus. Of these 1,200 species about 930 can be definitely or fairly definitely referred to binomials, and about 140 additional ones can be safely placed in their respective genera, leaving about 130 that from data and material at present available cannot be definitely located under the binomial system ; some of these cannot be even placed in their proper families. A high percentage of these doubtful species are those that are very im- perfectly and briefly described, some being scarcely more than casually mentioned; few of them are figured. As already noted, many binomials have been based wholly on the Rumphian figures and descriptions. In about 800 cases references to the Herbarium Amboinensei are found in the original descriptions or publications of species, while about 350 binomials have been based wholly on various species more or less imperfectly characterized by Rumphius. During the past one hundred and thirty-five years numerous botanists have attempted with greater or less success to interpret these Rumphian species by connecting the Rumphian names and descriptions with actual botanical specimens. Many errors in interpretation and in iden- tification have been made, but the general results have been such that to-day a high percentage of the Rumphian species have been definitely connected with extant botanical material, and their true status has been determined. As a result of Doctor Robinson's INTRODUCTION 39 work in Amboina, the list of doubtful species has been greatly reduced. In the present consideration about 930 of the Rumphian species have been definitely referred to binomials, and of these about 470 are definitely represented by botanical specimens collected by Doctor Robinson. It should be borne in mind, however, that many of the species that are not represented by specimens collected by Doctor Robinson were originally described by Rumphius from material that did not originate in Amboina, much of it coming from distant lands (see p. 14). There are about 45 species, proposed by various authors, that are known to-day only from the data originally given by Rumphius; that is, those species that have not been, to my knowledge, definitely and correctly connected with actual bota- nical specimens from which in turn their true characters and relationships can be determined. Among these species of doubtful status are the following: Lentinus tuber regium Fries. Lentinus djamor Fries. Agaricus moschocaryanus Strinz. Polygaster sampadarius Fries. Pachyma tuber regium Fries. Pachyma hoelen Fries. Pandanus repens Miq. Pandanus baggea Miq. Pandanus terrestris Warb. Freycinetia graminea Blume. Bambusa excelsa Miq. Bambusa (Schizostachyum) longi- nodis Miq. Livistona bissula Mart. Calanvus graminosus Blume. Calamus rumphii Blume. Calamus pisicarpus Blume. Calamus buroensis Mart. Calamus equestris Willd. Calamus cawa Blume. Calamus acidus Becc. Daemonorops niger Blume. Alpinia uviformis Horan. Michelia tsiampacca Linn. Polyalthia sp. {Uvaria ligularis Lam.). Doubtless some of these species are represented in herbaria i*ich in Malayan material, but so far as published records go, such specimens have never been definitely connected with the Polyalthia sp. (Guatteria rumphii Blume) . Goniothalamus sp. {Uvaria tripetala Lam.). Talauma ruynphii Blume. Mangifera utana Ham. Mangifera tapia Ham. Dillenia serrata Thunb. Sindora galedupa Prain. Actinodaphne rumphii Blume. Actinodaphne moluccana Blume. Canarium balsamAferum Willd. Canarium hirsutum Willd. Canarium zephyrinium Blume. Canarium sp. {Canariopsis pauci- juga Miq.). Canarium sp. (Pimela caryophyllacea Blume) . Osmoxylon umbelliferum Merr. Schefflera sp. {Brassaia littorea Seem.). Panax anisum, DC. Hoya alba Kostel. Hoya elegans Kostel. Ipomoea rwmphii Miq. 40 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE published species that they may represent. The importance of interpreting species based on Rumphius's descriptions from actual specimens collected as near the classical locality as possible cannot be overestimated, and the sooner the above doubtful species are definitely connected with botanical material by which their true characters can be determined, the nearer we will be to the long hoped for stable nomenclature. DIFFICULTIES IN THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES The difficulties involved in attempting to interpret the species described by such an author as Rumphius in terms of the binomial system are very great. The actual working up of the Amboina collection has involved two entirely different sets of identifications, first an identication with the form Rumphius described or described and figured ; and, second, a further identi- fication of the same specimen to its proper genus and species under the binomial system. Neither task has been an easy one, for very obvious reasons. In dealing with the Rumphian descriptions, many difficulties are encountered. While often very long, the descriptions are nontechnical, and measurements are largely approximate or com- parative. The parts of the flowers are not described in detail, and often they are not even mentioned. The plants described in a single chapter under a ''generic'' term may belong to a single genus, as the term is understood to-day, or may belong in entirely different genera in distinct or even unrelated families. Many forms are only casually described, sometimes scarcely more than mentioned, while of others the description is reduced to a general description of the wood only. Very many of these casually described species were not based on Amboina material, but on specimens transmitted to Rumphius from various parts of Asia and Malaya, To a certain degree we have succeeded definitely in placing a high percentage of the species that are amply described and figured and a fair percentage of those that are but casually mentioned, but much remains to be done on this subject. Another factor that has rendered identifications difficult or uncertain is the figures themselves. While many of them are excellent and can be unmistakably referred to their proper species in the binomial system from an examination of the figures alone, others are very crude ; some are imperfect in that they delineate only leaf specimens ; some are manifestly based on material origi- nating from entirely distinct species or even from representatives INTRODUCTION 41 of different genera and families, and some do not agree at all with the descriptions to which they are ascribed. As already- noted the artist has frequently depicted the leaves on one scale and the attached inflorescences, flowers, or fruits, as the case may be, on an entirely different scale. Very frequently the leaves are reduced in size, while the other parts may be greatly enlarged. In consulting the Herbarium Amboinense, it should be borne in mind that Rumphius himself never saw the figures, which were drawn by various artists after he became blind (see p. 16). Rumphius's idea of the species was not at all that of the species as understood to-day, nor can his chapter heads be considered as corresponding to the modern conception of the genus. As noted by Doctor Robinson in one of his letters to me : Rumphius imbibed the native ideas on the relationships of plants, and did his best to improve on them. Now the natives here to-day, and I think certainly also in his time, base their opinions largely on habit and leaf characters, or perhaps on habitat; thus mangi-mangi covers the whole mangrove family (Rhizophoraceae) with Sonneratia thrown in. Also to the characters utilized by the natives in making identifications should be added wood characters, latex if any, taste and smell of leaves, flowers, and fruit. Neither he nor they appreciate the primary value of flowers or fruit or of compound leaves. Again the methods of distinguishing species that we use were entirely unknown to him, as they are to the natives here to-day. We are so accustomed to puttings emphasis on simple versus compound and opposite versus alternate leaves; superior versus inferior ovary; and apet- alous, polypetalous, and gamopetalous flowers and the number of their parts, that it is difficult to follow a man who took no count of any of these characters, except as to the compound leaves, while his opposite leaves are often opposite leaflets. He says in one place that a menispermaceous plant "maxime convenit" with what proves to be Derris uliginosa of the Leguminosae ; what then about some of the other plants he described that "maxime convenit," when there is no illustration to suggest the identity of the species involved? Take the case of Ternstroemia, Ichthyoctonos montana of Rumphius. It is most excellently described and the illustration is fair, yet in this chapter he describes three forms which differ in the color of the wood and of the roots. It is incredible that in an island of this size that there can be three species of this small and characteristic genus to each of which the description can correspond so far as it goes and yet be worthy of being interpreted as three distinct species of Ternstroemia. There are two possible conclusions regarding it, and many other similar cases, first, that there is really only one species of Ternstroemia and that the differences are merely superficial; and, second, that he had in mind threes really different species, not unlikely in as many different families of plants, but that the detailed description applies to one only; the other two forms briefly mentioned in this chapter are inextricable with certainty. Even if a sufficiently perfect knowledge of all the plants found in Amboina did enable us correctly to guess what was intended by the second and third forms of Ichthyoctonos, there is nothing in Rumphius's statements by 42 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE which the correctness of the interpretation could be checked. Again Ma- cuerus is divided into "mas" and femina;" one is a Cyrtandra^ of the Gesneriaceae, and the other is a Pellionia, of the Urticaceae, but he almost certainly included in the latter an equally common Elatostema. Conoceph- alus, of the Moraceae, and Medinilla, of the Melastornataceae, are placed together. It will take much critical work certainly to distinguish in the Herbarium Amboinense such dissimilar plants as Pipturus, of the Urti- caceae, Zizyphus, of the Rhamnaceae, other melastomataceous plants in- cluding some species of Medinilla^ CeltiSf of the Ulmaceae, and even Strychnos, of the Loganiaceae. Very many similar cases could be added, but the above state- ment clearly indicates one particular phase of the difficulties involved in the interpretation of Rumphian species. The difficulties involved in identifying material under the binomial system have been very real. The herbarium of the Bureau of Science contains only such material as could be accumulated by actual field work and by exchanges in the past fifteen years, and while it contains a very fine series of Philippine species and much valuable material from the Indo-Malayan region generally, many species that I should like to have seen are lacking. Identifications, other than of those species already familiar to me, have been largely made by comparisons with the published descriptions, and very many such descriptions are entirely inadequate, especially those of the early authors. When- ever possible the original descriptions have been examined, but a number of works that it has been desirable or essential to examine in the course of the preparation of this manuscript are not available in Manila. In very numerous cases resource has been had to transcriptions or photographic reproductions of essential descriptions, and such data have been supplied by various botanists in Europe and America. In one form or another I have thus been able to examine nearly all of the references to Rumphius cited in this work. In the present consideration of the Rumphian species I have departed radically from the works of previous ^^uthors. In order to make the work more generally available to botanists, the Rumphian species, so far as they can be reduced at present, are cited as synonyms under the various species and genera to which they refer, these again being arranged by families and genera in the sequence of Engler and PrantFs Natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Appended to this systematic treatment of the Rumphian species is a list under the Rumphian names arranged in the sequence of the Herbarium Amboinense, giving references to the volume, the page, and the figure under each and, so far as determinable, their binomial equivalents. INTRODUCTION 43 NOMENCLATURE In nomenclature the rules of the Vienna Botanical Congress * have been closely followed, including the list of nomina conser- vanda as well as the supplementary list adopted by the Brussels Botanical Congress.f The sole exception in the list of nomina conservanda is the adoption of the generic name Taetsia in place of Cordyline for what are considered to be entirely valid reasons. Up to the close of the last century comparatively little attention was given to the question of priority in the names of plants, and many authors accepted or changed generic and specific names at will. It is true that in a majority of cases names well established were generally accepted, but changes were often made for the most trivial reasons. In work prosecuted under these lax but easy methods of selecting names for plants, the exact identity of obscure species was a matter of relatively slight importance. With the establishment and general acceptance of the prin- ciple of priority in selecting the names of species, it has become important, from the viewpoint of stability of nomenclature, to determine so far as possible the exact status of the species proposed by the older authors. It would admittedly be con- venient if many of the names proposed by early authors could be discarded, but if we ignore the species of one author, any botanist at any time would be justified in likewise ignoring species proposed by any other author, which would result in a veritable chaotic condition in nomenclature. We can no longer look on the work of this or that author, no matter how incomplete or imperfect, as unworthy of consideration, nor can we accept Hooker's t dictum, regarding species proposed by such authors as Blanco, that it was undesirable to devote time to their identification. Regarding species based on such pre-Linnean works as Rheede's Hortus Malabaricus and Rumphius's Herbarium Am- boinense, Hooker f. commends the work of Blume for the good service he has performed to the antiquarian branch of botany in interpreting Rumphian species. The general adoption of the principle of priority has emphasized the great importance of what Hooker f. characterized as the antiquarian branch of * Briquet, J. Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature botanique adoptees par le Congres International de Botanique de Vienne 1905 (1906) 1-99. t Actes du III "'^ Congres International de Botanique, Bruxelles, 1910 1 (1910) 112-116. t Hooker f. & Thomson. Flora Indica 1 (1855) Introductory Essay 56. 44 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE botany, and while investigations of the status of binomials proposed by the early authors will lead to necessary changes in nomenclature, and changes in the accepted names of plants are always to be regretted, yet a strict interpretation of species from a historical standpoint will correct numerous current misapplications of names and lead to the assignment of these names to the forms for which their original authors intended them. The strict application of the rule of priority as to the specific names has resulted in many changes in nomenclature, but these changes are unavoidable, if the international code be followed. Considering the distinctly basic position occupied by the Herbarium Amboinense in Malayan botany, the fact that so many binomials based wholly on Rumphius's work have been published by various authors, and the further fact that a high percentage of the ''species" so established have been unintelligible to most botanists and have hence frequently been redescribed under other names, it is rather surprising that more changes in nomenclature have not been found necessary. The conservative botanist will be shocked to learn that as a result of the present investigation of the Herbarium Amboinense such common, widely distributed, and well-known species as the pineapple, the soy bean, the cow pea, and the pomelo must receive new specific names; that such names as Vigna luteola Sw., Canavalia turgida Grah., Pongamia glabra Vent., and others equally well known for the last hundred years or more fall as synonyms ; and that in the true mangrove trees (Rhizophoraceae) the specific names in current use for most species are wrongly applied. In proposing changes in nomenclature, I have not hesitated even when such well-known species as Glycine hispida, Ananas sativuSy Citrus decumana, and Phaseolns unguiculatus are in- volved. While objections may be voiced to the changes in nomenclature herein proposed, while individual botanists may refuse to adopt the proposed changes, and while exceptions may be taken to some of my interpretations, I cannot understand why logically the changes proposed should not be generally adopted. Each case has been critically worked out from a historical standpoint, and the accepted name is that indicated by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature now generally accepted by most botanists. To those botanists who make their own rules and in the matter of accepting or rejecting specific names are a law unto themselves, no appeal is made, for appeal is useless. I am firmly of the opinion, however, that stability in INTRODUCTION 45 nomenclature can come only by adhering to definite rules and by critically working out the proper name for each species in conformity with those rules. In one matter affecting generic nomenclature I have definitely gone on record in a previous publication.* This is that the generic name should be maintained for the group for which it was intended by its original author, not applied to representatives of a group that was wholly unknown to the author of the generic name. Nauclea of Linnaeus serves as an illustration of the idea. As Nauclea is currently interpreted, it contains nothing that was originally placed there by Linnaeus. I have proposed to apply Nauclea in its original sense; that is, to the species currently placed in Sarcocephalus and have proposed the new name Neonauclea for Nauclea auctt., not of Linnaeus. It is to me inconceivable that a genus proposed by one author should be interpreted by others with every original species excluded. The application of this principle to some of the older genera will involve an adjustment in such a case as Alpinia, for the type and sole species cited in the original description of Alpinia is a Renealmia. As a natural consequence of the acceptance of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, the numerous Rumphian names adopted by 0. Kuntze f as substitutes for more ^'recent'' generic names of other authors have been wholly ignored. It is perfectly evident that Rumphius had no idea of the ''genus,'' and his names cannot be interpreted in a generic sense. Even in the Auctuar- ium, which was published after the binomial system was established, the ''generic'' names certainly cannot be considered as the equivalent of the genus as understood by contemporary botanists. The binomials that appear in the Auctuarium (1755) are merely accidental and cannot be considered as properly "published" binomial names; Burman in his added notes oc- casionally cites the first edition of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum, but he never cites the Linnean binomial, merely the descriptive sentence. It is perfectly clear that he had no intention of pub- lishing the Rumphian accidental binomials as binomials in the Linnean sense. It is only in his Index Universalis that he rec- ognized the Linnean system. In this he reduced to binomials those Rumphian species whose status had been determined by Linnaeus and by Stickman and proposed a few new binomials. * On the application of the generic name Nauclea of Linnaeus. Journ. Wash, Acad, Scl 5 (1915) 580-642. tRev. Gen. PL (1891-98) CLV + 1-1011. 46 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE OVERLOOKED BINOMIALS During the course of my work on this project I have detected an unusually large number of binomials, over one hundred, that while validly published were overlooked in compiling the data for Index Kewensis and do not appear in that work or in any of its supplements. Some of these binomials appear in works that were never indexed, such as Stickman's Dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754) ; and in various other works based on the Herbarium Amboinense, such as those of Henschel and of Hasskarl; while others appear in works that were indexed, but for one reason or another certain species were overlooked. The list has been deemed to be of sufficient importance to warrant publication and is accordingly here presented. Achyranthes chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 205 = ? A. aspera Linn. Achyranthes spiciflora Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [b]=Acalypha amentacea Roxb. Afzelia rhomboidea F.-VilL Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 12—Pahudia rhomboidea Prain. Allaeanthus luzonicus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 198. No com- bination in ''Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. III. 361." Allophylus grossedentatus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 51 (Schmi- delta grossedentata Turcz.). Alpinia rufa Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 226 (Hellenia rufa Presl). Alpinia scabra Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 226 (Hellenia scabra Blume) . Amomum hatuanum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 224 = ? Amomum aculeatum Roxb. Anona sariffa Roxb. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 142=Diospyro8 kaki Linn. f. Artocarpus fretlsll Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 189. Aurantlum maximum Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [16']z=Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr. (C. decumana Linn.). Bombax aculeatum Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 114:l=:Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. Breweria alslnoides F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) US=Jacque' montia paniculata Hallier f. Brlza elegans Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 246 = ? Eragrostis elegantula Steud. Bromella comosa Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21; Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) ISO = Ananas comosus (Linn.) Merr. (A. sativus Schult. f.). Bulbophyllum carinatum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 235 (Epiden- drum carinatum Linn.). Bulbophyllum purpureum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 234 (Sarco- podium purpureum, Reichb. f.). INTRODUCTION 47 Bursera ? nitida F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 41 {Marignia nitida Turcz.) =Glycosmis cochinchinensis Pierre. Cadamba nocturna Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 157=:Nauclea undulata Roxb. Caesalpinia jayabo Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 19 (1890) 234. Canarium indicum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134 p. p. = Canarium commune Linn. Canarium zephyrinum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 217. Caryophyllus silvestrls Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 167=Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. Caryota javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 270 = Ceratolobiis javanicus (Osbeck) Merr. (C. glaucescens Blume). Cassumblum spinosum Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 14:S=Schlei- chera oleosa (Lour.) Merr. Catesbaea ? javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 92 = Cleroden- dron commersonii Spreng. Citrus grandis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 98 = Cttrtts maxima (Burm.) Merr. (C. decumana Linn.). Citrus limonia Osbeck Reise Ostind. China (1765) 250 (C. limonium Risso). Citrus sinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 250. Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 680. Columnea chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 2S0 =:Limnophila chinensis (Osbeck) Merr. (L. hirsuta Benth.). Commelina chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 2A2=:Commelina nudiflora Linn. Convallaria chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 219=Scilla chinensis Benth. Convolvulus indicus Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [6] = Ipomoea indica (Burm.) Merr. (/. congesta R. Br.). Cordia tiliaefolia Warb. in Rumphius Gedenkboek (1902) 78 (Rumphia amboinensis Linn., R. tiliaefolia Poir.). Costus ananassae Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 333 = Tapeinochilus ananassae K. Schum. Cryptantlius chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 277 (quid?). Cucumis rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 280 = Cucumis sativiis Linn. Curculigo rumphiana Schultes Syst. 7 (1830) 757=Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. Cycas pectinata Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 322. Deliaasia borneensis F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 179 (Haasia borneensis Meisn.). Desmodium cumingianum F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 61 (Den- drolobium cumingianum Benth. Dioscorea nummularifolia Henschel Vita Rump. (1833) 183 sphalm=/?. nummularia Lam. Donax canniformis K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 15 (1893) 440. Eleocharls dulcis Trin. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 186. Erndlia subpersonata Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 2h2 = Curcuma longa Linn. Eroteum lanlgerun) Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 440 = Trichospermum lani- gerum (Blanco) Merr. (T. trivalve Merr.). 48 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Eugenia longiflora F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 86 (Syzygium longiflorum Presl). Fimbrlstylis cumlngli F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1882) S08=: Bulbostylis barbata Kunth. Flindersla radulifera Spreng. Gesch. Bot. 2 (1818) 76 ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 206=Flindersia amboinensis Poir. Govantesia malulucban Llanos in Rev. Progr. Cienc. 15 (1865) 191 = Champereia manillana (Blume) Merr. Guatteria rumphii Blume ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) lbS=Polyal- thia sp. Habenaria cordata Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 250, non R. Br.^= Habenaria diphy lla' Daiz. Hapaloceras ? arupa Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 19S=zPayena leerii Kurz. Hibiscus convolvulaceus Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 7 4= Hibiscus surattensis Linn. Hibiscus haenkeanus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 25=Abelmoschus haenkeanus Presl. Homalium aranga Vidal ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 94, in syn. — Homalium luzonicum F.-Vill. Hypoestes cumingiana F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 157. No combination in *'Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. II. 122." Ichnocarpus acuminatus F.-Vill. Novis. App. FL Filip. (1880) 131=:: Aganosma acuminata G. Don. Iclinocarpus macrocarpus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 131= Aga- nosma macrocarpa A. DC. Iclinocarpus velutinus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 131=Aganosma velutina A. DC. Lagerstroemia chinensis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) lZl=Lagerstroemia indica Linn. Lagurus panlculatus Linn, ex Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) SO =Andropog on nardus Linn. Legnotis lanceolata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 4ib=Decaspermum panicu- latum Kurz. Macanea arborea Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 4Sl=Alphonsea arborea (Blanco) Merr. (A. philippinensis Merr.). Macrolobium ambolnense Teysm. ex Hassk in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 1S9 =Intsia bijuga O. Kuntze. Mangifera utana Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 326. Medlnilla lagunae Vidal ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 89, descr. Melaleuca trinervis Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) lib^Mela- leuca leucadendra Linn. Mella parasitica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 277=? Lansium domesticum Correa. Mespllus sylvestris Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [14] = ? Carissa carandas Linn. Mespllus sylvestris Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [18] = Flacourtia indica (Burm.) Merr. Milium zonatum Llanos Frag. PI. Filip. (1851) 24:=Eriochloa ramosa 0. Kuntze. Melochia indica A. Gray ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 29 = Melochia umbellata Stapf. INTHODUCTION |g Mimosa chlnensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 2S3=Albizzia chinensis (Osbeck) Merr. (A. stipulata Boiv.). Momordica Indica Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1S2= Momordica charantia Linn. Monarda chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 240 (quid?). Moringa domestica Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 268, Sll=Moringa oleifera Lam. Muntlngia bartramla Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124= Commetsonia bartramia (Linn.) Merr. (C. platyphylla Anders.). Murraya scandens Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 233 =M, paniculata Jack. Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 100 =Anthocephalu8 macrophyllus Havil. Negretia pruriens Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) Ul=Mucuna pruriens DC. Oberonia ancipita Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 230 (sphalm! O. anceps Lindl.). Octortieles moluccana Teysin. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 20S =Octomeles sumatrana Miq. Orchis lahlgera Blanco PL Filip. (1837) eil^Rhynchosia retusa Blume. Osmelia philippica F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 93 (Stachycrater philippimis Turcz., Osmelia philippinensia Benth.). Panax rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 78 = Nothopanax tricochleatum Miq. Pancratium narbonense Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 2S=Eury' cles amboinensis Lindl. Panlcum phlllpplnum F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1882) S12=Axonopu8 semialatus Hook, f . Panicum tuberosum Llanos Frag. PI. Filip. (1851) 41=Panicuffi fepena Linn. Panicum vuipinum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) lSA=Setaria flava Kunth. Pepo indicus Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. 7 (1755) [6]=Cwc2ir- bita pepo Linn. Phaseolus cyilndricus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) lS2=Vigna cylindrica (Linn.) Merr. Pholidocarpus rumphii Meisn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 12 z= Pholidocarpus ihur Blume. Phytolacca ? javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 21Qz=Termi- nalia catappa Linn. Pimelandra disticha F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 123=Ardma disticha A. DC. Platanthera horsfieldii Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 251 (Peristylua gracilis Blume). Plumbago indica Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133 (P. rosea Linn., 1762). Polyscias cumingiana F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filp. (1880) 102 {Paratropia cumingiana Fresl). Pterocaulon redolens F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 116. Pycnanthemum decurrens Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) SSS=Hypti8 capitata Jacq. Randia racemosa F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 108 (Stylocoryne racerhosa Cav.). Ratonia montana F. Vill. Novis. App. FL Filip. (1880) 62=:Arytera montana Blume. 144971 4 50 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Ratonla rufescens F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 52 (Zygotepis rufescens Turcz.) =iArytera litoralis Blume. Rhizophora longissima Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 21S=R, mucronata Lam. Ricinus ruber Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1858) 390 =:Ricinus communis Linn. Samyda trivalvis Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 374 = 0 as earia. Sarcochllus centipeda Naves Novis. App, Fl. Filip. (1880) 238 (Thrixsper- mum. centipeda Lour.). Sarcochllus tenuifoiius Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 238 (Epiden- drum tenui folium Linn.). Sauraula elegans F.-Vill. Novis. App. FL Filip. (1880) 19 (Scapha elegans Choisy, Saurauia rugosa Turcz.). Soildago chinensls Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 241 — Wedelia calendulacea Less. Spermacoce discolor F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 113 (Borreria discolor DC). Tapemochilus ananassae K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 27 (1899) 249. Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 9Z~Erythrina indica Lam. Timonius nitidus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 109 {Petesia nitida Bartl.). Timonius ternlfollus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 109 {Petesia ternifolia Bartl.). Torenia glabra Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 210 {Torenia hentham- iana Hance). Tragia scandens Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 12^=^ Tetracera scandens (Linn.) Merr. (Tetracera sarmen- tosa Vahl. Tylophora bifida F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 134 (Oxystelma bifidum Llanos). Vallisneria sphaerocarpa Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) lSO=:Enhalus acoroides Steud. Varneria augusta Linn. Amoen. 4 (1759) lS6 = Gardenia augusta (Linn.) Merr. (G. florida Linn.). Verbesina aquatica Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) llS']=Wedelia biflora DC. Zlzyphus llttorea Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) n6=Ximenia americana Linn. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are under great obligations to the Dutch colonial officials for various courtesies extended to Doctor Robinson, but more especially are we indebted to Dr. J. C. Koningsberger, director of the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and to Dr. J. J. Smith of the same institution for their interest in the Amboina project and their hearty cooperation. Through their interest Doctor Robinson was supplied with a copy of the Herbarium Amboinense for his use during the period of his field work in Amboina, with a portion of his field equipment, and with the services of the mantri Mardjoeki, a Javanese assistant, who aided in the field work and had general oversight of the INTRODUCTION 51 drying of all material collected. I am also indebted to Doctor Koningsberger for the original map of Amboina, on which the one presented herewith was based, and for numerous specimens representing species not available in Manila, but which it was desirable to examine. Assistance has been had from several specialists in the pre- paration of this report. The treatment of the Marantaceae, of the Zingiberaceae, and of Heliconia, in the Musaceae, as presented in this work, is that of Doctor Th. Valeton; the Orchidaceae is the work of Doctor J. J. Smith. The other groups have been worked up by me, but I have had the assistance of various specialists in certain families. The Pteridophyta have been determined by Captain C. R. W. K. van Alderwereldt van Rosenburg, of Buitenzorg.* The Pandanaceae were deter- mined by Doctor U. Martelli, Florence, Italy; the Palmae by Doctor 0. Beccari, Florence, Italy; the Bambusae by J. Sykes Gamble, esq.. East Liss, England; the Piperaceae by Mr. C. de Candolle, Geneva, Switzerland; and the Sapindaceae by Doctor L. Radlkofer, Munich, Germany. Doctor Th. Valeton has assisted me in the identification of the Rubiaceae, while Mr. F. S. Collins, North Eastham, Massachusetts, has identified the algae and has kindly supplied me with extracts from books not available in Manila regarding the Rumphian species of this group. Mr. I. H. Burkill, director of the Botanic Garden, Singapore, has supplied me with critical notes regarding Dios- coreaceae. To Doctor Walter T. Swingle, Washington, D. C, I am indebted for a photostat copy of Burman's "Index alter/' a work not available in Manila and of which I was unable to secure a copy; to Mr. F. V. Coville, Mr. P. L. Richer, and Mr. S. C. Stuntz, of the United States Department of Agriculture, I am indebted for typewritten or photostat copies of numerous original descriptions not available in Manila; to Doctor George T. Moore, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri, for the loan of certain books ; to Sir David Frain and Mr. A. W. Hill, of the Kew gardens, London, England, and to Doctor A. B. Rendle, of the British Museum, for copies of de- scriptions and for critical notes on various type specimens. To all of these gentlemen I wish to express my thanks for assistance rendered, without which the present consideration of the Rumphian species must of necessity have been less complete and more inexact than it is. * The Amboina Pteridophyta collected by C. B. Robinson. Philip, Journ. Scl 11 (1916) Bot. 101-123, t. 5. 6, SYSTEMATIC ENUMERATION THALLOPHYTA Rumphius described a small number of thallophytes, and fortunately but few of the forms he described and figured have been made the types of species under the binomial system. The algae are represented by some of the more prominent forms, such as Sargassum, Turbinaria, and a few of the Rhodophyceae, but, in all, Rumphius characterized and named only about a dozen species of this group; none of these have been made the types of species under the binomial system. Of the fungi more num- erous forms were described and figured, about twenty-five being characterized. Some of these are wholly unrecognizable from the descriptions alone, while the identity of others is perfectly evident. About ten of the forms Rumphius described have been made the types of species under the binomial system, most of these binomials typified by Rumphius's figures and descriptions being proposed by Fries. In the lichens but two forms were described; both are apparently referable to Usnea. In the Bryophyta not a single species was described, unless some of the pendant epiphytic mosses and hepatics were in- cluded in the rather generalized description of Muscus capillaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6 : 89, t ^0, f. 2; the figure, and the descrip- tion at least for the most part, refers to TJsnea rather than to any of the bryophytes. ALGAE * CHLOROPHYCEAE CHAETOMORPHA Kutzing CHAETOMORPHA JAVANICA Kiitz. Capillus nympharum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90, 179. Rumphius's description applies to Chaetomorpha, but the form he had might be either C javanica Kutz. or the allied C. brachygona Harv. (Ayer putri, Rel. Robins. 2393, locally known as lumvAumu), which Doctor Robinson states is "not unlikely Capillus nympharum.'* Martens states that it is an "Algen aus * In the following consideration of the algae described by Rumphius, the I'eductions in general follow G. von Martens in Die Preussische Expedition nach Ost-Asien. Botanische Theil. Die Tange (1866-68) 1-152, t. 1-8. I am indebted to Mr. F. S. Collins, of North Eastham, Massachusetts, for copies of passag'es in Martens's work pertaining to the Herbarium Amboin- ense and for identifying the Amboina algae collected by Doctor Robinson. 53 54 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE der Familie Conferven und, der Localitat nach zu schleissen, zunacht Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz., welche mein Sohn an der angegebene Stelle weider gesamelt hat/' RHODOPHYCEAE GELIDIUM Lamouroux GELIDIUM AMANSII Kiitz. Muscus gelatin us japponensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90. In the text, page 88, t. iO, f, 3, is referred to Muscus gelatinus japponensis, and this figure is placed with the description by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167; to me the figure looks distinctly like Gracilaria lichenoides (Linn.) Harv. Martens refers the figure to Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz., where it certainly does not belong. Henschel referred the description and the figure to Sphaerococcus gelatinus Ag., while Hasskarl suggested that both might be referable to Eucheuma spinosum Ag. Martens states that the species, as described, **ist sicher das von Siebold aus Japan mitgebracht Gelidium Amansii Kiitz., aber Rumph. scheint verschiedene andere heterogene Gegen- stande nicht gehorig davon zu unterscheiden." HIMANTHALIA Lyngbye HIMANTHALIA LOREA (Linn.) Lyngb. Bodeiha altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187. This is scarcely more than mentioned by Rumphius as growing on the coasts of Spain and Portugal. The reduction follows Martens. GRACILARIA GreviUe GRACILARIA LICHENOIDES (Linn.) Harv. Sphaerococcus lichenoides Ag. Alga coralloldes I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 181, t. 74, /. S, t, 76, /. A-C Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 573, November 5, 1913, on coral in shallow water. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 686, referred this to Lichen rocella Lour., which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it, whatever Loureiro's species may prove to be. It has been referred by various authors to Fucus edulis Gmel. and to Sphae- rococcus lichenoides Agardh, the former a synonym of the latter. Martens considers it to be Sphaerococcus lichenoides Agardh— Gracilaria lichenoides Harv. The illustration given on t ^0, f. 3, referred in the text to Muscus gelatinus japponensis, and by Martens referred to Capillus nympharum Rnmph.=ChaetO' morpha javanica Kiitz., very much better agrees with named PHAEOPHYCEAE 55 specimens of Gracilaria lichenoides (Linn.) Harv., than do the figures cited above, t 74, f. 3, t. 76, f. A-^C. PHAEOPHYCEAE SARGASSUM Agardh SARGASSUM POLYCYSTUM J. Ag. Acetabulum marinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 185, t, 76, f. 1. This was referred by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 239, to Fucus natans Linn., where it manifestly does not belong; Henschel referred it to Sargassum amboinicum **Rumph." ; and Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 181, placed it under Sargassum myrio- cystum J. Ag. The present reduction follows Martens. SARGASSUM BACCIFERUM Ag". Sargassum pelagicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 188, t, 76 f. 2. Linnaeus originally reduced this to Fucus natans Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1345; Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 239, placed it under Fucus granulatus Linn. ; and Henschel placed it under Sargassum bacciferum Agardh, where it properly belongs. The only forms of Sargassum collected by Doctor Robinson in Amboina are referable to S. binderi Sonder. SARGASSUM AQUIFOLIUM (Turn.) J. Ag. Agarum III funicuiare s. follatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186. In the very short description given by Rumphius three distinct forms are mentioned and casually described. According to Martens the first one is Carpacanthvs herbaceus Kutz.=Sargas- sum aquifoUum J. Ag. He suggests that the other forms may be referable to Sargassum granuliferum Agardh. SARGASSUM FLAVI FOLIUM Kiitz. Sargasso s. Wier Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 167. This is briefly mentioned as growing along the coasts of Spain and Portugal. The reduction follows Martens. TURBINARIA Lamouroux TURBINARIA ORNATA (Turn.) J. Ag. Acetabulum marinum Infundibullforme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 185. Amboina, Paso, Robinson, PI. Rumph. Amb. 576, October 29, 1913, washed ashore, locally known as arien. Henschel placed this under Sargassum turbinatum Agardh, but Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 181, and Martens placed 56 RUMPHiyS'S HERBAEIUM AMBOINENSE it under Turbinaria ornata (Turn.) J. Ag., quoting J. Agardh Sp. Alg. 1 : 266. This is manifestly the correct disposition of it. TURBINARIA sp.? Acetabulum marinum e Macassar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 181, thought that this might be referable to Turbinaria vulgaris J. Ag., var conoidea J. Ag., but Martens expresses the opinion that it might perhaps be the same as Chauvinia macrophysa Kutz.=Caulerpa racemosa var. clavifera forma macrophysa (Kiitz.) Weber. The description is very short and indefinite. FUCUS Linnaeus FUCUS VESICULOSUS Linn. Bodeiha Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187. The common rock weed is briefly mentioned by Rumphius as growing on the coasts of Spain and Portugal. MASTOCARPUS Kiitzing MASTOCARPUS KLENZEANUS Kiitz. Agarum 11 s. bracteatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186. Henschel referredi this to Fucus bracteatus Ag., where it cer- tainly does not belong. Martens considers that it is certainly referable to Mastocarpus klenzeanus Kiitz. ALGAE OF ENTIRELY DOUBTFUL STATUS Alga coralloides sinensium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90. This is scarcely more than casually mentioned, and the identity of the plant intended is entirely problematical, other than that it is a marine alga. Agarum lactucarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186. The brief description includes several entirely different forms of Rhodo- phyceae, none of which are certainly determinable. Martens suggests that the last mentioned may be Hypnea divaricata J. Ag. Agarum cortlcosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187. This is wholly indeterminable from data at present available, and no author has as yet suggested a possible reduction of it. The description is very brief and imperfect. FUNGI LENTINUS Fries LENTINUS SAJOR CAJU Fries Epicr. (1836-38) 393 (type!). Agaricua sajor caju Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 175 (type!). Boletus primus Infundlbuli forma [figura] Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 125, t 56, /. 1, Amboina, Gelala, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb, 571 y September 19, 1913, on old tree trunks, altitude about 175 meters. FUNGI 57 The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Lentinus sajor caju Fries, the species apparently having been generally interpreted correctly, as the figure is quite char- acteristic. Philippine material referred by Bresadola to Len- tinus sajor caju differs but slightly from the Amboina specimen cited above. The form briefly described in the second para- graph, indicated by Hasskarl as forma altera varietas, while undoubtedly a Lentinus, may or may not be the same as Lentinus sajor caju Fries. LENTINUS TUBER REGIUM Fries Epicr. (1886-38) 392 (type!); Sac- cardo SyU. Fung. 1 (1887) 604. Agaricus tuber regium Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 174 (type!). Tuber regium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 120, t. 57, /. ^ (cf. Pachyma tuber regium Fries p. 61). A species imperfectly understood, based wholly on Rumphius's figure and description, although perhaps correctly interpreted by Hennings.* The subterranean portion of Tuber regium, as figured and described by Rumphius, is Pachyma tuber regium Fries, a species of wholly doubtful status (see p. 61), and is apparently nothing but a pseudo-sclerotium of Lentinus tuber regium Fries.f LENTINUS DJAMOR Fries Epicr. (1836-38) 395 (type!). Agaricus djamor Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 185 (type!). Boletus 11 arboreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 125, t. 56, f. 2, 3. A species known only from Rumphius's description and rather crude figures, but probably correctly placed in the genus Lentinus. MARASMIUS Fries MARASMIUS sp. Cassutha cornea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 52. Rumphius's description applies to a plant that can hardly be other than the mycelium of one of the horsehair blights, Marasmius sp., for a general consideration of which see Petch.J Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 93, referred it to Cassytha corniculata Burm. f ., a species described and figured from Javan specimens, and which is perhaps a species of Galeola of the Orchidaceae. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 237, repeats Burman's description under Cassyta corniculata, the reduction being cited by Loureiro, Murray, Lamarck, and Willdenow. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' * Engl. & Prantl. Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1': 225; see Lloyd, Myc. Notes 47 (1917) 666, fig, 959. t See Fetch, T. The Pseudo-sclerotia of Lentinus similis and Lentinus infundibuliformis. Ann. Bot. Gard. Peradeniya 6 (1915) 1-17, t 1. t Horse-hair blights. Ann. Bot. Gard. Peradeniya 6 (1915) 43-68, t. 2-7. 58 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE (1858) 977, correctly excluded Cassytha corniculata Burm. f. from the Lauraceae. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 191, states: *'Mihi Rhizomorpha aut Mycelium fungi cujusdam esse videtur." GANODERMA Karsten GANODERMA AMBOINENSE (Lam.) Pat. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 5 (1889) 70. Agaricus amboinensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 51 (type!). Polyporus amboinensis Fries Syst. Mycol. 1 (1821) 354 (type!). Fomes amboinensis Fries Epicr. (1836-38) 442 (type!). Fungus elatus cochlearis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t, 57, f, 1. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 572, altitude about 400 meters. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of all the synonyms cited above. This is not Ganoderma amboin- ense (Lam.) Pat. as currently interpreted, but is apparently a form of Ganoderma rugosum (Bl. & Nees) Bres. In this connection it is to be noted that Rumphius figures Fungus elatus cochlearis with a long stipe and definitely states regarding it: "petiolo longo & tenui, spithamam vel pedam circiter longo," which includes no character of Ganoderma amboinense as cur- rently interpreted. The figure shows a specimen with a lateral pileus, while Ganoderma rugosum Bres. usually has a central stipe. Of Robinson's material, cited above, one specimen has a central stipe, and one, the pileus injured, has a lateral stipe. I have little hesitation in interpreting true Ganoderma amboin- ense (Lam.) Pat. as the form currently known as Ganoderma rugosum Bres. From this I do not think that Fungus elatus primus Rumph. and Fungus elatus petasoides Rumph., described in the preceding paragraph, can be distinguished. GANODERMA COCHLEAR (Nees) comb. nov. Polyporus cochlear Nees in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 13: 20, t. 6. Ganoderma amboinense auct. plur., non Agaricus amboinensis Lam., nee Polyporus vel Fomes amboinensis Fries. Fungus elatus digitatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t. 57, /. 2, S, et, s. n., t. 57, /. E. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 610, August 30, 1913, on dead trees at low altitudes. It is very evident from an examination of the original descrip- tions that Ganoderma amboinense Pat. has been wrongly inter- preted by recent authors — Patouillard, Murrill, Sydow, and Bresadola — ^for the Rumphian figure and description, on which Ganoderma amboinense is based, is undoubtedly the form currently known as Ganoderma rugosum Bres. I am of the FUNGI 59 opinion, however, that t. 57, f. 2, 3, represent juvenile forms of a Ganoderma, probably G. cochlear as here interpreted, and that figure E, described by Burman as **tam coehlearis, quam digitati species est ex utrisque mixta," belongs with Ganoderma cochlear (Nees) Merr. ; that is, it is Ganoderma amboinense auct., non (Lam.) Pat. Lamarck considered figures 2 and 3 to represent a variety of his Agaricus amboinensis, Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 694, erroneously reduced these figures to Helvella mitra Linn., which is a totally different plant. It is not certain whether or not Polyporus pisachapanni Nees is distinct from Ganoderma cochlear (Nees) Merr. FA VOL us Fries FAVOLUS sp. Fungus arboreus Mi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128. The description is unmistakably referable to Favolus or some very closely allied genus, such as Hexagonia, as indicated by the brief description of the lower surface as **subtus autem in varias cellulas & tessaras distincta est instar favorum Apium." POLYSTICTUS Fries P0LY8TICTUS SANGUINEUS (Linn.) Nees in Mey. Prim. Fl. Esseq. (1818) 304. Boletus sanguineus Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1646. Fungus arboreus II (ruber) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128. The phrase **utrimque rubra/' together v^ith the few other characters given in the very short description, definitely refers the form Rumphius described to the strongly marked Pohjstictus sangnineiis Nees. POLYPORUS Micheli POLYPORUS sp. Fungus arboreus II (albus) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128. The brief description applies to Polyporus or to one of the very closely allied genera. There is nothing sufficiently definite in the description to warrant even a guess at its identity. POLYPORUS sp. Fungus arboreus I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 127. Indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius, other than that it is referable to Polyporus, sensu latiore, or to one of the very closely allied genera that have been segregated from it. Both Polyporus lucidus Fries and P. amboinensis Fries=Gano- derma amboinense Pat. have been suggested for the Rumphian species. 60 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE AGARIC US Linnaeus AGARICUS MOSCHOGARYANUS Streinz Nomencl. Fung. (1861) 70 (type!). Boletus moschocaryanus Rosenthal Syn. PL Diaphor. (1862) 31 (type!). Boletus moschocaryanus Rumph. E[^rb. Amb. 6: 124. From Rumphius's description this can scarcely be an Agari- cus, but is more probably a Lentinus. Rumphius describes it as an edible fungus growing on Myristica trees. Its status as a species is quite unknown. HIRNEOLA Fries HIRNEOLA AURICULA JUDAE (Fries) Berk. OutL (1860) 289. Tremella auricula Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1157. Exidia auricula judae Fries Syst. 2 (1823) 221. Boletus V auris murina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126, t. 56, f. U* This was placed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 695, under Peziza auricula Lour. It can scarcely be other than the common and widely distributed Hirneola auricula judae Berk. AGARICACEAE sp. Boletus saguarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 124. The genus of this is uncertain, but it manifestly belongs in the Agaricaceae. Rumphius describes it as edible and as grow- ing on the decaying waste from the trunks of sago palms from which the sago has been extracted. AGARICACEAE sp. Boletus II umbraculiforma Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126. All that can be said regarding this form is that it belongs in the Agaricaceae, possibly in the genus Agaricus. It is one of the edible forms. AGARICACEAE sp. Boletus IV terrestrls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126. Of wholly doubtful status other than that it belongs in the Agaricaceae. AGARICACEAE sp. Fungus igneus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 130, t, 56, /. 5, The description is not sufficiently definite to warrant even a guess as to the genus the plant pertains to, and the figure is very poor. It is nonedible and is stated by Rumphius to be poisonous. LYCOPERDON Tournefort LYCOPERDON sp. Crepitus lupl verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 131. FUNGI 61 Lycoperdon is the suggested reduction of this by Hasskarl, which may be the correct disposition of it. Fungus arborum tube- rosus Rumph., Herb. Arab. 6: 130, also may be possibly referable to the same genus. Beyond a surmise as to the genus, no further reduction can be suggested from data at present available. DICTYOPHORA Desvaux DICTYOPHORA PHALLOIDEA Desv. Journ. Bot. 2 (1809) 88. Hymenophallus indusiatus Vent, in Mem. Inst. Nat, Sci. 1 (1789) 520. Phallus daemonum Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 283 (type!). Hymenophallus daemonum Spreng. Syst. 4 (1827) 498 (type!). Dictyophora speciosa Klotzsch. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843) Suppl. 1 : 239, t 6. Phallus daemonum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 218; 6: 131, t, 56, /. 7. The Rumphian figure is the type of Phallus daemonum Fries and of Hymenophallus daemonum Spreng., and it is certainly the same as Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 694, erroneously reduced it to Phallus impudicus Linn. Ventenat's specific name is the oldest one, but no change is here proposed in the nomenclature of the species. POLYGASTER Fries POLYGASTER SAMPADARIUS Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 295 (type!). Tuber sampadarlum Rumph, Herb. Amb. 6: 123. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 697, referred Tuber sampa- darlum Rumph. to Lycoperdon glomeratum Lour., a species based on Cochin-China specimens. There is no evidence that the form Loureiro described is the same as the one Rumphius considered. The Rumphian description typifies Polygaster sampadarius Fries, a species of very doubtful status. Fischer, in Engler & Frantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1^ ** (1899) 399, places Polygaster as a doubtful genus under the Plectobasidiineae (Sclerodermineae) . PACHYMA Fries PACHYMA TUBER REGIUM Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 243 (type!). Tuber reglum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 120, t. 57, /. J^, The genus Pachyma Fries is one of doubtful status, although there is little doubt that Pachyma tuber regium Fries is nothing but a pseudo-sclerotium of Lentinus tuber regium Fries (see Lentinus tuber regium Fries, p. 57). PACHYMA HOELEN Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 243 (type!). Hoelen Rumph. Herb. Aihb. 6: 122. 62 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Rumphius's description of Hoelen was based on material originating in China. It is the whole basis of Pachyma hoelen Fries and, like PachyTna tuber regium Fries, is of doubtful status. It is cultivated on pine trees in various parts of China* and has been referred to Pachyma cocos Fries. Specimens of fulin, kindly secured for me by Mr. W. J. Tutcher in a Chinese drug store in Hongkong, agree closely with the excellent figures of Pachyma cocos Fries given by Currey in Trans. Linn. Soc. 23 (1860) t 10, /. 5, 6, 9, A part of Mr. Tutcher's specimen was sent to Dr. W. A. Murrill, of the New York Botanical Garden, who states that he has sclerotia of the same general type from different localities in America, but that the only method of distinguishing them accurately is to develop the fruiting form. In some cases the fruiting form proves to be species of Polyporus, in others species of Lentinus, He expresses the opinion that Pachyma hoelen Fries is distinct from F. cocos Fries. FUNGUS indet. Muscui frutescent III muscag Incus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 87. The description apparently applies to the mycelium of some fungus, but the status of Muscus frutescens muscagineus is wholly indeterminable. LICHENES USNEA Linnaeus USNEA sp. Barba saturni Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 88. Henschel thought that this might be a species of Lycopodium, which is an impossible reduction of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 167, states ''Usneae aut gen. aff. Lichenum spec, qua- edam." The form described is probably an Usnea. USNEA sp. Muscus caplllarls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 89, t j^O, /. 2. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 975, erroneously reduced this to Renealmia usneoides Linn., which is the American Tillandsia usneoides Linn., of the Bromeliaceae. Burman f ., Fl. Ind. (1768) 289, cites it under Lichen capillaris Burm. f ., of which, however, it is scarcely the type. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 171, dis- cusses it under Grammica aphylla honr. =Cuscuta chinensis Lam. and definitely refers it, op. cit. 687, to Lichen usnea Linn. Rumphius's description perhaps includes more than an Usnea, * Shaw, N. Chinese Forest Trees and Timber Supply (1914) 39, 295. CYATHEACEAE 63 possibly pendant epiphytic mosses and hepatics, but his figure, and his description at least in most part, apparently refers to Usnea or to some very closely allied genus. His material was from the higher mountains of the interior of Amboina. PTERIDOPHYTA The entire Amboina collection of this group, made by Doctor Robinson, has been critically studied by Capt. C. R. W. K, van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh, of Buitenzorg, Java.* In pre- paring the present consideration of the species described by Rumphius I have had the benefit of his published work, both as to the names of the various species under the binomial system, and as to the identity of the forms Rumphius named and described. In a few cases I have made changes in nomenclature, but in no case, except Cyathea, involving new combinations. CYATHEACEAE CYATHEA Smith CYATHEA RUM PHI AN A (v. A. v. R.) comb. nov. Alsophila rumphiana v. A. v. R. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 104. Palmifillx alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 63. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh, 4.63, October 14, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 175 meters. Doctor Robinson, who had the opportunity of examining this tree fern in the field and of making a direct comparison with Rumphius's description, considers this identification of Palmi- filix alba Rumph. as certain. CYATHEA AMBOINENSIS (v. A. v. R.) comb. nov. Alsophila amboinensis v. A. v. R. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 103. Palmifllix nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 63 {t. 27?). Amboina, Hatiwe and Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 4,6^, 4^5, August and September, 1913, in forests, altitude 300 to 400 meters. The only previously suggested reduction of Palmifllix nigra Rumph. is that of Henschel and Pritzel, who referred it to Cya- thea arborea Sm., a species of tropical America. The reduction made here is probably the correct disposition of Palmifllix nigra Rumph. The illustration, however, may belong to any one of the three forms described in this chapter, the particular one intended not being indicated by Rumphius. * The Amboina Pteridophyta collected by C. B. Robinson. Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 101-123, t. 5, 6. 64 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CYATHEA sp. Palmlfilix postium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 63. Manifestly one of the tree ferns and probably a Cyathea. Its exact status cannot be determined from any data at present available. POLYPODIACEAE DRYOPTERIS Adanson DRYOPTERIS FEROX (Blume) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 2 (1891) 812. Aspidium ferox Blume Enum. PI. Jav. (1828) 153. Fillx amboinica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 4,S9f July 23, 1913, on river banks in the vicinity of the town of Amboina. This reduction of Filix amboinica mas is certainly correct, the species being a strongly marked and characteristic one and Rumphius's description agreeing closely with it. TECTARIA Cavanilles (Aspidium Swartz) TECTARIA CRENATA Cav. Descr. (1802) 250. Aspidium repandum Willd. Sp. PI. 5 (1810) 216. Lonchltis amboinica recta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70. Amboina, Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. H7, August 2, 1913, altitude about 250 meters. This is probably the correct disposition of the plant Rumphius briefly described. STENOSEMIA Presl STENOSEMIA AURITA (Sw.) Presl Tent. Pterid. (1836) 237. Acrostichum auritum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1800* (1801) 12. Filix florlda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 78, t. S5, f. 1, Amboina, Way uri, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. UhU^ September 9, 1913, in river bottoms at low altitudes. This reduction was made by Willdenow, Sp. PL 5 (1810) 112, as Acrostichum auritum Sw. It has been cited under Polybo- try a aurita Blume and Acrostichum floridum Poir., both of which are synonyms of Stenosemia aurita Presl. DAVALLIA Smith DAVALLIA ELATA (Forst.) Spreng. in Schrad. Journ. 1799' (1799) 271. Trichomanes elatum Forst. Prodr. (1786) 85. Dryopteris triplex arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 73, t. S2, /. i. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 4^9, July 28, 1913, on trees at low altitudes. POLYPODIACEAE 65 Very closely allied to Davallia denticulata (Burm. f.) Mett., but considered by van Alderwereldt van Rosenburgh to be speci- fically distinct; see Philip. Joum. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 108. TAPEINIDIUM C. Christensen TAPEINIDIUM AMBOYNENSE (Hook.) C. Chr. Ind. Fil. (1906) 631. Davallia amboynensis Hook. Sp. Fil. 1 (1846) 178, t. 56. Dryopteris triplex silvestris I terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 73. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. MS, September 9, 1913, in forests, altitude about 250 meters. This is probably the correct disposition of the Rumphian spe- cies. Blume thought it was a species of Aspidium, and Hasskarl placed it with doubt under Davallia patens Sw., to which it cer- tainly cannot be referred. ATHYRIUM Roth ATHYRIUM ESCULENTUM (Retz.) Copel. in Philip. Joum. Sci. 3 (1908) Bot. 295. Hemionitis esculenta Retz. Obs. 6 (1791) 38. Diplazium esculentum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1801^ (1803) 312. Filix esculenta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 67, t. 29. This characteristic, widely distributed, and well-known fern is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure is a good representation of the species and is unmistakably Athyrium esculentum Copel. Henschel and Pritzel have re- ferred it to Diplazium malabaricum Spreng., which is a synonym of Athyrium esculentum. Copel. ASPLENIUM Linnaeus ASPLENIUM NIDUS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1079. Phylljtis amboinica I arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 82 (baud t. 37, f.i). Phyllltis amboinica II terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 82 (baud t. 37, f. 2). Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. UU3, July 28, 1913, epiphytic at low altitudes. The descriptions given by Eumphius both apply to an Asple- nium of the nidus group, but perhaps more than one species is in- cluded. The figures are poor, and the one supposed to represent Phyllitis amboinica II terrestris does not agree at all with the plant described; it may be some species of Vittaria or Poly po- dium. The figure supposed to represent Phyllitis amboinica I arborea is almost equally poor for Asplenium nidus Linn., but niay have been drawn from a straggling specimen. The form i^erely mentioned as having fronds much smaller and narrower 144971 5 66 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE than the above, which Hasskarl indicated as Phyllitis amboinica III, is indeterminable, but is certainly no Asplenium; it may be a Vittaria. BLECHNUM Linnaeus BLECHNUM ORIENTALE Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1077. Polypodium simplex Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 235 (type!). Lonchltis amboinica recta I major rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70, t. 30, /. 1, Under the name Lonchitis amboinica Rumphius described sev- eral quite unrelated species, apparently pertaining to as many different genera as he described forms. The form figured, t, SO, /. 1, which manifestly is recta I major rubra, is unquestionably Blechnum orientale Linn. It was reduced by Burman f. to Polypodium simplex Burm. f., a species apparently typified by the Rumphian illustration, and one that has remained of uncer- tain status until the present time. Loureiro erroneously re- ferred it to Pteris vittata Linn., while Henschel, following Blume, placed it as an undetermined species of Angiopteris. The red color of the young pinnae, mentioned by Rumphius, is very char- acteristic of Blechnum orientale Linn. STENOCHLAENA J. Smith STENOCHLAENA PALUSTRIS (Burm. f.) Bedd. Ferns Brit. Ind. Suppl. (1876) 26. Polypodium palustre Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 234. Lonchitis amboinica III volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 71, t. SI, Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure, how- ever, unquestionably represents a species of Stenochlaena, and from the description quite certainly S, palustris (Burm. f .) Bedd. It has been reduced by Willdenow to Lomaria scandens Willd., and by Poiret to Onoclea scandens Sw., both synonyms of Steno- chlaena palustris Bedd. CHEILANTHES Swartz CHEILANTHES TENUIFOLIA (Burm. f.) Sw. Syn. (1806) 129, 332. Trichomanes tenuifoUa Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 237. Acrostichum tenue Retz. Obs. 6 (1791) 39. Dryopterls campestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74, t. 34, f. 2, Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. UU2, August 19, 1913, terrestrial, altitude about 80 meters. The Rumphian illustration is unmistakably this species. It was first reduced by Burman f., in the original description of Trichomanes tenuifolia Burm f., and has been cited under the synonyms given above as well as under the additional synonym Adiantum varians Poir. POLYPODIACEAE 67 ADIANTUM Linnaeus ADIANTUM sp. Capillus veneris amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 77, t. 8^, /. i. Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure rather strongly resembles the Philippine Adiantum opacum Copel. Lour- eiro erroneously referred it to Adiantum capillus veneris Linn., while Pritzel placed it with equal error under Adiantum aethio- picum Thunb. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 165, suggested that it might be Adiantum pulchellum Blume, but if correctly drawn the figure represents a species quite different from the one described by Blume. ADIANTUM sp.? Dryopteris silvestris III petraea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 165, has suggested that this may be Adiantum pulchellum Blume. It is probably not Blume's species, but is certainly an Adiantum or a Lindsaya. POLYPODIUM Linnaeus POLYPODIUM SINUOSUM WaU. Cat. (1829) no. 2231, nomen nudum; Hook. Sp. Fn. 5 (1863) 61, t. 281,. Scolopendria li minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 84. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. UU5y October 17, 1913, on trees in mangrove swamps. There is some doubt as to whether or not Scolopendria II minor Rumph. is Polypodium sinuosum Wall, as here interpreted. It seems probable that more than one species of Polypodium is included in Rumphius's description. POLYPODIUM PHYMATODES Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 306. Polypodium excavatum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 75 (type!). Polypodium indlcum II minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 80, t, S5, f. 2. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. j^J^l, July 28, 1913, epiphytic at low altitudes. The specimen is very typical Polypodium phymatodes Linn. and agrees with Rumphius's description and figure. Burman f-» Fl. Ind. (1768) 233, referred it to Polypodium dissimile Linn., a species of doubtful status, based on a figure of Plukenet's, drawn from American material. It is the type of Polypodium c-^'cavatum Roxb., as originally published in the Hortus Bengal- ^nsis, by citation of the Herbarium Amboinense; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415. It may not, however, be the species actually described by Roxburgh under ^he same name in Calcutta Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844) 485. 68 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Hasskarl, Neue Schlijssel (1866) 166, suggested Polypodium phymatodes Linn, as the proper place for the Rumphian species, and I consider that this is manifestly the correct disposition of it. DRYNARIA (Bory) J. Smith DRYNARIA SPARSISORA (Desv.) Moore Index Fil. (1862) 348. Polypodium sparsisorum Desv. in Berl. Mag. 5 (1811) 315. Polypodium indicum I pilosum s. majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 78, t. S6. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, j^SO, July 28, 1913, epiphytic at low altitudes. This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Polypodium querci- folium Linn. (=Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm.) in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1325, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1547, which has been accepted by all authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian illustra- tion. There is nothing in the figure by which the Rumphian species can be distinguished as between Drynaria sparsisora Moore and D. quercifolia J. Sm., the two being very closely allied. The Amboina specimens, however, are Drynaria sparsi- sora Moore, and hence the presumption is that Polypodium indicum I majus Rumph. pertains to this species rather than to Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm. PLATYCERIUM Desvaux PLATYCERIUM CORONARIUM (Koenig) Desv. Prodr. (1827) 213. Osmunda coronaria Koenig Naturf. Halle 21 (1785) 107, t, S, Simbar majangan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 83. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The plant described is manifestly a Platycerium, and in all probability it is P. coronarium Desv. Blume reduced it to Platycerium biforme Bl., which is a synonym of P. coronarium Desv. PARKERIACEAE CERATOPTERIS Brongniart CERAT0PTERI8 THALICTROIDES (Linn.) Brongn. in Bull. Soc. Philom (1821) 186. Acrostichum thalictroides Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1070. Acrostichum siliquosum Linn. 1. c. Millefolium aquatlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 176, t, 7Uy /. i. This common and widely distributed fern is not represented in our Amboina collections. Millefolium aquaticum Rumph. was GLEICHENIACEAE-SCHIZAEACEAE 69 first reduced by Linnaeus to Acrostichum siliquosum Linn., a synonym of Ceratopteris thalictroides (Linn.) Brongn., which is manifestly the correct disposition of it. It has also been cited under the following synonyms of Ceratopteris thalictroides Brongn. : Ellobocarpus oleraceus Kaulf . and Pteris thalictroides Willd. GLEICHENIACEAE GLEICHENIA Smith GLEICHENIA LINEARIS (Burm. f.) Clarke in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1880) 428. Polypodium lineare Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 235, t. 67, f. 2, Filix caiamaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 85, t. S8, Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, U6, July 18, 1913, on rocks at low altitudes, locally known as paku kawa. This reduction of Filix caiamaria is certainly correct, for the figure and description are unmistakable. It has been reduced by Poiret to Polypodium dichotomum Thunb., by Willdenow to Mertensia dichotoma Willd., by Blume to Gleichenia hermannii R. Br., and by Mettenius to Gleichenia dichotoma Hook. var. alternans Mett. SCHIZAEACEAE SCHIZAEA Smith SCHIZAEA DICHOTOMA (Linn.) Smith in Mem. Acad. Turin 5 (1793) t, 9, f. 9. Acrostichum dichotomum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1068. Equisetum silvestre III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92. Amboina, Salahoetoe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, U60y November, 1913. This reduction was first made by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 168, following Blume's reduction of it to the genus Schizaea, and this is apparently the correct disposition of it. LYGODIUM Swartz LYGODIUM CIRCINNATUM (Burm. f.) Sw. Syn. (1806) 153. Ophioglossum circinnatum Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 228. Adianthum volublle I polypoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 75, t, SS (including merfiwm and scriptum.). Amboina, Binting and Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 451, A52, August, 1913, in limestone regions at low altitudes. Linnaeus originally reduced this, through error, to Ophioglos- sum flexuosum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 228, cites it 70 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE as a synonym in the original description of Ophioglossum circin- natum Burm. f., the species being based primarily on Javan specimens; it has, since Burman's species was proposed, been cited under this name or synonyms of it. The forms described as medium and scriptum are manifestly referable to Lygodium circinnatum Sw. LYGODIUM SCANDENS (Linn.) Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1800' (1801) 106. Ophioglossum scandens Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1063. Adianthum volubile IN minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 76, t. 32, /. 2, 3. Amboina, Soja road and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb, 4-53, ^5^, August and October, 1913, in thickets and forests, altitude 30 to 70 meters, locally known as paku kawa. The reduction to Ophioglossum scandens Linn, was made originally by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1318, but it is to be noted that Linnaeus quotes ''Dryopteris triplex'' as the name corresponding to t 32, under Ophioglossum scandens. The form figured is an excellent representation of Lygodium scandens (Linn.) Sw. Blume has referred it to Lygodium microphyllum R. Br., a synonym of L. scandens Sw. OPHIOGLOSSACEAE OPHIOGLOSSUM Linnaeus OPHIOGLOSSUM PENDULUM Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1518 (type!). Scolopendria I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 84, t. 37, /. 3. Amboina, Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. HO, August 2, 1913, in forests at an altitude of 400 meters. Scolopendria major Rumph, is the whole basis of Ophioglossum pendMlum Linn., this reduction having been accepted by all authors, although by some placed in another genus, as Ophio- derma pendula (Linn.) Presl. OPHIOGLOSSUM PEDUNCULOSUM Desv. in Berl. Mag. 5 (1811) 306. Ophioglossum simplex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 152, t. 88, f. 2. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Ophioglossum simplex Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ophio- glossum vulgatum Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, which is manifestly a wrong disposition of it. Roxburgh, Calcutta Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844) 475, placed it under Ophioglossum cordifolium Roxb., and MARATTIACEAE-LYCOPODIACEAE 71 Schlechtendal, Adumbr. (1825) 9, placed it under Ophioglossum moluccanum Schlecht., both synonyms of Ophioglossum peduncu- losum Desv. HELMINTHOSTACHYS Kaulfuss HELMINTHOSTACHYS ZEYLANICA (Linn.) Hook. Gen. Fil. (1840) t. ^7. Osmunda zeylanica Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1063. Ophioglossum laciniatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 153, t. 68y /. 3, Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^55, October 28, 1913, in ravines at an altitude of about 70 meters. The original reduction of Ophioglossum laciniatum was made by Linnaeus (to Osmunda zeylanica Linn.) in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) ISlg^, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1519, which as HelminthostacMjs zeylanica Hook, is manifestly the correct disposition of it. By other authors it has been cited under Botrychium zeylanicum Willd., and Helminthostachys dulcis Kaulf. — both synonyms of H, zeylanica Hook. MARATTIACEAE ANGIOPTERIS Hoffmann ANGIOPTERIS AMBOINENSIS DeVr. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 3 (1852) 195, Monogr. Marat. (1853) 32. Filix aquatica I femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 65, t. 28. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Blume thought that this might be a species of Marattia, but the size of the plant, as indicated by Rumphius, makes this suggested reduction an impossible one. While it is impossible definitely to state that Filix aquatica Rumph. is identical with Angiopteris amboinensis DeVr., the presumption is very great that they are the same. LYCOPODIACEAE LYCOPODIUM Linnaeus LYCOPODIUM CERNUUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1103. CIngulum terrae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 87, t, J^O, f. 1. Amboina, Batoe merah and Soja road, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. If57, July and August, 1913, in rocky places and on grassy hillsides, altitude 15 to 200 meters, locally known as daun rai rai. Linnaeus originally reduced Cingulum terrae to Lycopodium canaliculatum Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, but later, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1330, placed it under Lycopodium cernuum Linn., where it manifestly belongs. 72 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE LYCOPODIUM PHLEGMARIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1101. Equisetum amboinlcum 8. arboreum squamatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 91, t. U, f. i. Amboina, Hinting, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 456, August 13, 1913, on trees. This reduction was first made by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1330, and is certainly the correct disposition of it. LYCOPODIUM NUMMULARIFOLIUM Blume Enum. (1828) 263. Equisetum amboinicum II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92? Not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction is that suggested by van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh in Philip. Joum. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 120. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, thought that it might be Lycopodium phlegmarioides Spring. SELAGINELLACEAE SELAGINELLA* Spring SELAGINELLA PLANA (Desv.) Hieron. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflan- zenfam. 1* (1900) 703. Lycopodium planum Desv. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 554. IVIuscus fruticescens femlna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 86, t. 39 y /. 1. Amboina, Gelala, Robhison PL Rumph, Amb. 458, July 16, 1913, on banks at low altitudes. Undoubtedly this is the correct disposition of Muscus frutices- cens femina Rumph., and is that suggested by Desvaux in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 538. The only other suggested reduc- tion is that of Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, who thought it might be Lycopodium dichotomum Sw. SELAGINELLA D'URVILLEI A. Br. in Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. (1869) 585. Muscus fruticescens mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 86, t, 39, f. 2, Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 459, September 4, 1913, in light woods at low altitudes. This is in all probability the correct disposition of Muscus fruticescens mas Rumph. ; although, if a number of allied species should be found in Amboina, it would be difficult or impossible to determine to which of the forms the Rumphian figure applies. Desvaux, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 558, thought that it might be Lycopodium caudatum Desv., and Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, thought that it might be Lycopodium fruticulosum Blume, both of these being species of Selaginella. * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Selaginoides Boehm. (1760), Lyco- podioides Boehm. (1760), and Stachygynandrium Beauv. (1804) are older. PSILOTACEAE 73 PSILOTACEAE PSILOTUM Swartz PSILOTUM TRIQUETRUM Sw. Syn. (1806) 117. Equisetum secundum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Bato Gad j ah, and vicinity of the town of Am- boina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. j^61, 4,62, August and September, 1913, on trees, sea level to an altitude of 150 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, placed this under Psi- lotum complanatum Sw., but as the Amboina specimens are all referable to P. triquetrum Sw., it is assumed that this is the correct disposition of Equisetum secundum Rumph. PTERIDOPHYTA OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Filix aquatica ii mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 66. Very briefly described in the same chapter with Angiopteris amboinensia DeVr. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 164, has referred it to Pteris longipes Don, but without good reason. Its status cannot be determined from the data given by Rumphius. Filix urens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69. This is indeterminable from any data ^ven by Rumphius; perhaps a Dryopteris. Lonchitis amboinica recta I major alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70. Van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh has suggested that this may be Poly- podium albens Blume. Lonchitis amboinica recta II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70. Under this two forms are described, nigra and alba, both indeterminable from any data at present available. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 5 (1810) 228, re- ferred the figure, t. SO, f. 2, to Aspidium amboinense Willd., which is supposed to be the same as Dryopteris parasitica O. Kuntze. The figure certainly does not represent the latter species, and there is, moreover, no way of deter- mining which form Rumphius intended it to represent as between the forms major and minor. Loncliitis saguaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable. Loncliitis amara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable. Lonchitis pilosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable. Lonchitis muscosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable. The above four forms are briefly described. A more comprehensive exploration of Amboina may yield data and material by which they can be eventually determined. Dryopteris sllvestris II arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74. Indeterminable. An epiphytic fern, perhaps belonging in the Davalliae as suggested by Hasskarl. 74 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE FHlx lanuginosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69. From the description the plant must be Cibotium haranetz J. Sm. or Dicksonia sorbifolia Sm., as suggested by van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh. A future exploration of Amboina will doubtless yield material by which its status can be definitely determined. Filix canarlna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 64. Indeterminable from the data and the material at present available. SPERMATOPHYTA GYMNOSPERMAE CYCADACEAE CYC AS Linnaeus CYCAS RUM PHI I Miq. in Bull. Soc. Phys. Nat. Neerl. (1839) 45. Olus calappoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 86, t, 22, 2S, Olus calappoides II e Celebes Rumph. 1. c. 87, t. 20, 21. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 563, November 29, 1913, in light forests near sea level, staminate, locally known as sayor kalappa. The specimen represents Olus calappoides mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 99, t. 23. Possibly more than one species is represented by the plants described and figured by Rumphius, but more abundant material and a critical study of all the Indo-Malayan forms allied to Cycas circinalis Linn, will be necessary definitely to settle this point. The Rumphian illustrations are as follows : t. 20 represents an oblong-ovoid staminate inflorescence with leaves, poor; t. 21, sl habit sketch of the same; t. 22, a habit sketch and female inflorescence and infructescence, fairly good; and t, 23, a habit sketch with an elongated staminate inflorescence. It is by no means certain that Cycas rumphii Miq. is specifically distinct from C. circinalis Linn. The latter should be interpreted by Ceylon and Indian specimens, although in the orginal descrip- tion Linnaeus gives two references to Amboina figures and de- scriptions, including Olus calappoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 86, t. 22, 23. In Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, and in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, t 21 to 23 are included. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 632, cites all four figures under Cycas inermis Lour., a species that must be interpreted from specimens from southern China and Cochin-China ; it is supposed to be the same as Cycas revoluta Thunb., but Loureiro's description of the leaves does not conform with Thunberg's species. Blume, Rumphia 4 (1848) 14, refers Lagolo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 87, t 22, B, to Cycas thouarsii R. Br., a species of eastern Africa and Madagas- TAXACEAE 75 car and manifestly very closely allied to Cycas rumphii Miq. Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 322, refers Olus calappoides Rumph., t. 20, 21, to Cycas pectinata Ham., a species described from Indian specimens, and one not included in Index Kewensis. Miquel, Comment. Phyt. (1840) 126, refers Olus calappoides II e Celebes to Cycas celebica Miq., a species apparently to be interpreted from Rumphius's description. Doctor Stapf * has contrasted Cycas thouarsii R. Br., C rumphii Miq., and C. circinalis Linn., giving in synoptical form the macroscopic and microscopic characters by which the three may be distinguished. Pending a critical revision of the entire genus, it is probably best to retain the Moluccan form, that is manifestly closely allied to Cycas circinalis Linn., under the name Cycas rumphii Miq. CYCAS REVOLUTA Thunb. Fl. Jap. (1784) 229. Arbor calappoides sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 92, t. 2^- This commonly cultivated species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian species is manifestly Cycas revoluta Thunb. The drawing represents a leaf only, but is well executed and characteristic of the species. TAXACEAE PODOCARPUSt Persoon PODOCARPUS RUMPHII Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 214. Lignum emanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 47, t 26. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road and Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S09, September 30 and October 18, 1913, altitude 250 and 700 meters, locally known as dammar puti (properly the name for Agathis alba Foxw., p. 76). This specimen is Lignum emanum Rumph., but it may not be the same as the form on which Blume actually based his descrip- tion of Podocarpus rumphii. It should be critically compared with the species commonly known as Podocarpus neriifolius Don. According to Blume it is Cerbera nereifolia Zipp. in Bijdr. Nat. Wetensch. 5 (1830) 175, but Podocarpus neriifolius Don is earlier. Lignum emanum Rumph. is cited by Blume as a synonym of Podocarpus rumphii, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 38, refers Dammara alba mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 175, t 57, f. A-C, to Podocarpus latifolia * Cycas Thouarsii. Kew Bull. (1916) 1-8. t Retained name, Vienna Code; Nageia Labill. (1806) is older. 76 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Bluine=Podocarpus blumei Endl. Of the figures cited, "A'' is a staminate cone of Agathis alba Foxw. ; ''B'' is, according to Rumphius, a leaf of the true dammar, Agathis alba Foxw. ; while *'C" is said by Rumphius to be a branchlet from a young tree of the female dammar. I can see no reason for considering that Podocarpus blumei Endl. is included in the description of Dam- mara alba Rumph. The leaves of young plants of Agathis alba Foxw. very greatly resemble those of Podocarpus blumei Endl., and it is, of course, possible that the two were confused by Rumphius. PINACEAE AGATHIS* Salisbury AGATHIS ALBA (Lam.) Foxw. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5A (1910) 173, 6 (1912) Bot. 167. Dammara alba Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 259 (type!). Pinus abies Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 579. Agathis loranthifolia Salisb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 8 (1807) 311. Abies dammara Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 5 (1817) 35. Agathis dammara Rich. Comm. Conif. Cyc. (1826) 93, t. 19. Pinus dammara Lamb. Pin. 1 (1803) 61, t, S8. Dammara rumphii Presl Epim. Bot. (1851) 236. Dammara alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 174, t, 57, Amboina, Soija diatas, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 220, locally known as dammar puti. Dammara alba Rumph. is the whole basis of Dammara alba Lam. Lamarck published the species with Rumphius as authority. It must be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description and from Amboina specimens, while most of the synonyms cited above must be interpreted wholly or partly from the same data. Warburg, Monsunia 1 (1900) 182, in his attempt to split up the collective species Agathis dammara (Lamb.) Rich, states : *'Diese Art kann nur nach der Beschreibung von Rumph rekonstruirt werden, da sicheres aus Amboina stammendes Mat- erial leider nicht vorliegt und die vielfachen in der Litteratur gegebenen Beschreibungen der Sammeltart nach dem verschie- densten Material angefertigt sind." Warburg recognized ten species of Agathis from the Malayan region, but the status of these as valid ones is open to grave doubt. Dammara alba mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 175, t. 57, /. A-C, referred by Hasskarl, Neue Schiissel (1866) 38, to Podocarpus latifolia Blume, I consider to be Agathis alba (Lam.) Foxw. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Dammara Lam. (1786) is older. GNETACEAE 77 Dammara alba femlna Rumph. 1. c. 175, t. 57, /. D is surely Agathis alba (Lam.) Foxw. Dammara celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 179=Dammara alba var. celebica Hassk., Neue Schliissel (1866) 38, is suggested by Warburg to be the same as Agathis celebica (Koord.) Warb. Monsunia 1 (1900) 185, but Doctor Foxworthy, who has examined Celebes specimens collected by Koorders, considers the species to be a synonym of Agathis alba Foxw. and reduces likewise Agathis borneensis Warb., A. beccarii Warb., and A. macrostachys Warb. GNETACEAE G NET DM Linnaeus GNETUM GNEMON Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 125. Gnetum ovalifolium Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 810. Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 181, t. 72. Gnemon domestica femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:181, t, 71, Gnemon silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 183, t. 7S, Amboina, Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 213, August 31, 1913, in forests at 300 meters altitude {Gnemon silvestris Rumph.) ; Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 209, October 24, 1913, in light woods, altitude about 250 meters, both locally known as gnemo. I consider that the three forms described and figured by Rumphius represent but a single species, this being practically the opinion of other authors who have considered the status of the Rumphian species. Gnemon domestica femina Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Gnetum gnemon Linn, in the original description of the species, the only deviation from this reduction presented in botanical literature being Blume's reference of it to Gnetum gnemon Linn. var. luurinum Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 3, together with Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. Gnetum oval- ifolium Poir. was based on specimens collected in Amboina by Labillardiere, with an added reference to Gnemon silvestris Rumph. Blume has reduced it to Gnetum gnemon Linn, as var. ovalifolium (Poir.) Blume, but I consider it scarcely distinguish- able from typical Gnetum gnemon Linn, even as a variety. Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. was reduced by Blume to Gnetum gnemon Linn., var. lucidum Blume, Rumphia 4 (1848) 4. GNETUM INDICUM (Lour.) comb. nov. Abutua indica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 630. Gnetum funiculare Brongn. in Duperry Voy. Bot. (1829) 12. Gnetum funiculare Blume Nov. Fam. (1834) 32, Hoev. & DeVriese Tijdschr. 1 (1834). 162, Ann. Sci. Nat. II 2 (1834) 106. Gnetum latifolium Blume op. cit. 30, 162, 105. Gnemon funlcularls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 12, t. 8, 78 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Not represented in our Amboina collections. Loureiro quotes Gnemon funicularis Rumph. as a synonym of Abutua indica Lour, in the original description of that species. Louriero's type, in the herbarium of the British Museum, is a leaf specimen, and according to Doctor Rendle, who has examined it for me, is apparently the same as Gnetum funiculare Blume. Roxburgh, Hort. Beng. (1814) 66, based his Gnetum scandens on "H. M. 7. t 22; H. A. 5. t. 7, S^ i. e. the first reference to Rheede Hortus Malabaricus, and the second to Rumphius Herbarium Amboinense ; I believe that the species should be typified by the first reference. However, '*Ula. Rheed. mal. 7. p. 41. t. 22'' is the whole basis of Thoa edulis Willd. Sp. PL 4 (1805) 477, so that Gnetum scandens Roxb. becomes a synonym of Gnetum edule (Willd.) Blume, together with Gnetum ula Brongn. The plant that Blume actually described as Gnetum edtde seems not to be the same as the Indian Thoa edulis Willd., but the name must go with the Indian plant. It is by no means clear that this continental form, which appears in modern literature as Gnetum scandens Roxb., is specifically distinct from the Malayan Gnetum indicum (Lour.) Merr., but at any rate, Loureiro's specific name is much older than any of the others. GNETUM GNEMONOIDES Brongn. in Duperry Voy. Bot. (1829) 12 (type!). Gnetum rumphianum Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 182. Gnetum verrucosum Karst. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 11 (1893) 216. Funis gnemonlformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 12, t. 8, Not represented in our Amboina collections. Gnetum gne- monoides Brongn. was based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description of Funis gnemoniformis. Blume, Fam. Nov. (1834) 31, Ann. Sci. Nat. II 2 (1834) 106, reduced Funis gnemoniformis Rumph. to Gnetum edtde Blume, a species based on Thoa edulis Willd. and differing remarkably from Rumphius's species, as described, in its fruit characters. Gnetum rumphia- num Becc. was based on specimens from New Guinea, with the addition of a reference to Funis gnemoniformis Rumph. It has seeds 5 to 5.5 cm long, in entire agreement with Rumphius's description of the fruits of Funis gnemoniformis as "tres digitos transversales longi." Gnetum verrucosum Karst. was described from specimens originating in Buru, with fruits 4.5 cm in length, and I have no hesitation in reducing it to Gnetum gnemonoides Brongn. PANDANACEAE 79 ANGIOSPERMAE (MONOCOTYLEDONS) PANDANACEAE* PAN DAN us Linnaeus PANDANUS POLYCEPHALUS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 372 (type!). Pandanus humllis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 143, t. 76. Amboina, Binting and Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5J^, July and August, 1913, in shaded places along streams at low altitudes, and in forests at an altitude of about 250 meters, locally known as keker and pandoM keker ayer. Pandanus humilis Rumph. is the whole basis of Pandanus polycephalus Lam., Lamarck's species being based wholly on Rumphius's figure and description. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 603, described Pandanus humilis Lour, from Cochin- China material and reduced to it Pandanus humilis Rumph. There is every reason to suppose that the Cochin-China plant described by Loureiro represents a species entirely different from that described by Rumphius, and that Warburg was in error in reducing Pandanus humilis Lour, to Pandanus poly- cephalus Lam. The type of Loureiro's species is manifestly the Cochin-China plant described, not the Rumphian synonym cited. PANDANUS ROBINSONM sp. nov. § Keura. Pandanus spurlus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 142, t. 75. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 30 (type), October 29, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as keker laut. Arbor circiter 3.5 m alta, ramosa. Foliis circiter 1 m longis, 4.5 cm latis, aculeatis, apice longissime tenuiterque caudatis. Capitulis ellipticis, 10 cm longis vel maturis majoribus, solita- riis, subpendulis; drupis numerosis, obconicis, circiter 2.5 cm longis vel paullo longioribus, apice 1.5 ad 2.5 cm latis, deorsum angustatis, apice latis, subtruncatis, 5- ad 10-locularis, loculis apice sulcis circiter 4 mm longis separatis, lobis oblique pyra- i midatis, acutis, brunneis, nitidis, 5 ad 8 mm diametro. I Pandanus spurius Rumph. has been referred to many different * I am under obligations to Dr. U. Martelli, Florence, Italy, for deter- niinations of the Pandanaceae. For the proposed changes in nomenclature, nowever, and for 'the discussions of the Rumphian species, I am wholly ''^sponsible. 80 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE species under the binomial system, but none of the names are valid, for which reason I propose to call this plant Pandanus robinsoniL Doctor Martelli, who has made the determination of the specimen as Pandanus spuriiis, would call it Pandanus spurius Mart., non Miq., but I consider the specific name spurius to be invalid. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 603, erroneously referred it to Pandanus odoratissimus Linn. f. Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 372, placed it under Pandanus odoratissimus as var. ^. Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 166, referred the name Pandanus spurius, but not the figure, to Pandanus fas- cicularis Lam., erroneously citing plates 80 and 81 as P. spurius. Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 597, placed it, with doubt, under Pan- danus candelabrum Beauv., an African species. Hasskarl, Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 2:14, referred it to Marquatia globosa Hassk., a new genus and species based on specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, originating in Mauritius; this Walpers, Ann. 1 (1849) 753, renamed Hass- karlia globosa Walp. Both names are synonyms of Pandanu? utilis Bory. Miquel, Anal. Bot. Ind. (1851) 57, Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 157, recognizing the fact that Pandanus spurius Rumph. was not the same as Marquatia globosa Hassk. (Hass- karlia globosa Walp.), adopted the specific name Pandanus spurius for the species, after Rumphius, but his description applies to the species Hasskarl described, and thus it becomes a synonym of Pandanus utilis Bory. PANDANUS REPENS Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 165 (type!). Pandanus repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 152. Not represented in our Amboina collections. From the de- scription the plant is probably a variety of Pandanus tectorius Soland., corresponding to the Philippine form, Pandanus sabotan Blanco, used for similar purposes, that is, for making mats. A species of very doubtful status, knov^n only from Rumphius's description. PANDANUS HASSKARLII nom. nov. Pandanus latifolius Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 2: 13, non Perr., nee aliorum. Pandanus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 146, t, 78, Not represented in our Amboina collections. There is no doubt v^hatever that Hasskarl correctly interpreted Pandanus latifolius Rumph. I have, however, proposed a new name for the species, as the name latifolius is preoccupied in the genus. PANDANACEAE 81 PAN DAN US TECTORIUS Soland. in Parkins. Voy. H. M. S. Endeavour (1773) 46. Pandanus odoratissimus Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 424. Pandanus verut Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 139, t, 74. Folium baggea Rumph. quoad t, SI. This common coastal species is not represented in our Amboina collections, yet the reduction, originally made by the younger Linnaeus, is undoubtedly correct ; it is to be noted, however, that he reduced to this species ''t. 7i ad 81/' of which the first and the last are apparently Pandanus tectorius Soland. (P. odoratis- simus Linn, f.), but the others represent entirely different species. Table 7U is exceedingly poor, but the description of Pandanus verus Rumph. applies unmistakably to Pandanus tectorius Soland. PANDANUS TECTORIUS Soland. var. MOSCHATUS (Miq.). Pandanus tectorius Soland. var. laevis (Kunth) Warb. in Engl. Pflan- zenreich 3 (1900) 48. Pandanus laevis Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 100 (type!), non Lour. Pandanus moschatus Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 165 (type!). Pandanus moschatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 147. I have followed Warburg in the reduction of this Rumphian species, but differ from him in the selection of the varietal name, as I consider Pandanus laevis Kunth to be invalidated by P. laevis Lour. Loureiro reduced Pandanus moschatus Rumph. to Pandanus laevis Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 604, but Loureiro's species is manifestly not the same as the one Rumphius described and is to be interpreted by Cochin-China material. All early authors, however, followed Loureiro in this reduction. PANDANUS CONOIDEUS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 372 (type!). Pandanus ceramicus Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 98 (type!). Pandanus ceramicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 149, t. 79. This species was reported by Rumphius from Ceram, Buru, Gilolo, and Ternate, but not from Amboina except as an intro- duced and rarely cultivated plant. It is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of both Pandanus conoideus Lam. and P. ceramicus Kunth; and Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich. 3 (1900) 69, has apparently interpreted the species correctly. PANDANUS DUBIUS Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 897 (type!). Folium baggea maritimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 151, t. 80 (non t. 81!). Amboina, Latoehalat, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 55, September 22, ^913, along the seashore, locally known as haun. 144971 6 82 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE This very characteristic species, as I interpret the original description by Sprengel, is typified by the Rumphian description and illustration, the reference to the Mascarene Islands being added because of the doubtful reduction of Pandanus erigens Thouars (=Pandafms montanus Bory). The figure of the single drupe given by Rumphius leaves absolutely no doubt as to the identity of Pandanus baggea maritimum, PANDANUS BAGEA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 159 (type!). Folium baggea verum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 150. This form was reduced by Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 50, as a synonym of Pandanus dubius Spreng., which is apparently wrong. According to the description and habitat given by Rumphius, it cannot possibly be Sprengel's species. It is suspected that it may be a form of Pandanus tectorius Soland., and it may be the form of Pandanus baggea Rumph. figured on t. 81, which I have referred to Pandanus tectorius Soland. PANDANUS AMBOINENSIS Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 83. Pandanus rumphii Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 84 (type!). Pandanus montanus Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 161 (type!), non Bory. Pandanus cer amicus Kunth var. sylvestris Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 98 (type!). Pandanus sllvestrls (terrestrls II) Rumph, Herb. Amb. 4: 145, t. 77. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Sly September 9, 1913, in forests, altitude about 350 meters, locally known as keker saun. Under Pandanus silvestris Rumphius described two entirely different species, but his illustration manifestly belongs with Pandanus silvestris terrestris II, which is the type of Pandanus montanus Miq., F. rumphii Warb., and the variety sylvestris of Pandanus ceramicus Kunth. The mature cones are about 40 cm long and 8 to 9 cm in diameter. The species is known only from Amboina. PANDANUS TERRESTRIS Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 84 (type!), excl. syn. Miquel. Pandanus sylvestris Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 161 (tjrpe!), non Bory. Pandanus montanus (silvestris I) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 145 (non t 771). Anassa silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 230? Not represented in our Amboina collections, and a species of very doubtful status. Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 84, has erroneously cited the Miquelian synonym, Pandanus mon- tanus, under Pandanus terrestris Warb., but it properly belongs with Pandanus amboinensis Warb. (P. rumphii Warb.) ; the PANDANACEAE 83 Rumphian figure cannot belong to Pandanus terrestris Warb. according to Rumphius's description, but certainly belongs with Pandanus amboinensis Warb. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 87, has interchanged most of the synonyms cited by him between terrestris I and terrestris II, citing the plate, with doubt, under both. The brief description given by Rumphius is the whole basis of Pandanus sylvestris Miq., non Bory, and P. terrestris Warb. The form mentioned by Rumphius as Anassa silvestris is unquestionably a Pandanus and is probably referable here. No data are given, however, by which its exact status can be determined. FREYCINETIA Gaudichaud FREYCINETIA FUNICULARIS (Savigny) comb. nov. Pandanus funicularis Savigny in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1798) 735 (type!). Freycinetia strobilacea Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 156. Pandanus funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 153 t. 82. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 29, August 16, 1913, in forests, altitude about 30 meters, locally known as anapur. Savigny compiled a description of the species, under the Rumphian binomial, in Lamarck's Encyclopedie 4 (1798) 735, and this manifestly constitutes a valid post-Linnean publication of the binomial. I have accordingly accepted this specific name in place of Blume's. Blume reduced Pandanus funicularis Rumph. to Freycinetia strobilacea Blume in the original descrip- tion of that species, the type being from Amboina. The species is known only from Amboina. FREYCINETIA GRAMINEA Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 159 (type!). Carex arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21, t. 8, /. 2, Not represented in our Amboina collections unless the sterile Rel. Robins. 160Jf is referable here. Carex arborea Rumph. is the whole basis of Freycinetia graminea Blume and is ap- parently known only from the Rumphian description. Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 865, erroneously referred t 8, f. 2, to Sclfioe- nus secans hmn.^Scleria; but the Rumphian reference is not the type of the species, and the figure intended by Linnaeus was manifestly t 8, f, 1, which is a Scleria, PREYCINETIA sp. Adpendix cuscuaria i angustifoMa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 488. The form described is manifestly some species of Freycinetia. This reduction was suggested by Hasskarl, with doubt, Neue Schliissel (1866) 150. Its further identification is impossible from the meager data given by Rumphius. 84 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE HYDROCHARITACEAE EN H ALUS Richard EN H ALUS AC0R0IDE8 (Linn, f.) Rich, ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 554; Chatin Anat. PL Aquat. (1862) 15, t, 6. Stratiotes acoroides Linn. f. SuppL (1781) 268. Enhalus koenigii Rich, in Mem. Inst. Paris 2 (1811) 78. Acorus marinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 191, t, 75, f. 2, Amboina, Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 47 J^, on tidal flats, October 20, 1913. Acorus marinus Rumph. is the first reference given by the younger Linnaeus in the orginal publication of Stratiotes aco- roides Linn, f . ; the actual type, however, was a specimen from Ceylon, collected by Koenig. This reduction was followed by Willdenow, Poiret, Persoon, and other authors. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 237, cites it under Enhalus koenigii Rich., a synonym of E. acoroides (Linn, f.) Rich. GRAMINEAE The comparatively few species of this family considered by Rumphius are chiefly those of economic value, such as the coarser forms, the bamboos, etc. As is to be expected in such a difficult group, it is by no means easy to determine the status of some of the forms considered, this being especially true of the bamboos. Unfortunately numerous species of Bambusa have been based wholly on the descriptions or figures given by Rumphius, and these must be interpreted by the data given by him. Until more comprehensive collections are made in the Moluccas with special reference to the descriptions and native names given by Rumphius, the exact status of several of these species must remain doubtful. ZEA Linnaeus ZEA MAYS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 971. Frumentum indlcum s. turcicum s. saracenicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 202. This is merely mentioned by Burman in a note appended to the description of Panicum indicum s. botton, i. e. Setaria italica (Linn.) Kunth. It is cultivated in all parts of the Malay Archipelago. CO IX Linnaeus COIX LACHRYMA JOBI Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 972. Lachryma jobi Indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 193, t 75, Llthospermum amboinlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 22, t, 9, /. X, Amboina, Way tommo, along the banks of a stream, Robinson P^- Rumph, Amb. kO, August 19, 1913, locally known as buli bulL GRAMINEAE 85 The plant figured in Volume V of the Herbarium Amboinense was reduced by Linnaeus to Coix lachryma jobi in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, and in the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1763) 1378, but by error Linnaeus cites Ova piscium of Rumphius, rather than Lachryma jobi indica; the two are figured on the same plate, and the former is referred by Hasskarl to his Saccharum edule. The two figures given by Rumphius represent fairly good habit sketches of the common Job's tears, Coix lachryma jobi Linn. Lithospermum amboinicum was also reduced by Linnaeus, op. cit. 25, 134, to Coix lachryma jobi, but by error t. 8 is cited instead of t. 9, although the Rumphian name is correctly given. I M PER AT A Cyrillo IMPERATA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) expl. pi. 5, t. 5, f. 1, var. KOENIGII (Retz.) Benth. ex Pilger in Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 137. Saccharum koenigii Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 16. Gramerv caricosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 17, t. 7, /. 2A, Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, on barren hillsides, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 39, September 30, 1913. Gramen caricosum was referred by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 869, to his Saccharum spicatum, but later, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1480, to his Andropogon caricosus. The latter species, however, was based on Indian specimens and is a true Andro- pogon. Although the specific name was taken from Rumphius, the Rumphian figure and description cannot be interpreted as the type. Saccharum spicatum Linn, is in itself a mixture, but probably should be interpreted as an Imperata, not as Perotis latifolia Ait. The erroneous reference of Gramen caricosum to Andropogon caricosus by Linnaeus was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 218; by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 373; and by Willdenow, Sp. PL 4^ (1805) 902. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 53, follows the first Linnean reduction and considers it under Saccharum spicatum Linn., while Roxburgh, FL Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 234, places it under Saccharum cylindricum Linn. ^Imperata cylindrica Beauv. MISCANTHUS Andersson Ml SCAN THUS SINENSIS Anders, in Oefv. Vet. Akad. Forhandl. Stockh. (1855) 166. Arundo farcta I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 21. Arundo farcta Rumph. was referred by Linnaeus, with doubt, to Andropogon nardus Linn., Mant. 2 (1771) 500, in which dis- 86 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE position of it he was followed by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 374. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 30, however, placed it under Lagurus paniculatus Linn., which species is there properly published, and which is not included in Index Kewensis; it is, however, a synonym of Andropogon nardtcs Linn. The Rumph- ian plant, however, has nothing to do with Andropogon nardtis, but undoubtedly is a Miscanthus. Ml SCAN THUS JAPONIC US (Thunb.) Anders, in Oefv. Vet. Akad. For- handl. Stockh. (1855) 166. Saccharum japonicum Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 2 (1794) 328. Arundo farcta II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 21, t. 6. Amboina, Hoenoet, on dry hills, altitude about 50 meters, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 38, October 7, 1913. The description is short and imperfect, but apparently applies to this species, which, as currently interpreted, is of very wide distribution in eastern Asia and Malaya. It is possible that the species intended by the Rumphian description is Miscanthus floridulus (Labill.) Warb., which Warburg considers to be speci- fically distinct from the northern form, typical Miscanthus japonicus Anders. Rumphius describes the plant as from 10 to 12 feet high, while Arundo farcta I is described as smaller. SACCHARUM Linnaeus SACCHARUM OFFICINARUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 54. Arundo saccharifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 186, t. 74, /. i, 2, Ova piscJum Rumph. Herb. Amb, 5: 191, t. 75, /. 1? The common sugar cane is not represented in our Amboina collections. Three or four distinct varieties are considered by Rumphius, under such names as alha, fusca, rotanga, etc. The reduction of Arundo saccharifera Rumph. to Saccharum offici- narum was made by Linnaeus in Stickman's Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 869, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 79, followed by various authors. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 110, has carried the reduction of the various forms described by Rumphius to varieties, and considers Arundo saccharifera Illy tabu rottang {expl. pL) to represent Saccharurrf sinense Roxb. However, Hackel, apparently cor- rectly, reduces Saccharum sinense Roxb. to S. officinarum Linn. Ova piscium Rumph., referred by Hasskarl to Saccharum edule Hassk., is probably a form of Saccharum officinarum Linn. B was, by error, referred by Linnaeus to Coix lachryma jobi L.- but Linnaeus manifestly intended figure 2 of plate 75, rather than figure 1. GRAMINEAE 87 ISCHAEMUM Linnaeus ISCHAEMUM TIMORENSE Kunth Rev. Gram. 1 (1835) 369, t. 98, Hlppogrostis amboinica I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 14, t, 5, /. 2? Amboina, Batoe mera, along ditches, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 47, July 20, 1913. This figure has been confused by some authors with Panicum colonum Linn., and Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 153, so refers it. I am not quite certain that it is referable to Ischae- mum timorense Kunth., but it surely is not Panicum colonum Linn., although Hasskarl was apparently satisfied with this reference of it. ANDROPOGON Linnaeus ANDROPOGON ACICULATUS Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 22. Rhaphis trivialis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 553. Gramen aclculatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 13, t. 5, /, J. Amboina, Amahoesoe, along roadsides, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 45, August 13, 1913, locally known as rumput gintang, Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762) 84, erroneously referred Gramen aciculatum to Panicum colonum Linn., but while citing the name Gramen aciculatum he gives the figure as t, 5, f. S, which is apparently an Oplismenus, Loureiro cites Gramen aciculatum in his description of Rhaphis trivialis, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 553; Willdenow, Sp. PI. 1 (1797) 338, repeats Linnaeus's error in referring it to Panicum colonum, citing the Rumphian name, but t, 5, f, 3, as does Linnaeus, but later, op. cit. 4' (1805) 906, refers Gramen aciculatum t, 5, /. 1, to Andro- pogon acicularis Willd.==A. aciculatus Retz. Rumphius's figure is an excellent one. ANDROPOGON SORGHUM (Linn.) Brot. Fl. Lusit. (1804) 89, var. Holcus sorghum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1047. Sorghum s. Battari Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 194, t, 75 bis, fig, 1, This is not represented in our Amboina. collections. The form described and crudely figured by Rumphius is apparently the one described by Linnaeus as Holcus saccharatus=Andropogon sorghum var. saccharatus Hack. It was reduced to Holcus sac- charatus by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, fol- lowed in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130 (plate cited as 7Jf by error), Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1305, followed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 645, and Willdenow, Sp. PL 4^ (1805) 930. Burman f., however, Fl. Ind. (1768) 220, refers it to Holcus sorghum Linn., in which he is followed by Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 140. Following HackeFs classification, it is probably best placed under 88 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Andropogon sorghum Brot., subsp. sativus Hack. var. saccha- ratios (L.) Hack. Following other authors, it is considered under the generic name Sorghum, while Hitchcock proposes to recognize the genus Holcus for the sorghums, and retains the Linnean names, Holcus sorghum., H. saccharatus, etc.; Holcus of authors, as typified by the European Holcus lanatus Linn., becomes Nothoholcus. ANDROPOGON AMBOINICUS (Linn.) comb. nov. Poa amboinica Linn. Mant. ^ (1771) 557 (type!). Poa amboinensis Murr. in Linn. Syst. ed. 13 (1774) 98 (type!). Eragrostis amboinensis Trin. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 562 (type!). Phoenix amboinica montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 19, t, 7, /. 3, Amboina, Soja road, on grassy hillsides, altitude 300 meters, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. JfS, August 1, 1913. The specimen agrees perfectly with the description given by Rumphius, and sufficiently well with the figure, which is rather crude. The species has not been previously recognized, and Poa amboinica lArvn.—Poa amboinensis Murr. is reduced in Index Kewensis to Eragrostis amboinensis Trin., this being merely a transfer of the specific name by Steudel. Poa amboinica Linn, is based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure from which the species must be interpreted. Andropogon amboinicus (Linn.) Merr., if interpreted in a broad sense, is identical with Andropogon serratus Thunb. ; and, if Hackel be followed in considering Thunberg's species as in- cluding several varieties, the Linnean specific name will replace Thunberg's. However, Andropogon amboinicus is apparently the form mentioned by Hackel under Andropogon serratus Thunb. var. genuinus Hack, subvar. major Hack, in DC. Monog. Phan. 6 (1889) 521. The Amboina specimen differs radically from typical Andropogon serratus Thunb. in its long-pilose sheaths and larger spikelets and probably should be considered specifically distinct. ANDROPOGON CITRATUS DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 78; Nees in Allgem. Gartenzeit. 3 (1835) 266. Cymbopogon citratus Stapf in Kew Bull. (1906) 322, 357, plate. Schoenanthemum ambolnlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 181, t, 72, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. For a very full discussion of it the student is referred to Doctor Stapf 's article.* Schoenanthemum amboinicum has very gen- erally been confused with Andropogon schoenanthus Linn.; in * The oil-grasses of India and Ceylon. Kew Bull (1906) 297-364. GRAMINEAE 89 fact one year after Andropogon schoenanthus was published, Linnaeus himself referred to it the Rumphian figure in Stick- man's dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754) 20, which was repeated in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1304; in Murray's edition of the Systema Vegeta- bilium (1774) 758; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 646; and by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 219; the last author also in the same work, page 24, erroneously referring it to Panictim polystachion Linn. ANDROPOGON EXALTATUS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 202. Schoenanthemum alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 182? Amboina, Silali, on barren hills, altitude 125 meters, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Jt.6, September 22, 1913, locally known as kusu kusu. Hasskarl has suggested Andropogon circinnatus Hochst. as the possible place for this form briefly mentioned by Rumphius. As what I take to be a form of Andropogon exaltatus R. Br. occurs in Amboina and as this has fragrant leaves, I merely make the suggestion that it may be the species intended by Rumphius. The species has been previously reported only from Australia and from Thursday Island. THE ME DA Forskal THEM EDA FRONDOSA (R. Br.) comb. nov. Anthistiria frondosa R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 200. Themeda arguens Hack, in DC. Monog. Phan. 6 (1889) 657, non Stipa arguens Linn. Gramen arguens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 15, t. 6, f. 1. Amboina, Way tommo, in waste places, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 62y August 16, 1913. Celebes, Macassar, Reh Robins. 2J^52, July 11, 1913. The type of Stipa arguens Linn, was an Indian specimen, although the specific name was taken from Rumphius, and Gramen arguens Rumph. is cited in the original description. The actual type, in the Linnean herbarium, is the form described by Hackel as Themeda ciliata (Linn, f.) Hack., to which the name Themeda arguens must now be applied. The Linnean description was manifestly based on the specimen before him, not on the Rumphian illustration ; and, accordingly, the name should go with the plant he described. The error in referring the Rumphian illustration to the Indian species was a very natural one. THEMEDA GIGANTEA (Cav.) Hack, in DC. Monog. Phan. 6 (1889) 670. Anthistiria gigantea Cav. Ic. 5 (1799) 36, t. j^58, Calamagrostis Rumph. Herb. 6: 16, t. 6, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but 90 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE the above disposition of Rumphius's Calamagrostis is suggested as its probable true position. Linnaeus, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 65, referred it to his Schoenus lithospermns^Scleria lithosperma Sw., in which he was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 19. Willdenow, however, Sp. PL 4 (1805) 315, referred it to Scleria tessellata Willd., in which he has been followed by several other authors. The plant, as described by Rumphius, has nothing to do with Scleria, but is manifestly a coarse grass, and it is certainly Anthistiria gigantea Hack., as suggested above. The figure is very poor. DIGITARIA Scopoli DIGITARIA SANGUINALIS (Linn.) Scop. Fl. Carn. ed. 2, 1 (1772) 52, var. Panicum sanguinale Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 57. Gramen caninum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11. Gramen supplex Rumph. 1. c. 12? Amboina, in sago swamp near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 50, August 20, 1913. This is apparently Gramen caninum Rumph., described as having two spikes. Gramen supplex Rumph. is described as having three or four spikes. Both appear to be merely forms of the polymorphous Digitaria sanguinalis (Linn.) Scop. PANICUM Linnaeus PANICUM REPTANS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870. Panicum prostratum Lam. 111. 1 (1791) 171. Gramen anatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 13. BOETON, Rel. Robins. 2Jf.96, July 13, 1913; not represented in the Am- boina collection. In this reduction of Gramen anatum I follow HasskarFs sug- gestion, who refers it with doubt to Panicum prostratum Lam. I can see no reason for considering the Rumphian plant other than this species ; the Linnean name is, however, the older. PANICUM STAGNINUM Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 17. Champeu s. Campee, Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11. The description is very brief, but probably Panicum stagni- num Retz. is the form intended. Hasskarl has suggested Pani- cum limnaeum Steud., but this is very improbable, P. limnaeim Steud. being reduced in Index Kewensis to Panicum molle Sw. The material considered by Rumphius w^as from Batavia, Java. Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 1 (1911) 129, gives tjampea as the Sundanese name for Panicum stagninum Retz. GRAMINEAE 91 PANICUM PALMAEFOLIUM Koenig in Naturf. 23 (1788) 208. Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 115? The description is rather indefinite, but apparently applies to Panicum palmaefolium Koenig. The reduction follows Hass- karFs suggestion, Neue Schllissel (1866) 171, who thought that it was either Panicum palmaefolium Koenig or P, nepalense Spreng. OPLISMENUS Beauvois OPLISMENUS COMPOSITUS (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) 54. Panicum compositum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 57. Hippogrostis amboinica it minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 14, t. 5, f. 3. Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, reduced Hippogrostis amboinica to Panicum colonum, merely citing the number of the plate. There are three figures on the plate : one, Andropogon aciculatus Retz., that manifestly Linnaeus did not intend to refer to Panicum colonum; two, what I take to be Ischaemum timo- reuse Kunth, and which does not resemble Panicum colonum; and three, what I take to represent Oplismenus compositus Beauv., probably the figure that Linnaeus intended to refer to Panicum colonum. However, it certainly is not this species. Later, Linnaeus did refer t, 6, f, S, to Panicum patens, Mant. 2 (1771) 323, apparently following Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 26, but Panicum patens Burm. f . has nothing to do with Panicum patens Linn. Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1798) 742, refers it to his Panicum bromoides, which is presumably the same as Oplis- menus burmannii Beauv. Oplismenus compositus Beauv. does not appear in our Amboina* collections, but 0. burmannii Beauv. is represented by Rel, Robins, 164^5, collected in forests at Ayer putri, July 29, 1913. It does not however, agree with Rumphius's description of Hippogrostis amboinica or with the figure cited above. SETARIA Beauvois SETARIA FLAVA (Nees) Kunth Rev. Gram. 1 (1829) 46. Panicum flavum Nees in Mart. Fl. Bras. 2 (1829) 180. Panicum polystachion Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 82 (type!), non Setaria polystachya Schrad., nee Scheele. Panicum vulpinum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134 (type!), non Willd., nee Setaria vulpina Beauv. Gramen vulpinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 18, t. 7, f. 2B. Amboina, Soja road, Lateri, and Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^i, August, September, 1913. The Rumphian reference is the whole basis of both Panicum vulpinum Linn., which does not appear in Index Kewensis, and 92 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Panicum polystachion Linn., the former based on ''Gramen cari- cosum vulpinum'' the latter on Vol. VI ''t, 7, /. 2B/' and er- roneously reduced in Index Kewensis to Andropogon caricosum L. Both Linnean specific names are invalid in Setaria, although both are much older than Panicum flavum Nees. By Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 24, it was considered under Panicum poly- stachion Linn., and it was also so considered by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 46. The species is very generally considered to be a synonym of Setaria glauca (Linn.) Beauv., but is ap- parently distinct. SETARIA ITALICA (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) 51. Panicum italicum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 56. Panicum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 202, t. 75 bis, f. 2. The figure is a good representation of one of the commonly cultivated forms of this species, with the addition of the panicle of another form. It was reduced to Panicum italicum by Lin- naeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, repeated in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 83; followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 24, Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 46, Willdenow, Sp. PL 1 (1797) 336, and other authors. For a critical botanical consideration of the numerous varieties and forms of Setaria italica see Hubbard in Am. Journ. Bot. 2 (1915) 169-198. THUAREA Persoon THUAREA INVOLUTA (Forst.) R. Br. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 2 (1841) 682. Ischaemum involutum Forst. Prodr. (1786) 73. Thuarea sarmentosa Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 110. Gramen rorls (litoreum) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 13. Amboina, Hatiwe, along the strand, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 51, September 4, 1913. The description is very short, and the identification has been made chiefly from the indicated habitat. Hasskarl refers here Gramen roris as described on page 12 and is perhaps correct in doing so. R. Brown, Prodr. (1810) 197, does not publish Thuarea involuta as currently indicated in botanical literature, but merely indicates that Ischaemum involutum Forst. pertains to the genus Thuarea. SPINIFEX Linnaeus SPINIFEX LITTOREUS (Burm, f.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 229. Stipa littorea Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 29. Stipa spinifex Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 84. GRAMINEAE 93 Spinifex squarrosus Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 300. Cyperus llttoreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:6, t. 2, /. 2, This species is not represented in our Amboina collection. It is a very widely distributed grass, occurring on sandy beaches in the Indo-Malayan region, and Rumphius gives a good figure of the pistillate plant. Cyperus littoreus is, by citation, the type of Stipa littorea Burm. f., and the specific name is taken from Rumphius ; however, it is perfectly evident that Burman f . also had actual specimens of the same plant. It is also cited by Linnaeus in the original publication of Stipa spinifex Linn., Mant. 1 (1767) 34, and under Spinifex squarrosus Linn, by Willdenow, Sp. PL 42 (1805) 1129;, by Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 647; and by other authors. ORYZA Linnaeus ORYZA SATIVA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 333. Oryza vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 196. Oryza glutinosa Rumph. op. cit. 201. Rice is not represented in our Amboina collections. Six forms are described under Oryza vulgaris, and three under Oryza glutinosa, but all are manifestly cultural forms of the polymor- phous species Oryza sativa Linn. Oryza communissima Lour., 0. praecox Lour., O. montana Lour., and 0. glutinosa Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 215, while based primarily on specimens from China or Cochin-China, all have references to Rumphius. Linnaeus, by error, refers t, 7U to Oryza, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130. Table 7-4 is Saccharum officinarum, while table 75 bis, the plate apparently intended by Linnaeus, represents a form of Andropogon sorghum Linn, and Setaria italica Kunth; table 75 represents Coix lachryma jobi Linn, and apparently a form of Saccharum officinarum, probably the species proposed by Hasskarl as Saccharum edule Hassk. The common rice plant is not figured by Rumphius. CYNODON * Persoon CYNODON DACTYLON (Linn.) Pers. Syn. 1 (1804) 85. Panicum dactylon Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 58. Capriola dactylon O. Ktze. Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 764. Gramen repens minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11. This common and widely distributed species is not represented m our Amboina collection. Hasskarl has made this reduction of Gramen repens minus with doubt, but it is perfectly evident that Cynodon dactylon Pers. is the plant described by Rumphius. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Capriola Adans. -(1763) is older. 94 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ELEUSINE Gaertner ELEUSINE INDICA (Linn.) Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 8. Cynosurus indicus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 72. Gram en vaccinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 9, t. ^, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe mera, in ditches and along roadsides, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^S, July 20 and August 15, 1913. This common and widely distributed grass is well represented by Rumphius's figure, which was first referred by Linnaeus, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 106, to Cynosurus indicus, in which he has been followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 29; by Lamarck, Eiicycl. 2 (1786) 187; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 59; by Willde- now, Sp. PI. 1 (1797) 417 — ^all under Cynosurus — and by Hass- karl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 152, under Eleu^ine. The figure is not cited in modern literature. ELEUSINE COROCANA (Linn.) Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 8, t. 1, Cynosurus corocanus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875. Goddam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 10. Pinicum gramlneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 203, t, 76, /. 2. Rumphius figured this species from plants grown in Amboina, the seeds having been received by him from Ceylon; it is con- sidered by Hooker f . to be a cultivated form of Eleusine indiea Gaertn. The figure given by Rumphius was first referred to this species by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875, repeated in his Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 107; followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 29, by Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 187, and by Willdenow, Sp. PI 1 (1797) 415 — all under Cynosurus corocanus Linn. — and finally by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 111. Rumphius's figure is not generally cited by modern authors. The Javan form very briefly described by Rumphius as Goddam can scarcely be other than Eleusine corocana Gaertn. DACTYLOCTENIUM Willdenow DACTYLOCTENIUM AEGYPTIUM (Linn.) Richt. PL Europ. 1 (1889) 68. Cynosurus aegyptius Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 72. Gramen vaccinum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 9, 10, L 4, /. J- Amboina, Batoe mera, along roadsides, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. P, August 15, 1912. This common grass is fairly well represented by Rumphius's figure, although the prolonged rachis is not shown. The habit, together with the relatively thick spikes, unquestionably places the figure cited with Dactyloctenium rather than with Eleusine indiea Gaertn. The figure was first referred here by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) GRAMINEAE 95 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875 ; and later by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 59, by Roxburgh, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 344— all under Cynosurus — and finally by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 152, as Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum Willd. The figure is rarely cited in modern literature. The species usually appears in literature as Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum Willd. PHRAGMITES.Trinius PHRAGMITES VULGARIS (Lam.) Trin. Fund. Agrost. (1820) 134. Arundo vulgaris Lam. Fl. Franc. 3 (1778) 615. Arundo phragmites Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 81. Canna palustris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 20, t. 5, Amboina, Wakal, near the beach, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. H, Novem- ber 5, 1913, known as tebu-tebu. Rumphius describes Canna palustris as from 12 to 16 feet high; Robinson notes that his plant, cited above, is from 3 to 4 meters high. Both may be referable to Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin., rather than to P, vulgaris Trin. Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 54, erroneously considers it under Aira arundi- nacea Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 71, has reduced Carina palustris Rumph., with doubt, to Eulalia japonica Trin. =Miscanthus japonicus Anders.; this suggested reduction is impossible, however, as the habitat and other data given by Rumphius apply to Phragmites, not to Miscanthus. The figure of Canna palustris is very crude, and the true position of the species has not before been recognized. ERAGROSTIS Host ERAGROSTIS AMABILIS (Linn.) W. & A. in Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech. Voy. (1841) 251, excl. descr. Poa amabilis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 68. Poa tenella Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 69. Eragrostis plumosa Link Hort. Berol. 1 (1827) 192. Eragrostis tenella R. & S. Syst. 2 (1817) 576. Gramen fumi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11, t. 4-, /. S. Bali, Rel Robins. 2515, 25S2, July 7, 1913, but not represented in the Amboina collection. Gramen fumi was reduced by Linnaeus to Poa tenella Linn,, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 101, in which he was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 28, Poiret in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 85, and by various other authors. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) •>37, refers it to Poa plumosa Retz.^- Eragrostis plumosa Link "^Eragrostis amabilis (Linn.) W. & A. Poa amabilis Linn, is identical with the species commonly known as Eragrostis tenella 96 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE R. & S. and E. plumosa Link. Poa tenella Linn, was based on specimens from India and is identical with Poa amabilis Linn. ; see Munro in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 6 (1862) 43. It is to be noted that in transferring the Linnean specific name to Eragros- Us, as E. amabilis, Wight and Arnott describe a form that is totally distinct from Poa amabilis Linn, and is Eragrostis unio- loides Nees. The specific name amabilis manifestly belongs with the plant originally described by Linnaeus, not with Era- grostis unioloides Nees. BAMBUSEAE Under the names Arundo and Arimdarbor, Rumphius has described a number of species and forms of bamboo, which have been very imperfectly understood by later authors, although many species have been based, wholly or in part, on Rumphius's descriptions. These numerous species, chiefly proposed by Loureiro, Roemer and Schultes, and Miquel, have remained doubtful, almost without exception, to the present time. The Amboinian material presents four distinct species, three of which were described by Rumphius, and this material has enabled me to solve several problems in synonymy and definitely to determine the status of a number of specific names in various genera that have been based on Rumphius. The others have been interpreted from the data given by Rumphius, but much field work is necessary before a sufficient amount of data is available properly to interpret the numerous forms named by Rumphius. In this connection it is to be noted that it has been possible definitely to determine the status of every species of bamboo described by Blanco from the Philippines, a total of eight, from field work in connection with Blanco's descriptions and the native names cited by him; yet Blanco's descriptions, on the average, are decidedly inferior to those of Rumphius. Up to 1900 not one of Blanco's species had been definitely placed, those that were considered at all appeared in literature as species of doubtful status. It is confidently expected that the status of most of the species based on Rumphius can be definitely settled by following the policy adopted in the Philippines in working out the identity of Blanco's species. The specimens cited below, with the exception of Bambusa spinosa Roxb., of which there were no duplicates, have been critically examined by Mr. J. Sykes Gamble, to whom I am under obligations for his valuable notes, both in connection with the identity of the forms with the Rumphian descriptions and with the names in current use for the several species. GRAMINEAE 97 BAMBUSA Schreber BAMBUSA SPINOSA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25 (type!). Bambusa spinosa Blume ex Nees in Flora 8 (1825) 580. Bambusa blumeana Schultes f. Syst. 7 '^ (1830) 1343. Bambusa teba Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 418 (type!). Arundarbor spinosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 14, t. 3. Amboina, back of the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 608, July 17, 1913, locally known as bambu duri. There is no question that this is Arundarbor spinosa of Rumphius, and that it is identical with the widely distributed Malayan Bambusa blumeana Schultes f. However, Bambusa spinosa Roxb. was based wholly on Rumphius in the original place of publication, Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 25, by citation of ^'H. A. 4. t. 3 ;'' that is. Herbarium Amboinense Vol. IV, t S. Robinson,* however, states (p. 418) : ''Bambusa spinosa Roxb., as typified by Herb. Amb. 4: pi. 3, is probably not B. arundinacea Willd., and there are various points in Rumphius's description, which oppose its identification as B. Blumeana Schultes f." Munro t states under Bambusa blumeana Schultes f . : ''Blume states that this plant is spinous; and there are some traces of spines on the specimens I have seen; but there is nothing to indicate that it is as spinous as JS. agrestis of Poir. and Arundarbor spinosa of Rumph. are described to be." From an examination of the Amboina specimen, Rumphius's descrip- tion, and with a definite knowledge of this plant as it grows in the field, for it is one of the commonest bamboos in the Philippines, I am thoroughly convinced that Arundarbor spinosa is identical with Bambusa blumeana Schultes f., but under our rules of nomenclature, the oldest valid specific name is Bambusa spinosa Roxb. The plant is remarkable for the dense thicket of interlaced, stiff, very spiny branches that surrounds the lower parts of the culms, and these are well represented by Rumphius's figure. Ordinary herbarium specimens, taken from the upper leafy branches often do not present spines, or at least only few and greatly reduced ones, which accounts for Munro's statement, as he saw only herbarium specimens and did not know the plant in the field. By Loureiro Arundarbor spinosa was reduced to his Arundo ^Orestis, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 57, but Arundo agrestis Lour, was based on specimens from Cochin-China, and apparently is Bam- * Robinson, C. B. Roxburgh's Hortus Bengalensis. Philip. Journ. Sci, 7 (1912) Bot. 410-419. t Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 102. 144971 7 98 * RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE busa arundinacea Retz., not B. blumeana Schultes f . Loureiro's species was transferred to Bamhusa as B. agrestis Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 704. Munro includes Loureiro's species in the synonymy of Bamhusa blumeana Schultes f., with doubt; I am convinced that it should be transferred to Bamhusa arun- dinacea Retz. Bamhusa teha Miq. is based wholly on Rumphius, for Miquel cites as synonyms Arundo agrestis Lour, and Bam- husa agrestis Poir., specifically excluding all data given by these authors except the Rumphian synonym, Arundarbor spi- nosa Rumph. BAM BUSA ATRA Lindl. in Penny Cyclop. 3 (1835) 357 (type!). Bamhusa prava Lindl. 1. c. (type!). Bamhusa picta Lindl. 1. c. (type!). Leleba alha, nigra, prava, et lineata Rumph. ex R. & S. Syst. 7 ^ (1830) 1345, 1346. Bamhusa tenuis Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1868) 119 (type!). Teleha rumphiana Kurz Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 20 (type!). bamhusa rumphiana Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39 ^ (1870) 86. Bamhusa lineata Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1868) 118 (type!). Arundarbor tenuis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1, t, 1 (incl. aiba, nigra, lineata, et prava). Amboina, Way tommo, Rohinson PL Rumph. Amh. 32, August 18, 1913; Caju poeti, PL Rumph. Amh. 33, August 2, 1913; Lateri, Rohinson PI Rumph. Amh. 3U, September 5, 1913; all known as leleba. The synonymy of this species is rather compHcated, but Bam- husa atra Lindl., 1835, based on Leleba nigra, is apparently the oldest valid specific name. It is to be noted that the several forms described by Rumphius under the designations Leleba nigra, prava, picta, lineata, and amahussana are repeated by Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 1 '' (1830) 1345, 1346, under the Rumphian names in a note following Bamhusa verticillata Willd. ''Publication'' was not intended, nor have Roemer and Schultes's names been recognized as published. Regarding the actual specimens cited above, Mr. Gamble writes as follows: ''I make Nos. 32, 33, 34 all Bamhusa rumphiana Kurz. In my Bambuseae of British India* I described this as Bamhusa lineata Munro, but after publication Sir D. Brandis pointed out to me that Munro's B. lineata only referred to one of Rumphius's varieties, while Kurz's name included them all So I agree with him, but it is best to take Kurz's name. No. 32, I agree, fits best with Rumphius's Arundo arbor temds nigra, and No. 33 with A. tenuis alba; so too No. 34, with very broad leaves, will do for A. tenuis prava.'' *Ann. Bot. Card. Calcutta 7 (1896) 1-133, t. 1-118, GRAMINEAE 99 Historically, the first reference to Arundo arbor tenuis is found in Loureiro's Flora Cochinchinensis (1790) 58, where he refers it to his Arundo multiplex. However, Arundo multiplex Lour, was primarily based on specimens from Cochin-China and of course must be interpreted from Cochin-China material. It is Bambusa midtiplex Raeusch, a species of doubtful status, which Munro suggests closely approaches Bambusa nutans Wall. Willdenow erroneously referred the Rumphian species to his Bambusa verticillatay Sp. PL 2 (1799) 245, in which he was followed by many authors. Willdenow's species, however, was based on actual specimens, has nothing to do with the Rumphian plant, and is Gigantochloa verticillata Munro. All of the synonyms cited above, except Bambusa rumphiana Kurz and B, lineata Munro, have previously been considered to represent species of doubtful status. Var. AMAHUSSANA (Lindl.) comb. nov. Bambusa amahussana Lindl. in Penny Cycl. 3 (1835) 357 (type!). Bambusa rumphiana Kurz, var. amahussana Gamble in lit. Arundarbor amahussana (i. e. Leleba amahussana) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 3. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 35, July 30, 1913, near the beach, 2 to 3 m high, often reclining, locally known as bambu nitu. Regarding this form Mr. Gamble writes as follows: "No. 35 is identified, with much probability, with Arundarbor tenuis amahussana. It comes from Amahoesoe and differs from the others in the small spikelets. It is, I think, quite a distinct variety, but only a variety, for dissection of the flowers pre- sents no differential characters. It is characterized by its very small spikelets.'' In connection with the various forms of this species it is well to note that Kurz* has enumerated five varieties under the Malayan names, Leleba dyahat, pootee, ietam, tootool, and soorat. BAMBUSA VULGARIS Schrad. in Wendl. Collect. PL 2 (1810) 26, t. U7, Bambusa fera Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!). Bambusa vasaria Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 122 (type!)? Arundarbor fera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16, t. ^. Arundarbor vasaria s. Bulu Java Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 8? Arundarbor fer^a Rumph. is the whole basis of Bambusa fera Miq., and it seems to be typical Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., a disposition of it suggested by Miquel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch, (1790) 57, referred it to Arundo mitis Lour., a species typified * Ind. Forester 1 : 341. 100 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE by Cochin-China specimens. Bamhusa mitis Poir., in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, is merely a new name for Arundo mitis Lour. Loureiro's specimens were from plants cultivated in Cochin-China, and the species may well be the same as Bamhusa vulgaris Schrad., in which case the specific name mitis will have priority. In proposing Bamhusa fera, Miquel explicitly excludes from the synonyms cited all but the reference to Rumphius. Arundarbor vasaria s. Bulu Java Rumph. is the whole basis of Bamhusa vasaria Munro and is probably the same as Bam- husa vulgaris Schrad. Munro suggested that it might be the same as Bamhusa halcooa Roxb., but the distribution of the latter, known only from India, makes this reduction an impos- sible one. Schultes quotes it under Bamhusa arundinacea Retz., Loureiro under Arundo hamhos Lour., while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 417, thinks that it may be Bamhusa vulgaris Schrad. Arundarbor vasaria cho Rumph. 4; 10, may also belong here. Under Arundarhor vasaria Rumphius describes several other forms, on which, fortunately, subsequent botanists have based no binomials, either wholly or in part. From the data at present available it is impossible to determine their status, and they are accordingly not listed here. The full list is given by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 69-71. BAMBUSA VULGARIS Schrad. var. STRIATA (Lodd.) Gamble in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 44. Bamhusa striata Lodd. ex Lindl. Penny Cyclop. 3 (1835) 357. Arundarbor fera elegantissima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16. The description given by Rumphius applies unmistakably to this form of Bamhusa vulgaris Schrad., which is widely culti- vated in the tropics of the Old World for ornamental purposes. BAMBUSA EXCELSA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!). Arundarbor maxima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 12. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 58, referred Arundarhor maxi- ma Rumph. to Arundo maxima Lour., but his description was based on Cochin-China specimens, which probably represent a species quite different from the one Rumphius described. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, transferred it to Bamhusa maxima Poir. Miquel, however, in proposing the name Bamhusa ex- celsa, specifically excludes from the descriptions of Loureiro and Poiret everything except the references to Rumphius; Me- locanna excelsa Roep., in Trin. Clav. Agrost. (1822) 105, which probably goes with Arundarbor maxima Lour., is cited as a doubtful synonym. Munro has suggested that Bamhusa excels^ GRAMINEAE 101 Miq. is a synonym of Gigantochloa verticillata Munro. The native names given by Rumphius are hulu sammet, bulu gantang, bulu wani besaar, terin maysele, and tabatiko sammat. I suspect that it is, at least in part, Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro. GIGANTOCHLOA Kurz GIGANTOCHLOA ASPERA (Schultes) Kurz ex Koord. Exkurs. Fl. Java 1 (1911) 176. Bambusa aspera Schultes Syst. 7" (1830) 1352 (type!). Arundarbor aspera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 11, t. 2. Munro,* sub Gigantochloa atter Kurz, states: "Kurz, in his notes, identifies this species ^Gigantochloa atter] with Bambusa aspera and B. bitung Roem. & Sch/' to which Kurz f rejoins : ''I do not understand this interpretation in which I am said to have identified 2 such species, as those alluded to, which differ toto coelo! As far as I am aware I have identified B. aspera with B, Bitung, but surely not these two with B, atter. The one is (sententia Munroana) a Dendrocalamus, the other a Gigan- tochloa/' He then adds a diagnosis of Bambusa aspera as he understands the species, but which is not published under Gigan- tochloa, The range is given as "Indian Archipelago, from the Moluccas to Singapore/' Bambusa aspera R. & S. is not men- tioned by Gamble,! but Bambusa bitung R. & S. is placed as a probable synonym under Dendrocalamus flagellifer Munro. Camus § likewise does not mention Bambusa aspera R. & S., but follows Munro and Gamble in the disposition of Bambusa bitung R. & S. I have found no transfer of the species to Gigantochloa antedating that made by Koorders, cited above. The species, which is one of doubtful status, may be a Dendrocalamus, DINOCHLOA Biise DINOCHLOA sp.? Boeloe rottang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 119. The description manifestly applies to some scandent species of bamboo, which might be either of the genus Dinochloa or Schizostachyum, Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 102, referred it with doubt to Dinochloa tjankorreh Buse=Z). scandens 0, Ktze., but in the absence of material from Amboina representing any scandent bamboo, all reductions of Boeloe rottang must be uncertain. * Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 125. tJourn. As. Soc. Beng. 39' (1870) 87. t Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 1-133, t. 1-118. §Les Bambusees (1913) 1-215. 102 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE SCHIZOSTACHYUM Nees 8CHIZ0STACHYUM BRACHYCLADUM Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39' (1870) 89. Arundarbor cratium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 5. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 36, August 11, 1913; Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 37, August 26, 1913, locally known as bulu jawa and bulu seru, in dense clumps, culms from 5 to 10 meters high, the internodes 35 to 90 cm in length. In regard to the numbers cited, Mr. Gamble writes as fol- lows: *1 think that you have correctly identified these with Arundarbor cratium. The specimens are quite good ones of Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz, and agree with a series of specimens from Java and the Philippines as well as with specimens from cultivated plants in the Calcutta garden.'' Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 58, referred Arundarbor cratium to Arundo fax Lour., a species based on Cochin-China specimens and probably not the same as the Amboina form. Melocanna humilis Roep., ex Trin Clav. Agrost. (1822) 105, is merely a new name for Arundo fax Lour. Beesha humilis Kunth, Enum. 1 (1833) 434, and Beesha fax R. & S., Syst. 7^ (1830) 1336, are also synonyms of Arundo fax Lour, and like Loureiro's species are not to be interpreted by the latter's erroneous reduc- tion of Arundarbor cratium Rumph. Rumphius briefly describes six forms following Arundarbor cratium, but the descriptions are not sufficiently definite to warrant the reduction of any of them. They may or may not be variants of Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz. See also under Schizostachyum sp. {Bambusa longinodis Miq.). SCHIZOSTACHYUM sp. Bambusa longinodis Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!). Arundarbor splculorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 7. MiqueFs species was based wholly on Rumphius, as he speci- fically includes from Bambusa tabacaria Poir. {Arundo taba- caria Lour.) only the reference to Rumphius. Loureiro, Fl Cochinch. (1790) 68, quotes Rumphius's species as a synonym of Arundo tabacaria Lour., a species based on Cochin-China specimens undoubtedly different from the Amboina plant; Bam- busa tabacaria Poir. is merely a new name for Loureiro's species and must be interpreted from Loureiro's description, not from Rumphius. Bambusa longinodis Miq. is unquestionably ^ species of Schizostachyum closely allied to the Philippine Schizostachyum lima (Blanco) Merr. {S. hallieri Gamble) and CYPERACEAE 103 to Schizostachyum brachycla^um Kurz. It is barely possible that the Lateri specimen, cited above under Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz (PL Rumph. Amb, 87) and described by Doctor Robinson as having internodes 60 to 90 cm in length, may be Arundarbor spiculorum Rumph. In PI, Rumph. Amb. 36, also cited under Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz, the internodes are from 35 to 40 cm in length, but the branches, leaves, inflorescence, and spikelets are identical in both specimens. BAMBUSEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS The following forms of bamboo described by Rumphius are undetermin- able, and fortunately, with possibly one exception, they have not been made the basis of binomials by subsequent authors: Arundarbor fera sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16. This is probably the same as Bambusa spinosa Roxb. Arundarbor ferae adf. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18. Arundarbor fera nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18. This may be Bambusa nigra Lodd., where it has been placed by several authors. Arundarbor fera s. cha Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18. Arundarbor fera 8. bulu tsjatjar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18. Arundarbor fera s. Arundo japan lea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18. CYPERACEAE KYLLINGA Rottboell KYLLINGA MONOCEPHALA Rottb. Descr. et Ic. PI. (1773) 13, t. U, /. U^ Gramen capitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:8, t. 3y f. 2. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. j^29f July 25, 1913, in meadows near sea level, associated with Kyllinga brevi- folia Rottb. {Rel Robins, 1897). The figure presents a good habit sketch of what might be either Kyllinga monocephala Rottb. or K. brevifolia Rottb., but as the inflorescence is described as white, I have referred the Rumphian figure and description to Kyllinga monocephala; the inflorescence of K. brevifolia Rottb. is usually, if not always, green instead of white. Historically, the Rumphian figure was first considered by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, where it is erroneously reduced to Scirpus glomeratus Linn. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 18, and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 41, erroneously refer it to Schoenus coloratus Linn. Lamark, however, Encycl. 3 (1789) 366, correctly reduced it to Kyllinga monocephala Rottb., this deduction being very generally accepted by subsequent authors. 104 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE REMIREA.Aublet REMIREA MARITIMA Aubl. PL Guin. (1775) 45, t, 16. Cyperus long us Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 5, t. 2^ f, 1. Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 4-^6, September 4, 1913, growing on the strand. The specimen agrees entirely with Rumphius's description and with the excellent figure given by him. The identity of Cyperus longus with Remirea maritima has not been previously sug- gested. By Kunth, Enum. 2 (1837) 94, it was erroneously reduced to Cyperus kyllingioides Vahl, following Roemer and Schultes, Mant. 2 (1824) 98, who, however, cite by error Rheede's Hortus Malabaricus, rather than Rumphius. This reduction is followed by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 152. PYCREUS Beauvois PYCREUS ODORATUS (Linn.) Urb. Symb. Antil. 2 (1900) 164. CyperuM odoratus Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 46, excl. syn. Sloane. Pycreus polystachyus Beauv. Fl. Oware et Benin 2 (1807) 48, t, 86, f.2. Cyperus polystachyus R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 214. Cyperus floridus II mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 2, t. i, /. 2. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, along sandy beaches, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^Sl, August 22, 1913. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 151, refers both figures 1 and 2 of table 1 to Cyperibs rotimdus Linn. Figure 1 is certainly correctly referred by him, but figure 2 and the description of Cyperus floridus mas appear to me to agree better with the common and widely distributed Pycreus odoratus Urb. CYPERUS Linnaeus CYPERUS ROTUNDUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 45. Cyperus rotundus bulbosus give legitimus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1, t. i, /. 1. This common species is not represented in our Amboina col- lections, but there is not the slightest doubt as to the correctness of this reduction, which follows both Kunth and Hasskarl. ELEOCHARIS R. Brown ELEOCHARIS DULCIS (Burm. f.) Trin. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 186. Andropogon dulcis Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 219 (type!). Hippurts indica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 16. Carex tuberosa Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 35. Cyperus dulcis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:7, t. S, /. i. CYPERACEAE 105 This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but the Rumphian figure unmistakably represents a plant allied to Eleocharis tuber osa Schultes, which is possibly but a tuber-, bearing form of Eleocharis plantaginoidea (Rottb.) W. F. Wight (Scirpus plantaginoides Rottb., Eleocharis plantaginea R. Br., Scirpus plantagineus Retz.). Rumphius's Cyperus dulcis is in part the basis of Burman's Andropogon dulcis, this author also citing a figure in Plukenet. There is no indication that Burman had actual specimens, the Rumphian reference is the first one given, and the specific name is taken from Rumphius ; therefore, I have interpreted Cyperus dulcis as the type. In Index Kewensis Andropogon dulcis Burm. f. is reduced to Sorghum vulgare. The Malayan form very closely approaches the one cultivated in southern China, known in Canton as maa tai, that is, typical Eleocharis tuberosa (Roxb.) Schultes. Loureiro's description of Hippuris indica apparently applies to the wild form of this species, as he describes the tubers as small and pilose; those of maa tai are smooth and from 2.5 to 4.5 cm in diameter. Loureiro quotes Cyperus dulcis Rumph. as a synonym of Hippuris indica Lour. It is to be noted that Eleocharis dulcis Trin. does not appear in Index Kewensis. FIMBRISTYLIS Vahl FIMBRISTYLIS SETACEA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 2 (1843) 239. Gramen polytrlchum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 17, t. 7, /. 1. Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. Jf38, August 12, 1913, along roadsides, altitude about 250 meters. The figure given by Rumphius presents a good habit sketch that might with almost equal propriety be referred to Fimbri- stylis setacea Benth., to F. polytrichoides R. Br., to F. acuminata Vahl, or to any similar tufted species with slender leafless stems and solitary terminal spikelets. As Fimbristylis setacea Benth. is the only species of this type represented in the Amboina collection, I have interpreted it as Gramen polytrichum Rumph. Linnaeus, through error, reduced it to Eriocaulon setaceum Linn., Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 880, followed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 60. Willdenow, Sp. PI, 1 (1797) 295, referred it to Scirpus polytrichoides ^Qtz,=Fimbristylis polytrichoides R. Br., which disposition of it has been followed by various authors. There is nothing in the Rumphian description to indicate to which of the species of Fimbristylis discussed above it can be referred; from the 106 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE habitat cited by Rumphius, the indications are that Fimbristylis setacea Benth., rather than F. polytrichoides R. Br., is the correct disposition of it; it is certainly not Fimbristylis acumi- nata Vahl. GAHNIA Forster GAHNIA RAWACENSIS (Kunth) Steud. Syn. PI. Cyp. (1855) 164? Lamprocarya rawacensis Kunth Enum. 2 (1837) 333. Carex cu I mar Is Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21? Amboina, Amahoesoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, k^Uy September 18, 1913, on hillsides, altitude about 150 meters. The identity of the specimen with either Gahnia rawacensis Steud. or Carex culmaris Rumph. is very doubtful. The speci- mens somewhat resemble Gahnia tristis Nees, but are very much smaller and differ in various details. They do not, however, agree entirely with the rather imperfect description of Gahnia rawacensis Steud., the type of which was from Rawak Island, in the Moluccas; it has been reduced, apparently erroneously, to Gahnia aspera Spreng. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 155, refers the Rumphian plant to Gahnia javanica Z. & M. Doctor Robinson, who suggested the identity of the plant with Carex culmaris, states : "Identification considered very doubtful, but so must any identification be." HYPOLYTRUM Richard HYPOLYTRUM LATIFOLIUM Rich, ex Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 70. Carex laevls minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21. Amboina, Batoe gad j ah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 1^3 2 ^ August 5, 1913, near streams, altitude about 150 meters. This reduction of Carex laevis minor to Hypolytrum latifolium Rich, has not prevously been suggested. Rumphius's descrip- tion applies closely to the species as here interpreted. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 155, has suggested that it might be a form of Cypertis polystachyus Rotth. =Pycreus odoratus Urb., but that reduction is an impossible one. SCIRPIODENDRON Zippel SCIRPIODENDRON GHAERI (Gaertn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 268. Chionanthus ghaeri Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 190, t. 29, f. a-e; Boerl in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 31 (1896) 246. Scirpiodendron costatum Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 38 ^ (1869) 85. Scirpiodendron pandaniforme Zipp. ex Kurz 1. c. Scirpiodendron sulcatum Miq. 111. Fl. Archipel. Ind. (1871) 65, t. 28. CYPERACEAE 1()7 Pandanus caricosus Spreng, Syst. 3 (1826) 897 (type!); Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 98, non Pandanus caricosus Kurz in Journ. Bot. 5 (1867) 100, t. 62, /. 1-3, nee Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 83. Pandanus caricosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 154. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. U37, November 25, 1913, along margins of streams near the beach. Pandanus caricosus Rumph. is unquestionably a Scirpioden- dron, although the leaves, as described, are unusually long for S. ghaeri Merr. The description of the infructescence and fruit, however, is unquestionably Scirpiodendron: *'Ejus fructus raro in conspectum venit, atque in peculiari progerminat petiolo, pedem circiter alto, & supra radicem elevato, qui foliis cingitur tribus, in triangulo positis, uti in Cypero.'' Pandanus caricosus Spreng. is based absolutely on the Rumphian description, and the species as described by him, after Rumphius, is repeated by various other authors. Kurz,* however, described a true Pandanus, under the name Pandanus caricosus, which was ac- cepted by Warburg t as a vahd species. As Kurz's name is invalidated by Pandanus caricosus Spreng., I propose the new specific designation Pandanus kurzii, for Pandanus caricosus Kurz, non Spreng. M ARAN I A Aublet MAPANfA MACROCEPHALA (Gaudich.) K. Sch. ex Warb. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 13 (1891) 265. Hypolytrum macrocephalum Gaudich. in Freyc. Voy. Bot. (1826) 414. Lepironia macrocephala Miq. 111. Fl. Archipel. Ind. (1871) 64, t. 27. Carex laevis major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21. Amboina, Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. j^SO, August 5, 1913, along streams, altitude about 150 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, has suggested that Carex laevis major of Rumphius is Pandanophyllum palustre Hassk., but Rumphius's description does not agree, especially in the statement as to the stalk of the inflorescence bearing two or three long leaves. It is, with very little doubt, Mapania macrocephala K. Sch. SCLERIA Bergius SCLERIA LITHOSPERMA Sw. Prodr. (1788) 18. Carex amboinica II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20. Amboina, Wakeroe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. JfSS, near the seashore, October 17, 1913. * Journ. Bot. 5 (1867) 100, t. 62, f. 1-3. tEngl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 83. 108 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The identity of Carex amboinica minor Rumph. with Scleria lithosperma Sw. is very probable. Hasskarl has suggested, Neue Schllissel (1866) 155, that it is Scleria trialata Poir., a species originally described from Madagascar. The specimen from the Moluccas, determined by Brongniart, in Duperry's Voy. Bot. (1829) 165, and referred by Kunth with doubt to Scleria trialata Poir., is probably Scleria bancana Miq. SCLERIA BANCANA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1861) 602. Carex amboinica I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20, t. 8, /. 1? Amboina, Gelala and Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 43S, August, September, 1913, on barren, grassy hillsides. The identification follows a suggestion made by Doctor Robin- son, who considers this plant as probably representing the Rumphian species. It is to be noted, however, that Rumphius's figure and description of Carex amboinica major call for a plant with pseudoverticillate leaves, while in Scleria bancana Miq. the leaves are all alternate and distant. It is suspected that the plant Rumphius intended is Scleria sumatrensis Retz., S, scro- biculata Nees, or some very closely allied form, such as S^ multifoliata Boeckl. Historically the first reference to Rumphius is that by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, where under t. 8 he includes, by error, with Carex amboinica, Lithospermum amboinicum and Arimdinella; for the latter two t, 9 was intended, and the same error is repeated in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 19, based his Schoenus paniculatus partly on Carex amboinica Rumph., but the type was a specimen from Java, and the species must be interpreted from the Javan specimen. It is supposed to include both Scleria sumatrensis Retz. and S. alata Thw. The Rumphian figure and description have been referred by other authors to Scleria flagellum Sw., S, tessellata Brongn., and S, approximata Hassk. CYPERACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Cyperus rotundus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 4 quoad humllior, altior, gramen bufonum, et III inodorus. The descriptions of these four forms manifestly pertain to the Cyperaceae, but the data given are too vague to warrant the definite reduction of them to any particular genus or species. For the most part, apparently, species of Cyperus and Fimbristylis are intended. Carex amboinica III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20. A coarse sedge from Bali, there known as tallan tallan; probably one of the large species of Cyperus, Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 155, thought that it might be Rhynchospora aurea Vahl=:i?. corymbosa (Linn.) Britt. PALMAE 109 PALMAE The Amboina collections made by Doctor Robinson have thrown comparatively little light on the identity of the numerous species of palms described by Rumphius, for the reason that very few palms were secured by him. Probably in no other group of plants is there more confusion among those species based by later authors on Rumphius or more species of uncertain status than in this family. In the genus Calamus numerous species that were based wholly on the Rumphian descriptions and figures are quite unrecognizable; their positions within the genus and their relationships with other forms are quite undeterminable. In the genus Metroxylon it is impossible to determine, from material at present available, whether one somewhat polymor- phous species or several closely allied ones are represented. In order definitely to settle many cases of uncertain nomenclature and to determine the true characters of many species that have been based wholly on Rumphius, a much more extensive botanical exploration of the Moluccas, especially of Amboina, is necessary, and in no group of plants is this more important than in the Palmae, Beccari has recently given us critical and beautifully illus- trated monographs of the genera Calamus and Daemonorops,'^ yet of the fifteen species belonging in these two genera, described and for the most part figured by Rumphius, he was able de- finitely to recognize and to connect with botanical material but four species. Four, incidentally mentioned in the text, he justly states can in all probability never be recognized, but the others he considers to represent characteristic species, which will eventually be recognized when the Moluccas shall have been more thoroughly explored botanically. Numerous questions of nomenclature cannot be determined from data at present available, and accordingly the following treatment of the palms described by Rumphius is distinctly un- satisfactory in many respects. Many of the more characteristic forms figured by him are readily recognizable, and their status is certain. Others must await the collection of additional ma- terial. Under the circumstances it has been considered best to give a critical enumeration of all the species, according to their definitely determined or their problematical positions. In certain cases new names are indicated, but few new combina- * Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 1-518, t 1-238; 12^ (1911) 1-237, ^. 1-109. 110 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE tions have been proposed in view of the uncertain status of some of the species. I am under obligations to Doctor O. Beccari, Florence, Italy, for identifications of the palms actually collected by Doctor Robinson. CORYPHA Linnaeus CORYPHA UTAN Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 131 (type!). Borassus sylvestris Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 86 (type!). Taliera sylvestris Blume ex Schultes Syst. 7 (1830) 1307 (type!). Corypha sylvestris Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 233; Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 59 (type!). Lontarus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 53, t. 11. Lontarus silvestris Rumph. is the whole basis of Corypha utan Lam., which name should be maintained if the species proves to be a valid one. Borassus sylvestris Giseke, Corypha sylvestris Mart., and Taliera sylvestris Blume are exact synonyms, being, like Corypha utan Lam., based on Rumphius. CORYPHA GEBANGA Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 59, t, 97, 89, 105; Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 233. Gembanga rotundifolia Blume ex Nees in Flora 8 (1825) 580, 676. Taliera gembanga Blume ex Schultes Syst. 7 (1830) 1307. Lontarus silvestris s. cabang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:55. In this reduction I have followed Blume and Martins. In view of the uncertain status of Blume's species, no attempt is made to adjust the synonymy. It is manifestly very closely allied to, if not identical with, Corypha elata Roxb., and it may also prove to be the same as Corypha utan Lam. CORYPHA ELATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 176. Lontarus silvestris s. yliur e Phllippln. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:54. Among all the palms that occur in the Philippines that yield a sago-like edible fecula, Rumphius's discussion of this applies only to Corypha in "trunco tam crasso, ut vir eum brachiis complecti nequeat.*' Corypha elata Roxb. may prove to be iden- tical with one or both of the preceding species. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 12, quotes it as a possible synonym of Borassus sylvestris Gieseke, after Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 140. Lieu ALA Thunberg LICUALA RUMPHII Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 41, t. 89, f, 2, Corypha licuala Lam. Encycl. 2 (1783) 131 (type!). Licuala arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 44, t, 9. The status of this species, as distinct from Licuala spinosa PALMAE 111 Wurmb, in Verh. Bat. Genoets. 2 (1780) 469, is doubtful, and it may properly be a synonym of Wurmb's species. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 213, placed it under Corypha pilearia Lour., which is Licuala pilearia Blume, and perhaps the same as Li- cuala spinosa Wurmb. It is the whole basis of Corypha licuala Lam. and in part the basis of Licuala rumphii Blume. Murray, Giseke, Roxburgh, Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and other au- thors refer it to Licuala spinosa Thunb., in Vet. Akad. Nya Handl. (1782) 278, which is antedated by two years by Licuala spinosa Wurmb. The essential distinctive characters of Licuala rumphii Blume are very imperfectly known, and a critical revi- sion of the genus may show that it is a synonym of Licuala spinosa Wurmb. The figure is poor, but it manifestly represents a Licuala very similar in appearance to the widely distributed Licuala spinosa Wurmb. LIVISTONA R. Brown LIVISTONA ROTUNDI FOLIA (Lam.) Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 241. Corypha rotundifolia Lam. Encyd. 2 (1786) 131 (type!). Saribus rotundifolius Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 49. Licuala rotundifolia Blume ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 7 ^ (1830) 1305. Saribus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 42, t. 8, This is one of the few Rumphian species considered by Lin- naeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753), where he erroneously reduced it to Corypha umbraculifera Linn., page 1187, and later cited it under the same name in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, and Sp. PL ed. 2, (1763) 1657, in whch he was followed by Giseke, Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 49. Louriero, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 212, placed it under Corypha saribus Lour., taking his specific name from Rumphius. The species he actually described, however, is not the Amboina form, but is Livistona cochinchinensis Blume. Saribus Rumph. is the whole basis of Corypha rotundifolia Lam., which in turn typifies Livistona rotundifolia Mart. Arbor tsjang Rumph., Herb. Amb. 1: 63, which is very im- perfectly described, is perhaps a species of Livistona, as sug- gested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 12; it was from French Indo-China. LIVISTONA ? BISSULA Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 242 (type!). Licuala ? bissula Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 57 (type!). Bissula Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:85. The status of this species is entirely doubtful. It may be 112 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE neither a Livistona nor a Licuala; the description of the fruits is suggestive of Pholidocarpus. Rumphius^s specimens were from Celebes, where the palm is known as bissula and metsje. PHOLIDOCARPUS Blume PHOLIDOCARPUS IHUR (Giseke) Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 90 (type!). Borassus ? ihur Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 87 (type!). Pholidocarpus rumphii Meisn. ex Hassk, in AbhandL Naturf. Gesel- Isch. Halle 9 (1866) 154 (type!). Lontarus silvestris altera s. ihur Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 56, t. 12. The Rumphian illustration and description typify Borassus ihur Giseke, Pholidocarpios ihur Blume, and Pholidocarpus rumphii Meisn. ; the last does not appear in Index Kewensis. BORASSUS Linnaeus BORASSUS FLABELLIFER Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1187. Borassus flabelliformis Murr. Syst. (1774) 827. Lontarus domestica Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 21, t. 8. Lontarus domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:45, t. 10. This was one of the few Rumphian species considered by Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753), where, page 1187, he correctly reduced it to Borassus flabellifer Linn., the reduction being repeated in his later writings. Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1657, and generally accepted by all authors. Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 21, merely substituted the generic name Lontarus for the Linnean name Borassus, considering the species under the new name Lontarus domestica Gaertn. LODOICEA Commerson LODOICEA MALDIVICA (GmeL) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 630. Cocos maldivica GmeL Syst. (1791) 569 (maldioica), ed. 2 (1796) 569. Borassus sonnerati Giseke PraeL Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 86. Lodoicea callipyge Comm. ex St. HiL Expos. 1 (1805) 96. Lodoicea seychellarum LabilL in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 140, t 13. Cocus maldivicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 210, t. SI. Rumphius figures only the fruit of this striking palm, and Gmelin's specific name, here adopted, is the oldest valid one for the species. METROXYLON Rottboell METROXYLON SAGU Rottb. in Nye SammL Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skrift. 2 (1783) 527. Sagus genuina Giseke PraeL Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 94 (type!). Metroxylon sagus Koenig in Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 138 (type!). PALMAE 113 Sagus rumphii Willd. Sp. PL 4 (1805) 404 (type!). Metroxylon rumphii Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 213. Sagus inermis Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68 (type!). Sagus genuina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 72, t. 17, 18. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 26, October 28, 1913, locally known as sagu turd. The inflorescence and fruit from a felled trunk, the leaves from a neighboring palm. Doctor Beccari, who has examined the material, thinks that perhaps the fruits belong with Metroxylon micra- canthum Mart. The sago palm presents considerable variation, especially in the presence or absence of spines, and when spines are present, in their length. It is probable that altogether too many ''species" have been proposed and that most of the plants described by Rumphius, on which later authors have based various binomials, are really but forms or varieties of a single species. No material is available, however, for pur- poses of comparison, and accordingly the various species that have been based on Rumphius's descriptions are listed below with their proper synonyms. The Rumphian illustrations and descriptions, cited above, have been quoted under all of the synonyms above listed, and most of them have been based solely on Rumphius. I have here adopted what is manifestly the oldest specific name for the species. METROXYLON M ICRACANTH UM Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215 (type!). Sagus micracanthus Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 153 (type!). Sagus genuina II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75. This is probably merely a form of Metroxylon sagu Rottb., and it is possible that the fruit and spadices of the specimen cited under the above species belong here. METROXYLON LONGISPIN UM Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215 (type!). Sagus longispina Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 154 (type!). Sagus genuina Giseke var. longispina Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 94 (type!). Sagus longispina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75. This is apparently merely a form or variety of the common sago palm with long spines. However, no material is available to warrant its definite reduction. The native names cited by i^umphius are lapia macanaru, lapia macanalo, and lapia maca- nalun. It was reduced by Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) ^»94, to Sagus farinifera (Gaertn.) Lam., which is certainly not the correct disposition of it. 144971 8 114 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE METROXYLON INERME Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215. Sagus laevis Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 147. Sagus laevis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 76. Like the preceding this is probably only a form or variety of the common sago palm. It has been referred by various authors to Metroxylon laeve Mart., to Sagus spinosus Roxb., to Metroxylon hermaphroditum Hassk., and to Metroxylon sagus Rottb., besides the synonyms cited above. Native names cited by Rumphius are lapia molat, sagu parampuan, and bulun. METROXYLON SYLVESTRE Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215 (type!). Sagus genuina Giseke var. silvestris Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 94 (type!). Sagus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 27, October 29, 1913, locally known as sagu ihur. The specimen has fairly long spines on its petioles, undoubtedly represents Sagus silvestris Rumph., and hence Metroxylon sylvestre Mart., but in all essential characters it appears to be identical with Metroxylon sagu Rottb. PIGAFETTIA Beccari PIGAFETTIA FILIFERA (Giseke) comb. nov. Sagus filifera Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 94 (type!). Sagus filaris Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 154 (type!). Metroxylon filare Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215 (type!). Pigafettia filaris Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 90, in obs. Sagus filaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 84, t. 19, The species is still known only, from the Rumphian description and figure, which are the type of Pigafettia filifera and of all the synonyms cited above. PIGAFETTIA ELATA (Reinw.) H. Wendl. in Kerch. Palm. (1878) 253. Sagus elata Reinw. ex Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 156, t. 128, /. J. Metroxylon elatum Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 216. Wanga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 85. Wanga, a Celebesian palm, is very briefly described by Rumphius. Pigafettia elata H. Wendl. seems to be the correct disposition of it. ZALACCA Reinwardt ZALACCA EDULIS Reinw. ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 7' (1830) 1334. Salacca edulis Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 3. Salakka edulis Reinw. ex Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823) 112. Calamus zalacca Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 267, t. 139, PALMAE 115 Zalacca blumeana Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1836-50) 201, t. 12S, t. 159, f. 3. Zalacca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 113, t. 57. f. 2. Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh and Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 25, August 23, 1913, locally known as salak, Linnaeus, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 463, originally reduced this through error to Calamus rotang Linn. Gaertner, Fruct. 2 (1791) 267, cites it under Calamus zalacca GsieYtn,= Zalacca eduUs Reinw. Most authors have cited it under Zalacca (Sa- lacca) edulis Reinw., but Martins placed it under Zalacca blu- meana Mart., which is merely a synonym of Reinwardt's species. CALAMUS Linnaeus CALAMUS ALBUS Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 383 (pp. exd. syn. Lour.) (type!); Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 444, t, 199, Palmijuncus albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 102, t. 53. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. tUy October 14, 1913, in forests, altitude 200 meters; locally known as rotang tuni. The specimen cited above has been identified with Calamus albus Pers. by Doctor Beccari. Palmijuncus albus Rumph. has been reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn, and to Calamus rudentum Lour., most of the references in literature being to the latter species. Loureiro made the reduction to Calamus rudentum Lour, in the original description of that species, but the type was a Cochin-China specimen, and the species is certainly not the same as the Amboina one. Strictly following rules of nomenclature, the name Calamus albus Pers. belongs with Calamus rudentum Lour., as a synonym, but I have ;here followed Beccari in applying it to the Amboina plant. fCALAMUS GRAMINOSUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 31 (type!). I Palmijuncus albus gramlnosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 104. \ A species known only from Rumphius's description ; see Bec- fcari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 499. It has been li'educed by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn., C. rudentun |Lour., and C. adspersus Blume, but is manifestly none of these. fit may be a form of Calamus albus Pers. ICALAMUS RUMPHII Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 38 (type!). I Daemonorops rumphii Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1850) 331. I Palmijuncus verus angustifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 105, t. 5U, f. 2, A species known only from Rumphius's figure and description ; pee Beccari, in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 400, who considers it to be allied to Calamus palustris Griff. It has been ^I'roneously reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn., 116 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE to C platyacanthos Mart., to Daemonorops elongatus Blume, and to D, longipes Griff. CALAMUS PISICARPUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 31 (type!). Palmijuncus verus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 106, t. 5U, f. i This species is known only from Rumphius's figure and descrip- tion, but is considered by Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 460, to represent a very distinct species allied to Cala- mus aruensis Becc. and C. holrungii Becc. By various authors it has been erroneously reduced to Calamus rotang Linn., to C. verus Lour., to C. oblongus Reinw., and to C. strictus Blume. Manifestly Calamus verus Lour., described from Cochin-China specimens, is a species entirely different from the Amboina plant, although Loureiro cites Palmijuncus verus Rumph. as a synonym of his species and takes his specific name from Rumphius. CALAMUS VIMINALIS Willd. Sp. PL 2 (1799) 203 (type!). Calamus litoralis Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 43. Palmijuncus viminalls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 108, t. 55, /. 2. I agree with Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 203, 497, that the Rumphian illustration pertains to the Javan species, not to the form described from Buru (Calamus buroensis Mart.). Palmijuncus viminalis Rumph. typifies Calamus vimh nalis Willd., and it has been erroneously reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn., to C. fasciculatus Roxb., and to C. buroensis Mart. CALAMUS BUROENSIS Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1850) 336 (type!). Calamus viminalls e Burone Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 109 (non t 55, /. ^). This is a species of doubtful status, known only from Rumph- ius's description; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 497. CALAMUS EQUESTRIS Willd. Sp. PL 2 (1799) 204 (type!). Palmijuncus equestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 110, t. 56. A species known only from Rumphius's figure and description; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 358. It has been erroneously reduced by various authors to Calamus rotan§ Linn, and to C. dioicus Lour. Willdenow also refers here t, 57, f. 1, which Beccari places under Calamus cawa Blume. CALAMUS CAWA Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 31, 62 (type!). Palmijuncus equestris s. rottang cawa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 112» t. 57 y /. i. A species known only from Rumphius's description ; see Bee- PALMAE 117 cari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 357* It has been confused by various authors with Calamus equestris Willd., with C. javensis Blume, and with C. maritimus Blume. CALAMUS ACIDUS Becc. in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 496 (type!). Palmijuncus acidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119, t. 58, f. 2, E. A very imperfectly known species, known only from Rumph- ius's description and figure. By various authors it has been erroneously reduced to Calamus barbatus Blume; to Calamus oblongus "Linn./' which does not exist [Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 102] ; and to Daemonorops barbatus Mart. CALAMUS sp. Palmijuncus aracanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 107. A form of entirely uncertain status ; it was thought by Schultes to be referable to Calamus oblongus Reinw., and by Kunth to be Calamus latifolius Roxb. CALAMUS sp.? Palmijuncus viminalis s. ua huay Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 109. Entirely indeterminable from any data given by Rumphius; it may not be a Calamus at all. DAEMONOROPS Blume DAEMONOROPS CALAPPARIUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 7 (type!). Calamus calapparius Mart. Hist. Nat, Palm. 3 (1850) 331. Calamus amboinensis Miq. in Verb. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. 11 (1868) 20. Palmijuncus calapparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 98, t. 51. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 2S, September 5, 1913, in forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as rotang bulu rusa. The identification of this specimen with both Palmijuncus calapparius Rumph. and Daemonorops calapparius Blume has been made by Doctor Beccari, who has given a detailed descrip- tion of the species from Amboina specimens.* Linnaeus originally reduced this to Calamus rotang Linn., Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 463, in which he was followed by numerous authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 209, reduced it to Calamus petraeus Lour., but the Cochin-China species actually described by Loureiro is entirely different from the Amboina plant, and Beccari thinks it probably a species of Korthalsia or Plectocomia. *Ann. Jard. Bot. Calcutta 12' (1911) 164. 118 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINEMB DAEMONOROPS NIGER (Willd.) Blume Rumphia 3 (1827) B (type!). Calamus niger Willd. Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 203 (type!). Palmijuncus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 101, t. 52. A species known only from the Rumphian figure and des^,rip. tion; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12^ (1911) 104. Palmijuncus niger Rumph. has been reduced by various au- thors to Calamus rotang Linn., to Calamus rudentum Lour., and to Daemonorops melanochaetes Blume, but these reductions are manifestly erroneous. DAEMONOROPS PALEMBANICUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 20. Palmijuncus palimbanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 107. The reduction follows Blume, which is probably the correct disposition of Rumphius's species. DAEIVIONOROPS DRACO (Willd.) Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 8. Calamus draco Willd. Sp. PL 2 (1799) 203 (type!). Palmijuncus draco Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 114, t. 58, /. A, B. Regarding this species, Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12^ (1911) 106, states: ''Only the Palmijuncus Draco growing at Palembang, described and figured by Rumphius (1. c.) can be considered as the true D. Draco,'' and again: *'The canes described by Rumphius * * * figured in plate 58 f. D * * * and which is there attributed to Palmijuncus Draco. are almost certainly those of Calamus Scipionum.'' DAEIVIONOROPS RUBER Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 6. Daemonorops accedens Blume 1. c. 13. Palmijuncus draco e Bantam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 116. The Javan material included by Rumphius in his description of Palmijuncus draco was referred by Blume to Daemonorop accedens Blume, which is a synonym of D. ruber Blume; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12^ (1911) 114. CARYOTA Linnaeus CARYOTA RUM PHI AN A Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1839) 195 (type!). Saguaster major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:64, U IJ,.. The illustration is an excellent habit sketch of this sufficiently well-known palm, which extends from the Philippines to the Moluccas and Java. Saguaster major Rumph. is the whole basis of Caryota rumphiana Mart., from which Caryota maxima Blume does not appear to be distinct. Linnaeus originally reduced the Rumphian species to the Indian Caryota urens Linn., in Stick' man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, and PALMAE 119 it is very generally cited as a synonym of the Linnean species in the early botanical literature. The species is, however, en- tirely distinct from Caryota urens Linn. ARENGA* LaBillardiere ARENGA PIN NAT A (Wurmb) comb, no v. Saguerus pinnatus Wurmb in Verb. Bat. Genoots. 1 (1779) 351. Borassiis gomutus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 618. Arenga saccharifera Labill. in Mem. Inst. Paris 4 (1801) 209. Gomutus rumphii Corr. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 288. Saguerus rumphii Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68 (type!). Saguerus saccharifer Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 128. Gomutus saccharifer Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 624. Arenga gamuto Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 63. Raima indica vinaria II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 57, U 13, The common and well-known sugar palm is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure and the description given by Rumphius unmistakably represent the form commonly known as Arenga saccharifera Labill. The illustration has been cited under Borassus gomutus Lour., Saguerus rumphii Roxb., Saguerus saccharifer Blume, and Arenga saccharifera Labill., all synonyms of Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr.; while Giseke, Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 90, erroneously reduced it ta Chamaerops humilis Linn. Wurmb's specific name is the oldest valid one for the species. Arenga gamuto Merr. was adopted on the assumption that ''Saguerus gamuto Houtt.'' was published as indicated in Index Kewensis and in the synonymy of Arenga saccharifera Labill. as given by some authors; no such name appears in Houttuyn's work. CALYPTROCALYX Blume CALYPTROCALYX SPICATUS (Lam.) Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 103, t. 102, f, 2, 118, 161. Areca spicata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!). Pinanga silvestris globosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:38, t, 5, f. 1, A. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but it has been minutely described and figured by Blume from Amboina specimens. The Rumphian description and crude fig- ure are the whole basis of Areca spicata Lam. Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 24, referred it to Euterpe globosa Gaertn., in which he was followed by Giseke, Prael. Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 92, but the fruit figured by Gaertner is not that of Calyptrocalyx spicatus Blume. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) * Retained name, Vienna Code; Saguerus Adans. (1763) is older. 120 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 10, thought that it was a species of Iguanura, while by other authors it has been placed as an undetermined species of Areca and of Pinanga. DRYMOPHLOEUS Zippel DRYMOPHLOEUS OLIVAEFORMIS (Giseke) Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314. Areca olivaeformis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 79 (type!). Harina rumphii Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 189, ex Kunth. Enum. 3 (1841) 194. Seaforthia olivaeformis Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314. Ptychosperma rumphii Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 119. Saguaster minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 67, t. 15. Amboina, Lateri and Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 21, 22, August and September, 1913, in ravines and in forests, altitude 20 to 200 meters, locally known as pinang utan. Saguaster minor Rumph. is the basis of Areca olivaeformis Giseke, this supplying the oldest valid specific name. Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 316, discusses it under Harina caryo- toides Ham., which is described from Indian specimens, but he does not reduce Saguaster minor to this species. DRYMOPHLOEUS APPENDICULATUS Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 46. Areca gracilis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 80 (type!). Ptychosperma appendiculata Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 122, t. 84, 119. Seaforthia jaculatoria Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!). Drymophloeus jaculatorius Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!). Sargile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 68. Areca gracilis Giseke was based wholly on Rumphius's descrip- tion of Sargile. Beccari, Malesia 1 (1877) 46, has excluded it from the synonymy of Drymophloeus appendiculatus (Blume) Becc, with all other synonyms based on Rumphius, because of the fact that Rumphius included in the description more than one species, and because he based his description largely on data supplied to him by the natives. Beccari, op. cit. 98, refers ''Saguaster minor ex Gilolo et Nova-Guinea/' i. e., Sargile Rumph. p. p., to Drymophloeus jaculatorius Mart., a species of doubtful status. DRYMOPHLOEUS sp. Areca vaginata Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 80 (type!). Sargile minor N Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 68. The form described in the last paragraph of chapter fifteen was made the type of Areca vaginata by Giseke. It may prove to be a synonym of the preceding species, but its status is now entirely doubtful. PALMAE 121 DRYMOPHLOEUS ? sp. Areca humilis Willd, Sp. PL 4 (1805) 595 (type!). Seaforthia saxatilis Blume ex Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 186 (type!). Ptychosperma saxatilis Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 121 (type!). Pinanga silvestris saxatilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 42, t. 7, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections; and, although it has been placed in several different genera, its proper place is still uncertain. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 619, discusses it under Borassus caudata Lour., but does not definitely refer it to this species. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Areca humilis Willd., which thus supplies the oldest specific name for the species when once its proper genus is determined. It is also the whole basis of Ptychosperma saxatilis Blume and of Seaforthia saxatilis Blume. '* Areca saxatilis Burm.," Fl. Ind. (1768) 42, quoted by Miquel and listed in Index Kewensis, does not appear in Burman's work. Beccari, Malesia 1 (1877) 47, excludes this from Drymophloeus, but make no suggestion as to its proper disposition. ACTINORHYTIS H. Wendland and Drude ACT! NORM YTIS CALAPPARIA (Blume) H. Wendl. & Drude in Linnaea 39 (1875) 184. Areca calapparia Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 70, t. 100, /. 2. Seaforthia calapparia Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 313. Ptychosperma ? calapparia Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 20. Pinanga calapparia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:28. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction made by Blume and followed by Miquel and by Martins is apparently the correct disposition of Pinanga calap- paria Rumph. IVIISCHOPHLOEUS Scheffer MISCHOPHLOEUS VESTIARIA (Giseke) comb. nov. Areca vestiaria Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 78 (typel). Seaforthia vestiaria Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 313 (type!). Ptychosperma vestiaria Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 31 (type!). Ptychosperma paniculata Miq. in Verh. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. 1 1 (1868) 3. Areca paniculata Scheff. in Naturk. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 32 (1873) 168. Mischophloeus paniculata Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 152. Pinanga silvestris e Buro Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 41. I have here adopted what is apparently the oldest specific J^ame for this species, as Areca vestiaria Giseke was based wholly 122 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE on Rumphius's description, as were Seaforthia vestiaria Mart, and Ptychosperma vestiaria Miq. There seems to be no doubt that Mischophloeus paniculata (Miq.) Scheff. is the same species as the plant Rumphius described. PINANGA Blume PINANGA PUNICEA (Blume) comb. nov. Areca punicea Blume Rumphia 2 (1826) 72 (type!). Seaforthia rumphiana Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!), Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!). Ptychosperma punicea Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 31 (type!). i Pinanga ternatensis Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 149, Pinanga silvestris glandiformis il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:39. Areca punicea Blume is based wholly on Rumphius's descrip- tion of Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II, as are the brief de- scriptions of Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. {Seaforthia rumphiana Mart.) and Ptychosperma punicea Miq. The species is undoubtedly a Pirmnga and is probably the species described by Scheffer as Pinanga ternatensis. I have here adopted Blume's specific name, it being the oldest valid one. Sarasuac Camell, cited by Blume as a synonym of Areca punicea Blume, Rumphia 2 (1836) 73, is Heterospathe elata Scheff., a species originally described from Amboina material, and one that I cannot connect with any form described by Rumphius. PINANGA GLOBULIFERA (Lam.) comb. nov. Areca globulifera Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!). Areca oryzaeformis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 76 (type!). Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 40, t. 5, f. ^> B, C, D. Nothing resembling the Rumphian species is represented in our Amboina collections, although the figure apparently repre- sents a species of Pinanga, Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph. is the whole basis of Areca globulifera Lsim., which has been reduced to Pinanga kuhlii Blume, and which, if correctly placed, supplies a much older specific name for that species. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 568, reduced the Rumphian plant to Areca sylvestris Lour., but the Cochin-China plant that he actually described is certainly not the same as the one Rumphius described and figured. Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 20, referred it to Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., and the fruit he figured i^ probably that of Pinanga kuhlii Blume. Seaforthia oryzaefor- mis Mart., Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1839) 185, is merely a transfer PALMAE 123 of Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., to be typified by the plant Gaertner actually figured rather than by the Rumphian synonym he cites and from which he took the specific name. ARECA Linnaeus ARECA CATECHU Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1189 (err. cathecu) . Pinanga (incl. II alba et ill nigra) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 26, t. U- The common betel-nut palm is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, which has been accepted by all authors, as it is manifestly the correct disposition of the form figured. Under this species Rumphius described four forms: namely, / Pinanga calapparia, which is apparently Actinorhytis calapparia H. Wendl. & Drude; // Pi- nanga alba and /// Pinanga nigra, which are manifestly Areca catechu Linn.; and IV (unnamed), which I cannot place from the imperfect description given by him. ARECA GLANDIFORM IS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!). Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 38, t. 6. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Areca glandiformis Lam. It has been minutely described and figured by Blume, Rumphia 2 (1836) 73, t 100, from Moluccan material. COCOS Linnaeus COCOS NUCIFERA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1188. Palma indica nuclfera major s. calappa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:1, 10, 11, 12, tt, 1-3, Rumphius gives an extensive treatise on the coconut. The illustrations present a habit sketch, inf ructescence and infloresc ence, details of the structure of the fruit, including germination, and t, 3 an abnormal form of the palm. He characterizes thirteen forms, most of which are referred by Blume, Miquel, imd Hasskarl to various named varieties of Cocos nucifera i^inn. The reduction of the illustrations was made by Linnaeus, m Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, which is manifestly the correct disposition of them, and which ha« been accepted by all authors. While many distinct forms and varieties of the coconut occur, a clear understanding of them and their relationships is possible only through critical and long- continued field work, so that little is to be gained in attempting to reduce the numerous Rumphian forms to named and very imperfectly described varieties. 124 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE NIPA (NYPA) Wurmb NIPA (NYPA) FRUTICANS Wurmb Verb. Bat. Genoots. 1 (1779) 350. Nypa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 69, t. 16, The illustration is an excellent one of the common nipa palm, and Nypa was reduced by Wurmb in the original publication of Nipa (Nypa) fruticans Wurmb. This is manifestly the correct disposition of it and has been accepted by all authors, although commonly appearing in literature as Nipa fruticans Thunb. PALMAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS I am unable satisfactorily to determine the status of the few forms described by Rumphius immediately following Cocus maldivicus. They may or may not be the seeds or fruits of palms. These doubtful forms are as follows : Com par mangae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 216, t, 82, f, 1, Cocus maldivicus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 218, t. 82, f. 2, 3, Cocus melindanus verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 219, t, 82, f. U- Calapput laut Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 219. ARACEAE POT H OS Linnaeus POTHOS RUM PHI I Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 21. Scindapsus rumphii Presl Epim. (1851) 241. Adpendix porcelianica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 485, t. 182, f, i. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 116, 117, October, 1913, on trees at low altitudes, locally known as tapinawa and tapinawa puti. The Rumphian figure is cited by Presl, under Scindapsus rumphii Presl, and presumably is cited by Schott in the original publication of the species (not seen by me). The species is a very characteristic and strongly marked one, the specimens cited above agreeing well with the Rumphian figure and description and with Pothos rumphii Schott as currently interpreted. POTHOS LONGIFOLIUS Presl Epim. (1851) 242. Adpendix dupio folio Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 490, t. ISJ^, /. 1-3, Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 118, November, 1913, on trees, altitude about 50 meters. Linnaeus originally reduced Adpendix duplo folio Rumph. to Pothos scandens Linn., which is very closely allied to Pothos longifolius Presl, and extends from India to Indo-China, Java, and Borneo. Pothos longifolius Presl is known from the Philip- pines, Sumatra, Java, and the Moluccas. The original reduc- ARACEAE 125 tion was made in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1374, which was followed by most of the early authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 212, placed it under Flagellaria repens hour.—Pothos loureirii Hook. & Arn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 150, has interpreted the three forms described and figured by Rumphius as follows: I msiioT=Scindapsus officinalis Schott, most certainly wrong; II minoY:=Pothos rox- burghii DeVriese with question, but most certainly wrong, as the species is known only from India; and III=P. roxburghii DeVriese, with doubt. I can see no valid reason for considering that more than a single species is represented, and that is Pothos longifolius Presl. POTHOS LATIFOLIUS Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1754) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252 (type!), Pothos tener Schott Aroid. 1 (1853) 24 (type!). Scindapsus tener Presl Epim. (1851) 241. Pothos gracilis Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 433. Adpendix arborum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 483, t. 181, /. i, j2. This is not represented in our Amboina collections and is s species of doubtful status. Pothos latifolius Linn, was based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure, the original de- scription being as follows: *'181. Adpendix arborum === Pothos latifolius, foliis ovatis, petiolo latioribus.'' Thus Linnaeus in- cluded both figures 1 and 2, that is, the forms indicated by Rumphius as parvifolia and media. To me they both appear to represent the same species, one in, or immediately following, anthesis; the other in fruit. Pothos tener Schott was based wholly on Adpendix arborum I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 483, t, 181, /. 1; and, if I am correct in my surmise that but a single species is represented by the two figures, it becomes a synonym of Pothos latifolius Linn. Engler considers that Pothos tener Schott is apparently the same as the Bornean Pothos barberianus Schott. Pothos gracilis Roxb. was described from specimens grown in Calcutta, originating in Amboina, and is probably a synonym of Pothos latifolius Linn.; Roxburgh states that it had a great resemblance to Adpendix arborum as figured by Rumphius. It is not, however, mentioned in the latest mono- graph of the group, Engl. Pflanzenreich 21 (1905) 21-44, and IS quite certainly not the Penang and Bornean form described ^mder the name Pothos gracilis Roxb. by Engler in DC. Monog. Phan. 2 (1879) 91. 126 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE SCI N DAPS US Schott SCINDAPSUS MARANTIFOLIUS Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 187. Cuscuaria marantifolia Schott Gen. Aroid. (1858) t. 80. Cuscuaria rumphii Schott in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 130. Scindapsus cannaeformis Engl, in Bull. Soc. Tosc. Ort. 4 (1879) 271. Aglaonema cuscuaria Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 217 (type!). Scindapsus cuscuaria Engl. & Krause in Engl. Pflanzenreich 37 (1908) 68, non Pothos cuscuaria Aubl. Pothos cuscuaria Gmel. Syst. 1 (1796) 274 (type!), non Aubl. 1775. Adpendix cuscuaria latlfolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 488, t, 18S, f. 1. Amboina, Soja, Way tommo, and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 114-, 115, August, 1913, on trees, altitude 7 to 250 meters, locally known as kelady utan and daun mo. The specific name cuscuaria is invalid for this species. Pothos cuscuaria Aubl., Hist. PL Guiane Frang. (1775) 840, was based on specimens from South America with no reference to Rumphius, although the specific name may have been taken from Rumphius. Pothos cuscuaria Gmel., Syst. 1 (1796) 274, however, was based wholly on Rumphius, not on Aublet. Aglaonema cuscuaria Miq. was based on Pothos cuscuaria Gmel. (non Aubl.) and Cuscua- ria lati folia Rumph., the latter being, accordingly, its type. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 605, follows Gmelin, as do also Roemer and Schultes, Kunth, and Dietrich. AGO R us Linnaeus ACORUS CALAMUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 324. Acorum palustre et terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 178, t. 72, f. 1. The common sweet flag, amply described and fairly well figured by Rumphius, is not represented in our Amboina col- lections. It is found widely scattered in the Malayan region, sometimes cultivated, occasionally wild at higher altitudes. It was first reduced by Linnaeus in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, which has very generally been followed by later authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 208, placed it under Orontium cochinchinense Lour. = A con^^ cochin- chinensis Schott-^^^Acorz^s calamus Linn. Schultes, Syst. 7 ^ (1829) 174, retains Acorus terrestris Rumph. as a species dis- tinct from A. calamus Linn., following Spreng., Syst. 2 (1825) 118, who in turn based Acorus terrestris Spreng. on Acorus calamus Lour. Engler, DC. Monog. Phan. 2 (1879) 217, cites the Rumphian figure and description under Acorus calamus Linn. var. terrestris (Spreng.) Engl. ARACEAE 127 EPIPREMNUM Schott EPIPREMNUM PINNATUM (Linn.) Engl. Pflanzenreich 37 (1908) 60. Pothos pinnata Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1374 (type!). Scindapsus pinnatus Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 21. Adpendix laciniata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 489, t. 183, /. 2. Amboina, Ayer putri and Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 113, August, 1913, on trees at low altitudes, locally known as tapinawa. Pothos pinnata Linn., as originally published, is based wholly on the description and figure of Rumphius's Adpendix laciniata. In addition to the synonyms given above, it has been cited by some authors under Rhaphidophora lacera Hassk. and Scindapsus pertusus Schott, both synonyms of Epipremnum pinnatum Engl. The species extends from India through Malaya to Polynesia. AMORPHOPHALLUS* Blume AMORPHOPHALLUS CAMPANULATUS (Roxb.) Blume ex Decne. in Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 3 (1834) 366. Aru7n campanulatum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, nomen nudum, PL Coromandel 3 (1819) 69, t. 272, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 509. Arum rumphii Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 427, i, 39, Amorphophallus sativus Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 145 (type!). Conophallus ? sativus Schott Prodr. (1860) 35. Tacca sativa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 324, t. 112. Tacca phallifera Rumph. quoad Taccae fungus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 326, t, 113, f, 2. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Tacca sativa Rumph. is perhaps a mixture of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. and Amorphophallus; Tacca phallifera Rumph. certainly is. The description of the vegetative characters, however, manifestly applies to Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume; the figure is very poor. Linnaeus erroneously reduced Tacca sativa Rumph. to Dracontium polyphyllum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 300, placed it under Tacca pinnatifida Forst. Roxburgh cor- YQctly placed it under Arum campanulatum Hoxh, = Amorpho- phallus campanulatus, together with the inflorescence described as Taccae fungus and figured, 1. 113, f, 2. Amorphophallus sativus Blume is based wholly on the Rumphian description and figure, and this species Engler, Pflanzenreich 48 (1911) 109, includes under species dubiae. Tacca phallifera Rumph. is made up of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. and the inflorescence of Amorphophallus campanulatus * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Candarum Reichb. (1832) is older. 128 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Blume, the plate presenting the vegetative parts of Tacca, its infructescence, and detached fruits, /. i, a, h; and /. 2 the in- florescence of Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume, described by Rumphius as Taccae fungus. The latter figure is cited by Roxburgh in the original description of Arum campanulatum, and is certainly correctly placed. HOMALOMENA Schott HOMALOMENA COR DATA (Houtt.) Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 20. Dracontium cordatum Houtt. Handleid. 11 (1774-83) 200, t. 71, /. 2. Dracunculus amboinlcus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 322, t. Ill, f. 3. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Illy August 24, 1913, on shaded banks, altitude about 15 meters. Dracunculus amboinicus, as figured by Rumphius, was erro- neously reduced by Linnaeus to Arum divaricatum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. By Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 532, it was placed with doubt under Calla occulta Lour., which may be the same as the closely allied Homalomena aromatica Schott. By other authors it has been reduced to Homalomena rubescens Kunth, H, rubra Kunth, and other allied forms. The Amboina specimen cited above agrees with the figure given by Rumphius, agrees with the description of Dracunculus amboinicus niger, and agrees also with Homalomena cordata Schott as recently described by Engler, Pflanzenreich 55 (1912) 57. Rumphius does not indicate which of the four forms described under Dracunculus amboinicus he intended the figure to represent, but I agree with Engler in referring it to the one first described, namely, Dracunculus amboinicus niger. The form described by Rumphius as Dracunculus amboinicus II albus, is apparently very closely allied to, if not identical with, Homalomena cordata (Houtt.) Schott, and may be the same as Homalomena aromatica (Roxb.) Schott, which is reported from Amboina by Engler ; it can scarcely be Homalomena alba Hassk., to which Hasskarl reduced it, Neue Schliissel (1866) 128, because as far as is known this species is confined to Java. Dracunculm amboinicus III ruber should be compared with both Homalomena cordata Schott and H, aromatica Schott. Hasskarl, following Kunth, reduced it to Homalomena rubescens Kunth, which is manifestly an error, as this species is not known from the Malay Archipelago. More comprehensive collections are neces- ARACEAE 129 sary from Amboina before the exact status of these two forms can be determined. SCHISMATOGLOTTIS Zollinger and Moritzi SCHISMATOGLOTTIS CALYPTRATA (Roxb.) Zoll. & Mor. Syst. Verz. (1854) 83. Calla calyptrata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 514. Homalomena calyptratum Kunth. Enum. 3 (1841) 57. Schismato glottis longipes Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 214. Arisarum esculentum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 321, t. 111, /. i. Amboina, Halong, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 112^ September 26, 1913, river banks at an altitude of 40 meters, locally known as kasisi. Linnaeus originally reduced Arum esculentum, through error, to Arum peregrinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. The type of Calla calyptrata Roxb. was from Amboina, and Roxburgh cites the Rumphian figure and description in the original description as representing his species. Other names involved in the reduction are Colocasia humilis Hassk. and Schismato glottis longipes Miq. AGLAONEMA Schott AGLAONEMA OBLONGIFOLIUM (Roxb.) Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 55. Calla ohlongifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65 (type!); Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 516. Aglaonema marantifolium Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 153. Scindapsus erectus Presl Epim. (1851) 241 (type!). Arum aquaticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 312, t. 108, Adpendix erecta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 487, t. 182, /. 2. Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figures and the descriptions of both the Rumphian species cited above agree closely with Aglaonema oblongifolium Kunth (A. marantifolium Blume) as currently interpreted. Arum aquaticum Rumph. is the whole basis of Calla ohlongifolia Roxb. as originally published by Roxburgh, Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, by citation of the Rumphian figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414, 419. The description subsequently published by Roxburgh was based on specimens cultivated at Calcutta, which originated in the Moluccas. Adpendix erecta Rumph. is the basis of Scin- dapsus erectus Presl and was also cited by Blume in the original description of Aglaonema mara,ntifolium Blume. Linnaeus first reduced Arum aquaticum Rumph. to Arum ovatum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1371, but this disposition of it was entirely wrong. 144971 9 130 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ALOCASIA Necker ALOCASIA MACRORRHIZA (Linn.) Schott Melet. (1832) 18. Arum macrorrhizon Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 965. Arum mucronatum Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 12 (type!). Arum silvestre I latlfolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 310. Arum Indicum sativum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 308, t, 106. Amboina, Kati-kati and Halong, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 110, Sep- tember, 1913, near streams, altitude 40 to 70 meters, locally known as hira and bira puti. Arum indicum sativum Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus, with doubt, to Arum arborescens Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, but is entirely different from this species. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 12, made it the type of his Arum mucronatum. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 536, referred it to his Arum indicum, which is supposed to be a synonym of Colocasia indica Engl. Forster, PL Esculent. (1768) 58, correctly reduced it to Arum macrorrhi- zon Lirm,= Alocasia macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott. Rumphius very briefly described three forms; namely, I nigrum, n fuscum, and ni album, the first of which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 126, referred to typical Alocasia indica Schott, and the last two he referred to Colocasia indica Kunth var. atroviridis Hassk. and C. indica Kunth var. pallida Hassk., respectively, but Colo- casia indica Kunth, non Engl., is supposed to be a synonym of Alocasia indica Schott. The descriptions are so very short that it is impossible definitely to determine just what forms were intended, but in all probability they were merely variants of Alocasia macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott. I can see no valid reason for considering that Arum silvestre I latifolium Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 310 (non t. 107), represents other than a form of Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott; see Alocasia longiloba Miq. ALOCASIA LONGILOBA Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 207? Arum silvestre M medium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 310, L 107. Amboina, Soja, in forests, altitude about 400 meters, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb. 109, August 2, 1913. The specimen lacks the spathe, but presents the fruiting spadix. It unquestionably represents the form figured by Rumphius under Arum silvestre; and I consider that the figure conforms to Arum silvestre II medium rather than to Arum silvestre I latifoliwm^ although it has very generally been referred to the latter. Ani^^^ silvestre I latifolium I take to be a form of Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott, above. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 126, reduced Arum silvestre II medium to Alocasia montana Schott, certainly ARACEAE 131 an erroneous disposition of it. The figure has been referred to various species — by Linnaeus, through error, to Aru7n sagitti- folium Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1753) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251; by Schott, Prodr. (1860) 144, to Alocasia indica Schott; and by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 207, with doubt to Alocasia longiloba Miq. Alocasia indica Schott is a species of uncertain status; and, as generally interpreted, the specific name is probably invalid. It is supposed to be Arum indicum Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 498, non Arum indicum Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 536, but the specific name should go with Loureiro's species, which is supposed to be Colo- casta indica, I have not seen Schott's original publication of Alocasia indica. At any rate, the plant figured by Rumphius as Arum silvestre has little in common with the one described by Roxburgh as Arum indicum or with the one described by Loureiro under the same name. COLOCASIA Schott COLOCASIA ESCU LENTA (Linn.) Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 18. Arum esc2ilentum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 965. Arum colocasia Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 965. Colocasia antiquorum Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 18. Arum aegyptium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 313, t 109. Caladium aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 318, t. 110, /. 1. Taro is not represented in our Amboina collections, although doubtless the plant, in several forms, is still cultivated in Am- boina as in all parts of the Indo-Malayan region. Like many widely cultivated plants, the species is enormously variable ; and, being poorly represented in herbaria, no satisfactory arrange- ment of the numerous forms and varieties has been proposed, nor is any attempted arrangement of these likely to prove satisfactory unless based on a comprehensive collection of living plants. Lin- naeus originally reduced Arum aegyptium Rumph. to Arum colo- casia Linn., and Caladium aquatile Rumph. to Arum esculentum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251, and by later authors both have been referred to the above names and to numerous other synonyms of the species. What is apparently the oldest valid specific name for the collective species is here adopted. Various names involved in the reduction of the forms figured and de- scribed by Rumphius are Arum peltatum Lam., Colocasia vera Hassk., various proposed varieties of Colocasia antiquorum Schott, Caladium esculentum Vent., Caladium nymphaei folium Willd., and Caladium esculentum var. aquatilis Hassk. Under 132 RUMPHIUS'S HERBAEIUM AMBOINENSE Arum aegyptium Rumphius describes eight forms or varieties, and under Caladium aqvxitile two, all of which are reducible to Colocasia eseulenta Schott, sensu latiore. I cannot agree with W. F. Wight, Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 206, in interpret- ing the genus Caladium as typified by the Rumphian description. The type of Caladium, the plant figured, and the one to which the description applies, is Caladium bicolor Vent. TYPHONIUM Schott TYPHONIUM DfVARICATUM (Linn.) Decne. in Nuov. Ann. Mus. Paris 3 (1834) 367; Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 130 var. ROBUSTUM Kunth. Enum. 3 (1841) 26. Arum divaricatum Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1863) 1369. Typhonium javanicum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 193. Arisarum amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 319, t. 110, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction and synonymy follow Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan. 2 (1879) 612. Linnaeus referred it to Arum trilobum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, and to A. trilobatum Linn., in Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1369, in which he was followed by all authors until Blume placed it under Typhonium divaricatum Decne. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 127, placed Arisarum amboini- cum as the equivalent of Typhonium divaricatum Decne.; but, probably through oversight, he did not cite the figure. PI ST I A Linnaeus PISTIA STRATIOTES Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 963. Zala asiatica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 405. Pistia minor Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 78 (type!). Plantago aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 177, t. 7U, f- 2. Plantago aquatica 11 minar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 177. This common and well-known species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction to Pistia stratiotes Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1249, which has been followed by practically all authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 405, cites it under Zala asiatica Lour., a synonym of Pistia stratiotes Linn. The form described by Rumphius as Plantago aquatica II minor is the whole basis of Pistia minor Blume, which is manifestly only a reduced form of Pistia stratiotes Linn., due to habitat. The plant is enormously variable in size, depending on the age of the individuals, habitat, etc., the tendency, where the plants are very numerous and crowded, being to a great reduction in size. LEMNACEAE-BROMELIACEAE 133 ARACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Two forms very briefly described or mentioned by Rumphius are entirely indeterminable; these are Erva de Sta Maria Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 326, and Itelpou Rumph., 1. c. 827. Hasskarl thought that the former might be a representative of the Araceae, which is probably correct, and that the latter might be Brachyspatha variabilis Schott= Amorphophallus variabilis Blume; neither was from Amboina. LEMNACEAE LEMNA Linnaeus LEMNA sp. Lens palustris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 178. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 180, placed this under Lemna minor Linn., following Miquel. Rumphius gives no description, and the plant he named may have been any of the Malayan Lemnaceae of the genus Lemna or the genus Spirodela. FLAGELLARIACEAE FLAGELLARIA Linnaeus FLAGELLAR1A INDICA Linn. Sp. PI. (1763) 333. Palmijuncus laevis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 120, t. 59, f. 1, Amboina, Paso and Eri, Robinson PI. Rumph, Amb, 211, September and October, 1913, in thickets near the seashore. The original reduction of Palmijuncus laevis Rumph. to Fla- gellaria indica was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1753) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 989, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 475, which has been followed by all authors, and which is certainly the correct disposition of it. BROMELIACEAE ANANAS Tournefort ANANAS COM OS US (Linn.) comb. nov. Bromelia ananas Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 285. Bromelia comosa Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130 (type!). Ananas sativus Schultes f. Syst. 7 (1830) 1283. Ananassa sativa Lindl. Bot. Reg. (1827) sub t. 1068. Anassa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 227, t. 81. Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 382, October 3, ^913, semicultivated, locally known as nanas. The common pineapple, as described and figured by Rumphius, IS the whole basis of Bromelia comosa Linn, as originally pub- 134 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE lished by Linnaeus in the year 1754. It is thus the oldest valid specific name for the species. The Rumphian figure, which is excellent, has very generally been cited by various authors under one or the other of the synonyms given above. The forms indicated by Rumphius as mas, femina, and alba are apparently merely cultural forms of the common pineapple. COMMELINACEAE COM M ELI N A Linnaeus COMMELINA NUDIFLORA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 41. Arundinella I minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 23, t 9, f, 2, Amboina, Soja and Roemah tiga, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 4-07, July and August, 1913, locally known as kangkong. The Rumphian plant has generally been reduced to Commelina benghalensis Linn., and the description, in part, seems to apply to that species. The figure is very poor, but the description is at least sufficiently definite to place the plant Rumphius in- tended in Commelina. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 16, referred it to Commelina benghalensis Linn., while Commelina rumphii Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 1 (1831) 126, may have been based wholly or in part on Rumphius (publication not seen). COMMELINA BENGHALENSIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 41. Arundinella II major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 24. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, JfOd, July 22, 1913, locally known as kangkong ayer, Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 155, has suggested CommdiM communis Linn, as the proper disposition of Arundinella II major, but the description appears to me better to apply to Commelina benghalensis Linn. ANEILEMA R. Brown ANEILEMA VITIENSE Seem. var. PETIOLATA C. B. Clarke in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 220. Arundinella IV Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25. Amboina, Soja and Kaju poeti, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 408 , August, 1913, along roadsides and in forests. Whether the plant is the above form or the very closely allied ^neilema monadelphum Kunth, it is undoubtedly the form that Rumphius described. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 155, expressed the opinion that it was some species of Gramineae, but the characters indicated by Rumphius for Arundinella IV all apply to this species of Aneilema. PONTEDERIACEAE-STEMONACEAE 135 CYANOTIS Don CYANOTIS MOLUCCANA (Roxb.) Merr. in Philip. Joum. Sci. 2 (1907) Bot. 266. Commelina moluccana Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 172. Commelina uniflora Hassk. Commel. Ind. (1870) 104. Arundinella Hi aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 24? This reduction of Arundinella III aquatica is merely a sugges- tion. However, it may be merely Commelina obtusifolia Vahl, as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, which is supposed to be a synonym of Commelina nudiflora Linn. FLOSCOPA Loureiro FLOSCOPA SCANDENS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 193. Arundinella V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25. Amboina, in sago swamps near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Ji.09, July, 1913, locally known as kangkong ayer. The reduction follows Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 165, who suggests Floscopa paniculata Hassk. (=F, scandens Lour.), as the proper disposition of Arundinella V of Rumphius. PONTEDERIACEAE IVIONOCHORIA Presl MONOCHORiA VAGINALIS (Burm. f.) Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1827) 128. Pontederia vaginalis Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 80. OIus palustre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 178, t. 75, /. 1. Amboina, in grassy pools near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 225, July 25, 1913. Olus palustre was first reduced to Monochoria (Pontederia) vaginalis by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 222, this certainly being the correct disposition of it. Olus palustre femina Rumph., 1. c. 178, is probably merely a form of Monochoria vaginalis Presl, approaching M. vaginalis var. plantaginea Solms, and possibly represented by PI, Rumph. Amb. ^2U from Amboina, August 23, 1913. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 180, suggests that Olus palustre femina is Monochoria sagittata Kunth==M. hastata Presl, but the description hardly warrants this disposition of it. STEMONACEAE STEiVlONA Loureiro STEIVJONA TUBEROSA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 404. Roxburghia gloriosoides Roxb. PL Coromand. 1 (1795) 29, t. S2. Ubium polypoides I album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 364, i, 129. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 295, October 29, 1913, climb- ing over trees along the seashore. 136 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Ubium polypoides Rumph. was correctly reduced to Stemona tuberosa by Loureiro in the original description of that species, in which disposition of it later authors have generally concurred, including C. H. Wright in his paper on the genus Stemona, Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 22 (1896) 490-496. STEMONA MOLUCCANA (Blume) C. H. Wright in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 22 (1896) 494. Roxburghia moluccana Blume Enum. PI. Jav. 1 (1827) 9 (type!). Ubium polypoides II nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 365. This species is figured and fully described by Dr. J. J. Smith, Ic. Bogor. 3 (1897) 111-114, t U5, 2i6. Wright's and Blume's descriptions are entirely inadequate. It is by no means certain that the two forms described by Rumphius are really distinct, or that the form figured by him, which I have placed under Stemona tuberosa Lour., really belongs with Loureiro's species. Stemona tuberosa Lour, and S. moluccana C. H. Wright are very closely allied. In this connection it is of interest to note that Dr. Robinson considered that his specimen represented Ubium polypoides II nigrum Rumph. rather than U, polypoides I album Rumph. where I have placed it. LILIACEAE ALOE Linnaeus ALOE VERA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 320. Sempervivium indicum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 271. This was apparently correctly placed by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 177, who considered it to be Aloe perfoliata Linn. var. vera Linn. The species is widely cultivated for medicinal pur- poses in the Malayan region. Dl AN ELLA Lamarck DI AN ELLA ODORATA Blume Enum. 1 (1827) 13. Gladiolus odoratus Indlcus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 185, t, 73. Amboina, Way tommo and Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 505, August, 1913, on grassy slopes and barren hills, altitude 50 to 300 meters. This was reduced by Linnaeus to Dracaena ensifolia Linn, in the original description of that species, Mant. 1 (1767) 63, but his description seems to have been based on actual specimens. At any rate Dianella ensifolia (Linn.) DC, as currently interpreted, is not the same as the form that Rumphius de- scribed and figured. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 276, cites it under Dianella nemorosa, but Dianella nemorosa Lam. was based on specimens from Bourbon and Isle of France and is a distinct species. Gladiolus odoratus indicus Rumph. is unquestionably LILIACEAE 137 identical with Dianella odorata Blume, to which it was referred by Blume, Schultes, Kunth, and other authors ; see Hallier f ., in Nova Guinea 8 (1914) 996. PLEOMELE Salisbury PLEOMELE ANGUSTIFOLIA (Roxb.) N. E. Br. in Kew Bull. (1914) 277. Dracaena angustifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 24 (type!), Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 155. Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 81, t, S5, Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 506, August 28, 1913, near the seashore, locally known as chamara. Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. was originally discussed by Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 324, under Dracaena reflexa Lam., as possibly representing that species. Lamarck's species, how- ever, is quite different from Roxburgh's and is Pleomele reflexa N. E. Br. Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. is the whole basis of Dracaena angustifolia Roxb. as originally published, in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 24, by citation of the Rumphian figure. The description, later published by Roxburgh, based on an Amboina specimen cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta, unquestionably applies to the same species. Cordyline rumphii Hook, is also referable here as a synonym, at least in part. TAETSIA Medicus (Cordyline auct., non Adanson) TAETSIA FRUTICOSA (Linn.) comb. nov. Convallaria fruticosa Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126 (type!), Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 984. Asparagus terminalis Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 450. Dracaena terminalis Rich, in Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 324. Calodracon terminalis Planch. Fl. des Serres I 6 (1850-51) 137. Terminalia fruticosa Goepp. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 25 (1855) 53. Cordyline terminalis Kunth in Abh. Acad. Berlin (1820) 30, Enum. 5 (1850) 25. Taetsia terminalis W. F. Wight in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 382. Terminalis alba domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 79, t. S4, /. 1. Terminalis alba sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 80. Terminalis rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 80, t 3^, /. 2. Terminalis rubra sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 40, t. 20. Amboina, Batoe merah, Hoenoet, and Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph. ^fnb, 507, August and October, 1913, on hills and in light forests, altitude ^^ to 150 meters, locally known as pandusti, pandusti puti, and daun Pmdusti. The form cited above is exactly Terminalia alba silvestris 138 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Rumph., but there is little or no reason for considering that the other three forms named by Rumphius represent distinct species. Taetsia fruticosa is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region and presents considerable variation in its cultivated forms, especially in the color of its leaves, which vary from green to reddish or purple. **Terminalis Rumph. amb. 4 p. 79. t. 34" is the whole basis of Convallaria fruticosa Linn. (1754), but the original description of Asparagus terminalis Linn, was mani- festly based on an actual specimen; Terminalis Rumph. is cited as a synonym. On plate 3J^, two forms are figured by Rumphius, fig. 1 representing the plant with greenish leaves (T. alha domestica), and fig. 2, the plant with reddish or purplish leaves (jP. rubra) ; the latter is manifestly only a color variant of the former. Kunth, Enum. 5 (1850) 25, considered that Ter- minalis rubra did not belong to Cordyline (Taetsia) or even in the Liliaceae, but the figure certainly represents the common and well-known Cordyline terminalis 'Kunila— Taetsia fructicosa (Linn.) Merr. I consider Terminalis alba silvestris Rumph. to be referable to the same species as the other forms described by Rumphius. The chief objection to the reduction of Termi- nalis rubra silvestris to Taetsia fruticosa is that the figure re- presents the nerves of the leaves as altogether too prominent; but this may be due to an error on the part of the artist. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 190, suggested that it was the same as Cordyline jacquinii Kunth var. rubens Hassk., but Cordyline jacquinii Kunth is supposed to be a synonym of C. terminalis. Taetsia Medic, is here deliberately accepted in place of Cordy- line as the proper generic name of this plant, as it is manifestly the oldest valid one for the genus, in spite of the fact that Cordyline Commers., ex Juss. Gen. (1789) 41, is retained in the list of nomina conservanda adopted by the Vienna Botanical Congress in preference to Terminalis Rumph. The Rumphian designation has no standing as a generic name. Cordyline Adanson (1763) is the same as Sansevieria Thunb. and ante- dates Thunberg's name. In adopting Taetsia, I agree with N. E. Brown,* who, while retaining Cordyline, states: "At the same time, however, my personal view of the case would be to abolish the use of the name Cordyline altogether, in con- sequence of the great confusion connected with it, and replace it by that of Taetsia.'' * Kew Bull. (1914) 275. LILIACEAE 139 SMI LAX Linnaeus SMILAX JAVENSIS A. DC. in DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 175. Pseudochina ambolnensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 437, t, 161. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 50-4, September 18, 1913, in thickets along the seashore, ascending to an altitude of at least 40 meters, locally known as tali baduri. This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Smilax china Linn,, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, but in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, the reference to Smilax china is excluded, although Ubium nummularium, t. 162 (=Dioscorea nwmmularia Lam.!), is erroneously given as the equivalent of Smilax china Linn. In his Mantissa 2 (1771) 499, Linnaeus again erroneously referred Pseudochina amboinensis Rumph. to Smilax zeylanica Linn., which was followed by all subsequent authors up to the year 1878, when A. de Candolle suggested that it might be the same as Smilax javensis A. DC. I know A. de Candolle's species only by description, but the description applies very closely to the Am- boina specimen cited above, so that this is probably the correct disposition of Pseudochina amboinensis Rumph. However, both Smilax javensis A. DC. and the Amboina specimen should be critically compared with the Australian Smilax australis R. Br., which is a very closely allied and, perhaps, identical form. SMILAX LEUCOPHYLLA Blume Enum. PL Jav. 1 (1827) 18. Pseudochina nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 439. Amboina, Negri lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. SOS, August 8, 1913, cHmbing on trees, altitude about 15 meters, locally known as tali baduri. This appears to be the correct disposition of Pseudochina nigra Rumph., although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 144, considered it to be referable to the Australian S. glycyphylla Sm., a species known only from Australia, and quite different from S. leucophylla Blume. The Philippine Smilax vicaria Kunth is probably not specifically distinct from Blume's species. SMILAX LEUCOPHYLLA Blume var. PLATYPHYLLA var. nov. Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 438? Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 502 (type), September 9, 1913, in forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as tali baduri. Ramis distanter crasse aculeatis; foliis coriaceis, usque ad 30 cm longis et 16 cm latis. This may prove to be specifically distinct from Smilax leuco- Phijlla Blume when more material is available for study. It IS well characterized by its very large leaves, long petioles, and 140 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE long infructescences. The petioles, including the very promi- nent sheathing base, are 5 to 6 cm in length. The infructes- cences are about 20 cm long, with at least four long-peduncled umbels. Fruits globose, about 1 cm in diameter. It may or may not be the same as Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph., but it is quite certain that the Rumphian plant is not the same as Smilax villandia Ham.=S. indica Vitm. under which name it is briefly discussed by Hasskarl. SMILAX CHINA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1029? Smilax sarmentis spinulosis etc. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 72, t, SO? Radix chinae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 441? The identity of the two Rumphian synonyms cited above can only be surmised. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 144, con- siders Radix chinae to be the same as Smilax aspera Linn., and the other as possibly representing S. bauhinioides Kunth. Plate 30 of the Auctuarium is missing in our copy of the Herbarium Amboinense. AMARYLLIDACEAE C R I N U IVI Linnaeus CRINUM ASIATICUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 292. Crinum toxicarium Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 23 (type!), FI. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 134. Radix toxicaria I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 155, t, 69, Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, ISO, August 30, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as bauang lant. Radix toxicaria Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Crinum asiaticum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 976, a reduction that is certainly correct, and one that has been accepted by most authors. It is the type of Crinum toxicarium Roxb., which was based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description, Hort. Bengal. (1814) 23; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413. It was cited later in the very brief description given in the second edition of the Flora Indica. The species is very widely distributed along the seashores of the Indo- Malayan and Polynesian regions; it is exceedingly variable in size, depending on the age of the plant and on its habitat. The form very briefly described by Rumphius as Radix toxicaria lH montana, 1. c. 156, from Ceram, is probably merely a dwarfed form of Crinum asiaticum Linn. AMARYLLIDACEAE 14X CRINUM RUMPHII sp. nov. Radix toxicapia 11 terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 156. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 131 (type), October 8, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as pohon tolok, Planta magna, glabra; foliis ut videtur numerosis, usque ad 70 cm longis et 18 cm latis, chartaceis, acutis, basi angustatis, petiolo circiter 30 cm longo. Floribus numerosis, breviter pe- dicellatis, tubo circiter 15 cm longo, segmentis lineari-lanceolatis, circiter 14 cm longis et 6 mm latis. A large, entirely glabrous plant. Leaves apparently numer- ous, when dry dark-olivaceous chartaceous, about 70 cm long and 18 cm wide, acute, base narrowed, the petiole about 20 cm long, and when dry and flattened out 2.5 to 3 cm wide. Peduncle not seen. Flowers numerous, white, at least 20 to each peduncle, the spathe-valves about 18 cm long and 3 cm wide, narrowed upward, subacute. Pedicels 1 to 1.5 cm long, the perianth-tube slender, including the ovary about 15 cm long. Flowers white, the filaments lilac. Segments linear-lanceolate, about 14 cm long and 6 mm wide, acute. Fruit not seen. A species well characterized by its very large leaves and long slender perianth-tube. It is manifestly in the same group as Crinum asiaticum Linn., but differs from that species in many characters, as well as in its entirely different habitat. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 178, thought that Radix toxicaria II terrestris might be the same as Crinum procerum Carey, which, however, is a synonym of C asiaticum Linn. CRINUM ZEYLANICUM Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 236. Amaryllis zeylanica Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 293. Amaryllis lineata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 123. Tulipa javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 306, t. 105. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, although doubtless it is still cultivated in Amboina as it is in other parts of Malaya. Rumphius states that it was introduced into Amboina from Java about 1670. The figure is an excellent representation of Crinum zeylanicum Linn. It was first reduced by Linnaeus to Amaryllis zeylanica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) ^"^7, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 421, which as Crinum zeylanicum Linn. has very generally been accepted as the correct disposition of Tulipa javana Rumph. 142 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE EURYCLES Salisbury EURYCLES AMBOINENSIS (Linn.) Lindl. in Loud. Encycl. PI. (1829) 242. Pancratium amboinense Linn. Sp. PL (1758) 291. Pancratium narbonense Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28 (type!). Amaryllis rotundifolia Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 124. Eurycles silvestris Salisb. in Trans. Hort. Soc. 1 (1812) 337. Cepa silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 160, t. 70, f. i. This widely distributed, well-known, characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, first reduced Cepa silvestris Rumph. to Pancratium narbonense Linn. ; this name, apparently a lapsus calami for P. amboinense, is not listed in Index Kewensis and, being based wholly on Rumphius, thus becomes a synonym of Eurycles amboinensis Lindl. In the reprint of Stickman's paper, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 976, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 419, it is properly placed under Pancratium amboinense lAnn^^Eurycles amboinensis Lindl. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 47, cites it under Crinum nervosum L'Herit.; and other authors cite it under Amaryllis rotundifolia Lam., Eurycles coronata Salisb., E, nervosa Roem., and E, silvestris Salisb. — all synonyms of E, amboinensis (Linn.) Lindl. CURCULIGO Gaertner CURCULIGO ORCHOIDES Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 63, t. 16, Curculigo rumphiana Schultes Syst. 7^ (1830) 757 (type!). Orchis amboinica major li Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 117, t. SJf, f. 1. Amboina, Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 128, August 5, 1913, on open hillsides, altitude about 150 meters. Orchis amboinica major II, as described and figured by Rumphius, was cited by Gaertner in the original description of Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. as a synonym of his species, and the Amboina specimen cited above agrees with the species as currently interpreted. Most authors have followed Gaertner in this reduction, but Schultes, in a discussion following the description of Curculigo orchoides, considers the Rumphian plant to represent a distinct species, which he called Curculigo rumphianxi Schultes and which was based wholly on the Rumph- ian reference cited above. Curculigo rumphiana Schultes is not listed in Index Kewensis, and I consider it to be merely a synonym of the much older name, Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. CURCULIGO CAPITULATA (Lour.) 0. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 1 (1891) 703. Leucojum capitulatum Lour. Fl. Coehinch. (1790) 199. AMARYLLIDACEAE 143 Curculigo recurvata Dryander in Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 2 (1811) 253. Curculigo sumatrana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 24 (type!). Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre tertium Rumph, Herb. Amb. 6: 114, L 5S, Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 129, October 7, 1918, on banks, altitude about 80 meters. This was cited by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 13, under Phyllodes placentaria TuOwr.^Phrynium capitatum Willd., a spe- cies that is entirely different from Curculigo capitulata 0. Kuntze. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 5 (1817) 645, referred it to Curculigo latifolia Dry., in which he was followed by numerous authors. Henschel and Pritzel refer it to Curculigo recurvata Dry. It is the actual type of Curculigo sumatrana Roxb., as published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 24, by citation of tho Rumphian figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413. Curculigo sumatrana Roxb., as actually described from Sumatran specimens later, Roxburg Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 146, seems to be distinct and is generally cited as a synonym of Curculigo latifolia Dryand. PANCRATIUM Dillenius PANCRATIUM ZEYLANICUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 290. Lilium indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 161, t. 70, f. 2. This common and well-known species, excellently figured by Rumphius, is not represented in our Amboina collections. It occurs here and there in the vicinity of towns and habitations throughout the Malayan region. Lilium indicum Rumph. was first reduced to Pancratium zeylanicum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 417, which is certainly the correct disposition of it, and which has been accepted by subsequent authors. The form described by Rumphius, in the same chapter, as Milium indicum javanicum, Herb. Amb. 6 : 162, a Javan plant with yellow flowers, is indeterminable from the data at present avail- able. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 178, has suggested that it might be Calostemma luteum Sims, but it is entirely im- probable that this Australian species had been introduced into Java at the time when Rumphius wrote his account. POLIANTHES Linnaeus POLIANTHES TU SEROSA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 316. Arnica nocturna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 285, t. 98. The tuberose is not represented in our Amboina collections, but is probably still cultivated in Amboina, as it is in various 144 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE parts of the Malayan region and the Philippines. Arnica noc- turna Rumph. was first reduced to Polianthes tuberosa Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 984, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 453, which is certainly the correct disposition of it, and which has been accepted by all subsequent authors. AGAVE Linnaeus AGAVE CANT ALA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25, nomen nudum, Furcraea cantala Haworth Syn. PL SuccuL SuppL (1819) 42. Agave cantula Roxb. FL Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 167. Agave rumphii Hassk. in Hoev. & DeVriese Tijdschr. 10 (1843) 12L Aloe americana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 273, t. 9^,. The common maguey plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. Aloe americana Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Aloe vivipara Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, while in the Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 986, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 461, he placed it under Agave vivipara Linn, in which he was followed by various authors. This, however, seems to be a different species, originally based on material from tropical America. Agave cantala Roxb., as originally used, is a nomen nudum, but the spelling of the specific name is fixed by Haworth's publication of Furcraea cantala in 1819, with a reference to Roxburgh. However, Roxburgh himself published the name, with a brief description and a reference to Rumphius, as Agave cantula Roxb. Agave rumphii Hassk. is apparently typified by Aloe americana Rumph. While the species is of Mexican origin, having been introduced into the Philippines at an early date by the Spaniards, the Indo-Malayan form has not as yet been satisfactorily connected with any described American species. TACCACEAE TACCA * Forster TACCA PINNATIFIDA Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 70, t 35. Tacca dubia Schultes Syst. 7' (1829) 167 (type!). Tacca litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 328, U IIU. Tacca phaflifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 326 p. p., t. 113, f. i, a, b. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The illustrations given by Rumphius of Tacca litorea, and of T. phalli f era t, IIS, /. 1, are both excellent representations of the ♦ Retailed name, Brussels Congress; Leontopetaloides Boehm. (1760) i^^ older. DIOSCOREACEAE 145 common and well-known Tacca pinnatifida Forst. The species was confused by Rumphius with Amorphophalliis campannlatus Blume (see p. 127), Tacca phallifera Rumph. being made up of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. with the inflorescence of Amorpho- phalltis campanulattis Blume, which was described by Rumphius as Taccae fungus. Tacca sativa Rumph., 1. c. 5 : 324, is also apparently a mixture of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. and Amorpho- phallus campanulatus Blume, but the description for the most part and the figure are Amorphophallus, not Tacca, Tacca dubia Schultes was based wholly on Tacca phallifera Rumph,, excluding Taccae fungus and t, US, f, 2, and is manifestly nothing but Tacca pinnatifida Forst. Forster apparently took his generic name from Rumphius, and in the original publication of the species he cites both Tacca sativa Rumph,, t. 112, and Tacca litorea Rumph., t. Hi, as synonyms. The type, however, was a Polynesian specimen. TACCA PALM ATA Blume Enum. PI. Jav. 1 (1827) 83. Tacca montana Schultes Syst. 7' (1829) 168. Tacca rumphii Schauer in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843) Suppl. 1: 442. Tacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 329, t. 115, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. I consider that both forms described by Rumphius — ^I minor and II major — are referable here. The reduction was first made by Blume. Schultes merely substituted Rumphius's name for that proposed by Blume, reducing Tacca palmata Blume as a synonym. Tacca rumphii Schauer was based on Luzon speci- mens, manifestly the same as Tacca palmata Blume, with the addition of a reference to Tacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:329, t 115. DIOSCOREACEAE DIOSCOREA Linnaeus Rumphius described and figured a number of forms and species of Dioscorea, under the general name Ubium, which have been in part more or less misunderstood by subsequent authors. But two species are represented in our Amboina collections. These are both common and well-known species, so that the material available for study hardly assists in clearing up species of doubtful status so far as those based wholly or partly on Rumphius's descriptions and figures are concerned.* *Prain and Burkill. A synopsis of the Dioscoreas of the Old World, A^frica excluded, with descriptions of new species and of varieties. Joum, ^s. Soc, Beng, II 10 (1914) 1-41. 144971 10 146 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE DIOSCOREA BULBIFERA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1033. Ubium pomiferum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 354, t, 12^. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure, however, unmistakably represents Dioscorea bulbi- fera Linn. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1294, which has been followed by all authors. Ubium pomiferum silvestre Rumph., 1. c. 354, is probably merely a form of the same species. Mr. Burkill notes that the wild form mentioned by Rumphius is in all probability Dioscorea bulbifera Linn. var. vera Prain and Burkill, and that the cultivated forms may include var. sativa Prain and Burkill and var. suavior Prain and Burkill. DIOSCOREA ALATA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1033. Ubium vulgar© Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 346, t. 120, Ubium digitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 350, t, 121, Ubium anguinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 351, t. 122. Ubium ovale Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 356, t. 125. Ubium draconum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 351, t. 122, f. D, E, Ubium anniversarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 353, t. 128. Inhame St. Thome Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 355. This commonly cultivated yam is not represented in our Amboina collections. However, I have little doubt that the six forms figured by Rumphius as Ubium vulgare, U. digitatum, U. anguinum, U. ovale, U, draconum, and U, anniversarium are all referable to Dioscorea alata Linn., including the several forms described under the first, second, and fourth. The species is enormously variable in the shape, color, and size of its sub- terranean parts, but is apparently fairly uniform in its vege- tative and floral characters. The first three were originally and erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Dioscorea oppositifolio^ Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, but later authors have generally cited them as synonyms of Dioscorea alata Linn., where they properly belong. Ubium ovale Rumph. has been cited by some authors as a synonym of Dioscorea bulbifera Linn., but from the figure and description it is apparently merely the bulbil-bearing form of Dioscorea alata Linn. Ubium anniversarium Rumph. has been quoted by Henschel, Hasskarl, Kunth, and Miquel as a possible synonym of Dioscorea spiculata Blume, but Mr. I. H. Burkill has called my attention to the fact that it is the same form as the curious race of Dioscorea alata figured by him in Gard. Bull- Straits Settl. 1 (1915) 301, figs. 2-^6, (1917) 393, pi 5, 6; and DIOSCOREACEAE 147 in the Philip. Agr. and Forester 3 (1915) 207, plate 2, figs. 12, Ih IS. In a recent letter to me Mr. Burkill states : Of the Philippine Dioscorea alata I have in Singapore in a few races the tuberous roots do not respond to geotropism in the normal way, but ascend to the surface of the soil where conditions are apt to kill them. If one continues to protect them by covering them with earth they continue to grow and may become greatly elongated. The drawings of the yams on page 30 of Gardens' Bulletin were made at a time when I had not discovered how to earth them up. If you will examine the figure of Rumphius's Ubium anguinum you will note that what I take to be the same race is represented. I believe that this type of yam arose and was propa- gated by planting it in the midden at the back door and that the yams continued to g'row upward with the accumulation of rubbish. Mr. Burkill calls my attention to the fact that Inhame St Thome of Piso is Dioscorea alata Linn., and that Rumphius was wrong in ascribing it to his Ubium pomiferum. DIOSCOREA ESCULENTA (Lour.) BurkiU in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. 1 (1917) 396. Oncus esculentus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 194. Dioscorea combilium Ham. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5103A. Dioscorea fasciculata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 72, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 801. Dioscorea tiliae folia Kunth Enum. 5 (1840) 401. Combilium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 357, t. 126. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure, however, unmistakably represents the form commonly named Dioscorea tiliaefolia Kunth, but for which Prain and Burkill have recently adopted the name Dioscorea aculeata Linn. Sir David Prain, however, has discovered that Dioscorea aculeata Linn, is the valid name for D, wallichii Hook, f . and that Oncu^ esculentus Lour, supplies the oldest valid name for the species under discussion. Linnaeus originally reduced Combilium to Dioscorea aculeata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1293. Mr. Burkill, who has called my attention to the necessary change in the specific name of this species, considers that Combilium is referable here with the possible exception of Combilium rubrum, the status of which is uncertain, and C tsjampadaha, which is described as if a diflferent species. DIOSCOREA PENTAPHYLLA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1032. Ubium quinquefolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 359, t. 127. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. he figure probably represents the var. malaica Prain & Burkill, 148 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE in Joum. As, Soc. Beng. II 10 (1914) 23. The original reduction of Rumphius's plant was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1293, and has been accepted by most authors. The forms de- scribed as album, rubrum, and fuscum are probably but variants of the same species. DIOSCOREA HISPIDA Dennst. Schliissei Hort. Malabar. (1818) 33. Dioscorea hirsuta Roth Nov. PI. Sp. (1821) 370. Dioscorea daemona Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 72, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 805. Dioscorea triphylla auctt., non Linn. Ubium srlvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 361, t, 128. Colot e Philrppinis Rumph. 1. c. 364. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 375, November 26, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 5 meters, locally known as ondo. Dioscorea triphylla Linn., Sp. PL (1754) 1032, typified by Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 7 : 63, L 33, is merely a form of Dioscorea pentaphylla Linn, and must be considered as a synonym of that species. Prain and Burkill, however, propose to cite Dioscorea triphylla Linn, as published in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, thus typified by the Rumphian figure, and to retain Dioscorea triphylla Linn, as a valid species. This usage is inadmissible, and the specific name triphylla Linn. should be dropped. The oldest valid specific name appears to be Dioscorea hispida Dennst. DIOSCOREA NUMMULARIA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 231 (type!). Dioscorea nummulari folia Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 183 (type!). Dioscorea glabra Koord. Meded. Lands Plantent. 19 (1898) 312. Ubium nummularium fruglferum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 444, t 161 Abcboina, Negri lama and Soja, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 374, Sep- tember 8, 1913, in thickets and on hillsides, altitude 20 to 375 meters, locally known as ubi utan. Ubium nummularium Rumph. was originally and erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Dioscorea villosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1294; but in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, it was erroneously referred to Smilax chinh,=Heliconia bihai Linn., as the description shows. Horaninow thought it might be a Phrynium, and Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, thought that it might be a Hellenia {—Alpinia) ; see Heliconia bihai Linn., page 150. COMINSIA RUBRA Val. sp. noT. Folium mensarium rubrum s. latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 141. Herba multicaulis, caulibus complanatis e vaginis 4 com- positis. Folia magna late elliptica (Heliconia Bihai referentia), antice rotundata acumine convoluto, valde inaequilatera, 600 ad 900 mm longa 180 ad 250 mm lata consistentia firma, haud ad latera findentia, supra in vivo glauco-viridia subtus pallide fusca vel violacea. Nervi laterales circ. 12 ad 15 mm inter se remoti. Petioli ad 750 mm longi basi cum ligula pubescentes. Herba florens ad 2.5 metr. alta, 15 mm crassa, pilis bulbillosis densis scabra, foliis 2, 1,200 mm longis 400 mm latis. Panicula magna terminalis ad 400 mm longa ramosissima rachi laxe pubescente, valde densiflora, internodiis denudatis, inferioribus ad 45 mm, superioribus dzlO mm longis. Bracteae vaginantes 35 ad 45 mm longae glabrae. Flores ignoti. The description is from specimens in the Buitenzorg herb- arium, collected in Amboina by Botter, and bearing the native name kokin merah, which is also cited by Rumphius. It is certainly a species of Cominsia, well characterized by the scabrid sheaths. It is distinguished by the much denser, pubescent inflorescence and by the wider leaves, which are purple beneath. ORCHIDACEAE * (By J. J. Smith) PLATANTHERA L. C. Richard PLATANTHERA SUSANNAE (Linn.) Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1835) 295. Orchis susannae Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 939. * All specimens of Orchidaceae collected by Doctor Robinson in Amboina were sent me at Leiden. Owing to the abnormal conditions brought about by the European war, I considered it inadvisable to take the specimens with me on my return to Buitenzorg, so that it has been impracticable to cite the numbers collected by Doctor Robinson in this consideration of the Orchid- aceae described by Rumphius. [J. J. S.]. For citations of Robinson's specimens of Orchidaceae, see Addenda, p. 548. [E. D. M.] ORCHIDACEAE 169 Orchis gigantea Sm. Exot. Bot. 2 (1804-05) 79, t. 100, Habenaria gigantea Don Prodr. (1825) 24. Hahenaria susannae R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 312. Platanthera gigantea Lindl. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 7052. Flos susannae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 286, t. 99. I have no doubt that Flos susannae minor Rumph. belongs with Habenaria rumphii Lindl. PERISTYLUS Blume PERISTYLUS sp. Orchis ambolnica minor altera Rumph. Herb, Amb. 6: 118, t, 44, /. S. The plant figured by Rumphius is certainly a Peristylus. I do not know any species like it from Amboina. HABENARIA Willdenow HABENARIA RUMPHII (Brongn.) Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1835) 320. Platanthera rumphii Brongn. Bot. Duperrey Voy. (1829) 104, t. 38, f.A. Orchis amboinica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287; 6: 118, t. 54, /. 2, Flos susannae minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287. ANOECTOCHILUS Blume ANOECTOCHILUS REINWARDTM Blume Fl. Jav. Orch. (1858) 48, U 12, f. 2; t. 12b, /. 14; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 12. Folium petolatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 93. Folium petolatum femina s. vera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92, t. 41, f. S, The flowers of this plant are unknown, so that the determina- tion is somewhat doubtful. It is certainly not Macodes petola Lindl. ZEUXINE Lindley ZEUXINE AMBOINENSIS J. J. Sm. in Ic. Bog. 2 (1905) 259; Schltr. in Bull. Herb. Boiss. II 6 (1906) 298. Haplochilus amboinense J. J. Sm. in Bull. Inst. Bot. Buitenz. 7 (1900) 2. Folium petolatum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92, t. 41, f. 2? This species was not described by Rumphius. The figure, which presents a sterile plant, doubtless represents a species of the Physnrinae and may belong to Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm. COELOGYNE Lindley COELOGYNE RUMPHII Lindl. Fol. Orch. Coelogyne (1854) 14 (type!); J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 16. Pleione rumphii O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL (1891) 690. Epidendrum nervosum Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 186 (type!), non Coe- logyne nervosa Rich. Coelogyne psittacina Reichb. f. Xen. Orch. 2: 141, t. 15S, Angraecum nervosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 106, L 48. 170 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CALANTHE* R. Brown CALANTHE VERATRI FOLIA R. Br. in Bot Reg. 9 (1823) t, 270. Limodorum veratrifolium Willd. Sp. PL 4 (1805) 122. Calanthe furcata Batem. in Bot. Reg. 24 (1838) Misc. 28. Ambly glottis veratrifolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 370. Limodorum ventricosum Steud. NomencL ed. 1 (1821) 481. Calanthe triplicata Ames in Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) Bot. 326, non Orchis triplicata Willem. Flos triplicatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 115, t. 52, f, 2. Mr. Oakes Ames f has adopted the name Calanthe triplicata (Willem.) Ames for the plant usually known as Calanthe verat- rifolia R. Br. on the supposition that Orchis triplicata Willem. was the oldest name for the species. From the original descrip- tion of Orchis triplicata Willem., for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr. Merrill, this was certainly not based on Flos triplicatus Rumph., although the Rumphian name was cited as a synonym, but was based on a Mauritius plant, presumably Calanthe sylvatica Lindl., so that Calanthe triplicata Ames, not Orchis triplicata Willem., becomes a synonym of C. veratrifolia R. Br. Willdenow's description of Limodorum veratrifolium is too vague to determine whether it was intended for Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. or C. sylvatica Lindl. He cites both Flos triplicatus Rumph. and Orchis triplicata Willem. as synonyms and gives the distribution as '*Ind. Or.'' Even if Limodorum veratrifolium Willd. belongs with Calanthe sylvatica Lindl, both Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. and Amblyglottis veratrifolia Blume go entirely with the Malayan plant. It is generally accepted that Calanthe veratrifolia was published by Roxburgh in Bot. Reg. 7 (1821) sub. t. 578; this is incorrect, as Roxburgh merely states that the genus Calanthe should be separated from Limodorum, but makes no new combination. Calanthe veratri- folia appears first in Bot. Reg. 9 (1823) t 270. The form described by Rumphius may eventually prove to belong to a different species. PHAJUS Loureiro PHAJUS AMBOINENSIS Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 180; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 21. Phajus zollingeri Rchb, f. Xenia Orch. 2: 201, Bonplandia 5 (1857) 42. Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 113, t. 52, /• ^* non t. 50, f. 3. In the Herbarium Amboinense t. 52, f. 1, is erroneously * Retained name, Vienna Code; Alismorkis Thou. = Alismorchis Thou (1809) is older. t Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) Bot. 326. ORCHIDACEAE 171 referred to Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum {Spatho- glottis plicata Bl), which was not figured; and t 50, f. S, to Angraecum terrestre alterum (Phajits amboinensis BL), with which t 52, /. 1, doubtless belongs. Linnaeus and Blume did not notice these errors, and therefore the two artificial species Epidendrum terrestre Linn, and Phajus rumphii Blume, both composed of the characteristics of the two species mentioned above, originate from this confusion. Linnaeus^s original de- scription of Epidendrum terrestre, which was not available in Buitenzorg, was copied and sent to me by Mr. Merrill. It is as follows : Epidendrum terrestre. E. fol. radicalibus lanceolatis nervosis membra- naceis, scapo vaginato, petalis oblongis, nectario cymbiformi bifido. Rumph. amb. 6, t. 52, f. 1 [Linnaeus Syst. ed 10 (1759) 1246]. Apart from the characteristics Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum Rumph. and Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. have in common, that is **foliis lanceolatis nervosis membra- naceis, scapo vaginato,'' the **folia radicalia" occur only in Spatho glottis, while in Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. the leaves are placed on an elongated erect stem. The nectary (lip) is cymbiform only in Angraecum terestre alterum Rumph. (Herb. Amb. 6: 114), and bifid only in Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum Rumph. (Herb. Amb. 6: 112). Linnaeus, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1352, described Epidendrum tuberosum as follows: Epidendrum foliis lato-lanceolatis nervosis membranaceis bulbo innatis, scapo vaginato, nectario cymbiformi bifido. Helleborine purpurea, tuberosa radice. Plum, spec. 9. ic. 186. f. 2. Angraecum terrestre primum. Rumph. amb. 6. p. 112 t. 52. f. 1. Habitat in Indiis. This too is a species of doubtful status, but I suppose that it has the same value as Epidendrum terrestre Linn. It is cer- tainly not Helleborine purpurea, tuberosa radice Plum., for Plumier's species does not have a bifid nectary, nor can it be A^igraecum terrestre primum Rumph., because the nectary of Rumphius's species is not cymbiform. Further it cannot be Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. as this has no bulbs and the nectary is not bifid. PHAJUS GRATUS Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 181. Limatodes grata Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 672. Angraecum terrestre primum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 113, t. 50, f. S. This species is unknown to me. From Rumphius's description 172 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE one would think that it referred to a white-flowered form of Spatho glottis, and, if this suggestion is correct, Blume's descrip- tion applies only to the species figured by Rumphius, t 50, f, s. It is to be noted that Blume gives a detailed description of the lip of Phajus gratus BL, although he certainly did not see a specimen, and Rumphius does not describe the lip. SPATHOGLOTTIS Blume SPATHOGLOTTIS PLICATA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 401, Tabell. /. 76; I J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 24. Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 112. Rumphius's description applies to Spathoglottis plicata Blume. In the Herbarium Amboinense t 52, f, 1 is erroneously referred here ; it represents Phajus amboinensis Blume. Phajus rumphii Blume, Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 179, is an artificial species based on the characters of Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum Rumph. {Spathoglottis plicata Blume) and An- graecum terrestre alterum Rumph. (Phajus amboinensis Blume). EULOPHIA * R. Brown ? EULOPHIA sp. Orchis amboinica major radice digitata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 116. Hasskarl suggests that this plant may be Cyrtoptera ensifor- mis Lindl. Rumphius's description applies closely to Eulophia, but I do not know any species of the genus to which the state- ment ''radix digitata" is applicable. LI PARIS L. C. Richard LIPARIS TREUBII J. J. Sm. nom. nov. Liparis amboinensis J. J. Sm. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 13 (1914) 6, non Orch. Amb. (1905) 31. Liparis confusa J. J. Sm. var. amboinensis J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 35. Angraecum gajang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108. There is no doubt that Angraecum gajang Rumph. is a Liparis. A careful study of the question of its identity has convinced me that it is the form I described as Liparis amboinensis, here called L, treubii; Rumphius's description agrees entirely with mine. In raising Liparis confusa var. amboinensis to specific rank, I unfortunately overlooked the fact that the name was preoccupied in the genus. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Graptorkis Tho\i,=Graptorchi8 Thou. (1809) is older. ORCHIDACEAE 173 DENDROBIUM * Swartz DENDROBIUM CALCEOLUM Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 63, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 488. Dendrobium roxburghii Lindl. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 3 (1859) 4. Aporum roxburghii Griff, in Calc. Journ. Nat. Hist. 5 (1835) 370. Herba supplex quinta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111, t. 51, f. 2. The citation of Rumphius by Roxburgh is incomplete, and as to the figure is erroneous. DENDROBIUM ACINACIFORM E Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 63, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 487. Dendrobium scalpelliforme T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 27 (1864) 17; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 111. Herba supplex major prima s. Herba supplex femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb. and D, scalpelliforme T. & B. are undoubtedly synonymous, and I think that the reduction of Herba supplex major prima to Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb. is the correct disposition of it. The yellow color of the flowers is a character so uncommon in the group that it serves as a valuable indication of the identity of the Rumphian species. However, I have never seen specimens with stems as long as those de- scribed by Rumphius. It is certainly not Dendrobium calceolum Roxb., which is Herba supplex quinta. Rumphius's t. 51, f. 1, can scarcely belong with the plant described as Herba supplex vrima, as he states that the leaves are in shape similar to those of Herba supplex minor, while the figure presents a species with flat, not laterally compressed, leaves ; I do not recognize it. DENDROBIUM PAPILIONIFERUM J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 42. Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., fl. lilac. Miq. Choix. t. 22, f. 1. Angraecum crumenatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: t. U7, f. 2. The figure of Angraecum crumenatum does not represent the species generally regarded as Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., but the form with purple flowers figured by Miquel and described by me as Dendrobium papilioniferum, I have not seen the original description of Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., but the common Malayan species currently known as D, crumenatum is certainly specifically distinct from Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. In the Herbarium Amboinense, explanation of t. 47, it is stated that Angraecum crumenatum is described in chapter 57 of the Auctuarium. The only plant described in this chapter that * Retained name, Vienna Code; Callista Lour. (1790) is older. 174 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE agrees more or less with Dendrobium crumenatum is Angraecum angustis crumenis. I have thought that the material Rumphius described might have presented two species growing together, but after a careful study of the question I am now convinced that the plant in question must be an Eria, probably Eria mo- luccana Schltr. & J. J. Sm. DENDROBIUM EPH EM ERUM J. J. Sm. comb. nov. Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. var. ephemerum J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 45. Angraecum album minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 99, t. Uk, f- i. The plant is not a variety of Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. as I formerly supposed, although it is not impossible that it is a hybrid. The suggestions of Linnaeus, Willdenow, and Hasskarl, who respectively reduced this form to Epidendrum spathulatum Linn., Cymbidiuni ovatum Willd., and Dendrobium bursigerum LindL, are certainly incorrect. The other form de- scribed by Rumphius in this chapter is probably another species of Dendrobium, certainly not Hysteria veratrifolia Reinw., as Hasskarl has suggested. DENDROBIUM RUMPHIANUM T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 24 (1862) 317; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 57. Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum s. odoratum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 102. ? Angraecum flavum nonum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104, excl. fig. It is possible that Dendrobium minax Rchb. f., which I formerly reduced to D. rumphianum T. & B., may represent some other species. It is very doubtful whether or not the Bali plant mentioned by Rumphius belongs with this species. Rumphius's description of Angraecum flavum nonum agrees very well with this species, but the figure closely resembles that of Angraecum flavum septimum. DENDROBIUM MIRBELIANUM Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 423, t 38; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 56. Dendrobium prionochilum Kranzl. in Osterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 44 (1894) 261 (ex Kranzl.). Dendrobium rosenbergii T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 24 (1862) 317. Angraecum flavum septimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 103, t, Jf5; i^- I cannot distinguish Rumphius's figure of Angraecum flavum nonum (t. i6, /. 2) from that of Angraecum flavum septi- mum (t, i5). The description of the former, however, agrees very well with Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum Eumph* =zDendrobium rumphianum T. & B. ORCHIDACEAE 175 DENDROBIUM MOLUCCENSE J. J. Sm. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 13 (1914) 11. Dendrobium atropurpureum J. J. Sm. (nee Miq.) Orch. Amb. (1905) 54. Herba supplex minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 110, t, 50, /. 2, The species of the section Oxystophyllum have been frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted, partly due to the incomplete descriptions. Herba supplex minor is neither Dendrobium con- cinnum Miq. nor D, atropurpureum Miq. DENDROBIUM PURPUREUM Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 484. Dendrobium viridiroseum Rchb. f. in Bonplandia 3 (1855) 226. Angraecum purpureum sMvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 109. t. 50, f, 1. There is no doubt as to the correctness of this reduction, which was made by Roxburgh. DENDROBIUM ANOSMUM Lindl. in Bot. Reg. 21 (1844) Misc. 41. Dendrobium superbum Rchb. f. var. anosmum Rchb. f. in Walp. Ann. 6 (1861) 283. Dendrobium superbum Rchb. f. in Walp. Ann. 6 (1861) 282. Dendrobium mucrophyllum Lindl. Bot. Reg. 25 (1839) Misc. 36, non A. Rich. Dendrobium macranthum Hook, in Curtis's Bot. Mag. 69 (1843) t 3870, non A. Rich. Dendrobium scortechinii Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 5 (1890) 741. Dendrobium leucorhodum Schltr. Orch. Neu-Guinea (1913) 499. Angraecum caninum s. undecimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 105, t. h7, /. 1. I have seen no specimens of Dendrobium anosmum Lindl., but as the plant is usually considered to be a mere variety of Dendro- bium superbum Rchb. f. there is no good reason for replacing Lindley's name by the more recent one proposed by Reichen- bach f. The figure of Dendrobium anosmum Lindl., in Paxt. Mag. Bot. 15: 97, represents a short-flowered form of Dendro- bium superbum Rchb. f . Dendrobium anosmum Lindl. is credited to the Philippine Islands by Lindley, Bot. Reg. 31 (1845) Misc. S2, but is not mentioned by Mr. Ames. DENDROBIUM sp. Herba supplex major quarta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. The description of the flower is strongly suggestive of Dendro- bium confusum Schltr., but so far as I know Schlechter's species never attains the length noted by Rumphius. Suggested reduc- tions by other authors are in contradiction with the description. DENDROBIUM sp. Angraecum purpureum et nudum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 109, t. ^9, f. 2, Lindley reduced this form to Dendrobium bifarium Lindl., the 176 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE correctness of which I doubted in my former consideration of the Amboina Orchidaceae,"^ Dendrohium bifarium Lindl. was based on a flowerless specimen from Penang and is now recognized as a species of the section Distichophyllum with solitary flowers. Accordingly Angraecum purpureum et nudum Rumph. cannot possibly belong here. The form described by Rumphius is apparently a species of Dendrohium, perhaps of the section Pedilonum. DENDROBIUM sp. Angraecum jamboe Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108. In my former treatment of the Orchidaceae of Amboina I reduced this to Dendrohium pruinosum T. & B., but I now am of the opinion that that was an erroneous disposition of it. The leaves are not acute, and the lip is not violet-blue. Doctor Rob- inson in his field notes suggests that the plant may be Pseuderk foliosa Schltr., but there are so many discrepancies between Rnmphius's description and the characters of Brongniart's spe- cies that it is very doubtful if this suggested disposition of it is the correct one. I suppose that the plant in question is a species of Dendrohium of the section Grastidium. ? DENDROBIUM sp. Herba supplex major tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. The status of this plant is doubtful, but it is probably a species of Dendrohium of the section Rhoplalanthe. It certainly cannot be referred to Dendrohium atropurpureum Miq. as Hasskarl suggested. ? DENDROBIUM sp. Herba supplex major secunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. The description is so vague that it is not even certain that the plant described by Rumphius belongs in the genus Dendrohium. According to the explanation of t. 51, f, 1, this figure represents Herha supplex femina s. secunda, not Herha supplex major secunda. ERIAt Lindley ERIA MOLUCCANA Schltr. & J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 74. Angraecum angustis crumenii Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107. Under Dendrohium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. I have already pointed out that this is probably the correct disposition of the plant Rumphius described. The data given by Rumphius con- * Orch. Amb. (1905) 62, 119. t Retained name, Vienna Code; Pinalia Buch.-Ham. (1825) is older ORCHIDACEAE 177 forms closely with the characters of Eria moluccana Schltr. & J. J, Sm., the two lateral leafy stems being the inflorescences with bracts. ERIA sp. Angraecum lanuginosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108. The form described is doubtless an Eria of the section Tricho- tosia. No species of this section has as yet been described from Amboina under the binomial system. BULBOPHYLLUM * Thouars BULBOPHYLLUM sp. Angraecum unlflorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107. The description of this plant in almost every point applies to Bulbophyllum grandiflorum Blume, but so far as I know Blume's species has not been recorded from Amboina. GRAMMATOPHYLLUM Blume GRAMMATOPHYLLUM SCRIPTUM (Linn.) Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 48; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 84. Grammatophyllum rumphianum Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1869) 219, t. 8, 9, Grammatophyllum speciosum Lindl. Gen. et. Sp. Orch. (1833) 173, p. p. Grammatophyllum leopardinum Rchb. f. in Flora 46 (1888) 151. Grammatophyllum guilelmi II Kranzl, in Gartenfl. 43 (1894) 114. Gabertia scripta Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 425. Vanda scripta Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 719. Cymbidium scriptum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. (1799) 218. Epidendrum scriptum Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1351 (type!). Angraecum scriptum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 95, t. U2. In addition to the above form Rumphius describes two other species in this chapter, one growing on Mangifera and other trees, the other on Cocos, Hasskarl suggests that the first may be Cymbidium wallichii Lindl., while Blume refers the latter, from its Portuguese name Fulha alacra, to Arachnis fios aeris Rchb. f. The suggested reductions of both, however, are con- tradicted by Rumphius's descriptions. PHALAENOPSIS Blume PHALAENOPSIS AMABILIS (Linn.) Blume Bij dr. (1825) 294, Tabell. /. ^^. Epidendrum amabile Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 953. Cymbidium amabile Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 63. Phalaenopsis grandiflora Lindl. in Gard. Chron. (1848) 39. Angraecum album majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 99, t, US, Rumphius briefly describes two forms which, without doubt, * Retained name, Vienna Code; Phyllorkis Thon, = Phyllorchis Thou. (1809) is older. 144971 12 178 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE are referable to the same species. It is well known that the flowers of Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume vary considerably in size, in the form of the sepals, petals, lip, and especially in the size and markings of the yellow area on the lip. Specimens with the sepals purplish on the outside are not rare. Rumphius's description of the first form does not at all apply to Phalaenopsis violacea T. & B., to which it was reduced by Hasskarl. LUISIA Gaudichaud LUISIA CONFUSA Rchb. f. in Walp. Ann. 6 (1861) 621. Luisia teretifolia Blume (non Gaudich.) Rumphia 4 (1848) t. 19It, f. 3, t. 197D, Angraecum decimum et angustlfollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104. Luisia teretifolia Gaudich., as formerly interpreted, contained several distinct species. I think that Reichenbach was correct in separating from it the Amboina form under the name Luisia confusa Rchb. f . VAN DA R. Brown VANDA FURVA Lindl. (non Blume) Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1833) 215; J. J. Sm. Orch Amb. (1905) 98. Cymbidium furvum Willd. Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 103. Epidendrum furvum Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1348 (type!), excl. syn. Rheede. Angraecum octavum et furvum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104, t 46, /. l VANDA sp. Vanda crassiloba T. & B. (non J. J. Sm.) in Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 48, nomen nudum. Angraecum saxatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107, t, 49, /. J. The plant I described in my former treatment of the Orchida- ceae of Amboina as Vanda crassiloba, is certainly not the same as the species Teysmann and Binnendijk had in view. The latter is very similar to Vanda celebica Rolfe and will probably prove to be a variety of this or a closely allied species when fresh material from Amboina shall have become available. The spe- cies of the Vanda kastifera group are in want of revision. It is evidently quite different from Cymbidium, where it was placed by Hasskarl. VANDOPSIS Pfitzer VANDOPSIS LISSOCHILOIDES (Gaudich.) Pfitz. in Engl. & Prantl Nat Pflanzenfam. 2 ' (1889) 210, /. £29. Fieldia lissochiloides Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 424, t. S6. Vanda lissochiloides Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1833) 216. Vanda batemannii Lindl. in Bot. Reg. (1846) t. 59, Staurops^s lissochiloides Benth. ex Pfitz. Vergl. Morph. Orch. (1882) 14. Angraecum quintum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 102. CASUARINACEAE 179 RENANTHERA Loureiro RENANTHERA MOLUCCANA Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 54, t. 193, /. 2; t. 197E, Angraecum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 101, t, UU, /. 2, I do not understand the exact status of the form of this plant described by Rumphius. SARCANTHUS Lindley 8ARCANTHUS SUBULATUS (Blume) Reichb. f. in Bonplandia 5 (1857) 41; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 103. Sarcanthus secundus Griff. Not. 3 (1851) 362. Cleisostoma siihulatnm Blume Bijdr. (1825) 363. Angraecum pungens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 106. I have little doubt that the plant described by Rumphius as Angraecum pungens is the same as Sarcanthus subulatus Rchb. f. Usually the sepals and petals are light or dark brown with a pale center, but the specimen I collected in Amboina had very pale flowers. Schoenorchis juncifolia Blume, to which Hasskarl reduced it, is a totally. different plant. ORCHIDACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Angraecum sedlforme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107. Unrecognizable. Angraecum taeniosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108. The plant described by Rumphius evidently belongs in the Sarcanthinae, Maccabuhay Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287. It is not at all certain that this plant is an orchid. The material was from the Philippines; see Tinospora, Menispermaceae. Satyria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287. Unrecognizable. Rumphius's material was from China, the Chinese name pu sang tjan being quoted by him. ANGIOSPERMAE (DICOTYLEDONS) CASUARINACEAE CASUARINA Linnaeus CASUARINA RUMPHIANA Miq. in Flora 48 (1865) 23 (type!), 38. Casuarlna men tan a Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 87, t. 58 (excL /.A). Amboina, Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Uly October 24, 1913, alti- tude about 275 meters, locally known as kasuari. Casuarina montana is the whole basis of Casuarina rumphiana ^iq., as originally published in Flora 48 (1865) 23, but on page ^8 of the same volume Miquel amplifies the description from 180 RUMPHIUS'S HERBAEIUM AMBOINENSE specimens collected in Amboina by Teysmann and DeVriese, In his Revisio critica Casuarinarum (1848) 282 and in his Flora Indiae Bataviae 1^ (1858) 873, Miquel erroneously referred Ca- suarina montana Rumph. to Casuarina nodiftora Forst. The species is a characteristic one of the mountain forests of the Philippines and of the Moluccas. CASUARINA EQUISETI FOLIA Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143 (type!) (equisefolia) ; Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 103. t. 52. Casuarina Mtorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 86y t, 57. This widely distributed and well-known species is not repre- sented in our Amboina collections. Rumphius's figure is an excellent one, and there is no doubt whatever as to the correctness of this reduction, which was originally made by Linnaeus; in fact Casuarina litorea Rumph. is the type of Casuarina equiseti- folia Linn, as published in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143, although the species is usually accredited to Forster (1776). CASUARINA SUMATRANA Jungh. in Hoev. & DeVriese Tijdschr. 11 (1844) 115. Casuarina celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 87, t. 58 f. A. This disposition of Casvxirina celebica follows Miquel and is certainly correct. The species is well characterized by its re- latively large fruits. PIPERACEAE * PIPER Linnaeus PIPER ARBORESCENS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 80 (type!), Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 161, ed. 2, 1 (1832) 159. Piper miniatum Blume in Verb. Bat. Genoots. 11 (1826) 166. SIrium arborescens tertium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 46, t. 28, f. 1. Amboina, Soja, Way tommo, Koeda mati, Gelala, Amahoesoe, and Halong, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 62, 63, 6J^, 609, August and September, 1913, locally known siri seytan and siri tulak tulak. The Kumphian illustration is the whole basis of Piper arbores- cens Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis * I am under obligations to Mr. C. de Candolle, Geneva, Switzerland, for determinations of the Piperaceae collected by Doctor Robinson. ^^ all but two cases the specimens are here quoted under the binomials indi- cated by him, the exceptions being Piper decumanum Linn., reported as P. forstenii C. DC, and Piper arborescens Roxb., reported as P. miniatwn^ Blume, the specific name adopted by me being accepted as the oldest valid one in each case. The determinations of the Rumphian species are by Doctor Robinson and myself. PIPERACEAE Igl (1814) 80.* The species was later briefly described by Roxburgh from specimens collected in the Moluccas, the reference to Rumphius being included in the description. The description applies to the above specimens in all respects, and is not at all Thottea dependens Klotzsch, as reduced in Index Kewensis. The actual Amboina specimens were determined by C. de Candolle as Piper miniatum Blume, Blume's species thus becoming a synonym of Piper arborescens Roxb. In Stickman's Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, it is erroneously referred to Piper malamiris L. PIPER CANINUM Blume in Verb. Bat. Genoots. 11 (1826) 214, var. GLABRIBRACTEUM C. DC. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 459. Piper canlnum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 49, t. 28 ^ f. 2, Amboina, Wae and Amahoesoe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 57, August and November, 1913, on coral rocks and on trees at low altitudes. Blume was certainly correct in referring this Rumphian species to Piper caninum Blume. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 30, discussed it under Piper sylvestre Lour., while Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 161, reduced it to Piper cubeba; Piper cubeba Roxb., non Linn., is a synonym of Piper caninum Blume. PIPER DECUMANUM Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!), Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 41, excl. syn. Plumier. Piper forstenii C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 348. Sirium decumanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 45, t. 27. Amboina, Hatiwe, Batoe merah, and Oerimesseng, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 61, August and September, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 10 to 250 meters. Sirium decumanum Rumph. is the whole basis of Piper decu- manum Linn, as originally published and is hence the type of the species; Linnaeus took his specific name decumanum from Rumphius. Later he added also a reference to Plumier, Amer. 59, t. 76, which represents a species totally different from Sirium decumanum, C. de Candolle, Prodr. 16 ^ (1869) 370, interpreted Piper decumanum Linn, from the reference to Plumier and de- scribed the Amboina species as Piper forstenii C. DC. Some of the early authors referred it to Piper methysticum Forst., but it has nothing to do with Forster's species. It has also been cited under Piper majusculum Blume and Chavica majuscula Miq., ^'hile Miquel referred it to Chavica rumphii Miq. Both Blume's and MiqueFs species are apparently different from Piper decu- ^naiium Linn. (P. forstenii C. DC.) as here interpreted. See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot 415. 182 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE PIPER BETLE Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 28. Sirlifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 336, t 116, f. 2. The common betel pepper is not represented in our Amboina collections, yet Piper betle is manifestly the correct disposition of SiriifoUum Rumph. Linnaeus reduced it, through error, to Piper longum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, and later, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 41, placed it under Piper malamiris Linn., which is apparently a synonym of Piper betle Linn. Radermacher, Loureiro, Roemer and Schultes, Blume, and other authors cite it under Piper betle Linn., and Miquel cites it under Chavica betle Miq. PIPER BETLE Linn. var. SIRIBOA (Linn.) C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 359. Piper siriboa Linn. Sp. Pi. (1753) 29. Sir I boa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 340, t. 117. Siriboa Rumph. was originally reduced to Piper siriboa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, one year after the publica- tion of the species, and has been very consistently cited under this name in subsequent botanical literature. The forms de- scribed by Rumphius as / alba, II cambing, and /// fragram are apparently but variants of Piper betle or the variety siriboa. PIPER AMBOINENSE (Miq.) C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 347. Chavica amboinensis Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863-64) 134. Slrium arborescens tertium alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 48. Amboina, Mahija, Batoe gadjah, and near the town of Amboina, Robin- son PL Rumph. Amb. 58, ascending to an altitude of 250 meters, climbing on trees, locally known as siri seytan. The specimen cited above represents a characteristic species of Piper, and it is probably the form described by Rumphius, here reduced to Piper amboinense C. DC. PIPER REINWARDTIANUM (Miq.) C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 354. Macropiper reinwardtianum Miq. in Linnaea 21 (1848) 481. Slrium decumanum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 45. Ambonia, Wae, Lateri, and Halong, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 60, August and November, 1913, in light forests, altitude from sea level to 150 meters, locally known as siri utan, siri tallan, and siri tallan peramiman. The specimen cited here probably represents the form that Rumphius described. Vahl, Enum. 1 (1804) 334, referred the Rumphian species to Piper album Vahl, a species based on Javan specimens and one of doubtful status. There is no particular reason for believing that the Amboina plant is the same as the Javan one described by Vahl, but it does appear from the descrip- tion to be referable to Piper reinwardtianum C. DC. PIPERACEAE 183 PIPER RETROFR ACTUM Vahl Enum. 1 (1804) 314. Piper chaba Hunter in As. Res. 9 (1809) 891. Chavica officinarum Miq. Syst. Pip. (1844) 256. Piper officinarum C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1b869) 356. Piper longum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 333, t. 116, /. 1. Pjper longum e Philippinis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 334. Pharmacum magnum vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42, t. 26, f. 2? Piper retrofractum Vahl is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure of Piper longum Rumph., however, seems to represent VahFs species, this reduction being in agree- ment with Miquel and with C. de CandoUe. The form from the Philippines I have determined largely from the native name cited by Rumphius, sahia being the universal name, at least about Manila, for Piper retrofractum Vahl. I follow Miquel also in reducing here Pharmacum magnum vulgare Rumph., who considered that it represented a form near Chavica officina- rum Miq. Linnaeus reduced Piper longum Rumph. to Piper amalago Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (17^9) 856, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 41, which was an entirely erroneous disposition of it, as Piper amalago Linn, is an American species. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 32, erroneously reduced it to Piper longum Linn. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 158, placed it under Piper chaba Hunter, which is a synonym of P. retrofractum Vahl. Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. 5 (1804) 460, erroneously placed it under Piper plantagineum Lam., and it has been cited under Chavica officinarum Miq. and Piper officinarum C. DC, both synonyms of Piper retrofractum Vahl. PIPER CADUCIBRACTEUM C. DC, sp. nov. Sirium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 342, t. 118, /. i, 2, Amboina, Halong and Koeda mati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 59 (type!), August and September, 1913, climbing on trees at low altitudes, locally known as siri seytan; Teysmann in Herb. Bogor. Ramulis glabris ; f oliis breviter petiolatis glabris, limbo ovato- elliptico basi leviter inaequilatera utrinque acuto apice acute acuminato, in mare 5-plinervio, in femine 9-ninervio nervo cen- tral! nervos adscendentes 2 mittente quorum supremus 2 in ^are et 3 in femina a basi solutis quorum extern! aliis multo breviores et tenuiores, petiolo basi ima vaginante; pedunculo glabro petiolum aequante vel paulo superante, stirpis masc. spica quam limbus pluries breviore, rhachi hirsuta, bracteae Pelta rotunda glabra centro pedicellata pedicello hirsuto, stami- ^ibus 2 antheris minutis rotundatis 4-valvatis filamenta fere ^equantibus; stirpis fem. spica quam limbus pluries breviore, 184 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE rhachi hirsuta, bracteae pelta glabra elliptica centro pedicellata decidua pedicello hirsute, baccis condensis obovatis glabris, stig- matibus rotundatis minutis. Dioicum. Ramuli spiciferi in mare 1 mm in femina 1.5 ad 2 mm crassi, coUenchyma libriforme in mare in fascicules discretos dispositum in femina subcontinuum, fasciculi intramedullares 2-seriati, canalis lysigenus centralis periphericique multi. Limbo in sicco firme membranacei minute pellucido-punctulati, superi usque ad 18 cm longi et 8 cm lati. Petioli usque ad limbi latus longius 10 mm, inter limbi latera 1 mm longi. Spica in mare subflorens 4 cm longa et 2.25 mm crassa, in femina usque ad 4.5 cm longa et 3 mm crassa. Rhachis in mare et in femina canalibus lysigenis periphericis munita, bracteae pelta in mare 1 mm diam., in femina 1 mm longa et 0.75 mm alta, bacca 1.5 mm longa in sicco atrorubens vel nigra. The above description, based on the two specimens cited above, has been kindly supplied by Mr. C. de Candolle of Geneva, Swit- zerland. The identification of Sirium silvestre Rumph. with Piper caducibracteum C. DC. has been made by myself, following Doctor Robinson's suggestion that the specimen collected by him possibly represented Rumphius's species. Two forms are described and figured by Rumphius, but I consider that Sirium silvestre II, at least as figured, represents merely a juvenile form of Sirium silvestre I. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb, (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856, referred it to Piper malamiris Linn., where it certainly does not belong. Miquel thought that both forms described by Rumphius might be the same as Chavica malamiris Miq., which is merely a synonym of Piper malamiris Linn. C. de Candolle, Prodr. 16^ (1869) 361, cites both figures with doubt under Piper sirium C. DC, which is essentially a new name for Chavica malamiris Miq.; only Indian specimens are cited, and it is entirely im- probable that the Amboina plant cited by Rumphius is the same as the Indian one described. PIPER NIGRUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 28. Piper album et nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 335. This reduction follows Miquel, Syst. Piper. (1844) 309, and is unquestionably the correct disposition of the plant that Rumphius described. PIPER SUBPELTATUM Willd. Sp. PL 1 (1798) 166 (type!). Lomba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 133, L 59, f. 1. Linnaeus originally reduced Lomba to Piper peltatum Linn., an American species to which it does not belong, in Stickman PIPERACEAE 185 Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 42, in which he was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 15. It is the type of Piper subpeltatum Willd., which C. de Candolle considers to be a variety of Piper umbellatum Linn., in Donn.-Sm. Enum. 6:39, Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 463. Lomba has also been cited by various authors under the synonyms Peperomia subpeltata Dietr., Peperidia subpeltata KosteL, and Potemorphe subpeltata Miq. PIPER SARMENTOSUM Roxb. Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 162. Sirium terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 344, t, 119^ f. 1. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 56, July 17, 1913, along roadsides in the vicinity of the town of Amboina, July 17, 1913, locally known as siri rambang. Miquel, FL Ind. Bat. 1^ (1858) 446, thought that Sirium terrestre might be Chavica sphaerostachya Miq., but C. de Can- dolle, Prodr. 16 ^ (1869) 389, definitely excludes it as a synonym of MiqueFs species, and refers it, 1. c. 360, to Piper arcuatum Blume. The specimen, however, which certainly represents the form that Rumphius described and figured, is not at all Piper arcuatum Blume, but is typical Piper sarmentosum Roxb. PIPER sp. Sirium frigidum rotundifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 345, t. 119, /. 2. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Vahl, Enum. 1 (1804) 333, referred it to Piper diffusum Vahl, a species based on Ceylon specimens and which is apparently the same as Piper argyrophyllum Miq.; see Trimen FL CeyL 3 (1895) 429. Miquel, FL Ind. Bat. V (1858) 441, thought that it might be Piper sarmentosum Roxb., but the other form figured on the same plate, Sirium terrestre Rumph., is Piper sarmentosum Roxb. and is different from Sirium frigidum rotundifolium Rumph. The form described as Sirium frigidum latifolium Rumph., Herb. Amb. 6 : 345, is indeterminable. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 131, thought that it was Piper album Vahl, but there is no reason for considering that this reduction is correct. PIPER sp. Pharmacum magnum parvifollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42, t. 26, f,2. Nothing in our Amboina collections matches thi^ figure. The species is indeterminable from the data at present available. P'PER sp. Pharmacum magnum marinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42. Indeterminable from data at present available. 186 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE FAGACEAE QUERCUS Linnaeus QUERCU6 MOLUCCA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1199 (type!). Quercus molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 85, t. 56. The Rumphian figure and illustration are the whole basis of this species, which is one of the few published in the first edition of the Species Plantarum with references to the Her- barium Amboinense. The species has been' recognized in all general works, but it is by no means certain that all of the botanical material in herbaria under the name Quercus molucca Linn, is of the same form as that figured and described by Rumphius. It is to be typified by material from the Sula Islands from whence Rumphius received his material: A second form, very briefly described, having oblong inedible fruits, apparently represents a distinct species of Quercus. To this Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 54, refers t 56, but this is certainly due to a typographical error, as on the preceding page the plate is properly cited under Quercus molucca. ULMACEAE CELT IS Tournefort CELTIS PHILIPPENSIS Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 197. Sirifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, U S6. SirifoMa litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, t. S7. Possibly two species are represented by the forms Rumphius described, but they are at least of the same genus. The figure representing Sirifolia presents a seedling and a leafy branch only, but the one representing Sirifolia litorea, a branch in fruit, is a very good representation of Celtis philippensis Blanco. Sirifolia was erroneously reduced by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 155, to Piper malamiris Linn., while Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 51, thought that it might be Cocculus angusti- folius Hassk. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in Sole- nostigma=^Celtis, where it certainly belongs. Sirifvlia litorea Rumph., which more certainly represents Celtis philippensis Blanco than the preceding, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 51, to be possibly the same as Cocculus lauri- folius DC, which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it- Hasskarl also quotes Teysmann's opinion that it was a species of Solenostigma=Celtis. If it is not Celtis philippensis Blanco, which is widely distributed in the Philippines and extends to northeastern Australia, it at least represents a very closely allied form. ULMACEAE 187 TREMA Loureiro TREMA AMBOINENSIS (Willd.) Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 61 quoad. syn., excl. descr.! Celtis amboinensis Willd. Sp. PL 4^ (1805) 997. Sponia amboinensis Decne. in Nuov. Ann. Mus. Paris 3 (1834) 498. Trema virgata Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 59. Sponia virgata Planch, in Ann. Sci. Nat. Ill 10 (1848) 316. Cortex piscatorium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 125, L 61. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 328, November 5, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 100 meters, locally known as rufut. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, suggests that Cortex piscatorium may be Sponia timorensis Decne., which is the only previously suggested reduction of the Rumphian description and figure. Sponia timorensis Decne.=Trema timorensis Blume is manifestly closely allied to Trema virgata Blume^^Trema am- boinensis as here interpreted (not of other authors), which Lauterbach * confines to Timor Island, with the var. pallida (Blume) Lauterb. in Amboina. The Rumphian figure and de- scription are manifestly applicable to Trema virgata Blume, the figure presenting equilateral leaves which are not cordate at the base and lax inflorescences, while the description definitely states that the leaves are: ''ad factum rugosa, sed non Lanuginosa/' The actual Amboina specimen cited above, presents a form with rather small leaves, but otherwise agreeing very closely with the figure. As to the synonymy given above, it is to be noted that Sponia amboinensis Decne,^Trema amboinensis Blume was based on Celtis amboinensis Willd., and Willdenow's description is very definitely applicable to Trema virgata Blume, not to Trema am- boinensis as currently interpreted. The type was a specimen from Amboina, and the leaves are very definitely described as "scabriuscula'' with no mention of the indumentum so character- istic of Trema amboinensis auct., while they are also very de- finitely described as equilateral at the base ; in fact this character is the one on which the species was primarily distinguished from its congeners. It is very evident that Trema amboinensis of all modern authors is not the same as Celtis amboinensis Willd. on which it was manifestly based, but the type has been consistently ^misinterpreted. Trema amboinensis of modern authors should be reduced to Trema orientalis (Linn.) Blume, at least as a variety; while Trema virgata Blume, generally recognized as ^ valid species, becomes a synonym of the true Trema amboi- * Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 50 (1913) 317. 188 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE nensis (Willd.) Blume (Celtis amboinensis Willd.). Doctor Lauterbach, in answer to my query regarding the identity of Celtis amboinensis Willd., writes from Breslau as follows : '*Das Originalexamplar von Celtis amboinensis im Willdenow Herbar ist von den Herrn Professoren Volkens und Gilg mit Trema orientalis var. amboinensis Lauterb. verglichen worden. Das- selbe stimmt mit derselben nicht liberein, entspricht dagegen meiner Trema. virgata Bl. var. scabra (Bl.) Ltb.'' MORACEAE MORUS Linnaeus MORUS ALBA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 986. Morus indica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 986. Morus indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 8, ^. 5. The form described and figured by Rumphius is the one de- scribed by Linnaeus as Morus indica Linn, and was reduced by Linnaeus to this species in his Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1266. This disposition of it has been accepted by all authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian illustration. Morus indica Linn., however, does not appear to be specifically distinct from Moms alba Linn. BROUSSONETIA L'Heritier BROUSSONETIA PAPYRfFERA Vent. TabL Regn. Veg. 3 (1794) 547. Frutex lintearius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 114, t. 5S. This reduction was made by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 165, and is apparently the correct disposition of Frutex lin- tearius. The material on which the figure and the description were based was from Celebes, The figure is poor and presents only a branch with leaves; the flowers and the fruits are not described. TAXOTROPHIS Blume TAXOTROPHIS ILICIFOLIA Vidal Rev. PL Vase. Filip. (1886) 249. Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 42 ^ (1873) 247, t. 19. Taxotrophis triapiculata Gamble Kew Bull. (1913) 188. Taxotrophis obtusa Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 5 (1913) 1813. Ulet Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 62, t. SIf, No previous reduction of Ulet has been suggested other than HasskarFs suggestion that it might be an Antidesma, It is* however, unquestionably a form of Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal, as shown by the figure and the description. In regard to the synonymy cited above, Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal was published MORACEAE 189 independently of Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz. Kurz's species has been reported from Celebes by Koorders, and an examination of Koorders's specimens at Buitenzorg convinced me that they were the same as the Philippine Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal, which lead me to suspect that Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz and Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal were one and the same thing. I am indebted to Sir D. Prain, director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, England, for the following memorandum supplied to me under date of June 28, 1916: The material of Balanostreblus ilicifolius Kurz, and Taxotrophis ilici- folia Vidal has been compared in accordance with your request of May 9th, with the result that your surmise as to their identity is very probably correct. There is a slight difference in the male catkins which may be of no importance. In the Philippine plant they are very short, while in Balanostreblus ilicifolius, even in a young state, they are much longer. Balanostreblus Kurz, will therefore have to be reduced to Taxotrophis Blume, the anthers of which appear to be inflexed. I might mention that Taxotrophis triapiculata Gamble (Kew Bull. 1913, 188) proves to be the same as Balanostreblus ilicifolius Kurz. I am now of the opinion that the recently described Taxotro- phis obtusa Elm. is also a form of T. ilicifolia Vidal. CUDRANIA Trecul CUDRANIA JAVANENSIS Tree, in Ann. Sci. Nat. Ill 8 (1847) 123. Trophis spinosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 489, non Roxb. Batis spinosa Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 71 (type!), non Fl. Ind. ed 2, 3 (1832) 762. Cudranus rumphii Thw. Enum. PL Ceyl. (1861) 262. Madura amboinensis Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1849) 83. Cudranus amboinensis Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1859) 290. Cudranus spinosus 0, Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 2 (1891) 623. Cudrania spinosa Hochr. in Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 6 (1910) 489. Cudranus bimanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 22, t. 15, f. 2. Cudranus amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 22, t. 15, /. 1, Cudranus amboinicus silvestrls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 25, t. 16. Not represented in our Amboina collections. The three species'' described and figured by Rumphius are apparently all referable to Cudrania javanensis Tree, which name I interpret ^^s the oldest valid one for the species. Cudranus bimanus l^umph. is the type and whole basis of Batis spinosa Roxb. as published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 71,* but I consider ^e name to be invalidated in Cudrania by C spinosa (Blume) ochr. The species later described by Roxburgh under this name is entirely different from Cudrania javanensis Tree. * See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415. 190 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Trophis spinosa Roxb. as published by Willdenow, Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 734, to which Cudranus bimanus Rumph. was also re- duced, is Plecospermum spinosum Tree. Retzius, Obs. 5 (1789) 30, reduced it to Trophis aspera Retz. with doubt, where it mani- festly does not belong. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 548, discussed the form figured on t. 16 under Morella rubra Lour.:=: Myrica nagai Thunb., which led Poiret to cite it under Asca- rina rubra Poir., in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 1 (1810) 475. The figures given by Rumphius have been cited under one or another of the various synonyms listed above. ARTOCARPUS Forster ARTOCARPUS INTEGRA (Thunb.) comb. nov. Radermachia Integra Thunb. in Vet. Akad. Handl. Stockh. (1776) 254. Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 412. Polyphema jaca Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 546. Artocarpus jaca Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 209. Soccus (Saccus) arboreus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 104, t, SO. The common jak fruit is well figured by Rumphius. Both t, SO and the next species, t, SI, were reduced to Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. in the original description of that species, which was, however, essentially based on Radermachia integra Thunb. Following the rule of priority, I have here accepted Thunberg's specific name. ARTOCARPUS CHAMPEDEN (Lour.) Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 804. Polyphema champeden Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 547. Artocarpus polyphema Pers. Syn. 2 (1805) 531. Soccus (Saccus) arboreus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 107, t SL The Rumphian species was cited by Loureiro in the original description of Polyphema champeden Lour., which is the basis of both Artocarpus polyphema Pers. and A. champeden Spreng. The figure has been cited by several authors under Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. or as a variety of that species. The species commonly called Artocarpus polyphema Pers., here, following priority, called Artocarpus champeden Spreng., is manifestly the one intended by Rumphius. ARTOCARPUS COMMUNIS Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 101. Radermachia incisa Thunb. in Vet. Akad. Handl. Stokh. (1776) 254. Artocarpus incisa Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 411. Soccus lanosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 110, t, 32. Soccus granosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 112, L S3, Soccus lanosus and Soccus granosus are respectively the seed- less and seeded forms of the breadfruit, corresponding to the forms described by Blanco as Artocarpus rima Blanco and A' MORACEAE 191 camansi Blanco. They are both referable to Artocarpus com- munis Forst. as that species is currently interpreted. Both, together with Soccus silvestris Rumph., were reduced to Arto- carpus incisa Linn, f . i • the original description of that species, which is typified by Radermachia incisa Thunb. ARTOCARPUS ELASTICA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 481. Soccus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 114, t. SU? Not represented in our Amboina collections. This has been reduced to Artocarpus communis Forst. (A. incisa Linn, f.) by several authors and may be a sylvan form of that species, or it may prove to be referable to Artocarpus elastica Reinw., where it was placed by Teysmann as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 16. ARTOCARPUS RETICULATA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 213. Novella cinerea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 227? Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 173, November 26, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as mulewan. The specimen agrees quite closely with MiqueFs description of Artocarpus reticulata, but its identity with Novella cinerea Rumph. is rather problematical. ARTOCARPUS FRETISSI Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Nuturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 189 (Neue Schliissel 47) (type!). Metrosideros spuria I, mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 26. t. 13, /. A. A species of entirely doubtful status, to be interpreted from the description and figure given by Rumphius. As published, Artocarpus fretissi Teysm. & Binn. is typified wholly by the reference to Rumphius, as no description of the species was pubHshed by Teysmann and Binnendyck; the name does not appear in Index Kewensis. It is possible that the specimen intended by Teysmann and Binnendyck to represent the species is the one collected in Amboina by De Fretes and cited by Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 213, under Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb. ARTOCARPUS sp. Metrosideros spuria II femlna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 27, t. IS, f. B. The description and figure are apparently those of an Arto- ^^rpus, but a further determination of its status is impossible at this time from the material and data available. ARTOCARPUS sp. Soccus silvestris celebicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 115. The description is hardly suflScient to warrant an attempt 192 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE at determining the status of this form. Henschel's suggestion that it might be Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb. is not tenable. ARTOCARPUS sp. Caju bandaa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 109, As to the reference to Rheede this is Artocarpus hirsuta Lam., but the Javan plant discussed must be a different species, and its status is indeterminable at this time. A N T I A R I S * Leschenault ANTIARIS TOXICARIA (Pers.) Lesch. in Ann. Mus. Paris 16 (1810) 478. Ipo toxicaria Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 566. Arbor toxicaria mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 263, t, 87. This is the famous upas tree, and it is manifestly the form commonly known as Antiaris toxicaria Lesch. Arbor toxicark Rumph. was reduced to Ipo toxocaria Pers. in the original description of the genus and species. The form described by Rumphius as Arbor toxicaria femina is probably referable here. Blume has placed it under Antiaris innoxia BL, which is a synonym of A, toxicaria Lesch. FICUS Linnaeus FICUS RACEMIFERA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 66 (type!). Ficus amboinensis Kostel. Allgem. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 2 (1833) 408 (type!). Ficus nodosa Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29 (1867) 245. Caprificus amboinensis esculenta latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 145, t. 93, Amboina, Gelala and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb. 181, July and August, 1913, along streams at low altitudes, locally known as gondal. The Rumphian species was originally reduced by Linnaeus through error to Ficus benghalensis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124. Loureiro, Fl Cochinch. (1790) 665, discusses it under Ficus auriculata Lour., which, according to his description, is an entirely different species. It is the type and whole basis of Ficus racemife^'^ Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 66, by citation of the Rumphian figure, but is not the form later described by Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 560 {=Ficu^ variegata Blume), where the reference to Rumphius is repeated. It is also the type of Ficus amboinensis Kostel., which thus becomes a synonym of Ficus racemifera Roxb. The type o> * Retained name, Vienna Code; Ipo Pers. (1807) is older. MORACEAE i93 Ficus nodosa Teysm. & Binn. was from Amboina. The figure given by Rumphius is decidedly poor, and from it alone the status of the species is indeterminable; in connection with Amboina material, however, it is clearly the species as here interpreted. FICUS MOSELEYANA King in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 144, t 181. Caprificus aspera tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151. Amboina, Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 181, August 7, 1913, margins of forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as koti and gohi. There is some doubt as to the correctness of this reduction of the Rumphian name, for the form described as Caprificus aspera III may be properly referable to Ficus wassa Roxb. FICUS WASSA Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 539. Caprificus aspera latifolla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 150, t. 9^. Caprificus aspera angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151. Amboina, Soja, Elephant River, and town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Ainb. 175, 176, 177, July, August, and September, 1913, from sea level to an altitude of 400 meters, locally known as goM, Roemer and Schultes erroneously reduced the Rumphian species to Ficus symphiti folia Lam. ; Pritzel erroneously referred it to Ficus glomerata Roxb. ; and Haskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 60, thought that it might be Covella hispida Miq. The type of Viciis wassa Roxb. was a specimen cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta, originating in the Moluccas, and Roxburgh states in the original description: ''Wassa of the Malayas, and probably Caprificus aspera Rumph. Amb. HI t. 9JfJ' The speci- mens agree closely with the description of Rumphius and of Roxburgh, but the plate given by Wight, Ic. t. 666, presents a specimen with much more prominently toothed leaves than our Amboina material and, for that matter, than Roxburgh's description calls for. The receptacles are both axillary and solitary and on short tubercle-like racemes on the branches and trunk. Wassa is one of the native names cited by Rumphius for this species. FICUS SEPTICA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 226. Ficus leucantatoma Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 654. Ficus septica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 153, t. 96. Amboina, Elephant River, near the town of Amboina, and Paso, Robinson ^l Rumph. Amb. 189, July and October, 1913, locally known as siripopa. The specimen agrees entirely with Rumphius's figure and ciescription, and also with Ficu^ leucantatoma Poir. as currently 144971 13 194 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE interpreted. Ficus septica Burm. f. has been quite overlooked by recent authors, but I believe that this name should be adopted in place of Poiret's. The Rumphian figure and description have been cited under Ficiis septica Burm. f., by Loureiro, Lamarck, Vahl, Roemer and Schultes, Henschel^ Kosteletzky, Walpers, Pritzel, and Miquel [Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1858) 311], but the name is not included in the later writings of Miquel on Ficus [Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 260-300], nor by King in his monumental work on the species of Ficus of the Indo-Malayan region [Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 1-185, t 1-282], In the original description Burman f. first cited the tRumphian synonym, taking his specific name from Rumphius, followed by a citation of Handur-alu Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 3 : 77, t. 59, the citation of the Javanese name siri bipar, and . the statement ^'Habitat in India;'' it seems to be quite evident that he had a Javan specimen. FICUS ALTISSIMA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 455. Varinga latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 127, t. 8It his. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ficv^ racemosa Linn., in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, where it certainly does not belong, and later, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1515, was placed as a variety of Ficv^ indica Linn., which it certainly does not represent, no matter whether the latter be interpreted from the occidental or the oriental references. Several authors followed Linnaeus in citing Varinga latifolia Rumph. under Ficus indica Linn., and Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 539, states "the figure very bad'' (i. e. for Ficu^ indica Linn.) . Vahl, Enum. 2 (1805) 189, erroneously places it under Ficv^ cotoneaefolia Vahl. The figure is not good, and the data given in the descrip- tion indicate that it is greatly reduced, so that it somewhat resembles Ficu^ gelderi Miq. The description, however, applies very closely to Ficv^ altissima Blume and certainly represents this species or a very closely allied one. FICUS PUNCTATA Thunb. Ficus (1786) 9. Crusta arborum minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 84, t. ^5. Amboina, Amahoesoe and Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amh- 182 y August and September, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 4 to 1^^ meters, locally known as tali oit. No previous reduction of this Rumphian species has been sug- gestedj other than HasskarFs reference of it to the genus Ficu-^- The figure, the description, and the Amboina specimen citea MORACEAE 195 above, all manifestly represent a form of the widely distributed Ficus punctata Thunb. The forms described in this chapter as Crusta arborum II alba, III odorata, and IV minima, with the possible exception of the last, are species of Ficus, apparently all different from Ficus punctata Thunb., but their more exact status is quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius. FICUS CONORA King in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 103, L ISl, Caprificus viridis major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 152, t. 85. Amboina, Way tommo and Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 186, 187, August and October, 1913, in forests, ascending to an altitude of 20 meters, locally known as mussor. The figure is a good representation of Ficus conora King, which is found in the Philippines, Ternate, and New Guinea; and the specimens agree with the figure, with the description, and also in the native name as cited by Rumphius. Blume erroneously reduced it to Ficus vibes Reinw., an allied species with smaller leaves and very much smaller receptacles. Henschel erroneousb^ places it under Ficus hispida Blume, while Miquel thought that it might be Covellia congesta Miq., perhaps from Roxburgh's dis- cussion of the Rumphian figure under Ficus congesta Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 560. FICUS RUMPHII Blume Bijdr. (1825) 437. Ficus cordifolia Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 548, non Blume. Arbor conciliorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 142, t. 91, 92. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 180, November 5, 1913, along the seashore. Arbor conciliorum Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to the allied Ficus religiosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1315, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1514. Blume, however, placed it under Ficus rumphii Bl. in the original description of that species, and Roxburgh likewise cites it in the original description of Ficus cordifolia Roxb. It was erroneously placed by Roemer and Schultes under Ficus populnea Willd., an American species. FICUS BENJAMINA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 129. Varinga parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 139, t. 90. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 179, October 31, 1913, along the seashore, locaUy known as waringin. Ficus benjamina Linn., as originally published, manifestly i^^cludes more than one species, but I have here followed the current interpretation of it. Varinga parvifolia Rumph. was 196 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE quoted as a synonym in the original description of the species, but is not the type. Two forms are described by Rumphius in this chapter ; namely, Varinga parvifolia alta, which is the one figured and here inter- preted as Ficits benjamina, and Varinga parvifolia II humilis, smaller in size and with somewhat larger leaves and larger fruits than the former. Blume thought that this might be Ficus haemato- carpa Blume, while Hasskarl placed it with doubt under Urostigma neglectum Miq. Its exact status is indeterminable from the data and the material at present available for study. FICUS TREMATOCARPA Miq. Ann. Mus. Hot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 224. Grossularia domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 136, t. 87, 88. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb. 178, October 7, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 80 meters, locally known as waringin daun alus, I am disposed to refer to the same species Rel. Robins. 1680, 1681, 1682, from Wae, Paso, and Batoe gadjah, all indicated as waringin. Grossularia domestica Rumph. was erroneously referred by Linnaeus to Ficus racemosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124; the only other suggested reduction is MiqueFs doubtful reference of it to Ficus altimeraloo Roxb. The probabilities are very great that it is here correctly referred to Ficus trematocarpa Miq., the type of which was from Amboina, although the status of MiqueFs species is doubtful. King has reduced it with several other species, including the Philippine Ficus philippinensis Miq., to Ficus decaisneana Miq., which disposition of it is perhaps correct ; but if King's concep- tion of the specific limits be correct, then it is probable that several other described Philippine forms will have to be reduced, such as Ficus inaequifolia Elm., F. confusa Elm., F. driveri Elm., F, setibracteata Elm., and F, magnifica Elm. FICUS ADENOSPERMA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 233. Caprificus virldls minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 152. Amboina, Way tommo, and Roemah tiga, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 181^, 185, August, 1915, along streams at low altitudes, locally known as kaju musor. The specimens agree fairly well with Rumphius's description and perfectly with that of Miquel. The type of Ficus adeno- sperma Miq. was from Amboina. FICUS AMPELOS Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 226 p. p. Folium polltorium vulgare fruticosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: t^ t. 63. This particular form is not represented in our Amboina collec- MORACEAE 197 tions, but the plant figured and described by Rumphius is apparently the same as the Javan form currently referred to Ficus ampelos Burm. f. The Rumphian description and figure, cited by Burman f. in the original description of Ficus ampelos Burm. f., should probably typify the species. It has been re- duced to Ficus politoria Lam., but Lamarck's species, based on specimens from Madagascar, is certainly distinct from the Malayan form. It has also been erroneously referred to Ficus parasitica Roth, and to F, exasperata Roxb. FICUS CORONATA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 470. Ficus ohscura Blume 1. c. 474. Folium politorium arborescens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 128. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 183, October 18, 1913, borders of clearings, altitude about 70 meters, locally known as daun plas. This form, with very scabrid, somewhat inequilateral leaves, certainly represents Folium politorium arborescens Rumph. I cannot distinguish it from Ficus coronata Reinw. (F, ohscura Blume). The form described by Rumphius, 1. c, as Folium politorium flagellare is probably referable to one or the other of the above species with harsh leaves. FICUS FORSTENII Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 214, 285. Varinga supa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 135, t. 86? Nothing resembling this form occurs in our Amboina collec- tions. The figure very strongly resembles both Ficus pilosa Reinw. and F, forstenii Miq., and the form described by Rumphius is probably referable to one or the other of these species. Miquel thought that it might represent Urostigma pilosum M.iq.=Ficus pilosa Reinw., but it seems to me that it more closely resembles Ficus forstenii Miq. Hamilton referred it with doubt to Ficus gonia Ham., and Henschel quite wrongly refers it to Ficus citrifolia Willd. The form described by Rumphius as Varinga pelal, in the same chapter, may be referable to Ficus forstenii Miq. or may represent a different species. PICUS sp. aff. F. CALOPHYLLA Blume. Varinga repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 134, t. 85. Nothing at all agreeing with Varinga repens Rumph. is presented by our Amboina collections. The figure and the description, however, apply closely to the Javan Ficus calophylla t^lume and the Philippine Ficus pachyphylla Merr. and cer- tainly represent a species very closely allied to both and perhaps identical with one of them. Varinga repens Rumph. was erro- neously reduced by Linnaeus to Ficus pumila Linn., in Stickman 198 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1315, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1515. Likewise it was erroneously reduced by Lamarck, with doubt, to Ficus pyrifolia Lam.; by Vahl to Ficics rubra Vahl; and by Blume to Ficus microcarpa Linn. f. var. litoralis Blume. Miquel thought that it might represent a species allied to Fictcs manok Miq. FICUS RECURVA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 457. Rudens silvaticus parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 80, t. JfSy f. 2. From the description and figure I have little doubt in referring this to Ficus recurva Blume. A more comprehensive explora- tion of Amboina, however, may yield material that will modify this reduction. FORMS OF FICUS, DESCRIBED BY RUMPHIUS, OF DOUBTFUL STATUS Grossularia domestica longifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 136. Grossularia domestica parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 136. Both are perhaps forms of Ficus trematocarpa Miq. to which Grossularia domestica Rumph. pertains. Varlnga funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 137. Varinga nounouck Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 137 (from Madagascar). Grossularia silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 138, t. 89, This form was erroneously placed by Lamarck under Ficus racemosa Linn., and by Henschel under Ficus tsjela Ham. Miquel thought that it might be near Ficus albinervia Miq. It is not represented in our Amboina collections. Arbor eusanda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 141. Caprificus amboinensis esculenta angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 146. Apparently a form allied to Ficus racemifera Roxb., as interpreted above, and to F. variegata Blume. Caprificus amboinensis esculenta silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3; 148. Caprificus amboinensis esculenta s. hahuol altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 148. Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria (amboinensis) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 149. Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria (javanica) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 149- Caju djurang (e Java) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151. Ficus septica silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 154. Ficus septica angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 154. The last two are perhaps merely forms of Ficus septica Burm. f. (Ficus leucantatoma Poir.) as interpreted above, to which Ficus septica Rumph. pertains. Rudens silvaticus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 80, t. US. f. 1, A scandent fig, apparently belonging in the group with Ficus recurva Blume. Rudens silvaticus rugosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 81. Manifestly a species of Ficus and apparently belonging in the same group as the above. MORACEAE 199 Rudens silvaticus IV Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 80. Probably a species of Ficus, and perhaps the same plant as that very briefly described as Gummi susu Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 43. This list of indeterminable Ficus described by Rumphius, for the most part comprises those forms that are very inadequately described. Later some of them may be placed from the study of more specimens and data than are now available, but the list, from the standpoint of nomenclature and synonymy, is of no importance. CONOCEPHALUS Blume CONOCEPHALUS AMBOINENSIS (Zipp.) Warb. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 18 (1894) 189. Poikilospermum amhoinense Zipp. ex Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd, Bat. 1 (1863-64) 203. Funis muraenarum latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 68, L 36. Amboina, Way tommo, Lateri, and Negri lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 170, 172 y August, 1913, climbing over trees at low and medium alti- tudes; probably referable here also is Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 171 y from Hitoe lama, November 6, 1913, altitude about 75 meters. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1854) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, erroneously referred plate 36, as Funis convolutus Rumph., to Melastoma octandrum Linn., doubtless by confusion with the species of Medinilla figured on the preceding plate. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 96, quotes Teysmann's opinion that the species figured represents a species of Conocephalus. I can see no reason for considering it other than Conocephalus amboinensis Warb., which was originally described by Zippel from Amboina material as a monotypic genus, Poikilospermum amhoinense Zipp. CANNABIS Linnaeus CANNABIS SATIVA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1027. Cannabis indica Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 695. Cannabis indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 208, t. 77, f. 1. Cannabis indica tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 211, t. 77, f. 2. The plant figured and described by Rumphius as Cannabis indica is manifestly the commoli hemp. It was reduced by Linnaeus to Cannabis sativa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, but by several of the ^3,rly authors, following Lamarck, was cited under Cannabis indica Lam., a synonym of C. sativa Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 112, makes Cannabis indica tertia Rumph. the type of a new variety, Cannabis sativa Linn. var. crispata Hassk., which, however, is apparently merely a variant of the common hemp. 200 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE URTICACEAE LAPORTEA * Gaudichaud LAPORTEA AMPLISSIMA (Blume) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1858) 232, Ann. Mus. Bot Lugd. Bat. 4 (1869) 301. Urera amplissima Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1859) /. 22 (without descrip. tion). Folium urens latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 217, t. IJ^l. Amboina, Lateri, Soja, Negri lama, and Halong, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 310, 311, 312, 313, August and September, 1913, in forests and along rocky river banks, altitude 175 to 325 meters, locally known as polat, polot, and polat puti. Burman f., FL Ind. (1768) 205, referred this to Croton polot Burm. f., taking his specific name from Rumphius, but de- scribing the species from Javan material. Burman's species has been entirely overlooked by modern botanists and is the species commonly known as Claoxylon indicum Hassk., which should now be called Claoxylon polot (Burm. f.) {Croton polot Burm. f., Claoxylon indicum Hassk.). Henschel, followed by Pritzel, erroneously referred the Rumphian species to Jatropha moluccana hinii.^ Aleurites moluccana Willd. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 69, referred it to Laportea crenulata Gaudich.. where it certainly does not belong, although he was correct as to the genus. In the original publication of Urera amplissima Blume no description is given; the name appears on the plate only. Miquel credits it to Java (Teysmann) and the Moluccas (Zippel), but in his second consideration of it he cites only Amboina material collected by Teysmann, Zippel, and De Fretes, so that the original citation of Teysmann's specimen, as Javan, is probably an error. J. J. Smith f states : **De voor Java opgegeven L. amplissima Miq. is nog niet op Java aangetroffen, doch waarschijnlijk afkomstig van de Molukken." LAPORTEA sp. Folium urens angustifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 217. Folium urens rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 218. Both descriptions apparently apply to a single species of Laportea, which, from the data given by Rumphius, is perhaps distinct from Laportea amplissima Miq. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 69, thought that Folium urens rubrum Rumph- * Retained name, Vienna Code; Urticastrum Fabr. (1759) is older, t Koorders & Valeton Bijdr. Boomsoorten Java 12 (1910) 676. URTICACEAE 201 might be Laportea stimulans Miq. No, 310, cited above under Laportea amplissima Miq., was considered by Doctor Robinson certainly to represent Folium urens rubrum Rumph., and if this be correct, then this form described by Rumphius becomes a synonym of Laportea amplissima Miq. The leaf measure- ments given by Rumphius for all three forms are matched by some of the leaves on the specimens cited above. LAPORTEA DECUMANA (Roxb.) Wedd. Monogr. Urt. (1856) 127. Urtica decumana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 67, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 587. Urtica rumphii Kostel. Allgem. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 2 (1833) 400 (type!). Urtica decumana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 47, t. 20, f. 1. Amboina, Halong and Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 316, Sep- tember and October, 1913, along streams and in forests from near sea level to an altitude of 250 meters, locally known as daun gattal puti and daun gattal mera. This was originally reduced by Linnaeus, through error, to Urtica interrupta Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 2G, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134. It has been cited by several authors under Fleurya interrupta Gaudich., but the figure does not pertain to this species, and the description only as to Urtica decumana. Ill vulgaris; see below. Roxburgh cites the Rumphian description and figure in the original description of Urtica decumana Roxb., which was based on specimen-s introduced into the Calcutta Botanic Garden from the Moluccas. The Rumphian figure and description are the basis of Urtica rumphii Kostel. The figure is exceedingly poor, but it manifestly belongs with this species rather than with Fleurya interrupta Gaudich. I consider that the forms described by Rumphius as I alba and II rubra represent Laportea decumana (Roxb.) Wedd. as here interpreted. FLEURYA Gaudichaud FLEURYA INTERRUPTA (Linn.) Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 497. Urtica interrupta Linn. Sp. Pi. (1753) 985. Urtica decumana III vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 48. Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 319, July 19, 1913, in waste places, town of Amboina, locally known as daun gattal. There is very little doubt as to the correctness of this reduction of Urtica decumana vulgaris Rumph. The other plants de- scribed in the same chapter, Urtica decumana alba and rubra, ^^e apparently both Laportea decumana Wedd. 202 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE PELLIONIA Gaudichaud PELLIONIA SINUATA (Blume) Boerl. Handl. Kenn. Fl. Nederl. Ind. 3 (1900) 375. Procris sinuata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 511. Elatostema sinuatum Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 79. Macuerus mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 133, t. 58, f. 2. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb, 320, July 28, 1913, on coral rocks at low altitudes. The only previously suggested identification of Macuerus man is HasskarFs doubtful reference of it to Elatostema macro- phyllum Brongn., Neue Schliissel (1866) 174. It is certainly not Brongniart's species, but is Pellionia sinuata Boerl., at least as that species is interpreted by Robinson, in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 497. BOEHMERIA Jacquin BOEHMERIA NIVEA (Linn.) Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 499. Urtica nivea Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 985. Rami urn majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 214, t. 79. f. 1. The plant figured and described is a form of ramie, probably typical Boehmeria nivea Gaudich., although possibly the variety tenacissima (Gaudich.) Miq. It was first reduced by Linnaeus to Urtica nivea Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1398, and has been cited by various authors under Procris nivea Gaudich. and Boehmeria tenacissima Gaudich., synonyms of Boehmeria nivea Gaudich. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 197, erroneously referred it to Urtica aestuans Linn, in which he was followed by Lamarck, Persoon, and Henschel. POUZOLZIA Gaudichaud POUZOLZIA ZEYLANICA (Linn.) Benn. PL Jav. Rar. (1838) 67. Parietaria zeylanica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1052. Parietaria indica Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 128. Pouzolzia indica Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 503. Herba memoriae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 29, t. 12, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe merah and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 32Jf, 825, July, 1913, in sago swamps and along road- sides at low altitudes. Herba memoriae Rumph. is manifestly a form of PouzoIzk^ indica (Linn.) Benn. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 221, refern it to Parietaria indica Burm. f ., published independently of f • indica Linn. It has been cited as a synonym of Pouzolzia incUco Gaudich. by several authors, for example, Presl, Bennett, Bluiti^' URTICACEAE 203 and Miquel, but is here placed under what is manifestly its oldest valid specific name, Pouzolzia zeylanica (Linn.) Benn. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 583, erroneously cites the Rumphian illustration under Urtica tuberosa 'Roxh,:= Pouzolzia tuberosa Wight. PIPTURUS WeddeU PIPTURUS ARGENTEUS (Forst.) Wedd. in DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 235". Urtica argentea Forst. Prodr. (1786) 65. Morus paniculata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 67 (type!). Perlarius I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 120, t. 56. Amboina, Lateri, Batoe merah, and Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 317, 318 y July and August, 1913, in forests and thickets on limestone formations, altitude 20 to 150 meters, locally known as daun kes and daun kesi. Perlarius as figured and described by Rumphius is the whole basis of MoTus paniculata Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 67 by citation of the Rumphian figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414. Roxburgh's species, later described from material ori- ginating in the Moluccas, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 599, has been reduced to Pipturus velutinus Wedd.==:P. incanus (Blume) Wedd., a species diflScult to distinguish from P. argenteus Wedd. ; but wherever placed, it will in turn place the synonyms Pipturus paniculatus Miq. and Botrymorus paniculata Miq. If, however, a critical revision of the genus should show that the Amboina material is Pipturus incanus Wedd. rather than P. (argenteus Wedd., then Roxburgh's specific name will take pre- cedence over Pipturus incanus Wedd. Perlarius latifolius, described in this chapter, is Robinson^ iodendron ambiguum Merr. (see p. 204). Perlarius parvifolius ^ay be a variant of Pipturus argenteus Wedd. or may refer to some entirely different genus and species; its status is quite uncertain. PIPTURUS REPANDUS (Blume) Wedd. in Arch. Mus. Paris 9 (1857) 448. Urtica repanda Blume Bijdr. (1825) 501. Aylaun nya femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67. Amboina, Batoe gadjah and Batoe merah River, Robinson PL Rumph. ^^0. 321, 322, August, 1913, climbing over trees, ascending to an altitude of 250 meters. Aylaun nya femina Rumph. is described in the chapter with '^'^is inuraenarum=Medinilla. The description is poor, but ^^ far as it goes it applies fairly closely to the specimens here deferred to Pipturus repandus Wedd. 204 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE OREOCNIDE Miquel {Villebrunea Gaudichaud) OREOCNIDE RUBESCENS (Blume) Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1869) 306. Urtica rubescens Blume Bijdr. (1825) 506. Villebrunea rubescens Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 167. Lignum aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 135, t 70. Amboina, Batoe merah River, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 315, Septem- ber 24, 1913, on river banks, altitude about 40 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 86, thought that Lignum aquatile Rumph. might be Oreocnide major Miq. or 0. silvatm Miq. ; according to J. J. Smith the former is a synonym of VilU^ brunea rubescens Blume=:Oreocnide rubescens Miq., and the latter is a variety of it. The Amboina specimens, which agree closely with the figure, but not very well with the descriptior., appear to be fairly typical of Oreocnide rubescens Miq. Rumph- ius's description is short and rather poor and may include more than this species. As to the genera Oreocnide Miquel and Villebrunea Gaudi- chaud, on a strict interpretation the former has priority; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 6 (1911) Bot. 16. ROBINSONIODENDRON genus novum Genus Maoutiae afRnis, differt perianthium $ distincte evolu- tum, 5-denticulatum. ROBINSONIODENDRON AMBIGUUM (Wedd.) comb. nov. Maoutia ambigua Wedd. in Arch. Mus. Paris 8 (1855-56) 483; DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 235 '^ Perlarius I latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 120. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 214., August 24, 1913, on hillsides at low altitudes. The specimen cited above agrees perfectly with Rumphius's description, as well as with that of Maoutia ambigua Wedd., ^ species known only from Amboina and anomalous in the genus by its distinctly developed pistillate perianth. No previous reduction of Perlarius I latifolius Rumph. has been suggested, other than HasskarFs opinion that it might be a variety of Perlarius /, that is, Pipturus argenteus Wedd. In view of the fact that the species is anomalous in Maoutv', where it was placed by Weddell, it seems best to establish another genus for it; in Maoutia the pistillate perianth |S wanting. The generic name I have proposed is selected i^ PROTEACEAE-LORANTHACEAE 205 commemoration of Doctor Robinson's work in Amboina and of his critical work on the Philippine representatives of this difficult family.* PROTEACEAE HELICiA Loureiro HELICIA SERRATA (R. Br.) Blume in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 1 (1834) 215. Rhopala serrata R. Br. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 10 (1811) 193. Arbor vespertilionum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 17 (p. p., excl. t 10!), Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 281, October 29, 1913, near the seashore. A7'bor vespertilionum Rumph. was first reduced to Helicia serrata by Blume, in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 1 (1834) 215. He in- cluded also t. 10 with the statement ''figura male expressa.*' The figure is manifestly no Helicia, refers to Arbor vesperti- lionum II described on page 17 following the description that does apply to Helicia, and is Schizomeria serrata Hochr. (see p. 244) . LORANTHACEAE LORANTHUS Linnaeus LORANTHUS RUM PHI I sp. nov. § Heteranthus, Viscum amboinicum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 60, t. 33. Amboina, Batoe gad j ah and Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 517 (type), August 4, 1913; Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^>16, August 23, 1913, parasitic, altitude 50 to 200 meters, locally known as hunga manumpang and daun manumpang. Frutex parasiticus glaber, ramis ramulisque tenuibus, tere- tibus; foliis oppositis, petiolatis, coriaceis, oblongis ad anguste oblongo-obovatis, obtusis, basi attenuatis, usque ad 8 cm longis. nervis utrinque 3 vel 4, obscuris vel subobsoletis, adscenden- tibus ; infiorescentiis axillaribus, solitariis, usque ad 2 cm longis ; floribus cylindraceis, teretibus, gracilis, circiter 2.4 cm longis. ^- vel 6-meris, omnibus sessilibus, in triadibus vel diadibus breviter pedunculatis racemose dispositis. A parasitic, entirely glabrous shrub, the branches elongated, ^P to at least 70 cm in length, slender, terete, reddish-brown 01' dark in color when dry, the younger ones somewhat com- pressed at the nodes, smooth, the internodes 2 to 4 cm in length. Leaves opposite, coriaceous, olivaceous and rather dull when dry, oblong to narrowly oblong-obovate, 5 to 8 cm long, 1.5 to 3 cm ^ide, apex rounded to obtuse, base gradually narrowed, attenuate * Philippine Urticaceae. Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 465-543; 6 '1911) Bot. 1-33, t. 1-^; Philippine Urticaceae II, ibid. 299-314. 206 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE or cuneate; lateral nerves 3 or 4 on each side of the midrib, ascending, slender, obscure, sometimes nearly obsolete; petioles about 8 mm long. Inflorescences axillary, solitary, about 2 cm long, the flowers slender, about 2.4 cm long, cylindric, orange below, yellowish above, 5- or mostly 6-merous, in racemosely arranged triads, the rachis slender, the lateral branchlets bearing the sessile flowers 2 to 4 mm long. Calyx cylindric-ovoid, 2 to 3 mm long, truncate, the subtending bracts broadly ovate, rounded or obtuse, about 1.2 mm long, all the flowers sessile, usually in threes, sometimes in pairs at the apex of each short lateral branch. Petals free to the base, linear, about 1 mm wide, the reflexed portion above the insertion of the filament linear, 6 to 7 mm long. Filaments 4 mm long, the anthers continuous, linear, about 1.2 mm in length. Fruit narrowly ovoid, when dry black and about 6 mm long. This species is possibly allied to Loranthus indicus Desr., but it differs in many characters, notably in its smaller leaves, longer petioles, and shorter, fewer-flowered inflorescences. The type of Loranthios indicus Desr. was a specimen collected by Sonnerat in ''les Indies orientales," but de Candolle, Frodr. 4 (1830) 305, credits it to Timor. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1856) 820, thought that Viscum amboinicum album Rumph. represented a species of Dendrophthoe (Loranthus) near D. indica (Desr.) Miq. or D. incarnata (Jack) Miq., but the Rumphian species is no Dendrophthoe, as indicated by its entirely free petals. Viscum amboinicum III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 62, very briefly described, is undoubtedly a species of Lofanthus, but its status cannot be definitely determined from any data at present avail- able. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1^66) 95, thought it might be the same as Macrosolen macrophyllus Miq. {Loranthvs m- crophyllus Korth.), but this is entirely improbable, as that species is known only from Sumatra. ELYTRANTHE Blume ELYTRANTHE AMBOINENSIS sp. nov. Viscum amboinicum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 61? Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 515 (type)* September 30, 1913, on Barringtonia trees, altitude about 350 meters, locally known as manumpang. Frutex epiphyticus glaber, ramis crassis, ramulisque tern- tibus; foliis oppositis, coriaceis, nitidis, oblongo-ovatis, usque ad 18 cm longis, obtuse acuminatis, basi acutis ad subrotundati?- nervis utrique circiter 8, tenuibus, obscuris ; inflorescentii^ LORANTHACEAE 207 axillaribus, solitariis vel fasciculatis, brevibus, pedunculis 2- ad 4-floris, circiter 5 mm longis; floribus 6-meris, circiter 2.5 cm longis, corollae tubo sursum prominente 6-angulato, bracteis late ovatis, circiter 1.5 mm longis, bracteolis paullo minoribus, con- natis, integris vel retusis. A stout, parasitic, glabrous shrub, the branches up to at least 60 cm in length, terete, brownish, somewhat lenticellate, the branchlets smooth, reddish-brown. Leaves opposite, thickly coriaceous, rather pale-greenish when dry, shining, oblong-ovate, or some of the smaller ones oblong-lanceolate, 14 to 18 cm long, 4 to 7 cm wide, base acute to subrounded, apex shortly and broadly blunt-acuminate; lateral nerves about 8 on each side of the midrib, slender, anastomosing, more prominent on the upper than on the lower surface, the reticulations lax; petioles stout, 1 to 1.5 cm long. Inflorescence axillary, of solitary or fascicled, short peduncles up to 5 mm in length, each peduncle bearing at its apex from 2 to 4 short-pedicelled flowers, the peduncles 5 mm long or less, the pedicels about 2 mm in length. Flowers 6-merous, about 2.5 cm long, dark-red below, each subtended by one bract which is broadly ovate, acute, about 1.5 mm long, the bracteoles entirely united or slightly retuse at the apex, nearly as large as the bract. Calyx cylindric, truncate, about 5 mm long. Corolla-tube about 6 mm long, inflated, prom- inently 6-angled or narrowly 6-winged in the upper one-third, the lobes 6, about 3 mm wide at the base, abruptly narrowed, about 14 mm long and 2 mm wide, thick, acute, spreading or reflexed. Filaments about 6 mm long, attached near the base of the lobes, the anthers continuous, linear, about 4 mm long. This species is sufficiently well characterized by its opposite, shining, rather large leaves, and especially by its axillary, soli- tary or fascicled, very short, 2- to 4-flowered peduncles. In Ely- tranthe it is distinguished by its bracteoles being either entirely connate into a single one nearly as large as the bract, or at most merely retuse at the apex. It is by no means certain that the plant here described repre- sents Viscum a/mboinense rubrum of Rumphius, as his short description does not well conform. Rumphius compares his plant with Viscum amboinicum album = Loranthus rumphii Merr., with which the present species has little in common. Viscum amboinense rubrum, moreover, was parasitic on small ^I'ees near the seashore, while Elytranthe amboinensis grows at an altitude of about 350 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 95, suggests that Viscum amboinicum rubrum may ^^ the same as Macrosolen evenius (Blume) Miq. = Loranthus 208 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE eveniics Blume, but in view of the characters of that species and its known distribution this proposed reduction is probably incorrect. SANTALACEAE SANTALUM Linnaeus SANTALUM ALBUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 349. Sandalum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 42, t. 11, The form described by Rumphius as Sandalum is probably the true sandal wood, Santalum album Linn., at least for most part. Sandalum was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1000, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 497, to Santalum album Linn., which disposition of it has been very generally accepted by succeeding authors. Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. 6 (1804) 502, suggested that it might be Sirium myrtifolium Linn., which is generally cited as a synonym of Santalum album Linn. Prob- ably referable here is the form from Celebes indicated by Rumphius as Sandalum radicis Herb. Amb. 2 : 46, but there is less reason for considering Lignum papuanum HI Rumph., 1. c. 58, as being identical with Santalum album Linn, as Henschel indi- cates; see Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 28. EXOCARPUS LaBillardiere EXOCARPUS EPIPHYLLANTHUS (Linn.) comb. nov. Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst, ed. 10 (1759) 1264 (type!), non Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1392. Xylophylla longifolia Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 221 (type!). Phyllanthus ceramicus Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 591 (type!). Exocarpus ceramicus R. Br. ex. Spreng. Gesch. 2 (1818) 77; Hensch. Vita Rumph. (1833) 201. Exocarpus phyllanthoides Endl. Prodr. Fl. Norfolk. (1833) 46? Exocarpos ceramica A. DC. Prodr. 14 (1857) 691 (type!). Xylophyllos ceramica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 19, t, 12. The present application of Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus Linn- is entirely contrary to accepted usage, yet it is unquestionably the correct interpretation of the species. In the Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Linnaeus quotes the Rumphian illustration with doubt, but in the same year, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1264, he adds a description which is based wholly on Rumphius, as follows: ''Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus. 2. P. f ol. lanceolatis serratis ; creni:^ floriferis. Rumph. amb. 7. t. 12.'' However, in the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1763) 1392, he discards the Rumphian synonym, adds various others, and describes a plant, a true Phyllanthus, from American material. Still later, Mant. 2 OLACACEAE-ARISTOLOCHIACEAE 209 (1771) 221, apparently recognizing his error, he proposed a new name for Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus of the second edition of the Species Plantarum, calling it Xylophylla latifolia Linn. A. de Candolle, Prodr. 14 (1857) 691, considers that Exocarpos ceramica A, DC. is distinct from E. phyllanthoides Endl., but apparently saw no specimens of the former. Exocarpus rolfeanus (0. Kuntze) Merr., in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1910) Bot. 352, is certainly very closely allied to E. epiphyllanthus (Linn.) Merr. and may have to be reduced to it. Of the names discussed above, Xylophylla longifolia Linn., Phyllanthios epi- phyllanthus Linn., as originally published, Phyllanthus cer amicus Pars., and Exocarpus ceramicus R. Br. and of A. de Candolle must all be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description. OLACACEAE XI MEN I A Linnaeus XIMENIA AMERICANA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1193. Zizyphus littorea Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. HaUe 9 (1866) 176 (type!). Vidara littorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 119, t, 37, Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 260, October 31, 1913, in thickets back of the beach. Vidara littorea Rumph. has not before been definitely placed; it is unquestionably the widely distributed strand plant, Ximenia americana Linn. It was reduced by Linnaeus, with doubt, to Rhamnus napeca Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121. Lour- eiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 158, discusses it under Rhamnus soporifer LouY.=Zizyphus soporifera Schultes. Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 322, expresses the opinion that it is nearer to Elaeagnus than to Zizyphus, and Teysmann thought it a distinct species of Zizyphus which he called Zizyphus littorea, and which was published by Hasskarl, in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 176 (Neue Schliissel 34). Of the names cited above, but a single one, Zizyphus littorea Teysm., is typified by the Rumphian figure, and this name is not listed in Index Kewensis. ARISTOLOCHIACEAE ARISTOLOCHIA Linnaeus ARISTOLOCHIA RUMPHM Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 2 (1833) 465 (type!). Radix puluronica (s. Peponaster minor) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 476, t. 177. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 144971- 14 210 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Radix puluronica was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Aris- tolochia indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1249, in which he was followed by Loureiro, Henschel, and Pritzel, and, with doubt, by Duchartre, in DC. Prodr. 15^ (1864) 479; this species, however, is definitely known only from India and Ceylon. I have here listed the Rumphian species under Aristolochia rumphii Kostel., of which it is the type, as it does not appear to be referable to any of the well-known Malayan species; such as Aristolochia tagala Cham., A. timoriensis Decne., A. gavdi- chaudii Duch., and A. zollingeri Miq. ARISTOLOCHIA sp. Peponaster major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 474. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 149, thought that this might be the same as Aristolochia hastata Jack, but there is little reason to consider that this reduction is correct, as Jack's species is known only from Sumatra. It might be the very imperfectly described Aristolochia longifolia Roxb. (A. moluc- cana Duchartre), the type of which was from the Moluccas, or the very widely distributed Aristolochia tagala Cham. (A. roxburghiana Klotz.). Its status can be determined only by a critical study of all the Moluccan species when more abundant material is available. POLYGONACEAE RHEUM Linnaeus RHEUM RHABARBARUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 372. Rhabarbarum sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 148. The rather long discussion seems to apply to this Linnean species ; the plant itself is not described. Hasskarl, Neue Schltis- sel (1866) 177, referred it to Rheum undulatum Linn., which is a synonym of R, rhabarbarum Linn. RUM EX Linnaeus RUM EX PATIENTIA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 333. Lapathum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 277. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 120, suggests that this is Rumex patientia Linn., which is probably the correct disposition of it. The plant is not described by Rumphius, who merely states that it was the same as the European form called Acetosa hispanica, Pathic, or Patientia, that it was cultivated and used in cooking, and that it was known to the Malays as sayor assam- CHENOPODIACEAE-AMARANTHACEAE 211 CHENOPODIACEAE CHENOPODIUM Linnaeus CHENOPODIUM QUINOA Willd. Sp. PL 1 (1799) 1301. Blitum peruvianum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 232. This South American species is briefly discussed. The reduc- tion, made by Hasskarl, to Chenopodium quinoa Willd., is prob- ably correct. Rumphius quotes the common name quinua for the species he discussed. SALICORNIA Tournefort SALICORNIA HERBACEA Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 5. Crithmus Indicus III Kaly articulatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166. This reduction follows Hasskarl, which is unquestionably the correct disposition of the European plant that Rumphius briefly discussed. AMARANTHACEAE DEERINGIA R. Brown DEERINGIA AM ARANTHOIDES (Lam.) comb. nov. Achyranthes amaranthoides Lam. EncycL 1 (1785) 548. Celosia baccata Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 23. Deeringia celosioides R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 413. Deeringia baccata Moq. in DC. Prodr. 13' (1849) 236. Blitum frutescens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 235, t 8S, f. 2, This widely distributed and well-known species is not repre- sented in our Amboina collections, but Rumphius's excellent figure is unmistakably the form commonly known as Deeringia celosioides R. Br. and as D, baccata Moq., but for which Achy- ranthes amaranthoides Lam. supplies an older name. Linnaeus, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 295, reduced Blitum frutescens Rumph. to Achyranthes muricata lArm,=Digera muricata (Linn.) Mart. The first and only citation in the original place of publication |s the one to Rumphius, and this might by some authors be interpreted as the type of the species. However, the Linnean •species is manifestly based primarily on an actual specimen and IS hence not to be interpreted by the Rtimphian reference. Lamarck, realizing that Linnaeus had confused two distinct ^^pecies under Achyranthes mwicata, proposed the name Achy- ^(^nthes amaranthoides for what is now known as Deeringia ^^^ccata Moq., basing his description on specimens collected by Sonnerat, with the reduction of Blitum frutescens Rumph. The 'description applies unmistakably to Deeringia, not to Digera, ^ithough Lamarck's species has long been referred to Digera 212 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE arvensis Forsk.=Z). muricata (Linn.) Mart. Other names in- volved in the reduction of Blitum frutescens Rumph. are Clado- stachys arborescens Don, Cladostachys muricata Moq., and C. frutescens Don ; the first two are synonyms of Digera muricata (Linn.) Mart., the last is a synonym of Deeringia amaranthoides (Lam.) Merr. CELOSIA Linnaeus CELOSIA ARGENTEA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 205. Amarantus caudatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 237. Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh and town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 1S3, August, 1913, in waste places at low altitudes, locally known as bayam blanda. This reduction was first suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 115, and I consider it to be the correct disposition of Amarantus caudatus Rumph. CELOSIA CRISTATA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 205. Amarantus japonicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 236, t. 8Jf. Amarantus vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 236. This commonly cultivated species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Amarantus japonicus Rumph. was orig- inally reduced by Linnaeus to Celosia cristata Linn., in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 493, in which he was followed by numerous authors, and which is certainly the correct disposition of it. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum, however, (1762) 297, he referred it to Celosia castrensis Linn., a synonym of Celosia cristata Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 114, refers Amarantus japonicus Rumph. to Celosia cristata Linn. var. splendens Moq., and Amarantus vulgaris to Celosia cristata Linn. var. exaltata Hassk. AMARANTH us Linnaeus AMARANTHUS VIRIDIS Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1405. Blitum indicum domestlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231, t. 82, /. ^• Blitum indicum I album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231. Blitum indicum II maculosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231. Blitum indicum II maculosum amboinlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 139, August 20, 1913, in waste places, locaUy known as bayang. Also ReL Robins. 2513, 2511^ from Bali. July 7, 1913. Blitum indicum Rumph., including both forms figured b) Rumphius on plate 82, was reduced by Linnaeus to Amaranthn^ tristis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad- AMAEANTHACEAE 213 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1268, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1404, in which he was followed by various authors — Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Burman f., and others. The form de- scribed and figured appears to me to be Amaranthus viridis Linn. Blitum indicum I album Rumph. has also been reduced to Amaranthus polygamus Linn, by numerous authors, to Ama- ranthus oleraceus Linn., and to Euxolus polygamus Moq. AMARANTHUS GANGETICUS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1268. Blitum indicum IV terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 232, t. 82, /. 2? Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 136, August 16, 1913, locally known as baya. The specimen cited appears to represent a dwarfed form of Amaranthus gangeticus Linn, and agrees fairly well with the figure cited. Blitum indicum IV terrestre Rumph. has been very generally reduced to Amaranthus tristis Linn. AMARANTHUS SPINOSUS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 991. Blitum spinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 234, t. 83, /. i. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 137, 138, August, September, 1913, along road sides at low altitudes. The form cited above certainly represents Blitum spinosum Rumph., but is not typical Amaranthus spinosus Linn., differing: from it in its smaller flowers and in its few, scattered, short spines. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst ed. 10 (1759) 1269, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1407, which disposition of it has been accepted by all authors. The figure is poor and is very greatly reduced in size. The form from Macassar, Celebes, very briefly described as Blitum spinosum e Macassar Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 234, is prob- ably the typical, robust form of Amaranthus spinosus Linn. AMARANTHUS TRICOLOR Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 989. Amarantus versicolor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 237. Blitum Indicum ill rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 232? The description of Amarantus versicolor applies unmistakably to the rather robust form with variegated and variously colored leaves found in cultivation in many typical countries. The species has been reduced by various authors to Amaranthus (fcingeticus Linn, and to A, melancholicus Linn., but Amaranthus tricolor Linn, has priority. The reduction of the form that Kumphius described was first made by Henschel. The form ^^^is obscure rubentibus described in this chapter by Rumphius probably ^Iso belongs here. 214 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CYATHULA Loureiro CYATHULA PROSTRATA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 549. Achyranthes prostrata Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 296. Cyathula geniculata Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 102. Auris canina I femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 26, L 11. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 135, near the town of Amboina in a sago swamp at low altitude. Auris canina I femina Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Achyranthes lappacea Linn., in Stickman Herb, Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 942, but recognizing his error, he later, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 296, cites it in the original description of Achyranthes prostrata lAxm,=Cyathula prostrata Blume. This is certainly the correct disposition of it. Other names involved in the reduction are Cyathula geniculata Lour., Desmochaete prostrata R. & S., and Pupalia prostrata Mart., all synonyms of Cyathula prostrata (Linn.) Blume. AERVA * Forskal AERVA SANGUINOLENTA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 547. Achyranthes sanguinolenta Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 294. Illecebriim sanguinolentum Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 344. Verbena rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7; 60, t. 27, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Verbena rubra Rumph. is cited by Linnaeus in the original description of Achyranthes sanguinolenta Linn., but the species was manifestly based on an actual specimen, because of the description added ; Verbena rubra Rumph., therefore, cannot be interpreted as the type of the species. This reduction of Yer- bena rubra Rumph. is certainly the correct disposition of it, and under one or the other of the above synonyms has been accepted by all authors. ACHYRANTHES Linnaeus ACHYRANTHES ASPERA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 204. Auris canina II mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 27, t. 12, f. 1, This common and well-known weed is not represented in our Amboina collections. Auris canina II mas was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Achyranthes aspera Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Mant. 2 (1771) 344, which is undoubtedly the correct disposition of i^- Other authors, however, have referred it as follows: LamarcK ♦ Retained name, Vienna Code; Comacum Adans. (1763) is older. NYCTAGINACEAE 215 to Achyranthes fruticosa Lam. ; Hasskarl to Achyranthes biden- lata Blume var. elongata Hassk. and to Achyranthes javanica Moq. ALTERNANTHERA Forskal ALTERNANTHERA SESSILIS (Linn.) R. Br. ex R. & S. Syst. 5 (1819) 554. Gomphrena sessilis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 225. Illecehrum sessile Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 300. Olus squillarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 37, t. 15, f. 1 (incL / majus et // minus). Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ISJ^, near the town of Amboina, July and August, 1913, in ditches and in sago swamps at low altitudes. Linnaeus originally reduced Olus squillarum Rumph. to Gom- phrena sessilis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 950, which, as Alternanthera sessilis (Linn.) R. Br., is surely the correct disposition of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 158, thought that the description agreed better with Alternanthera nodiflora R. Br. than with A. sessilis R. Br. and that Olus squillarum II minus Rumph. was referable to Alternanthera nodiflora R. Br. var. linearifolia Moq. Alternanthera sessilis R. Br. is not published in the Prodromus (1810) 417, as currently indicated in botanical literature. GOMPHRENA Linnaeus GOMPHRENA GLOBOSA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 224. Flos globosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 289, t. 100, f. 2. Flos globosus albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 290. Amboina, Negri lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 1S2, September 8, 1913, in fields at low altitudes, locally known as knop. This reduction of Flos globosus Rumph. was originally made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, is certainly the correct disposition of it, and has been universally accepted by authors who have had occasion to cite Rumphius's illustration and description. NYCTAGINACEAE MIRABILIS Rivinus '^iRABILIS JALAPA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 177. MirablMs Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 253, t. 89. This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure given by Rumphius is an ex- cellent representation of this well-known species. The redue- 216 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE tion was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 252. Seven color forms are included by Rumphius ; Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 117, refers one of these to Mirabilis dichotoma Linn. and the others to several varieties of Mirabilis jalapa Linn. PI SON I A Plumier PISONIA ALBA Spanoghe in Linnaea 15 (1841) 342. Olus album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 191, t. 78, This commonly cultivated tree is not represented in our Am- boina collections. The reduction v^as apparently first suggested by Spanoghe in the original publication of Pisonia alba (not seen by me) ; repeated by Choisy, in DC. Prodr. 13 ' (1849) 446, as a doubtful synonym ; by Hasskarl referred with doubt to Pisonia morindae folia R. Br.; and in Retzia, 1 (1855) 6, as apparently representing Pisonia sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. The plant de- scribed by Rumphius is unmistakably the common and widely cultivated Malayan form with very pale-green or sometimes yellowish-white leaves and is typical Pisonia alba Spanoghe. Whether or not Pisonia alba Spanoghe is specifically distinct from P. sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. is uncertain, but the proba- bilities are that it is a derived form of P. sylvestris or of a closely allied species, which, through long cultivation, rarely produces flowers or fruits. In the Philippines it is generally known as coles moluco, certainly indicating that it was intro- duced into the Archipelago from the Moluccas. PISONIA GRANDIS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 422. Olus album insulare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 190, t. 79, /. 1 (excl. fig. A, et descr. fruct.). No Pisonia, other than the very characteristic P. cauliflora Scheff., is represented in our Amboina collections, but the description given by Rumphius, excluding that of the fruit, is unmistakably applicable to the very large Pisonia that is fre- quently gregarious on small uninhabited islands in the Malayan and Polynesian regions, especially those frequented by birds, which has been described as Pisonia grandis R. Br. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 24, suggests that it may be Pisonia sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. which Heimerl considers to be a syn- onym of Pisonia grandis R. Br. PISONIA ACULEATA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1026. Limonelius funicularis montanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 25. This reduction follows HasskarFs suggestion, Neue Schliissel (1866) 91, the only objection being that the leaves, as described AIZOACEAE-PORTULACACEAE 217 by Rumphius, are decidedly larger than is the case with Pisonia aculeata. Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 735, places it under his Pisonia limonella and takes the specific name from Rumphius, but the actual type was a Javan plant; this is considered by all recent authors to be a synonym of Pisonia aculeata Linn. Choisy, in DC. Prodr. 13^ (1849) 446, cites the Rumphian name under Pisonia limonellus Blume, but t, 16, also cited by him, does not belong with Limonellus funicularis montanu^, but with Cudra- nus amboinensis sylvestris and is a Cudrania, AIZOACEAE SESUVIUM Linnaeus SESUVIUM PORTULACASTRUM Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1058, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136. Portnlaca portulacastrum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 446. Crithmus indicus I ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 165, U 72, /. 1. Crithmus indicus il aibus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 165. This widely distributed strand plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Crithmus indicus was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, as Portulaca portulacastrum Linn., which as Sesuvium por- tulacastrum is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Many authors, however, have quoted it under Sesuvium repens Rottl., a synonym of S, portulacastrum Linn. The form mentioned as Crithmus indicus III kaly articulatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166, is manifestly the European Salicor- nia herbacea Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 179. The form described as Crithmus indicus IV portulaca arenosa in the same chapter is apparently Portulaca quadrifida Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, 1. c. PORTULACACEAE PORTULACA Linnaeus PORTULACA OLERACEA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 445. Portulaca indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 268 (incL / major sativa, II rubra). Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Rel Robins, 228, September 3, •^13, locally known as rumput gelang mera. The identification of the Rumphian species was made by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 119, and is certainly the correct '^disposition of it. It is a widely distributed weed in all warm coiintries. 218 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE PORTULACA QUADRIFIDA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 73. Portulaca indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 268 (incl. /// minima, IV litorea) . Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 119, has reduced both of the above-mentioned forms, Portulaca indica III and IV, to P. quadrifida Linn. A single specimen of the latter occurs in our Amboina collection, PL Rumph. Amb, 222, from coral rocks at Silali, September 22, 1913. This may be the correct disposi- tion of the Rumphian plants, or they may have been merely forms of the commoner and variable Portulaca oleracea Linn. BASELLACEAE BASELLA Linnaeus BASELLA RUBRA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 272. Basella alba Linn. 1. c. Gandola I alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 417. Gandola II rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 417, t. 154, f. 2, The form figured by Rumphius was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Basella rubra Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, which has been accepted by all authors except Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 183, who called it Basella nigra Lour. ; the latter is manifestly a synonym of B, rubra Linn. The form described by Rumphius as Gandola alba was placed by Linnaeus, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1752) 390, under Basella alba Linn., which has very generally been followed by succeeding authors ; it is manifestly the form described by Lin- naeus as Basella alba Linn., but which is now reduced to E. rubra Linn., it being manifestly only a variant of that species. NYMPHAEACEAE NELUMBIUM Jussieu NELUMBIUM NELUMBO (Linn.) Druce Bot. Exch. Club (1914) 421. Nymphaea nelumbo Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 511. Nelumbium speciosum Willd. Sp. PL 2 (1799) 1258. Nelumbo javanica Poir. in Lam. Encyd. 4 (1798) 454. Nymphaea Indica major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 168, t. 73. Rumphius gives a good figure of the common lotus, this being first reduced by Linnaeus to Nymphaea nelumbo Linn., in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1074, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 730. It has been also cited under Nelumbium speciosum Willd., the commonly accepted name for the species, and Nelumbo javanica Poir^ a synonym of Nelumbium nelumbo (Linn.) Druce. The several MENISPERMACEAE 219 color forms mentioned on page 169 probably do not pertain to the lotus, but to the genus Nymphaea, NYMPHAEA Linnaeus NYMPHAEA PUBESCENS Willd. Sp. PL 2 (1799) 1154. Castalia pubescens Blume Bijdr. (1825) 48. Nymphaea indica minor I vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 172 p. p. Nymphaea indica minor 111 buronica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 173. There is no representative of this genus in our Amboina collections. The color forms of Nymphaea indica major Rumph. are apparently not Nelumbium nelumbo (Linn.) Druce, but are referable here or in part to Nymphaea stellata Willd. Nymphaea indica I vulgaris has been referred by various authors to Nym- phaea lotus Linn., N, pubescens Willd., A^. rubra Roxb., and A^. stellata Linn. The description apparently includes both Nym- phaea pubescens Willd. and N, stellata Willd. Nymphaea indica II ceramica, the form figured, is Limnanthemum indicum Griseb. In regard to Nymphaea lotus Linn., the type is manifestly the African form, the original specimen still existing in the Linnean herbarium* where it was examined by Conard.f Fl, Zeyl. 19i was wrongly placed here by Linnaeus as a synonym, and is Nymphaea pubescens Willd. NYIVIPHAEA STELLATA Willd. Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 1153. Castalia stellata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 49. Nymphaea Indica minor I vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 172, p. p. The color forms mentioned by Rumphius, for the most part, are apparently referable to Nymphaea stellata Willd. rather than to Nymphaea lotus Linn. As to the propriety of the use of Nymphaea instead of Castalia as the generic name for the water lilies, see Conard in Rhodora 18 (1916) 161. MENISPERMACEAE PERICAMPYLUS Miers PERICAMPYLU8 GLAUCUS (Lam.) comb. nov. Menispermum glaucum Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 100 (type!). Cocculus glaucus DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 521 (type!). Cocculus incanus Colebr. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 13 (1822) 57, t. 17. Pericampylus incanus Miers in Ann. Nat. Hist. II 7 (1851) 40; Dials in EngL Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 217, cum syn. Folium lunatum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 40, t. 25 ^ /. 1. Amboina, Hoenoet, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, ^86, October 18, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 200 meters, locally known as binkuang. * Jackson, B. D. Index to the Linnean Herbarium (1912) 108. t Conard, H. S. The water lilies, a monograph of the genus Nymphaea. (Carnegie Inst Publ 4 (1905) 194. 220 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Linnaeus originally reduced Folium lunatum minus Rumph. to Menispermum carolinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992, which is a wholly erroneus disposition of it. Willdenow, St). PL 42 (1805) 825, with equal error, placed it under Menisper7mim cocculus Linn. Lamarck made it the type of Menispermum glaucum, this species being based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure, so that in turn it becomes the type of Cocculus glaucus DC. and Pericampylus glaucus Merr. Diels placed Folium lunatum minus Rumph. =Cocc^?2^ glaucus, DC. =:Menispermum glaucum Lam. as a probable synonym of Peri- campylus incanus (Colebr.) Miers; Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 217. After a careful study of the original description, figure, and the Amboina material cited above, I am able definitely to affirm that this is the correct disposition of the above names, but Lamarck's specific name being much the oldest is here adopted. STEPHANIA Loureiro STEPHANIA FORSTERI (DC.) A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 36. Cocculus forsteri DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 517. Convolvulus laevis III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 432. Amboina, Paso and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. U87, July and October, 1913, in thickets along the seashore. The identification of Convolvulus laevis III has been made largely by exclusion, although Rumphius's description, as far as it goes, applies unmistakably to the specimen cited above. Moreover, the species has been previously collected in Amboina by DoUeschal, and extends from Java to the Philippines, northern Australia, and Polynesia. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 143, thought that Convolvulus laevis III might be Cyclea peltata Hook. f. & Th.=Cyclea wallichii Diels, a species extending from India to the Nicobar and Andaman Islands. TINOSPORA Miers TINOSPORA RUM PHI I Boerl. in Cat. Hort. Bot. Bo^or. (1901) 116, excl syn. Menispermum crispum Linn, et Cocculus crispus DC. Funis felleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82, t. 4^, /. 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. According to Rumphius's statement it was an introduced plant there, perhaps originating in Java. Funis felleus is cited by Linnaeus in the original description of Menispermum cinspti^i^ Lmn,=Cocculus crispus DC,=Tinospora crispa Miers; but, while the plate and figure are quoted correctly, the name is erroneously MENISPERMACEAE 221 cited as Funis quadrangularis, which is the name of the other species figured on the same plate and which is Cissus quadrant giilaris Linn. The Linnean type was a specimen from Bengal and is apparently the form described by Diels as Tinospora crispa^ The form figured by Rumphius differs notably from the Asiatic one in its orbicular-ovate, prominently cordate leaves, and Rumphius's figure agrees perfectly with material derived from the type plant of Boerlage's Tinospora rumphii, a specimen cultivated in the botanical garden at Buitenzorg, Java. I con- sider that Boerlage was wrong in quoting as synonyms of his species Menispermum crispiim Linn, and Cocculus crispus DC, and I am disposed to disagree with Diels in his reduction here of Tinospora thorelii Gagnep., a cotype of which is before me. The authority for Tinospora crispa should manifestly be Miers, the combination being first published by him in Hooker f. and Thomson's Flora Indica 1 (1855) 183, not in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. II 7 (1851) 38, as frequently cited, and is typified by Menispermum crispum Linn. Menispermum tuberculatum Lam., to which Lamarck reduced Funis felleus Rumph. is pri- marily only a new name for Menispermum crispum Linn., and the description was based on a specimen collected by Sonnerat. If the Linnean species be typified by the reference to Rumphius, the only literature reference cited, then the name for this broad and prominently cordate leaved form should be Menispermum crispum (Linn.) Miers, but if the Linnean species be typified by the Bengal plant cited, then apparently Boerlage's name must be maintained for the Malayan form. Maccabuhay e Manila Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 287, as to the name, but not the description, is a species of Tinospora, either T. reticu- lata Miers or the form characterized by Boerlage as T. rumphii. The name macabuhay is universally applied in the Philippines to two forms of Tinospora, but properly to the one with broad, deeply cordate leaves that has a very bitter principle in its stems. Rumphius's description of Maccabuhay e Manila ap- parently applies to a terrestrial orchid. ANAMIRTA Colebrooke ANAMIRTA COCCULUS (Linn.) Wight & Arn. Prodr. 1 (1834) 446. Menispermum cocculus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 340. Menispermum lacunosum Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 98 (type!). Cocculus lacunosus DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 519 (type!). Tuba baccifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 35, L 22. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus ori- * EngL Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 135. 222 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ginally reduced Tuha baccifera Rumph. to Menispermum cocculus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad, 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1468, which, as Anamirta cocculus (Linn.) W. & A., is certainly the correct disposition of it. Lamarck made it the type of Menispermum lacunosum, and in turn it thus became the type of Cocculus lacunosus DC. The species, a very characteristic one, is the sole known representative of the genus and extends from India to the Philippines and southward to New Guinea. ARCANGELISIA Beccari ARCANGELISIA FLAVA (Linn.) comb. nov. Menispermum flavum Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992 (type!). Menispermum flavescens Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 98 (type!). Anamirta flavescens Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 "= (1858) 79 (type!). Cocculus flavescens DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 520 (type!). Arcangelisia inclyta Becc. in Malesia 1 (1877) 147. Anamirta lemniscata Miers in Ann. Nat. Hist. Ill 14 (1864) 51. Arcangelisia leminscata Becc. in Malesia 1 (1877) 147; Diels in Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 106, /. S8, Tuba flava Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 38, U 2A, This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Tuba flava Rumph. has been confused in recent botanical literature with Anamirta cocculus Wight & Arn., and several of the above names are cited as synonyms of Anamirta cocculus (Linn.) Wight & Arn. in the most recent monograph of the family;* Menispermum flavum Linn, is not accounted for in this mono- graph. The first four names cited above are based absolutely and wholly on Tuba flava Rumph. That Arcangelisia and not Anamirta is the proper disposition of it is proved by the original description, leaves 5-nerved at the base, "autem cordiformia sed inf erius non excavata ;'' by the fruit, size, and other charac- ters; and especially by the color of the woody tissue, 'interne eleganter flavescunt;'' this last character alone being one by which Arcangelisia can always be distinguished from Anamirta. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 626, cites Tuba flava Rumph. as a synonym of Fibraurea tinctoria Lour., a valid species, the type of the genus Fibraura, but one that has little in common with Arcangelisia. Arcangelisia flava extends from Java to Luzon and New Guinea, and was collected in Amboina b} Teysmann. * Diels in Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 108. MAGNOLIACEAE 223 MAGNOLIACEAE MICH ELI A Linnaeus MICHELIA CHAMPACA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 536. Michelia suaveolens Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 94. Michelia parviflora DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449? (type!). Michelia caerulea DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449? (type!). Michelia blumei Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 2 (1841) 139. Michelia euonymoides Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 124, p. p. Sampacca domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 199, t. 67, Sampacca II parviflora Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200? Sampacca III coerulea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200? The common champaca is not represented in our Amboina collections. Sampacca domestica was described and figured by Rumphius from cultivated specimens and is certainly typical Michelia champaca Linn. It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121; while in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1082, Sampacca silvestris Rumph., 1. c. t, 68 y is added ; see below under Michelia tsiampacca Linn. Michelia suaveolens Pers. is merely a new name for M. champaca Linn., while M. blumei Steud. was proposed as a new name for Michelia chainpaca Blume, which, however, is typical M, champaca Linn. The doubtful synonyms mentioned above, both of de Candolle and of Rumphius, must await further exploration of the Malayan region before they can be definitely placed. Michelia parviflora DC. was based wholly on Sampacca parviflora Rumph., which is very briefly described by Rumphius from Ternate specimens as being similar to his Sampacca domestica, but with smaller flowers ; it is probably merely a form of M. champaca Linn. Michelia caerulea DC. was based wholly on Sampacca coerulea Rumph., also very briefly described from Javan specimens similar to Sampacca domestica, but with bluish flowers; the Javan name cited is tsjampacca biru, and it is probably merely a form of the common Michelia champaca Linn. ^^ICHELIA ALBA DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449 (type!). Michelia longifolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 7. Sampacca domestica IV alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200. Michelia alba DC. was based wholly on Sampacca alba Rumph., ^^'hich in turn was described from the white-flowered cultivated torm known in Java as tsjampacca puti, Michelia longifolia I^Jume is unquestionably the same form, but de Candolle's name ^s the older and is here retained. 224 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE MICH ELI A TSIAMPACCA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 78 (type!). Sampacca sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 202. t 68, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. It was described by Rumphius from sylvan specimens growing in Amboina, having white flowers. It is probably allied to Michelia montana Blume. The Rumphian reference seems to be the basis of Michelia tsiampacca Linn., but the plate was origin- ally referred by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082, to Michelia champaca Linn. By other authors it has been referred to Michelia suaveolens Pers., M, sericea Pers., and M, eMonymoides Burm. f ., all of which appear to be synonyms of Michelia cham- paca Linn. The native Amboinese name cited by Rumphius is tsjampacca utan or tsjampacca puti, and botanical material from Amboina will be necessary before the exact status of the species can be determined. TALAUMA Jussieu TALAUMA RUMPHII Blume Bijdr. (1825) 10 (type!). Liriodendron liliifera Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 755 (type!) non Talauma liliifera Kurz. Sampacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 204, t. 69 baud Arbor violaria Rumph. 1. c. 203! Not represented in our Amboina collections, but manifestly a Talauma. Sampacca montaim Rumph. is the whole basis of Liriodendron liliifera Linn., but Talauma liliifera Kurz was based on Liriodendron liliifera Roxb., non Linn., so that the Linnean specific name is invalid in Talauma. The Rumphian plant is also the whole basis of Talauma rumphii Blume, but the species, as yet not represented by any botanical material definitely known to represent the Rumphian plant, is one of doubtful status. Sampacca montana was referred, with doubt, to Magnolia pumila Andr. by de Candolle, Syst. 1 (1818) 458, and it certainly is not this species, nor is it Magnolia inodora DC. 1. c. 459, which was based on Liriodendron liliifera Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 346; Loureiro's species was based on specimens from Canton, China, to which he added a reference to Sampacca montana Rumph. Arbor violaria Rumph., Herb. Amb. 2: 203, as described, i^ entirely diff"erent from Sampacca montana Rumph. 1. c. 201. t. 69, as described and figured; the plate goes with Samp(^(^^^ montana, not with Arbor violaria Rumph. It has been assumed by some that the descriptions applied to the same plant, but Arbor violaria was described from cultivated specimens fi'^^^ Banda Island, while Sampacca montana was described ft'^m ANNONACEAE 225 sylvan specimens collected in Amboina. The descriptions apply to totally different plants, and I am unable to suggest the proper position of Arbor violaria, ANNONACEAE UVARIA Linnaeus UVARIA MUSARIA (Dunal) DC. Mem. Anon. (1832) 29 (type!). Unona miisaria Dunal Monogr. Anon. (1817) 100 (type!). Uvaria moluccana Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5* (1836) 1707 (type!). Funis musarius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 78, t. 4-2, Amboina, Amahoesoe and Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 79y September and October, 1913, in flower, growing in forests, altitude 60 to 200 meters; Liang, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 479, November 29, 1913, in thickets at sea level, with nearly full-grown but immature fruits. Uvaria fmisaria (Dunal) DC. has been previously known only from the Rumphian figure and description, this being the whole basis of Unona miisaria Dunal, Uvaria musaria DC, and Uvaria moluccana Kostel. In vegetative and floral characters it closely approximates Uvaria rosenhergiana Scheff., of New Guinea. Burman f., FL Ind. (1768) 124, followed by Lamarck, Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret, and Pritzel, erroneously reduced Funis musarius latifolius Rumph. to Uvaria zeylanica Linn.; Blume, Fl. Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 22, equally in error, placed it under Uvaria hirsuta Blume; and Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 9, placed it under Uvaria macrophylla Roxb. Uvaria tmtsaria (Dunal) DC. seems to be a perfectly valid species, in the alliance with Uvaria rosenhergiana Scheff., U. littoralis Blume, and U, ovali- folia Blume, differing radically, however, in its slightly pubescent leaves and in its elongated puberulent fruits. UvaiHa pilosa Roxb., type from the Moluccas, should be critically compared. UVARIA sp. Funis musarius angustifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 78. The exact status of this form is indeterminable without ma- terial from Amboina. Dunal, Monog. Anon. (1817) 99, reduced ^t with doubt, to Unona narum Dunal, a species typified by ^^mm-panel Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 2:11, t 9. Blume, Fl. '^^^'' 1 (1828) Anon. 24, thought that it might be Uvaria argen- '^« Blume, while Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 9, placed it, ^^'ith doubt, under Uvaria grandiflora Roxb. UVARIA sp. Funis dentarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 79. Like the preceding, this cannot be definitely placed within 144971 15 226 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE the genus Uvaria without additional material from Amboina. It is undoubtedly a species of Uvaria, and it has been suggested as a possible synonym of Uvaria littoralis Blume or U. latifolk Blume; see Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 97. The form very briefly mentioned by Rumphius as Funis dentarius niger, Herb. Amb. 5 : 79, represents either the same species as Funis dentarius Rumph. or a closely allied one. CANANGIUM BaiUon CANANGIUM ODORATUM (Lam.) Baill. ex King in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 61^ (1892) 41. Uvaria odorata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 595. Unona odorata Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 108. Cananga odorata Hook. f. & Th. Fl. Ind. 1 (1855) 130. Cananga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 195, t, 65. Amboina, Elephant River, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 80, July 19, 1913, locally known as bunga kanangan. Lamarck's original description was primarily based on speci- mens collected by Sonnerat, Cananga Rumph. being reduced as a synonym. In this reduction, as Canangium odoratum BailL, certainly the correct disposition of it, he was followed by Willdenow, Persoon, Blume, Spanoghe, and Roxburgh. Dunal cites Cananga as a synonym of Unona odorata Dun. in transfer- ring the species to that genus. Cananga Hook. f. & Thomson (1855), the generic name from Rumphius, is invalidated by Cananga Aubl. (1775), for which reason Baillon has proposed the new generic name Canangium, Hist. PL 1 (1868) 213, but Baillon did not actually transfer the species to this genus, this being apparently first accomplished by King. In the more recent literature Cananga Rumph. is generally cited under the name Canangium odoratum BailL, in the somewhat older literature, after the year 1855, under Cananga odorata Hook. f. & Th. Pritzel and Burman f . are wrong in referring it to Uvaria zey- lanica Linn., which is a true Uvaria, known only from India and Ceylon. POLYALTHIA Blume POLYALTHIA sp. Uvaria ligularis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 597 (type!). Unona ligularis Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 110 (type!). Cananga silvestris M angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 197, t. ^'^ f.2. Nothing remotely resembling this occurs in our Amboina collec- tions. The figure and the description apply very closely t^* ANNONACEAE 227 polyalthia lateriflora (Blume) King, a species originally de- scribed from Javan material, now known from the Malay Peninsula and Java, and the very closely allied Polyalthia zamboangensis Merr., of Mindanao. Cananga silvestris II angus- II folia Rumph. is the whole basis of Uvaria ligularis Lam. and of Unona ligularis Dunal, and Lamarck's specific name may prove to be the oldest for the plant now known as Polyalthia lateriflora King. In the absence of material from Amboina re- presenting Rumphius's species, however, it is considered advis- able to defer the actual transfer of Uvaria ligularis Lam. to Polyalthia, although the species manifestly belongs in the latter genus. Linnaeus reduced it, by error, to Uvaria zeylanica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, including also Cananga silvestris I trifolia, which is figured on the same plate, but neither of which remotely resembles Uvaria zeylanica Linn., a species known only from India and Ceylon. POLYALTHIA sp. Giiatteria rumphii Blume ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 153 (type!). Arbor nigra parvlfoMa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 10, 11, t, Uy f- 2; t. 5. The plant figured and described is certainly a Polyalthia, but its status cannot be definitely settled without material from Am- boina. It is the whole basis of Guatteria rumphii Blume as published by Henschel, by citation of Rumphius, as indicated above, a name that has been entirely overlooked, and one that is not included in Index Kewensis. Linnaeus reduced, with doubt, both t, U and t. 5 to Uvaria zeylanica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 11, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, but neither figure presents anything in common with this species. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 46, quotes Teysmann's opinion that Arhor ^^W(i parvifolia Rumph. represented Artabotrys suaveolens Blume, a species with which neither the description nor the figure agrees. Arbor nigra maculosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 12, t. 4, f. 1, is probably one of the Annonaceae, possibly a species of Polyalthia, ^^ is certainly not Artabotrys odoratissimus Blume, where it ^^as placed by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 153. Arbor nigra latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 12, is probably some jj^nnonaceous plant, but its status must await a more exhaustive "otanical exploration of Amboina. No reduction of it has ever oeen suggested. 228 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE GONIOTHALAMUS Hooker f. and Thomson GONIOTHALAMUS sp. Uvaria tripetala Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 597 (type!). Unona tripetaloidea Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 104 (type!). Unona tripetala DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 90 (type!). Cananga silvestris I trifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 197, t. 66, f. 1. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The species, as described and figured by Rumphius, is- apparently a very characteristic one, and Amboina material representing it, when collected, should be connected with it with little dif- ficulty. Cananga silvestris I trifolia Rumph. is the whole basis of the three names Uvaria tripetala Lam., Unona tripetaloidea Dunal, and U, tripetala DC. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 187, referred it to Unona discolor Dunal=Z)6smos chinensvi Lour., an impossible reduction; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 40, thought that it might be a species of Artabotrys, also an impossible reduction. As the three inner petals are de- scribed as much smaller than the outer three and as surrounding or covering the stamens, it is probable that Goniothalamus is its correct genus, as here tentatively suggested. However, no actual transfer is here made, as the exact status of the species must await further botanical exploration of Amboina. ARTABOTRYS R. Brown ARTABOTRYS SUAVEOLENS Blume Fl. Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 62. Spina vaccarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 21, t. IJ^. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Spina vaccarum Rumph. was reduced by Blume to Artabotrys suaveolens Blume in the original description of that species, and the figure is apparently a good representation of it as currently interpreted. All authors have followed Blume in this reduction, the species being one of very wide distribution in the Malayan region. When Amboina material is available for study, however, it should be critically compared with Artabotru^ inodorus Zipp. of New Guinea. MELODORUM Hooker f. and Thomson MELODORUM LATIFOLIUM (Dunal) Hook. f. & Th. Fl. Ind. (1855) U^. saltern quoad syn. Unona latifolia Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 115 (type!). Uvaria latifolia Blume Fl. Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 37. Cananga silvestris III latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 198. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Unonn latifolia Dunal, as originally published, was based wholly ^^ MYRISTICACEAE 229 Rumphius's description of Cananga silvestris III latifolia, and Blume redescribed it from Javan material as Uvaria latifolia Blume, followed by Hooker f. and Thomson, Miquel, and King, as Melodorum latifolium (Dunal) Hook. f. & Th. It is probable that Melodorum latifolium Hook. f. & Th., as described in modern botanical literature, is the same as the form described by Rumphius, the original basis of the species; yet no botanical material from Amboina representing the species as it is at present understood seems to be extant, and the exact status of Unona latifolia Dunal must await further botanical exploration of Amboina. AN NONA Linnaeus ANNONA RETICULATA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 537. Anona Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 136, t. 45. This commonly cultivated fruit tree is not represented in our Amboina collections, but like the next, it doubtless still occurs .there, as both are widely distributed in the Malayan region. Anona Rumph. was first reduced to Annona reticulata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1083, Sp. PI, ed. 2 (1763) 757, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. De CandoUe, Syst. 1 (1818) 474, placed it under Annona mucosa Auhh=Rollinia mu- cosa Baill., in this erroneous reduction being followed by Don, Henschel, Dietrich, and Pritzel. ANNONA SQUAMOSA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 537. Anona tuberosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 138, t. 46. Like the above, this commonly cultivated plant is not repre- sented in our Amboina collections. Anona tuberosa Rumph. was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119; this reduction has been con- sistently followed by most authors and is certainly the correct disposition of the species. MYRISTICACEAE MYRISTICA * Linnaeus WYRiSTICA FRAGRANS Houtt. Handleid. 2' (1774) 333. Myristica officinalis Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 265. Myristica moschata Thunb. Act. Holm. (1782) 45. Myristica aromatica Lam. Act. Paris (1788) 155. Nux myristica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 14, t. -4. Amboina, Kati-kati and Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 245, ^^^> August and October, 1913, from cultivated plants, altitude 50 to 60 meters, locally known as pala. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Quret Adans. (1763) is older. 230 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Nux myristica Rumph. has been cited by various authors under all of the names listed above. Rumphius described five forms, all apparently merely variants of the common nutmeg, although Miquel referred Pala radja Rumph. to Myristica radja Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1864) 206. Warburg, Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 453, considers the plant that Miquel described to be Myristica speciosa Warb., not M. fragrans Houtt. MYRISTICA FATUA Houtt. Handleid 2' (1774) 337. Myristica tomentosa Thunb. Act. Holm. (1782) 46. Myristica spadicea Blume Bijdr. (1825) 577. Myristica fnaerophylla Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 846. Nux myristica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 24, t. 5. Nothing resembling Myristica fatua Houtt., as currently interpreted, occurs in our Amboina collections. Nux myristica mas has been referred by various authors to Myristica fatua Houtt, M, tomentosa Thunb., M. officinalis Gaertn., M, phiiip- pensis Lam., M. malabarica Lam., and M. moschata Thunb., the reductions in all but the two cases first cited being erroneous. The species is a well-known one, occurring in Banda, Amboina, Tidore, and (?) Buru, and is cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java. HORSFIELDIA Willdenow HORSFIELDIA SYLVESTRIS (Houtt.) Warb. in Nov. Act. Acad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 337, t, 12, /. 1-6. Myristica sylvestris Houtt. Handl. 2' (1774) 326. Myristica salicifolia Willd. Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 871. Myristica pinnae formis Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2 (1865) 49. Palala secunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 26, t. 6 (poor). Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph Amb. 235, November 1, 1913, in forested ravines, altitude about 100 meters. The Rumphian figure and description are perhaps the type of Myristica sylvestris Houtt. (original publication not seen by me) ; Myristica salicifolia Willd. is merely a new name for M, sylves- tris Houtt. HORSFIELDIA CANARIFORMIS (Blume) comb. nov. Myristica canarifornfiis Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 190 (type!). Horsfieldia roxburghii Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (IBS'?) 277, t, 21, f. 1-2, Palala quarta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 27, t. 8, Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 24.0, November h 1913, in forests, altitude about 175 meters. MYRISTICACEAE 231 Palala quarta Rumph. is the whole basis of Myristica canari- formis Blume, which Warburg thought was a possible synonym of Florsfieldia nesophila (Miq.) Warb. I am of the opinion, however, that it is identical with the Amboina form described by Warburg as Horsfieldia roxbtirghii and accordingly have here adopted Blume's specific name. Willdenow, Sp. PL 4 (1805) 871, considered that it represented a variety of Myristica micro- carpa Willd., whatever that species may be, but it is certainly not properly placed here. HORSFIELDIA sp. Myristica tingens Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 190 (type!). Palala tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 27, t. 7. According to Rumphius's description and figure this is a very characteristic species, but nothing in our Amboina collections can be referred to it. Palala tertia Rumph. is the whole basis of Myristica tingens Blume, but no new combination is here made in view of the uncertain status of that species. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 871, referred it to Myristica microcarpa Willd., which is perhaps the oldest valid specific name for the species. Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 391, placed it with doubt under Myristica uviformis Lam., but Lamarck's species is not a myris- ticaceous plant, and Warburg has suggested that it belongs in the Euphorbiaceae, The status of Myristica microcarpa Willd. is entirely doubtful, for I cannot agree with Warburg that it is a synonym of Knema cinerea Warb. Incidentally the type of Knema cinerea (Poir.) Warb. certainly did not come from the PhiHppines as Warburg states, for LaBillardiere never visited the Archipelago. Buton, as spelled by him, and Bouton, as spelled by Poiret in the original description, probably refer to Boeton Island, near the southern end of Celebes. HORSFIELDIA sp. Myristica ariiana Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 191 (type!). Palala aruana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 56, t. 2^, /. 3. A species of doubtful status, probably, however, a Horsfieldia. Myristica aruana Blume was based wholly on Palala aruana Rumph. and accordingly must be interpreted solely from Rumph- lus's description and crude figure. If Warburg is correct in ^educing Myristica arwana Blume to Horsfieldia novo-guineensis ^^arb., then Blume's specific name should be adopted for the species unless one considers it invalidated by the distinct Hors- Mdia aruensis Warb. 232 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE GYMNACRANTHERA Warburg GYMNACRANTHERA ZIPPELIANA (Miq.) Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 372. Myristica zippeliana Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2 (1865) 50. Palala quinta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 28, t. 9. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 239, October 18, 1913, in forests, altitude about 450 meters, locally known as palala utan. Willdenow, Sp. PL 4 (1805) 871, considered Palala quinta Rumph. to be a variety of Myristica microcarpa Willd., while Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 388, placed it with doubt under Myristica globularia Lam. Lamarck's species was based on specimens collected by Sonnerat and is Knema globularia Warb. There is little doubt that the specimen cited above represents Palala quinta Rumph., and it is certainly a Gymnacranthera, probably G. zippeliana Warb., although this species has not been previously reported from Amboina. KNEMA Loureiro KNEMA TOMENTELLA Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 588, t. 25, f, 1-2, Palala sexta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 28. Amboina, Hatiwe, Wae, and Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 236, 2S7, 288, September to November, 1913, in forests, altitude 20 to 350 meters, locally known* as palala utan. Palala sexta Rumph. is, with little doubt, the same as Knema tomentella Warb. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 26, sug- gested that it might be the same as Myristica corticosa Hook. f. & Th., which Warburg interprets as being composed of Knema angustifolia Warb., K. glauca Warb., and K, missionis Warb. LAURACEAE CINNAMOMUM Linnaeus CINNAMOMUM CULILAWAN Blume Bijdr. (1825) 571, Rumphia 1 (1835) 26, t. 9, f. 1. Laurus culitlawan Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120 (type!). Laurus culilaban Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 237 (type!). Cortex caryophylloldes albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 65, t. lit-. Cut It La wan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65. The Rumphian figure and description of Cortex caryoph]}- lloides albus are the whole basis of both Laurus culitlawan Linn. and L. culilaban Linn., but Cinnamomum culilawan Blume was published independently of the Linnean binomials. Blume gives an ample description and figures from Amboina material; LAURACEAE 233 however, he definitely excludes the figure of the inflorescence as given by Rumphius, which he apparently thought v^ent with Cinnaftiomuni caryophylloides ruber Rumph. CINNAMOMUM CULILAWAN Blume var. RUBRUM (Blume) Meissn. in DC. Prodr. 15' (1864) 14. Cinnamomum rubrum Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 29. CInnamomum caryophylloides ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 66. Blume based his description of Cinnamomum rubrum partly on the form described by Rumphius above cited, which Meisner considers to be a variety of Cinnamomum culilawan Blume. CINNAMOMUIVI XANTHONEURUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1825) 33. Culitlawan ex Papuanis et Moluccis insulls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: Q6. This follows Blume's reduction of the form Rumphius de- scribed, which is probably the correct disposition of it. CINNAMOIVIUM JAVANICUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 42. Sindoc Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 69. The reduction of Sindoc follows Blume's disposition of it. The form Rumphius described was placed by Burman f . under Laurus malabathrum Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 92, based in part on a species figured and described by Rheede, and in part on Sindoc of Rumphius, to be typified by the former. Miquel placed it under Cinnamomum sulphuratum Nees ; Henschel placed it under Cinnamomum sintoc Blume; and Nees followed Blume in re- ducing it to Cinnamomum javanicum Blume. CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA (Linn.) T. Nees & Eberm. Handb. Med.- Pharm. Bot. 2 (1831) 430. Laurus camphora Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 369. Arbor camphorifera I vera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65, 68. The general discussion is manifestly in part applicable to the true camphor tree, Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees & Eberm. CINNAMOMUM spp. indet. Laurus japan ica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. Cinnamomum Japanlcum If Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. Cinnamomum zeylanlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. These three forms, imperfectly described, are manifestly ref- erable to the genus Cinnamomum, but it is impossible to deter- mine just which species were intended. The first was placed by ^enschel under Laurus soncaurium Hsim.^Cinnamomum tamala ^- Nees & Eberm., of the Himalayan region, certainly a wrong ^isposition of it; the second was thought by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 192, to be possibly referable to Cinnamomum (idee Nees; and the third was placed by Hasskarl under Cinna- 234 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE momum zeylanicum Nees, which is perhaps the correct disposi- tion of it. DEHAASIA Blume DEHAASIA MEDIA Blume RumpMa 1 (1835) 163, t. Jf5. Haasia media Nees Syst. Laur. (1836) 375. Machilus IN media Rumph/ Herb. Amb. 3: 70, t. J^l. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Blume's ample description and figure were based on Amboina material, and his disposition of Machilus media Rumph. is doubtless cor- rect, Rumphius's description and figure being cited in the orig- inal description of the species. Nees, Syst. Laur. (1836) 125, thought that it might be Per sea peduncular is Nees, and it was cited by Henschel as Machilus peduncularis Nees. MACHILUS Nees MACHILUS sp.? Machilus IV minima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 70, t, U2, Nothing resembling the plant figured and described is pre- sented by our Amboina collections, but a species of Machilus, as interpreted by Meisner, is probably intended. The generic name Machilus of Nees is taken from Rumphius. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 253, referred Machilus minima with doubt to Laurus indica Linn., an entirely wrong disposition of it. Nees thought that the figure represented Machilus odoratissima Nees, Syst. Laur. (1836) 172, and repeated the reduction in DC. Prodr. 15^ (1864) 40. It is certainly not Machilus odoratissima Nees and may ultimately prove to belong to some other genus. It is possibly a species of Phoebe rather than of Machilus. EUSIDEROXYLON Teysmann and Binnindyek EUSIDEROXYLON ZWAGERI Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 25 (1863) 292. Lontaro simile lignum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 52. Rumphius includes only a brief description of the Bornean wood which he calls caju boelian; the identification has been made from the native name cited, billian being the common name for this important Bornean timber tree. LITSEA* Lamarck LITSEA RUMPHII (Blume) F.-ViH. Noviss. App. FL Filip. (1880) 1^0 Tetranthera rumphii Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 382. Lignum leve alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 72, t. Jf5, * Retained name, Vienna Code; Malapoenna Adans. (1763) and Toinex Thumb. (1783) are older. LAURACEAE 235 Not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was made by Blume in the original description of Tetranthera rumphii Blume, and this is presumably the correct disposition of the Rumphian species ; Blume apparently had a specimen from Amboina, judging from his short and imperfect description. Nees thought that it was a species of Tetranthera near T. mono- petala Roxb. LITSEA sp. Glabraria tersa Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 276, quoad syn. Rumph. Lignum leve angustifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 71, t. Uh- Not represented in our Amboina collections. The plant that Rumphius figured and described is manifestly a species of Litsea, apparently in the group with Litsea fulva F.-Vill. and Litsea luzordca F.-Vill. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 383, placed it as a possible synonym of Tetranthera forstenii Blume^Litsea forstenii Boerl. Its exact status, however, cannot be determined without Amboina material. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 276, quoted Lignum leve angustifolium Rumph. as a synonym of Litsea tersa Linn, in the original description of that species. It is clearly manifest, however, from the description, that he had an actual specimen, and it is equally manifest that the plant he described is not the same as the one figured and described by Rumphius. The specimen in the Linnean herbarium has been examined for me by Mr. Gamble, who writes under date of June 17, 1917, that it is a polypetalous plant, probably belonging in the Bombaeaceae near the genus Boschia Korth. Glabraria Linnaeus must, accordingly, be eliminated as a synonym of Litsea. Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 4, following Linnaeus's errone- ous reduction of Lignum^ leve angustifolium^ quotes it as a synonym of Litsea glabraria Pers., as does Nees under Tetran- thera glabraria Nees ; these names, however, go with Litsea gluti- ^^'Osa (Lour.) C. B. Rob. (L. chinensis Lam., L. sebifera Pers.), as does Litsea tersa Merr. (non Glabraria tersa Linn.). LITSEA STICKMANII sp. nov. Lignum leve latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 71, t. US. Amboina, Hitoe messen and Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 4,70, U71 ^^ype), November 1 and 25, 1913, in forests and along roadsides, altitude ^ to 200 meters, locally known as halaor pantey. Arbor 10 ad 12 m alta, inflorescentiis exceptis glabra; foliis oblongis, firme chartaceis, usque ad 20 cm longis, utrinque ^equaliter angustatis, basi acutis, apice acutis vel obscure acu- ^matis, supra subolivaceis, subtus pallidis, nervis utrinque circiter 8, subtus prominentibus, curvato-adscendentibus, re- iculis distinctis; inflorescentiis axillaribus, fasciculatis, umbel- 236 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE lulis circiter 6-floris, longe graciliterque pedunculatis, floribus pubescentibus. A tree 10 to 12 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence. Branches and branchlets brownish, the latter more or less angled. Leaves alternate, oblong, firmly chartaceous, 12 to 20 cm long, 3.5 to 5,5 cm wide, equally narrowed to the acute base and to the acute or obscurely acuminate apex, the upper surface more or less olivaceous when dry, smooth and shining, the lower pale; lateral nerves about 8 on each side of the midrib, prominent on the lower surface, curved-ascending, obscurely anastomosing, the ultimate reticulations fine, rather close; petioles about 1 cm long. Flowers axillary, the umbellules fascicled, their pe- duncles slender, slightly pubescent, about 1 cm long, each about 6-flowered. Bracts obovate to elliptic-obovate, rounded, con- cave, pubescent, 3.5 to 4 mm long. Flowers appressed-pubes- cent, their pedicels 2 to 3 mm long, the lobes oblong, 2 mm in length. Fruit unknown, when very young one to three on each peduncle. This species is apparently allied to the form Blume described as Tetranthera ambigua Blume (not Litsea ambigua Nees) , but differs in its smaller leaves, glabrous branchlets, and other characters. It certainly represents Lignum leve latifolium Rumph. It is dedicated to O. Stickman, author of the first publication on the Herbarium Amboinense. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 471, erroneously referred Lig- num leve latifolium Rumph. to Glabraria tersa Linn., followed by Blume's reference of it to Tetranthera laurifolia Jacq. var. tersa (Linn.) Blume, with which it has nothing in common. Nees, in DC. Prodr. 15 ^ (1864) 180, placed it, with doubt, under Tetranthera laurifolia Jacq. var. saligna Nees, where it certainly does not belong. LITSEA sp. Machllus il femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 69, t. 40, /. B. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 469, September 30, 1913, in forests, altitude about 300 meters. The specimen cited certainly represents the form described by Rumphius, of which he figures a single leaf. There is nothing in the figure by which Machilus I mas can be distinguished from Machilus femina, and it certainly represents a species of Litsea perhaps not distinct from the one here considered. The only previous suggestion as to the identity of Machilus I mas Rumph" Herb. Amb. 3: 68, t, AG, is Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hass- LAURACEAE 237 karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, that it belongs in the Lauraceae, and of Machilus II femina Rumph. that it might be a species of Haasia, which is certainly a wrong disposition of it. NEOLITSEA Merrill NEOLITSEA AMBOINENSIS sp. nov. Machilus angustifolla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 60, t. 27, f. 1. Amboina, between Soja and Hatalai, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 603 (type), October 24, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 350 meters. Arbor circiter 9 m alta, ramulis junioribus inflorescentiisque pubescentibus ; f oliis verticillatis vel subverticillatis, glabris, oblongo-lanceolatis ad oblongo-ellipticis, usque ad 12 cm longis, utrinque subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis, vix triplinervis, apice tenuiter acuminatis, nervis utrinque circiter 5, curvato- adscendentibus, subtus prominentibus ; f ructibus junioribus ovoideis, in siccitate nigris, nitidis, circiter 6 mm diametro. A tree about 9 m high, the young branchlets and inflorescences pubescent. Branches slender, terete, grayish, the younger ones reddish-brown, smooth, glabrous, tips of the branchlets rather densely appressed-pubescent. Leaves coriaceous, subverticillate or verticillate at the ends of the branchlets, oblong-lanceolate to oblong-elliptic, 7 to 12 cm long, 2.5 to 3.5 cm wide, subequally narrowed to the acute base and to the rather slenderly and sharply acuminate apex, the upper surface subolivaceous, smooth and shining, the lower slightly paler, sometimes somewhat glaucous, glabrous, or the midrib sometimes sparingly pubescent, the base scarcely triplinerved ; lateral nerves about 5 on each side of the midrib, curved-ascending, scarcely anastomosing, prominent on the lower surface, the ultimate reticulations close, rather indistinct; petioles more or less pubescent, 5 to 7 mm long. Flowers not seen. Infructescences in the axils of fallen leaves, fascicled, the pedicels and persistent calyx ferruginous- villous, the pedicels rather stout, about 5 mm long. Young fruit ^void, about 6 mm in diameter, glabrous, black and shining when dry. A species in the group with Neolitsea triplinervia (Blume) (Litsea triplinervia Blume), and Neolitsea cassiaefoha (Blume) ^-ifsea cassiaefolia Blume), but the leaves not prominently tri- plinerved as in these two Javan species, in fact they are strictly Penninerved, the lower pair being no longer than the next pair above. T^he species is, with very little doubt, Machilus angustifolia l^umph. Rumphius's description applies closely, but the figure 238 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE is poor and presents the leaves relatively much narrower than in the species as here interpreted. Henschel and Pritzel erro- neously reduced Machilus angustifolia Rumph. to Tetranthera angustifolia Walh= Actinodaph^ie angustifolia Nees. ACTINODAPHNE Nees ACTINODAPHNE RUM PHI I Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 344. Arbor spiculorum aeruginea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 167, t. 106. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Blume made this reduction of the Rumphian illustration in the original description of Actinodaphne rumphii Blume, which was based on material from the Moluccas^ probably Amboina. He cites the Rumphian name as Arbor spiculorum angustifolia, but the figure manifestly goes with the form called by Rumphius Arbor spiculorum aeruginea. ACTINODAPHNE MOLUCCANA Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 344 (type!). Arbor spiculorum latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 167. A species of very doubtful status, based wholly on Rumphius's description. The third form described by Rumphius in this chapter as Arbor spiculorum angustifolia brevifolia is entirely doubtful, but is probably a lauraceous plant. CRYPTOCARYA R. Brown CRYPTOCARYA sp.? Lauraster amboinensis maxima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 70, t. 15. Nothing resembling this is presented in our Amboina collec- tions. The species described and figured by Rumphius is cer- tainly a lauraceous plant and is probably a Cryptocarya, judging from the rather crude figure. Local names cited by Rumphius are leytun, hiber, hiyr, ittir, ayhoo-ittil, and ley itir, so that it is very probable that the species can later be located through one of the above names. The form described in the same chapter as Lauraster amboinensis minor probably represents an entirely different species, possibly also a Cryptocarya; its status is quite uncertain and cannot be determined from data at present available. MASSOIA Beccari MASSOIA AROMATIC A Becc. in d'Albertis New Guinea 2 (1880) 398. Cortex onlnius s. massoy Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 62. The reduction has been made from the characters given by Rumphius and the name massoy cited by him. The status ot HERNANDIACEAE 239 Uassoih as a genus is very uncertain. The form described by Rumphius as Cortex oninius II may or may not be the same as Massoia aromatica Becc; Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 28, cites it under Cinnamomum kaimis Nees. CASSYTHA Linnaeus CASSYTHA FILIFORMIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 35. Calodium cochinchinensis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 247. Cussuta s. cussutha indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 491, t. 184., f- h- Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 472, September 4, 1913, along the seashore. This reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Hep^b. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 862, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 531, and this is manifestly the correct disposition of Cussutha indica Rumph. Calodium cochinchin- ensis Lour., under which Loureiro cited the Rumphian descrip- tion and illustration, is a synonym of Cassytha filiformis Linn. HERNANDIACEAE HERNANDIA Plumier HERNANDIA OVIGERA Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1264, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1392 (type!). Arbor ovigera femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 193, t. 123. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Avib. 476, a single specimen separated from No. 477, Hernandia peltata Meisn. This represents the form figured by Rumphius and the one described as Arbor ovigera femina. The Linnean species is typified by the Rumphian figure and description, Hernandia ovigera Linn, being based wholly on Arbor ovigera t. 123. HERNANDIA PELTATA Meisn. in DC. Prodr. 15' (1864) 263. Arbor ovigera mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 193. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 477, August 8, 1913, along the seashore near the town of Amboina, locally known as mata ipang or mata ikang. ^ he form described by Rumphius as Arbor ovigera mas is un- ^listakably Hernxindia peltata Meisn., the leaves being definitely described as peltate. It is strongly suspected that Hernandia P('ltata Meisn. is not specifically distinct from Hernandia ovigera ^^^^n., but is merely a form with peltate leaves. It is assumed hat the specimen cited under Hernandia ovigera Linn, and the '^^ne cited under H. peltata Meisn. came from the same tree. 240 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CRUCIFERAE NASTURTIUM * R. Brown NASTURTIUM INDICUM (Linn.) DC. Syst. 2 (1821) 199. Sisymbrium indicum Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 93. Sinapi indlgenum s. amboinlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 282. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 268, July 19, 1913, in and near ditches. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 121, has suggested that this is a species of Sinapis; but from Rumphius's brief description, the indicated habitat, and the note that it has no economic use, it is evident that Nasturtium is the plant intended. BRASSICA (Tourn.) Linnaeus BRASSICA JUNCEA (Linn.) Coss. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 6 (1859) 609. Sinapis juncea Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 668. Sinapi sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 282. Amboina, Titauuku, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. Jf05y October 8, 1913, in cleared places, altitude about 120 meters, locally known as susawi amb on and rumput china blanda. This specimen I take to be typical Brassica juncea Coss., the ordinary form that is widely distributed in the Malay Archipel- ago. The plant, or plants, actually described by Rumphius, are, however, the cultivated forms of Chinese origin, which appear to be forms of Brassica pekinensis (Lour.) Skeels {Sinapis pekinensis Lour.). Rumphius indicates two forms, under the names album and nigrum. It seems very probable that this commonly cultivated Chinese form is but a horticultural variety of Brassica juncea Coss. CAPPARIDACEAE POLANISIA Rafinesque POLANISIA VISCOSA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 242. Cleome viscosa Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 672. Lagansa alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 280, t. 96, f, 3. Amboina, Liang, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 412, November 29, 1913- along roadsides, at low altitudes, locally known as lagansa. This common weed was originally reduced by Linnaeus, m * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Cardaminium Moench (1794), an' Baeumerta Gaertn. (1800) are older. MORINGACEAE 241 Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1137, to Cleome icosandra Linn., but the plant described as Lagansa alba is manifestly the form com- monly known as Polanisia viscosa (Linn.) DC. In the descrip- tion of the plate figure 2 is connected with Lagansa alba, but it is apparent that the figures are reversed between Lagansa alba and Lagansa rubra. GYNANDROPSIS* de CandoHe GYNANDROPSIS PENTAPHYLLA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 238. Cleome pentaphylla Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 938. Lagansa rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 280, t, 96, f. 2. The common and well-known Gynandropsis pentaphylla DC. is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian description, however, applies well to this species. In the descrip- tion of the plate the explanations of Lagansa alba and Lagansa rubra are transposed. MORINGACEAE MORINGA Burman f. MORINGA OLEIFERA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 398. Guilandina moringa Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 381. Moringa pterygosperma Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 314. Morunga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 184, t. 7j^. Morunga femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 185, t 75, Amboina, in cultivation, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 255, September 13, 1913, locally known as kelor. The reduction of Morunga, t. 7U, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120; and in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1018, he also reduced Morunga femina, t 75. Both figures manifestly represent the same species, and both are unmistakably the common and well- known Moringa oleifera Lam. Other names, all synonyms, to which the Rumphian figures have been referred by various au- thors are : Hyperanthera moringa Vahl, Moringa zeylanica Willd., Moringa domestica Ham., Anoma moringa Lour., A. morunga l^our., and Moringa polygona DC. ; some of these are to be inter- preted in part by the Rumphian figures. Moringa domestica Ham., in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5^ (1826) 368, 371, does not appear ^n Index Kewensis. Retained name, Vienna Code; Pedicellaria Schrank (1790) is older. 144971- 16 242 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE NEPENTHACEAE NEPENTHES Linnaeus NEPENTHES MIRABILIS (Lour.) Merr. comb. nov. Phyllamphora mirabilis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 606. Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd. Sp. PL 4' (1805) 874. Cantharlfera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 121, t 59, f. 2. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 256, July 31, 1913, on a fern-covered hillside along the river at an altitude of from 10 to 50 meters; Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 257, August 5, 1913, on grassy hillsides at an altitude of about 150 meters. Cantharlfera was erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Nepen- thes distillatoria Linn., the type of the genus, and a species confined to Ceylon, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1247, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1354, in which he was followed by Burman f., FL Ind. (1768) 190. Loureiro, however, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 606, described a Cochin-China specimen as Phyllamphora mirabilis Lour., and under it he discussed Cantharlfera Rumph., stating that it differed from his plant in its prostrate stems and scandent branches. The species, as described by Loureiro, must be inter- preted from Cochin-China specimens, but in all probability is the same as the widely distributed species commonly known as Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd., which is definitely known from low altitudes from southern China to the Philippines, Borneo, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Amboina, the Caroline Islands, anJ New Guinea. Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd. was based wholly on Loureiro's species, but Willdenow definitely refers here Can- tharifera Rumph. Under the accepted code of botanical nomen- clature the above new combination is necessary for this well-known and widely distributed species ; both names, Phtjllam- phora mirabilis and Nepenthes phyllamphora, must be inter- preted by the plant Loureiro described. NEPENTHES MAXIMA Reinw. ex Nees in Ann. Sci. Nat. I 3 (1824) 369, t. 20, /. 3. Cantharifera alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 122. Amboina, Salahoetoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. UIB, November 27, 1913. terrestrial and climbing, chiefly at an altitude of about 900 meters, locally known as tampayan utan. The identification of Cantharifera alba with Nepenthes vvix^' ma Reinw. was suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 103, and there is but very little doubt that this is the correct disposition of it. It was described by Rumphius from specimens received from the neighboring island of Little Ceram and ^'^^ CRASSULACEAE-PITTOSPORACEAE 243 not recorded by him as being from Amboina. Macf arlane * definitely records Nepenthes maxima Reinw. from Amboina, New Guinea, Celebes, and Borneo. CRASSULACEAE KALANCHOE Adanson KALANCHOE LACINIATA (Linn.) DC. PL Grass. (1799-1829) t. 100, Prodr. 3 (1828) 395. Cotyledon laciniata Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 430. Planta anatis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 275, t. 95, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure is poor, but the description, at least in most part, applies to this widely distributed species. It may, in part, Si^i^ly also to Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Kurz (B, calycinum Salisb.) , but the description of the flowers as 5-merous and yellow indicates a Kalanchoe not a Bryophyllum, The reduction of Planta anatis to Cotyledon laciniata Linn, was made by Lin- naeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1036, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 615, in which he has been followed by all later authors, either under Cotyledon, Kalanchoe, or Verrea. Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Kurz. (B. calycinum Salisb.) occurs in our Amboina collections (Roemah tiga, Rel. Robins, 1819, July 30, 1913) and, as noted above, may be included in the Rumphian description of Planta anatis. Primarily, however, Planta anatis is certainly Kalanchoe laciniata (Linn.) DC. PITTOSPORACEAE PITTOSPORUM Banks PITTOSPORUM MOLUCCANUM (Lam.) Miq. 111. Fl. Arch. Ind. (1871) 76. Anasser moluccana Lam. III. 2 (1797) 40 (type!). Anassera moluccana Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 265 (type!). Pittosporum ferrugineum Ait. var. filarium DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 347 (type!). Pittosporum rumphii Putterl. Syn. Pitt. (1839) 7 (type). Cortex foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, t. 7. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Miquel, 1. c, cites Amboina material collected by Zippel and by Teysmann, on which his sufficiently ample description is based. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Anasser moluccana Lam., Anxissera moluccana Pers., ^^d de CandoUe's variety of Pittosporum ferrugineum cited above (erroneously cited as Cortex filiarius, but the page and * Engl. Pflanzenreich 36 (1908) 76. 244 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE plate numbers are correct), and apparently Putterlick's Pit. tosporum rumphii. It differs from Pittosporum ferrugineimi Ait. notably in its larger fruits and leaves. PITTOSPORUM sp.? Cortex jgneus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 10, t, 6, f. 1. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, thought that this might be a species of Pittosporum, following Teysmann's suggestion. It was not from Amboina, but from the Aru Islands or from others in the same general region. Native names cited are culii apt, eyk, and mockulhdulo. There is little in the description to indicate that it is a Pittosporum, and its status is quite unde- terminable from the data and the material at present available. CUNONIACEAE WEINMANNIA * Linnaeus WEINMANNIA FRAXINEA Sm. ex D. Don in Edinb. New Philos. Journ. 9 (1830) 93. Pterophylla fraxinea D. Don I. c. Cortex papetarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 212, t. 137. The type of Weinmannia fraxinea Sm. w^as from the Moluccas, so that the probabilities are that Teysmann was correct in his reduction of Cortex papetarius Rumph. to Smith's species. Rumphius's figure is an excellent one and is unmistakably a Weinmannia. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 510, erroneously reduced it to Dialum indum Linn., in which he was followed by numerous authors. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 12, considered that it represented a variety of Dialurn javanicum Burm. f.. which is a synonym of D. indum Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 68, thought that it might be an Otonychium=HarpnUM (Sapindaceae) , with which it has nothing in common, and at the same time quotes Teysmann's opinion that it is Weinwsnnia fraxinea Sm. SCHIZOMEftIA D. Don SCHIZOMERIA SERRATA Hochr. in Ann. Conserv. Jard. Bot. Geneve 10 (1907) 118. Acronychia serrata Hochr. PL Bogor. Exsicc. (1904) 49. Tanarius major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 192, t. 122. Arbor vespertilfonum M oppositlfolla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: H, 1. 10- Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 60S, without definite locality or date. The specimen is a good match for the figure of Tanarius m(^P' Rumph. and agrees with the description even better than with the figure. Tanarius major Rumph. was discussed by Loureiro. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Windmannia P. Br. (1756) is older. HAMAMELIDACEAE-ROSACEAE 245 Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 231, under Jambolifera resinosa Lour., and has been cited by Don, Henschel, and de CandoUe under Cyminosma resinosa Don, but has nothing to do with the species that Loureiro described. The specimen also agrees perfectly vvith the figure of Arbor vespertilionum Rumph. and with ttie short description of the second plant included in the descrip- tion. The major part of the description of Arbor vespertilio- num Rumph., that is, the first form described in this chapter, is Helicia serrata R. Br. (see p. 205), and the figure has been referred to Helicia, where it manifestly does not belong. Schizomeria serrata Hochr. is known only from Amboina, was originally described from specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and is very closely allied to the Australian species Schizomeria ovata D. Don, the only other known species of the genus. This is one of the few cases in which Rumphius described and figured the same species twice under entirely different names. HAMAMELIDACEAE ALTINGIA Noronha ALTINGIA EXCELSA Noronha in Verh. Batav. Genootsch. 5' (1795) 9. Lignum papuanum I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 57? Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 579, reduced this to Altingia excelsa Noronha, apparently after Noronha, and Blume reduced it to Liqiiidamber altingia B1.=L. altingiana Blume, both synonyms of Altingia excelsa Noronha. It is probable that Rumphius in- cluded more than this one species under Lignum papitanum !, especially in view of the fact that Altingia excelsa Noronha does not appear to be definitely known from so far to the east as New Guinea. The form described in the same chapter as l^pum papuanum II, unless referable to Altingia excelsa Noronha, is undeterminable. The identification of Lignum papuanum is based largely on the native name cited by Rumphius, caju nimmala; in Java rasamala is the resin of Altingia excelsa Noronha. The plant Rumphius had in mind may have been entirely different. ROSACEAE RUBUS Linnaeus ^UBUS MOLUCCANUS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1197 (type!). Rubus moluccus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 88, t, U7, /. 2. Amboina, Halong and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, •^^«^. 270, July 16 and 23, 1913, in light forests and open places, altitude out 10 meters, locally known as buan tampayang and dau7i doeri doeri. 246 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Rubus moluccanus Linn., but this species has been interpreted by many authors as a polymorphous one and given a range from the Himalayan region to Ceylon, southern China, the Philippines, Malaya, and northeastern Australia. Hooker f ., Fl. Brit. Ind. 2 (1878) 330, states: I am quite unable to arrange the forms of this common and protean plant under recognizable varieties answering to its synonymy. Focke, in his monograph of the genus Rubus, Bibl. Bot. 17^ (1910) 89, reproduces the Rumphian figure and limits the species to Amboina. He cites no specimens, gives a short de- scription after data given by Rumphius, and v^as unable to determine the status of the species in a satisfactory manner. He states: Die weitere Verbreitung ist vollig unsicher, weil die Art zu ungeniigend bekannt ist. Anscheinend gehoren hieher Exemplare von Voun auf Neu- guinea (leg. Tejsmann) und vielleicht auch von Luzon. Rubus moluccanus Linn, has been treated by many authors as a collective species, and it is very evident that numerous forms so named in herbaria cannot be properly placed under this species, but must be considered as distinct ones. The Amboina specimens closely match a large series of specimens in the herbarium of the Bureau of Science from various parts of the Philippines and a few specimens from Borneo and Java. It is suspected that the typical form will be found to be of wide distribution in the Malay Archipelago. Its exact status can now be definitely determined by a direct comparison with the topotype cited above. All authors have followed Linnaeus in the reduc- tion of the Rumphian figure and description, so that the case is not complicated by synonyms, except as species described by later authors, without reference to Rumphius, may have been reduced to typical Rubus moluccanus Linn. RUBUS FRAXINIFOLIUS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) 242, subsp. CELEBICUS (Blume) Focke in Bibl. Bot. ^7 ' (1911) 150, /. 6'^- Rubus celebicus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1107. Rubus parvifolius Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1197 p. p. (quoad syn. Rumph-)- Rubus moluccus parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 88, t. ^7, f- ^• Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 2'^' July 23, 1913, hillsides and river banks, altitude 5 to 10 meters. The Rumphian figure and description were cited by Linnaeus in the original description of Rubus parvifolius, Sp. PL (1753) ROSACEAE 247 1197, but the actual type, on which the description was based and from which the Linnean species must be interpreted, was a specimen collected near Canton, China, by Osbeck. This speci- men is the same as Rub^is triphyllus Thunb., Fl. Jap. (1784) 215, the name that Focke has adopted for the species. However, Focke is manifestly in error in the selection of this name as the valid one for the species is Rubus parvifolius Linn. (1753) [not R. parviflorus Linn, as cited by Focke, Bibl. Bot. 17 ^ (1911) 187]. Rubies fraxinifoUus Poir. was described from Javan specimens collected by Commerson and is widely distributed in the Sunda Islands, especially in Java and Sumatra. The sub- species celebicus Focke is widely distributed in the Philippines and in the Moluccas, extending to New Guinea. PARINARIUM Aublet PARINARIUM GLABERRIMUM Hassk. in Tijdschr. Nat. Ges. 10 (1843) 147, nomen midiiTn, Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 269, nomen nudum. Flora 27 (1844) 583. Parinarium scabrum Hassk. in Tijdschr. Nat. Ges. 10 (1843) 147, nomen nudum, Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 269, 7iomen nudum., Flora 27 (1844) 585. Parinarium laurinum A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 490, L 55. Parinarium ellipticum T. & B. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 253. Parinarium macrophyllum T. & B. 1. c, Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29 (1867) 256. Parinarium wAndanaense Perk. Frag. Fl. Filip. (1904) 119. Parinarium racemosum Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 17 (1904) 19, non Vid. Parinarium curranii Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1910) Bot. 264. Atunus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 171, t. 66. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 272, August 16, ^^-*13, in open forests, altitude about 5 meters, in fruit; Amboina (town), ''ohinson PL Rumph. Amb. 272, November 4, 1913, from a cultivated tree, ^n flower. Both specimens bear the common name atun. At units of Rumphius has not been previously referred to its proper place in our present system of classification, although Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 22, suggested that it was a i finmriitm. It manifestly is Parinarium, and the species very generally known as Parinarium scabrum Hassk., of which ^^unierous synonyms are given above. In citing the above syn- ^^'\vnis I have in part followed Koorders and Valeton, Bijdr. Boomsoort. Java 5 (1900) 337, but have also seen authentically ^^'inied specimens of most of the species I have here reduced. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 295, mentions it, following the 248 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE description of Stixis scandens Lour., as apparently belonging m the same genus as that species, but Atunus has nothing in common with Stixis scandens Lour., which belongs in the Cap- paridaceae, Atunus albus Rumph., 1. c. 172, is probably a form of Parinarium glaherrimum Hassk. CONNARACEAE CONNARUS Linnaeus CONNARUS sp. Clompanus funlcularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 70. t, S7\ f. 2, The description and figure are certainly those of a Connanw, and perhaps Clompanus funicularis Rumph. is the same as Con- narus gaudichaudii Planch. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 52, places it under Clompanus paniculatus Aubl., a species based on material from tropical America, and one that has nothing to do with the form that Rumphius figured and described. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 349, suggested that it might be a species of Millettia, where it certainly does not belong. LEGUMINOSAE PITHECOLOBIUM * Martius PITHECOLOBIUM CLYPEARIA (Jack) Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3 (1844) 209. Inga elypearia Jack Malay Miscel. 2 (1822) 78. Mimosa trapezifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 93, nomen nudum, Fl Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 546. Adenanthera circinalis DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 446 (type!). Clypearia rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 176, t. 112, Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 51^8, October 3, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 285 meters. In proposing the name Adenanthera falcata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Linnaeus referred to it both Clypearia alba and Clypearia rubra as rep- resented by tt 111 and 112 of Rumphius. I maintain that the name must be typified by the first figure mentioned, that is t. 111, especially in view of the fact that in the Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1020 and Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 550 Linnaeus excluded under Adenanthera falcata and A. falcataria the reference io t. 112, Clypearia rubra, limiting the species to Clypearia aW^^^ Rumph. t. Ill, I have not seen the original description of Inga clypearia Jack, which was based on Sumatran specimens; * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Zygia Boehm. (1760) is older. LEGUMINOSAE 249 the specific name, however, was unquestionably taken from Rumphius. Prain * cites Inga clypearia Jack as a doubtful synonym of Pithecolobium clypearia Benth., but if Inga clypearia Jack should prove to be different from Pithecolobium clypearia Benth. as currently interpreted, then the specific name will go with Jack's species. Adenanthera circinnalis DC. is based wholly on Clypearia rubra Rumph., and both are cited by Bentham as synonyms of Pithecolobium clypearia (Jack) Benth., in Trans. Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 580. ALBI2ZIA Durazzini ALBI2ZIA SAPONARIA (Lour.) Blume ex Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat 1 ' (1855) 19. Mimosa saponaria Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 653. Inga saponaria WiUd. Sp. PL 4 (1805) 1008. Cortex saponarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 131, t. 66. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rtlmph. Amb. 523, August 13, 1913, on limestone formation, altitude about 30 meters, in flower; Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 52Jiy September 15, 1913, in forests, altitude about 300 meters, in fruit, locally known as langir. Mir}iosa saponaria Lour, was described from a Cochin-China specimen, which has been universally considered, and probably is, identical with the form that Rumphius described. Loureiro also cites the Rumphian plant as representing his species, while Cochin-China material in various herbaria is identical with the common Philippine and Moluccan form of the species. ALBIZZIA FALCATA (Linn.) Backer comb. nov. Adenanthera falcata Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1020 (type!). Adenanthera falcataria Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 550 (type!). Albizzia moluccana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1855) 26; Koord. in Meded. Lands Plantent. 19 (1898) 419. Clypearia alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 176, t. 111. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. However, after a very careful study of Rumphius's description I have definitely concluded that the form he described and figured is identical with Albizzia moluccana Miq., a species onginally described from leaf specimens only, but of which Koorders has given an ample and detailed description. Mr. Backer in connection with his study of the Leguminosae of Java has independently reached the same conclusion. In all botanical literature the Rumphian Chjpearia alba has been cited under Adenanthera falcata Linn, and A. falcataria Linn., both *Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66' (1897) 274. 250 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE being based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure. The description, compiled wholly from Rumphius, is given under one or the other of these names by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 101, Murr. Syst. (1771) 398, Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 76, Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 461, Willd. Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 550, DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 446, Don Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 399, Dietr. Syn. 2 (1839-52) 1425, Walp. Repert. 5 (1846) 580, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 47, and Walp. Ann. 4 (1857) 613, yet the status of the species has been very doubtful up to the present time. ALBIZZIA RETUSA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3 (1844) 90. Albizzia littoralis T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29 (1866) 259, Clypearia maritima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 199. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. I have very little doubt that this is the correct disposition of Clypearia maritima, after the description and data given by Rumphius. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 66, follows Rader- macher in considering it an undetermined species of Adenan- thera. The species is scattered along the seashore from the Nicobar Islands through Malaya and the Philippines to the Caroline Islands and has been reported from Amboina. ALBIZZIA PROCERA (Roxb.) Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3 (1844) 89. Mimosa procera Roxb. PL Coromandel 2 (1798) 12, t. 121. Lignum murinum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 50, t. 28, Nothing resembling this occurs in our Amboina collections, but I have not the slightest doubt that the plant figured is iden- tical with Albizzia procera Benth., which extends from India to tropical Australia. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1855) 54, has suggested that the Rumphian figure represents an Albizzia, but otherwise no other author has suggested an identification of Lignum murinum. The two other forms described, but not figured by Rumphius, 1. c. 50, 51, as Lignum murinum minus and Lignum murinum paiTifolium, probably also represent species of Albizzia, as sug- gested by Miquel. Their status, however, cannot be definitely determined from data at present available. Caju ticeos leytimorensis Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3 : 52, briefly de- scribed by Rumphius, is suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 50, as a possible synonym of Albizzia procera Benth- The description of the pods and of the wood hardly conforms to Roxburgh's species ; it probably is an Albizzia, but its status must remain doutbful pending further exploration of Amboina. LEGUMINOSAE 251 ALBIZZIA sp. Clypearia rubra s. sye il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 177. The description is very brief, following that of Clypearia rubra. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 205, suggests that it may be Albizzia moluccana Miq., which I have here reduced to Albizzia falcata (Linn.) Backer. Its exact status is indetermin- able at the present time, but it is probably a species of Albizzia, ACACIA Linnaeus ACACIA MANGIUM Wilid. Sp. PL 4' (1805) 1053 (type!). Mimosa simpliclfolia Linn. var. niangium Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 1 (1810) 61. Acacia holosericea A. Cunn. ex G. Don Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 407. Mangium montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 123, t. 81. A species based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure. The description, after Rumphius, has been repeated by de Candolle, Prodromus 2 (1825) 451; Don, Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 403; Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1855) 15; and Bentham, Trans. Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 495. Bentham thought that it was probably allied to the Australian Acacia holosericea A. Cunn., and I con- sider his surmise correct; in fact I can detect no differences between Australian specimens and material from the Island of Burn (cult. Buitenzorg I-C-37-K-32). Forster f., Prodr. (1786) 75, referred Mangium montanum Rumph. to Mimosa mangium Forst. f., basing his description, however, on actual specimens from the Friendly Islands, New Caledonia, and New Hebrides. Acacia mangium Willd. was published independently of the earlier Mimosa mangium Forst. f . ACACIA RUGATA (Lam.) Ham. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5251. Mimosa rugata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 20. Mi?)iosa concinna Willd. Sp. PL 4 (1805) 1039. Acacia concinna DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 464. Guilandina fnicrophylla DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480 (type!). Nugae si I varum minimae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 95, t. ^9, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. i^he Rumphian figure is poor, presenting a sterile branch only, but both it and the description conform better to Acacia rugata (Lam.) Ham. than to any other known species, so that the Present reduction is probably the correct disposition of it. Bur- ^^^^n 1, Fl. Ind. (1768) 99, thought it represented a variety of ^^^ilandina nuga Linn. Guilandina microphylla DC. was based ^^ holly on the Rumphian figure and description. Wight and -^rnott, Prodr. (1834) 277, reduced it to Acacia concinna DC. 252 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOIVENSE with doubt, while Miquel cites it as a possible synonym of Acacia hooperiana Zipp. var. subcuneata (Bl.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) ll=Acacia concinna DC— Acacia rugata (Lam,) Ham. MIMOSA Linnaeus MIMOSA PUDICA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 518, Herba mimosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 303. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 526, July 25, 1913, along small streams near the town of Amboina. The identification of Herba mimosa follows Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 124, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. This weed originated in tropical America and is now found in most hot countries. As noted by Doctor Robinson this was known to Rumphius only by description, but is now fairly common in Amboina. In the discussion of the various species of plants with sensitive leaves, following Herba sentiens Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5:301, several representatives of the Mimosoideae are briefly described or mentioned, some probably are species of the genus Mimosa, others may belong in allied genera. Following Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 124, 125, Caban cabanan, page 304, may be a Mimosa; Similis planta peruana, page 304, may be Mimosa dormiens HBK. ; Altera planta peruana, page 304, may be Mimosa humilh HBK. ; Pina hui huitzli, page 304, may be Mimosa casta Linn.; Arbor pudica, page 305, may be Mimosa pudibunda Willd. ; while Planta sentiens Mspanorum and Herba viva are wholly doubtful. It is hardly worth while to consider these forms, as the data given are in most cases quite insufficient on which to base a definite identification of the several forms; and HasskarFs determina- tions, as any must be, are for the most part merely guesses. They were not from Amboina and were known to Rumphius by description only. ADENANTHERA Royen ADENANTHERA PAVONINA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 384. Corallaria parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 173, t. 109. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5UU, October 29, 1913, alon? the seashore. The original reduction of Corallaria parvifolia to Adenanthera pavonina was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, is the correct disposition of it, and has been consistently followed by all subsequent authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure. LEGUMINOSAE 253 ENTADA * Adanson ENTADA PHASEOLOIDES (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 86. Lens phaseoloides Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!). Mimosa entada Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 518. Mimosa scandens Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1501. Entada scandens Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 4 (1842) 332. Entada rumphii Scheff. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 32 (1871) 412. Faba marina major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 5, t. U- Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 528, August, 28, 1913, in flower, growing near the beach; Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 529, October 7, 1913, in flower and fruit, growing at an altitude of about 80 meters. The Rumphian plate is the whole basis of Lens phaseoloides Linn., which supplies the oldest valid specific name for this widely distributed species, although the name Lens phaseoloides as published by Linnaeus was probably taken from Burman, Thesaurus Zeylanicus (1737) 139. The original publication in Stickman's Herbarium Amboinense is as follows: "5. Faba marina. Lens phaseoloides; proprii generis,'^ As to the pro- priety of taking up the generic name Lens in place of Entada, as W. F. Wight proposes,! I have already fully discussed the mat- ter and do not believe that Mr. Wight's proposal merits the approval of botanists. $ The form described by Rumphius as Parrana nigra, Herb. Atnb. 5: 7, may be an Entada as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 89, but at any rate it is apparently entirely different from Entada phaseoloides Merr. The description is too im- perfect to warrant definite determination of its proper position. PARKIA R. Brown PARKIA SPECIOSA Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) BeibL 55. Arbor pete Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 51. The identification follows Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 50, which is undoubtedly correct, as proved by the native names cited by Rumphius and the indicated uses of the plant. CYNOMETRA Linnaeus CYNOMETRA CAULI FLORA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 382. Cynomorium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 163, t. 62. Amboina, from cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 530, September 25, 1913, locally known as namu namu. Retained name, Brussels Congress; Gigalobium Boehm. (1760) is older. t Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 308. t Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 33; 9 (1914) Bot. 87. 254 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Cynomorium is one of the few Rumphian species cited by Linnaeus in the first edition of the Species Plantarum (1753) 382, where the reduction to Cynometra cauliflora Linn, was made. This is manifestly the correct disposition of it, and Linnaeus has been consistently followed by all succeeding authors. CYNOMETRA RAM I FLORA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 382. Cynomorium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 167, t. 63. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 531 ^ August 28, 1913, on coral limestone cliffs at low altitudes. Like Cynomorium, this Rumphian plant was first reduced by Linnaeus in the original description of Cynometra ramiflom Linn., Sp. PL (1753) 382. Linnaeus includes in Cynometra ramiflora the form with a single pair of leaflets, the Amboina plant, and the form with two pairs of leaflets, Iripa of Rheede, apparently the form described by Thwaites as Cynometra rami- flora Linn. var. heterophylla Thw. The present form, with a single pair of leaflets, has very generally been interpreted as typical Cynometra ramiflora Linn., and has been indicated by Prain as var. genuina, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66 ^ (1897) 198. SIN DORA Miquel SINDORA GALEDUPA Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66' (1897) 483 (type!). Sindora inermis Merr, in Philip. Journ. Sci. 10 (1915) Bot. 314? Caju galedupa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 59, t, IS, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections The material on which the description was originally based was from Celebes and from the small islands of Saleyer and Calaua. It grows near the sea and is locally known as caju galedupa, Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788) 594, cites the Rumphian figure and description as a synonym of Galedupa indica, but Galedupa indica Lam. as described from Sonnerat's specimens is Pongamia glabra Vent.=:F. pinnata (Linn.) Merr. Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 291, thought that it might be a species of Copaifera, Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 262, placed it in Pongamia, with doubt. Walpers, Ann. 4 (1857) 581, and Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1855) 144, erroneously cite it as a synonym of Derris forsteniana Blume. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, placed it under Connarus with doubt, but did not refer it to Connaru^ monocarpus Linn, as indicated by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissei (1866) 28. Prain has certainly placed it in its correct genus, LEGUMINOSAE 255 and Sindora galedupa Prain is based wholly on Rumphius. The exact status of the species still remains uncertain, but it is manifestly very near Sindora coriacea Prain and S, inermis Merr. Prain thought that Sindora sumatrana Miq. var. javanica Koord. & Valeton might be a synonym of Sindora galedupa, I suspect that Sindora inermis Merr. will have to be reduced to Sindora galedupa Prain, when botanical material from the Mo- luccas is available for comparison. The type of my species was from back of the mangrove swamp at Sarangani, southern Mindanao, there known as gayugalo, a native name that is certainly suggestive of caju galedupa. It differs from the Rumphian plant in having six rather than eight leaflets, perhaps also in having slightly larger pods, while Rumphius does not figure or describe the prominent aciniciform stipules that are characteristic of Sindora inermis Merr. TAMARINDUS Linnaeus TAMARINDUS INDICA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 34. Tamarind us Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 90, t, 2S. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 5^9, December 1, 1913, from culti- vated trees, locally known as assam. This widely distributed and well-known species hardly needs discussion. Linnaeus referred the Rumphian figure to his species, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, in which he has been followed by all succeeding authors. INTSIA Thouars INTSIA BIJUGA (Colebr.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 192. Macrolobium bijugum Colebr. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 12 (1819) 359, L 17. Afzelia bijuga A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 467, t. 51. Outea bijuga DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 511. Intsia amboinensis DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 509 (type!). Macrolobium amboinense Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 189 (type!). Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 21, t. 10. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, yet the identity of Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph., at least for i^he most part, with the plant commonly known as Intsia {Afze- ^^«) hijuga O. Kuntze is certain. Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) ^«6, cites it with doubt under Baryxylum rufum, but Baryxylum 'ufiim Lour, manifestly belongs in the genus Peltophorum; see Pierre, Fl. Forest. Cochinch. 4: sub. t. S90. Loureiro's descrip- lon of the flowers applies to Peltophorum, of the fruits perhaps ^ intsia; his specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum 256 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE is a Peltophomm, Possibly more than one species of Intsia are included in the description of Metrosideros amboinensis, but it is certainly for the most part the common and widely distributed Intsia bijuga 0. Kuntze. The figure is poor. The description and figure are the whole basis of Intsia amboinensis DC. and of Macrolobium amboinense Teysm., the latter not appearing in Index Kewensis. BAUHINIA Linnaeus BAUHINIA LINGUA DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 516 (type!), excl. syn. Linn. Phanera ? lingua Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 67. Folium linguae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 1, ^. i. Amboina, Soja and Negri lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 522, August, 1913, in fruit, locally known as tabla mulu. Folium linguae Rumph. was originally and erroneously re- duced by Linnaeus to the Indian Bauhinia scandens Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1859) 1015, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 535, in which he was followed by numerous authors. Loureiro, however, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 37, cited it under Phanei^a coccbm Lour., the type of which was a Cochin-China plant. Bauhinia lingua de Candolle is typified by Folium linguae Rumph., the specific name and description being taken wholly from Rumphius. Curiously, de Candolle cites as a synonym Bauhinia scandens Linn., Sp. PI. ed. 1, p. 374, *'excl. Rheed. syn.," yet Rheede's description and figure are the whole basis of the Linnean species, for the first reference given by Linnaeus to Ray Suppl. 328 is based wholly on Rheede. The Amboina specimen is in fruit, but the species manifestly belongs in the section Phanera, as is shown by Rumphius's de- scription of the stamens. I have not been able definitely to refer the Amboina specimens to any other described species than Bauhinia lingua DC, although it seems probable that the same form has been described under another specific name or names. De Candolle's description calls for a specimen with 3-nerved leaf -lobes, as they are thus presented in most of the leaves m Rumphius^s figure. However, the actual specimens have mostly 5- or 6-nerved lobes. BAUHINIA sp. Folium linguae litorea alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 2. This form is not represented in our Amboina collections. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 88, suggests that it may be Phanera glauca Benth.=Bauhinia glauca Wall., but the cor- LEGUMINOSAE 257 rectness of this reduction is very improbable. Doubtless a future exploration of Amboina will yield material that will definitely determine its status. D I ALUM Linnaeus DIALUM INDUM Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 24. Tamarindus altera Rumph. Herb.- Amb. 2: 93. From the native names cited by Rumphius, carandje and carandjang, and the references cited, this is Dialum indum Linn., but the Javan specimens in Rumphius's garden may not have been this species. It was from Java, not from Amboina. Ben- nett and Miquel both reduce it to Dialum indum Linn. CASSIA Linnaeus CASSIA MIMOSOIDES Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 379. Amoena moesta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 147, t, 67. f. 1. Amboina, Batoe gadjah and Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 535^ August 5, 1913, on grassy hillsides, altitude 200 to 250 meters. Amoena moesta was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, with doubt, to Cassia procumbens Linn., and later, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1018, to Cassia nictitans Linn., both American species; both reductions are erroneous. De CandoUe, Prodromus 2 (1825) 505, reduced it correctly to Cassia angustissima Lam., but Lamarck's species is a synonym of Cassia mimosoides Linn. or at most represents merely a variety of it, C mimosoides Linn, var angustissima (Lam.) Walp. CASSIA ALATA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 378. Herpetica alata Raf. Sylv. Tellur. (1838) 123. Cassia alata Linn. var. rumphiana DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 492 (type!). Herpetica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 35, t. 18. Amboina, in a sago swamp near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL '''nnph. Amb. 6^6, July 25, 1913. The reduction of Herpetica to Cassia alata was originally made ^ y Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, is the correct disposi- tion of it, and has been accepted by all authors. CASSIA TORA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 376. Cassia obtusifolia Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 377. Galiinaria rotundifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 283, t. 97, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 525, August 15, 1913, ' ow altitudes near the seashore; also ReL Robins. 2A80 from Boeton Island, •^«^y 13, 1913. A weed of pantropic distribution, originating in tropical 144971 17 258 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOIKENSE America. Linnaeus reduced the Rumphian figure to both his Cassia tora and Cassia obttcsifolia, the latter being a synonym of the former. It is considered as Cassia tora Linn., in Stiekman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1016, and as Cassia obtusifolia Linn, in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 539. The early authors, following Linnaeus for the most part, considered it as Cassia obtusifolia Linn., but practically all recent authors have properly placed it under Cassia tora Linn. CASSIA OCCIDENTALIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 377. Gallinaria acutifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 283, t. 97, f. 1. Amboina, along the beach near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI Rumph. Amb. 534, August 8, 1913; also represented by Rel. Robins. 2519 from Bali Island, July 7, 1913. Linnaeus originally reduced Gallinaria acutifolia to Cassia sophera Linn., in Stiekman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1017, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 542, in which he was consistently followed by all early authors. Vogel, Hasskarl, and Miquel, however, have correctly placed it as Cassia occidentalis Linn., which, like the preceding species, is a pantropic weed of American origin. CASSIA GLAUCA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 647. Flos flavus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 63, t. 28. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure, however, is unmistakably that of Cassia glauca Lam., where it was definitely placed by Miquel and by Hasskarl. Bur- man f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 96, erroneously reduced it to Cassia plant- siliqua, or at least Cassia planisiliqua Burm. f . is entirely dif- ferent from Cassia planisiliqua Linn. Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 644, suggests its comparison with Cassia chinensis Lam., but it certainly is not this, although the exact status of Cassia chinensis Lam. is doubtful; from the description it may be Cassia occidentalis Linn., although Bentham thought it migW be Cassia sophera Linn. CASSIA SOPHERA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 379. Soffera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 55. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The plant described by Rumphius is probably the common and widely distributed Cassia sophera Linn., as indicated by Hass- karl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 75. LEGUMINOSAE 259 CASSIA FISTULA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 377. Catkartocarpus fistula Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 459. Cassia fistula Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 83, t. 21. This common species is not represented in our Amboina col- lections, but it is so well known that it hardly needs discussion. Rumphius's plate is good. It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, and has been consistently cited under Cassia fistula Linn, by all subsequent authors. CASSIA JAVANICA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 379. Canna fistula javanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 86. Cassia fistula silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 88, t. 22, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. There is very little doubt, however, that the first of the Rumphian names cited above is referable to Cassia javanica, although Cassia fistula silvestris may include two different species. The reduction of t, 22 to Cassia javanica Linn, was first made by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 649, and has been very generally accepted. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 337, referred it to Cassia bacillus Gaertn., which, however, is generally con- sidered to be a synonym of Cassia javanica Linn. Other names involved in the reduction are Cassia marginata Roxb. and C. nodosa Ham. The plants briefly discussed by Rumphius, op. cit. 89, under the names bilalangh, cajudju, and ke ule are indeterminable from data at present available. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 30, has suggested that the second one may be a Pterocarptts and that the other two may be referable to Cassia. The only logical method of determining these forms is to carry on field work with special reference to the native names. CAESALPINIA Linnaeus CAESALPINIA SAPPAN Linn. Sp. PL (1753) e381. Lignum sappan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 56, t. 21. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 568, November 26, 1913, cultivated, locally known as Man tuni. This well-known species hardly needs discussion. Lignum ^^Vvan was originally reduced to Caesalpinia sappan Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, and has been consistently so cited by all other authors who have had occasion ^0 quote Rumphius. 260 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIMA (Linn.) Sw. Obs. (1791) 166. Poinciana pulcherrima Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 380. Crista pavonis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 53, t. 20. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5^2, September, 1913, from culti- vated plants in the town of Amboina, including both the red and yellow and the yellow-flowered forms. * This commonly cultivated plant, of tropical American origin, is well figured by Rumphius. Crista pavonis was first reduced by Linnaeus, to Poinciana pulcherrima, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1018; but in the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1762) 544, he erroneously referred it to Poinciana bijuga Linn. CAESALPINiA CRISTA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 380, pro majore parte, excL Fl. ZeyL 157 quoad Herm. zeyl. 12. Guilandina bonducella Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 545. Guilandina bonduc Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 381, p. p., excl. Fl. Zeyl 156. Caesalpinia bonducella Flem. Asiat. Res. 11 (1810) 159. Guilandina crista Small Fl. Southeast. U. S. (1905) 591. Guilandina bonduc Linn. var. minus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480. Caesalpinia jayabo var cyanosperma Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 19 (1890) 234. Frutex globulorum majorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 92, t. 49, /. i The widely distributed plant commonly known as Caesalpinia bonducella Flem. is not represented in our Amboina collections. There is no question whatever as to the identity of the plant Rumphius figures, as his illustration is an excellent one. The synonymy, like that of Caesalpinia jayabo Maza (C. bo7iduc auctt.), is exceedingly complicated and was first adjusted by Urban, Symb. Antil. 2 (1900) 269. I agree with Doctor Urban in the application of the Linnean name in spite of the fact that the first reference given by Linnaeus in the original de- scription of the species applies to the plant commonly known as Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait., as originally pointed out by Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 2 (1894) 99; see under Caesalpinia nuga Ait.< infra, page 261. Skeels, Science N. S. 37 (1913) 921, would interpret Fl ZeyL 157 strictly on the basis of Hermann zeifl 12, as the type of Caesalpinia crista Linn., thus making the species exactly the same as Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait., re- ducing the latter as a synonym. At the same time he wouW interpret FL ZeyL 156 as the type of Guilandina bonduc Linn.. thus making Caesalpinia bonduc the proper name for the plai^ described in most botanical works as Caesalpinia bondum^ Flem. LEGUMINOSAE 261 CAESALPINIA JAYABO Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 19 (1890) 234. Guilandina bonduc Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 381, p. p., quoad FL Zeyl 156. Caesalpinia bonduc auctt. Guilandina bonduc Linn. var. majus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480. Guilandina major Small Fl. Southeast. U. S. (1903) 591. Caesalpinia glabra Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 54, non Guilandina glabra Mill. Frutex globulorum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 89, t. J^S. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 564-, November 25, 1913, climb- ing over trees at low altitudes. The reduction of Frutex globulorum femina was first made by Linnaeus, who placed it as a synonym of Guilandina bonduc Linn, in his Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762) 545, and most authors have been content to accept this name as the proper one for the species. The synonymy is very complicated, but Guilandina bonduc Linn, as originally published by Linnaeus in 1753 is for the most part identical with G. bonducella Linn. as published by Linnaeus in the year 1762, and both are, for the most part, the same as Caesalpinia crista Linn. 1753. The synonymy has been very fully discussed by Urban, Symb. Antil. 2 (1900) 269, 272. Guilandina bonduc Linn. var. majus DC. was based on the Linnean description, as given in the second edition of the Species Plantarum, and the figure of Rumphius cited above and in turn is the basis of Guilandina major Small. Guilandina glabra Mill, is an entirely different species, if Miller's short description be correct, and I erred in 1910 in proposing to take up this specific name. It is apparent that Maza's specifiq name Caesalpinia jayabo is the earliest valid one for this pan- tropic plant. Caesalpinia bonduc Roxb., based on Guilandina honduc Linn., is certainly untenable and should be abandoned. CAESALPINIA NUGA (Linn.) Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 3 (1811) 32. Guilandina nuga Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 546 (type!). Caesalpinia crista Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 380, pro minore parte, FL ZeyL 157 quoad Herm. zeyl, 12. Nugae sllvarum litoreae et terrestres Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 94, t. 50. Amboina, Eri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 539, September 22, 1913, along tHe seashore; Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 538, August 13, 1913, ^n thickets at an altitude of about 30 meters, locally known as galachi and Pohon baduri. The Rumphian reference, is the whole basis of Guilandina ^'^ga Lmn,=Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait. and has been inter- preted as such by all authors. In this connection it is to be ^oted that Caesalpinia crista Linn., Sp. PI. (1753) 380, is, in p^rt, the same as Caesalpinia nuga Ait. The first reference i^ the original description of the species is to FL Zeyl No, 157, 262 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE and Hermann's specimen is not Caesalpinia crista Linn, as currently interpreted, but is C. nuga Ait. ; see Trimen, Fl Ceyl. 2 (1894) 99. However, the other references in the Species Plantarum and the first reference in the Flora Zeylanica, Pluk Aim, i. t, 2 f, 2, are apparently Caesalpinia crista Linn, as generally understood, so that Caesalpinia crista Linn, is here maintained for the plant so described by all authors; see page 260. ORMOSIA * Jackson OR M OS I A CALAVENSIS Azaola ex Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 230. Pongamia {?) corallaria Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 149 (type!). Corallaria latlfolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 175, t. 110. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction to Ormosia calaveTisis Azaola is made after a careful study of Rumphius's figure and description and a comparison with a very full series of specimens from northern Luzon to southern Mindanao and from the Palau Islands. Corallaria latifolia is the whole basis of Pongamia corallaria Miq., so this specific name is available should future botanical exploration of the Moluccas yield material that shows the plant Rumphius described to be specifically distinct from that of the Philippine and the Palau Islands. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 63, referred it to the genus Macropteris, this being a synonym of Ormosia. SOPH OR A Linnaeus 80PH0RA TOMENTOSA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 373. Anticholerica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 60. t. 22. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5If5, October 31, 1913, along the seashore. Anticholerica of Rumphius has been confused by most authors, following Linnaeus, with Sophora heptaphylla Linn. It is typical Sophora tomentosa Linn. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Sophora heptaphylla, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1015, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 533, in which he was followed by all authors up to 1825, when de Candolle, Prodromus 2 : 96, suggested that the Rumphian figure referred to Sophora tomentosa Linn. Sophora heptaphylla Linn, is in itself a mixture. The type i^'^ Fl, Zeyl, 104, and Hermann's specimen on which it is based i"^ Derris sinuata Benth, -^Dei^ris heptaphylla (Linn.) Merr.. page 273. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Toulichiba Adans. (1763) is older. LEGUMINOSAE 263 CROTALARIA Linnaeus CROTALARIA RETUSA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 715. Crotalaria I major Rumph. Herb. Amb, 5: 278, t. 96, /. /. Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Ru7nph. Amb. 5^7, September 4, 1913, near the seashore; also represented by ReL Robins. 2Jf6Jf from Macassar, Celebes. The reduction of the form of Crotalaria figured by Rumphius to Crotalaria retusa Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1159, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1004, and is certainly the correct disposition of it. CROTALARIA QUINQUEFOLIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 716. Crotalaria II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 278. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of the Rumphian description follows Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 121, which is manifestly the correct disposition of it. CROTALARIA CHINENSIS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1158. Crotalaria III agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 297. Amboina, Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph Amb. 468, August 1, 1913, on grassy hillsides, altitude about 200 meters. The identity of the recently collected material with Crotalaria HI agrestis is somewhat doubtful, as Rumphius's description is short and imperfect. It cannot possibly be Crotalaria verrucosa Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 121. CROTALARIA LINIFOLIA Linn. f. SuppL (1781) 322. Phaseolus montanus III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146. This suggested identification of Phaseolus montanus III is scarcely more than a guess, but the description, with a slight modification of the Latin translation, seems to apply very closely to the form of Crotalaria linifolia Linn. f. described by Vogel as C. stenophylla and by Matsumura as C. formosana. In the Dutch description the fruits are described as "met twee rug- gens,'^ which I translate "with two ridges." The Latin descrip- tion reads "cum binis alis,'' translated by Hasskarl as "bialatis." ^I^ith the modification of the description suggested by translating /uggens'' as "ridges'* instead of as "wings,'' there is nothing in the entire description that does not apply to Crotalaria steno- Phylla Vogel. Phaseolus montanus IV Rumph. 1. c. is apparently but a dwarfed ^orm of Crotalaria linifolia Linn, f . 264 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE INDIGOFERA Linnaeus INDIGOFERA TiNCTORIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 751. Indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 220, quoad descr, (excl. t. 50=1. siiffruticosa Mill.). Probably both Indigofera tinctoria Linn, and /. suffrutieosa Mill. (/. anil Linn.) are included in the Rumphian discussion of Indicum, but the description of the pods as ''digiti articulum longae'' applies unmistakably to Indigofera tinctoria Linn., not to /. suffrutieosa Mill. The figure, however, unmistakably repre- sents Indigofera suffrutieosa Mill., as shown by the relatively short, strongly curved pods. Indicum was reduced by Linnaeus to Indigofera tinctoria Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1171, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1061, in which he has been followed by most authors. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 244, referred it to Indigo- fera anil Lmn,=L suffrutieosa Mill., which is the correct disposi- tion of the figure. Other authors have referred it to Indigofera anil Linn. var. orthocarpa DC, /. tinctoria Linn. var. maerocarpa DC, and /. tinctoria Linn. var. brachycarpa DC INDIGOFERA SUFFRUTICOSA Mill Gard. Diet. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2. Indigofera anil Lirm. Mant. 2 (1771) 272. Indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: quoad t. 80. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 195, August 8, 1913, near the seashore. This is the form figured by Rumphius, but so far as the description goes the essential characters by which Indigofera tinctoria Linn, and /. suffrutieosa Mill, are distinguished are those of the former species. As indicated above probably both are included in the general discussion of Indicum. The several forms briefly described under Indicum I consider to be indeterminable, although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 113, indicates their possible positions as follows: Indicum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 222=Indigofera sp. ? ; Indicum silvestre e Madagascar Rumph. 1. c. 223=Indigofera linifolia Retz. var. fl^^- gustissima Miq.?; Indicum brasilianum Rumph. 1. c. 224:=Indi90' fera sp.?; Indicum spurium Rumph. 1. c. 22A~Indigofera celehko. Miq.?. TEPHROSIA* Persoon TEPHROSIA sp. aff. T. purpurea Pers. Phaseolus montanus I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146. No representative of the genus Tephrosia occurs in our Atn- boina collections. The plant described by Rumphius, howeven * Retained name, Vienna Code; Cracca Linn. (1763) is older. LEGUMINOSAE 265 is manifestly a Tephrosia, and it is probably a form of the widely distributed T. purpurea Pers. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 176, considers that it represents a species near Tephrosia fimoriensis DC, but de Candolle's species is generally considered to be a synonym of T, purpurea Pers. Phaseolus montanus alter Rumph., 1. c. 146, may also represent a species of Tephrosia, The description, however, is too short and imperfect to warrant an identification of it with the data now available. SESBANIA * Persoon SESBANIA SESBAN (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 235. Aes'^hynomene sesban Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 714. Coronilla sesban WiHd, Sp. PL 3 (1806) 1147. Sesban aegyptiacus Foir. in Lam. EncycL 7 (1806) 128 (type!). Aeschynomene mohiccana KosteL Allg. Med.-Pharm. Flora 4 (1835) 1285. Emerus sesban O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 180. Gajatus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 64, t. 2Jf. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure was erroneously reduced by Linneaus to Aeschynomene indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1158, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1061, in which he was generally followed by the older authors. Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 219, placed it under Aeschynomene roxburghii Spreng., a synonym of A. indica Linn. It is apparently the type of Aeschynomene moluc- cana Kostel. (publication not seen by me). Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 287, thought it might be referable to Sesbania cochinchinensis (Lour.) DC, which is probably a synonym of Sesbania sesban (Linn.) Merr. Teysmann correctly placed it as a synonym of Sesbania aegyptiaca Pers., which manifestly is ^ synonym of Sesbania sesban (Linn.) Merr. From Rumphius's description it is exactly the form described by Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 214, as Sesbania aegyptiaca Pers. var. bicolor W. & A.f SESBANIA CANNABINA (Retz.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 316. Aeschynomene cannabina Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 26. Agati cannabina Desv. Journ. Bot. 1 (1813) 120. Gajatus luteus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 64. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Retained name, Brussels Congress; Sesban Adans. and Agati Adans. (1763) are older. tSee Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Ben^. 66^ (1897) 367. 266 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 76, discusses it under Aeschy- nomene indica Linn. var. aspera Hassk. and under Sesbania polyphylla Miq. The Rumphian description calls for a plant with larger leaves and longer pods than Gajatus niger (Sesbania sesban Merr.) and with yellow flowers, and I believe that the plant described is unmistakably Sesbania cannabina (Retz.) Pers. It was introduced into Amboina in Rumphius's time. The form from Bali with white flowers, merely mentioned by Rumphius, is indeterminable, the only character given being that the flowers are white. SESBANIA GRANDIFLORA (Linn.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 316. Robinia grandiflora Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 722. Aeschynomene grandiflora Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1060. Coronilla grandiflora Willd. Sp. PL 3 (1800) 1145. Agati grandiflora Desv. in Journ. Bot. 1 (1813) 120, t. Jf, f. 6. Turia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 188, t. 76, Tuna minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 190, t. 77. Amboina, Bin ting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 532, September 27, 1913, at low altitudes, locally known as turi. Turia was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Aeschynomene grandiflora Linn, in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 1060, and the figure has very generally been cited by various authors under one or the other of the synonyms cited above. Turia minor Rumph. is the form with reddish or purplish flowers, considered by early authors to represent a distinct species, Sesbania coccinea (Linn, f.) Pers. (Aeschynomene coccinea Lmi^- f., Coronilla coccinea Willd., Sesban coccinea Poir., Agati cocci- nea DC), and by others considered as merely a variety of Sesbania grandiflora Pers. It is manifestly but a color form of the common and widely distributed Sesbania grandiflora (Linn.) Pers. ORMOCARPUM * de Candolle ORMOCARPUM ORIENTALE (Spreng.) comb. nov. Parkinsonia orientalis Spreng. Syst. 4 (1827) Cur. Post. 170 (type!)- Ormocarpum glabrum Teysm. & Binn. in Tijschr. Ned. Ind. 27 (1854) 56. Sol u I us arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 200, t. 128. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but according to Rumphius the plant is not a native of Amboina, occurring there as an introduced and planted one. Loureiro, Fl Cochinch. (1790) 454, cites Solulus arbor as representing his Diphaca cochinchinensis=Ormocarpum cochinchinense (Loxu'.) * Retained name, Vienna Code; Diphaca Lour. (1790) is older. LEGUMINOSAE 267 Merr. (0. sennoides DC), but the Rumphian figure and descrip- tion manifestly apply to Ormocarpum glabrum T. & B. The oldest specific name, however, if this form be maintained as distinct from Ormocarpum cochinchinense, is that supplied by Parkinsonia orientale Spreng., which was based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description. ARACHIS Linnaeus ARACHIS HYPOGAEA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 741. Chamaebalanus japonica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 426, t. 156, /. 2, The common peanut is not represented in our Amboina col- lections, although doubtless it is still cultivated there as it is in most warm countries. The reduction of the Rumphian figure was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1167, which has been followed by all authors except Loureiro, who proposed to call it Arachis asiatica Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 430. Lou- reiro's species is manifestly a synonym of Arachis hypogaea Linn. DESMODIUM * Desvaux DESMODIUM ORMOCARPOIDES DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 327, non auct. plur. Desmodium ormocarpoides Desv. in Mem. Soc. Linn. Paris 1825 (1826) 307, non auct. plur. Hedysarum adhaerens Poir. in Lam. Encycl. SuppL 5 (1817) 15, non Vahl. Desmodium dependens Blume ex Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 248. Phased us montanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: quoad t, 66 p. p. (excl. descr. !). Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 555, August 16, 1913. m light woods at low altitudes; Amahoesoe, PL Rumph. Amb. 556, August '^^\ 1913, at low altitudes, locally known as rumpit makaL The plant figured by Rumphius does not agree with any of the eight forms described under the name Phaseolus montanus. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 164, referred the figure to Hedysarum Qdngeticum Lmn.=Desmodium gangeticum (Linn.) DC, in which he was followed by numerous authors; this reduction, however, is entirely wrong. The figure is, for the most part, ^n excellent representation of Desmodium dependens Blume, which was originally described from specimens originating in ^he Moluccas and in New Guinea, which Gagnepain, Not. Syst. (1916) 256, has recently shown to be exactly the form described ■y de Candolle and by Desvaux as Desmodium ormocarpoides, Retained name, Vienna Code; Meibomia Adans. (1763) is oMer. 268 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE a species that has consistently been misinterpreted by modern authors on account of de Candolle's original insufficient descrip. tion. The drawing apparently represents two species. The infructescence and fruits shown on the right-hand branch are distinctly different from those shown on the left-hand branch; the former is apparently Desmodmm ormocarpoides auct., non I)C,=Desmodmm zonatum Miq.,* and the latter is typical D. ormocarpoides DC. (D, dependens Blume). DESMODfUM UMBELLATUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 325. Hedysarum umhellatum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 747. Aeschynomene arborea Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 713, non Desmodiim arboreum Sweet. Dendrolobium umbellatum W. & A. ex Benth. PL Jungh. (1852) 216. Meibomia umbellata 0. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 197. Folium crocodill latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 112, t, 52. Folium crocodili parvlfollum Rumph. L c. 113. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 560, October 21, 1913, along the seashore; Ayer putri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 559, July 28, 1913. Folium crocodili Kumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Hedysarum umbellatum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1170, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1053, which, as Desmodium umbella- tum (Linn.) DC, is certainly the correct dispositon of it. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 263, erroneously placed it under Dendrolobium cephalotes Benth. The two forms described by Rumphius as latifolium and parvifolium are manifestly referable to the same species. DESMODIUM TRIQUETRUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 326. Hedysarum triquetrum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 746. Pteroloma triquetrum Benth. in Miq. PI. Jungh. (1852) 220. Meibomia triquetra O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 197. Phaseolus montanus VI, VII Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146. Amboina, Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 557, August 1, 1^^^' on hillsides, altitude 200 to 300 meters. The reduction of Phaseolus montanus VI to Hedysarum tri- quetrum Linn, was first made by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 448, which, as Desmodium triquetrum (Linn.) DC, is certainly the correct disposition of it. Phaseolus montanus VII was fi^^^ * At the time of publication of this the continuation of Gagnepain's paP^^ in Not. Syst. 3, no. 9, has not reached me, so I am not certain that V^^ modium zonatum Miq. is the name selected by him for Desmodiutn orm carpoides auct., non DC. LEGUMINOSAE 269 reduced here by Linnaeus, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1052, which is probably the correct dispositon of it, although not certain. DESMODIUM GANGETICUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 327. Hedysarum gangeticum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 746. Meibomia gangetica O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 196. Crotalaria montana V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146? (baud t. 66 quae est Desmodium ormocarpoides DC. et D. zonatum Miq.). Amboina, Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 558, August 5, 1913, on grassy hillsides, altitude about 150 meters. Also represented by Rel. Robins. 2537 from Bali Island, July 7, 1913. The reduction of Crotalaria montana V to Desmodium gan- geticum (Linn.) DC. is rather unsatisfactory, but follows Bur- man f., Loureiro, Poiret, de Candolle, and other authors. All, however, apparently based their conception of the Rumphian plant chiefly if not wholly upon the figure indicated by Rumphius as Phaseolus montanus. None of the eight forms actually de- scribed by Rumphius under the heading Phaseolus montanus agrees with the figure, which unmistakably is Desmodium or- mocarpoides DC. ; see page 267. The Rumphian description of Crotalaria montana V applies to Desmodium gangeticum DC. sufficiently closely except in the description of the leaves as *'semi digitum longa, ac pennam lata.'* Phaseolus montanus Vm Rumph., Herb. Amb. 6: 146, is inde- terminable from any data at present available. It was from Macassar, Celebes, where it was known as tsjeme tsjeme, Hass- karl, Neue Schliissel (1866). 176, suggests that it may be a species of Sophora near S, glabra Hassk. PSEUDARTHRIA Wight and Arnott PSEUDARTHRIA VISCIDA (Linn.) W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 209. Hedysarum viscidum Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 747. Desmodium viscidum DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 336. Desmodium timoriense DC. 1. c. 327. Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 150. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 55Jf, August 30, 1913, ?'t low altitudes, locally known as bung a pasang pasang. Also represented ^^y ReL Robifis. 21^99 from Boeton, and ReL Robins. 2530 from Bali, July, 1913. "i'he identification of Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph. with Pseud- ^^^'fhria viscida W. & A. is not certain. The Rumphian plant ^y be a Desmodium rather than a Pseudarthria. Hasskarl, ^'eue Schliissel (1866) 177, considers that it is Desmodium stipu- ^^cenm DC. var. aparine (Hassk.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1855) 252. 270 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE DALBERGIA * Linnaeus f. DALBERGIA PARVI FLORA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 98, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 225. Dalbergia zollingeriana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1855) 130. Lacca lignum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 17, t. IS. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Lacca lignum to Dalbergia parviflora Roxb. is certainly correct and was first suggested, as D. zollingeriana Miq., by Teysmann in a letter to Hasskarl, cited by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 90.t This species of Dalbergia extends from Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula to Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Celebes, Halmaheira, and Amboina. The forms briefly described by Rumphius as Lacca lignum ruffum, Herb. Amb. 5 : 18, L. lignum femina, 1. c. 20, and L. lignum e Java, 1. c. 20, are indeterminable from data now available and may be referable to Dalbergia or to other genera of the Leguminosae, or they may even belong in other families. PTEROCARPUS Linnaeus PTEROCARPUS INDICUS WiUd. Sp. PL 3^ (1800) 904 (type!). Lingoum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 205, t. 70. Amboina, Hoenoet, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 550, October 18, 1913, in remnants of forests, altitude 200 meters, locally known as kayu lingua. This was originally reduced by Linnaeus merely to the genus Pterocarpus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, but in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 1662, he erroneously placed it as a synonym of Pterocarpus draco Linn. It is the entire basis of Pterocarpus indicv^ Willd., which species must be interpreted wholly from the Rumphian figure and description. The species is widely distributed in the Malayan region and very generally has been correctly interpreted by modern botanists, as Rumph- ius's figure of the plant is an excellent one. Probably referable here are the forms described by Rumphius, 1. c. 206, 209, 210, as Lingoum II album and III rubrum. PTEROCARPUS PAPUAN US F. Muell. in Austral. Journ. Pharm. 1 (1886) 123; Bot. Centralbl. 27 (1886) 21? Lingoum saxatlle Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 210. Lingoum saxatile Rumph., apparently a Pterocarpus, should * Retained name, Vienna Code; Amerimnon P. Br. (1756) is older. t See Prain, D., in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 10 " (1904) 34, t. 8, who cites specimens from Amboina and who also cites Lacca lignum Rumph. as ^ synonym of Dalbergia parviflora Roxb. LEGUMINOSAE 271 be a very characteristic species, judging from the description of the fruits, which are stated to be twice as large as those of Pterocarpus indicus Willd., '^quatuor vel quinque digitos transver- sals lati/' Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 41, has suggested that it may be Pterocarpus obtusatus Miq., which after all may be the correct disposition of it. MiqueFs description is so very imperfect that no definite conception of his species can be gained from the description alone. I suggest that it may be F. Mueller's species, which is supposed to have large fruits. Pterocarpus blancoi Merr. should also be very closely allied. Dr. Alfred J. Ewart has kindly sent me a leaflet from the type of Pterocarpus papuanus F*-Muell., which is preserved in the national herbarium at Melbourne. The leaflet very closely resembles those of Pterocarpus indicus Willd. Doctor Ewart states that there are no fruits with the specimen, and the size of the fruits is not indicated by Mueller in the original description of the species. PTEROCARPUS SANTALfNUS Linn. f. Suppl. (1881) 318. Sandalum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 47. This is undoubtedly the correct disposition of Sandalum rub- rum, as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 47. It was not from Amboina. PONGAMIA* Ventenat PONGAMIA PINNATA (Linn.) comb. nov. Cytisus pinnatus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 741. Robinia mitts Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1044. Galedupa indica Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 594, excl. syn. Caju galedupa Rumph. Dalbergia arborea Willd. Sp. PI. 3 (1803) 901. Pongamia glabra Vent. Jard. Malm. 1 (1803) 28, t. 28. Galedupa pinnata Taub. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3 ' (1891) 344. Caju pinnatum O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 167. Pongamia mitis Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 101. Malaparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 183, t. 117. Ma la pari us e Nussanive Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 184. Amboina, Eri and Amahoesoe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 2^3, August and September, 1913, along the seashore, with normal fruits and with Ralls (Malaparius e Nussanive Rumph.!). Desrouss, in Lamarck Encycl. 3 (1791) 689, thought that Maia- Mriiis might be near Pterocarpus; and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 431, erroneously cites it under his Pterocarpus flavus, ^ species of doubtful status, this reduction being followed, how- Retained name, Vienna Code; Galedupa Lam. (1786) is older. 272 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ever, by Poiret, de Candolle, Don, Dietrich, Miquel, and a few other authors. Malapariics, however, is no Pterocarpus, but is manifestly identical with the plant commonly called Pongamia glabra Vent. The Rumphian figure is an excellent one, and the description applies perfectly except as to the statement that the flowers are yellow ; this may have been due to a mixture of material, or Rumphius may have had old flowers. The flowers are usually white or pink, turning somewhat yellowish in age. Prain, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66 ^ (1897) 95, seems to have been the first author correctly to reduce Malaparius to Pongamia, Malaparius fiavus Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 (1858) 1082, based on Sumatran specimens, the generic name from Rumphius, is ap- parently the form of Pongamia pinnata (Linn.) Merr. described by Hasskarl as Pongamia xerocarpa (P. glabra Vent, var. xero- carpa Prain) . I have taken up the earliest Linnean specific name for this widely distributed species, as I am now convinced that the speci- men in the Linnean herbarium, which is the common Pongamia glabra Vent., is the actual type of Cytisus pinnatns Linn., as indicated by the fact that Linnaeus not only gives a biblio- graphical reference to Plukenet, but also adds a short descrip- tion manifestly taken from an actual specimen. DERRIS * Loureiro DERRIS TRIPOLI ATA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 433. Robinia uliginosa Roxb. ex WiUd. Sp. PL 3 (1800) 1138. Dalbergia heterophylla Willd. 1. c. 901. Pongamia uliginosa DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 416. Derris forsteniana Blume ex Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 144, t. I Tuba siliquosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 41, t. 25, f, 2. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. oSJ, October 25, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as daun talahohor. Rumphius's figure is an excellent one of the widely distributed form commonly known as Derris uliginosa Roxb., but for which I maintain the earlier name, Derris trifoliata Lour. Loureiro's type is not extant, at least no specimen of his species is among his plants in the herbarium of the British Museum. Dalbergia heterophTjlla Willd. is exactly the same as Derris uliginosa Roxb. and has priority over Roxburgh's name in case Derris trifolK^^^' Lour, be abandoned. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 93, r*^' duced Tuba siliquosa Rumph. to Derris forsteniana Blume, whicn is a synonym of the above species. ^ * Retained name, Vienna Code; Salken Adans. and Solori Adans. (l'^'^'^ • Deguelia Aubl. (1775), and Cylizoma Neck. (1790) are older. LEGUMINOSAE 273 DERRIS HEPTAPHYLLA (Linn.) comb. nov. Sophora heptaphylla Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 373, excl. syn. Plukenet. Pongamia sinuata Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5911, nomen nudum, Derris sinuata Benth. ex Thw. Enum. PI. Zeyl. (1859-64) 93. Pterocarpus diadelphus Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 563. Derris diadelpha Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 103. Funis convolutus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 69, t 37, f. 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but unquestionably Funis convolutus Rumph. is identical with the widely distributed Indo-Malayan form commonly known as Derris sinuata Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 96, after Miquel, has suggested that it may be the same as Derris montana Benth., which is hardly possible in view of the characters and geographic distribution of that species. The type of Sophora heptaphylla Linn, is Fl. Zeyl, 10 J^, and Hermann's specimen on which Fl, Zeyl, 104' was based is Derris sinuata Benth. The reference to Plukenet, included by Linnaeus in the original de- scription as a doubtful synonym, cannot possibly be interpreted as the type. DERRIS ELLIPTICA (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 4 (1860) Suppl. 111. Galedupa elliptica Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 53, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 242. Tuba radlcum alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 37, t. 23. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure is unmistakably that of a species of Derris, either identical with, or very closely allied to, Derris elliptica Benth. The in- dicated use of the plant, for poisoning fish, is also a Derris character, several of the Malayan species being thus used, in- cluding Derris elliptica Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 92, considers the Rumphian figure and description to be referable to Millettia sericea W. & A., but this reduction is certainly incorrect. . • Perhaps referable to the same species of Derris as the above is Tuba radicum nigia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 38. It is used for the same purposes as Tuha radicum alba, and is at least a species of Derris, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 92, merely in- dicated that it belongs in the Dalhergiae, INOCARPUS Forster 'NOCARPUS EDULIS Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) QQ, L 33. ^ocoa edulis Baill. Adansonia 9 (1868-70) 237. Gajanus edulis O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 189. Gajanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 170 t. 65. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 5^0, November, 1913, 144971- 18 274 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE in light forests, altitude 50 meters; Amboina town, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, Sj^I, October 25, 1913, from cultivated trees, locally known as guyang and daun gayang. This reduction of Gajanus seems first to have been suggested by Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 253, which has been accepted by all succeeding authors and is the correct disposition of it. ABRUS Linnaeus ABRUS PRECATORIUS Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 472. Glycine abrus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 753. Abrus frutex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 57, t. 32. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. A7nb. 527, September, 1913, locally known as saga, saga alus, and daun saga. This species is too well known to need discussion. The orig- inal reduction of Abrics frutex to Glycine abrus Linn. =A6rws precatorivs Linn, was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1173, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1025. CLITORIA Linnaeus CLITORIA TERNATEA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 753. Flos coeruleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 56, t. 31. Amboina, Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. BJfS, August 25, 1913, along roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as bunga sayor and sayor katjang. This species is too well known to need discussion. Flos coeru- leus was first reduced to Clitoria ternatea by Linnaeus, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, and has been consistently cited here by all succeeding authors. GLYCINE Linnaeus GLYCINE MAX (Linn.) comb nov. Phaseolus max Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 725. Dolichos 80 ja Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 727. Soja hispida Moench. Meth. (1794) 153. Glycine hispida Maxim, in Bull. Acad. Petersb. 18 (1873) 398. Glycine soja S. & Z. in Abh. Akad. Muench. 4^ (1843) 119. Glycine ussuriensis Kegel & Maack Tent. Fl. Ussur. (1861) 50. Soja max Piper in Journ. Am. Soc. Agron. 6 (1914) 84. Cadelium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 388, t. 140. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but the Rumphian figure is an excellent representation of the widely cultivated and well-known soy bean. It was originally reduced LEGUMINOSAE 275 by Linnaeus to Phaseolus max, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1018, in which he was followed by Burman f., Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret, Don, and other authors. Lour- eiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 441, correctly referred it to Dolichos soja Linn., which is a synonym of Phaseolus max Linn.^Glycine max (Linn.) Merr. By Henschel and by Pritzel it has been also correctly referred to Soja hispida Moench., another synonym of Glycine max Merr. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. P (1855) 197, erroneously referred it to Phaseolus radiatus Linn. Phaseolus max Linn, has been considered a true Phaseolus and a synonym of P. radiatus Linn, by nearly all recent authors. It is clearly the soy bean, identical with Glycine hispida Maxim., and the specific name max should be maintained for the soy bean, whether Glycine or Soja be recognized as its generic name. Piper has declared in favor of the genus Soja, chiefly for the reason that of the eight species originally described by Linnaeus in Glycine, but a single one, G. javanica Linn., now remains in the genus, the other seven having been removed by subsequent authors to Apios, Kraunhia, Abru^, Rhynchosia, Amphicarpaea, and Fagelia, respectively. However, I am content to determine the type of the genus Glycine by elimination, which well maintain Glycine in its generally accepted sense with G, javanica Linn. as its type. Prof. C. V. Piper has cleared up the synonymy of this com- monly cultivated species; and with the aid of extensive data, supplied by Sir David Prain, he has clearly shown that Phaseolus Max Linn, is identical with the commonly cultivated and well- known soy bean.* ERYTHRINA Linnaeus ERYTHRINA FUSCA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 427. Erythrina ovalifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 53, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 254. Gelala aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 235, t, 78. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Gelala aquatica was made by Loureiro, PL Cochinch. (1790) 427, in the original description of the species. Erythrina ovalifolia Roxb., the name commonly employed in current botanical literature, is certainly a synonym. For a very fuU discussion of the case see Piper, C. V. The name of ^ soy bean; a chapter in its botanical history. Journ. Am. Soc. Agron. « (1914) 75-84. 276 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ERYTHRINA VARIEGATA Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122 (type!). Erythrina picta Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 993. Gelala alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 234, t. 77. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The form so excellently figured by Rumphius occurs in the Philip. pines, in Palawan and in Mindanao, and on Corregidor Island in cultivation and is in all respects, except in its variegated leaves, the same as the common and widely distributed plant commonly known as Erythrina indica Lam. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Erythrina variegata Linn. and in part the basis of E, picta Linn. Strictly, the specific name variegata should be adopted to include not only the form with the variegated leaves, but also the much commoner and widely distributed form with uniformly green leaves, E, indica Lam. The differences between the two are no greater, for the purpose of distinguishing species or varieties, than be- tween the various color forms of Graptophyllum pictum (Linn.) Griff, or of Codiaeum variegatum (Lour.) Blume. Var. ORIENTALIS (Linn.) comb. nov. Erythrina corallodendron Linn. var. orientalis Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 706. Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 93. Erythrina indica Lam. Encycl. 2 (1785) 391. Erythrina orientalis Murr. Comm. Getting. 8 (1787) 35, t. 1. Erythrina lithosperma Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823) 92. Gelala litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 230, t. 76. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 531 August 8, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as daun gelala. Gelala litorea Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Erythrina corallodendron Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1155; and in the second edition of the Species Plantarum, (1763) 993, it was definitely reduced to the var. orientalis Linn. Erythrina corallodendron Linn, is a mixture of an American species and what is now generally known as Erythrina indica Lam., here called Erythrina variegata Linn. var. orientalis (Linn.) Merr. Erythrina corallodendron Linn, is apparently typified by the American plant. Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck, which does not appear in Index Kewensis, is manifestly the same as Erythn^^^ indica Lam., the type being from western Java. It is suspected that the forms from Java and China, briefly mentioned by Rumphius, are referable here, but the data given are too in- definite for their certain determination. LEGUMINOSAE 277 MUCUNA * Adanson MUCUNA GIGANTEA (Willd.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 405. Dolichos giganteus Willd. Sp. PI. 3 (1800) 1041. Carpopogon giganteum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54. Zoopthalmum giganteum Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66 "" (1897) 68. Lobus Mtoralis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 10, t. 6. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 567, November 26, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as bharu laut. This was erroneously reduced by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 456, to Citta nigricans hour, =Mucuna nigricans (Lour.) Steud. Loureiro's species was described from Cochin-China material, and is entirely different from the plant that Rumphius described and figured, belonging in the section Citta, the pods with prominent oblique plaits across their faces. Most authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure have followed Loureiro's erroneous reduction. The forms indicated by Rumph- ius, 1. c, as nigra and macvlata are probably merely variants of this widely distributed species. MUCUNA PRURIENS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 405. Dolichos pruriens Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162 (type!). Stizolobium jjruriens Medic, in Vorles. Churpf. Phys. Ges. 2 (1797) 399. Carpopogon pruriens Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54. Negretia pruriens Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 411. Cacara pruritus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 393, t. 142. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but I have before me a single pod of the species originating in Amboina, received from the botanic garden, Buitenzorg, Java, through Prof. C. V. Piper, of the United States Department of Agriculture; it is apparently identical with the widely dis- tributed, low-altitude, Philippine form, but is not the same as much of the material in various herbaria labelled Mucuna pru- nens DC. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Dolichos pruriens Linn., and the species must ac- cordingly be interpreted from it. In the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1763) 1019, Linnaeus added certain ref- erences, to Jacquin, to Sloane, and perhaps the one to Rheede, that represent a species quite different from the Philippine and Moluccan Mucuna pruriens (Linn.) DC, and from these I'eferences the species has, by most authors, been erroneously interpreted. Retained name, Vienna Code; Zooptha7nnum P. Br. and Stizolobium P. ^^- (1756) are older. 278 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE MUCUNA MINIATA sp. nov. § Citta (?). Parrana mlniata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 10. Amboina, Paso and Roemah tiga, Robinson PL Rmnph. Amb. 566 (type) in thickets and forests at low altitudes, locally known as tali or tali-tali Frutex scandens usque ad 15 m altus, inflorescentiis exceptis glaber ; f oliolis firme chartaceis, in siccitate nigricantibus, nitidis, oblongis ad oblongo-ovatis, usque ad 14 cm longis, prominente subcaudato-acuminatis, lateralibus obliquis, basi rotundatis vel obscurissime subcordatis, nervis utrinque circiter 4; inflor- escentiis circiter 20 cm longis, minute adpresse cinereo- pubescentibus atque pilis paucis urentibus instructis, f asciculatis, caulifloris; floribus miniatis, 6 ad 7 cm longis, calycis dentibus prominentibus, inferioribus angustis, 5 ad 7 mm longis. A scandent shrub attaining a height of 15 m, glabrous except the inflorescence, deciduous. Branches slender, smooth, terete. Petioles 6 to 8 cm long. Leaflets firmly chartaceous, blackish when dry, shining, 10 to 14 cm long, 5 to 6 cm wide, oblong-ovate to oblong, the terminal one equilateral, lateral ones more or less oblique, apex rather prominently subcaudate-acuminate, acumen 1 to 1.5 cm long, blunt, base rounded or shallowly and obscurely cordate; lateral nerves about 4 on each side of the midrib, pro- minent, curved-ascending, obscurely anastomosing, the rachis extended about 2.5 cm beyond the insertion of the lateral leaflets, the petiolules black, 4 to 5 mm long. Plant leafless at time of flowering, the racemes up to 20 cm in length, fascicled on nodules along the trunk or larger branches, appressed cinereous-pubes- cent with short hairs, with a few, longer, yellowish-brown, still, stinging hairs intermixed, the indumentum more prominent on the calyx and pedicels than on the rachis. Flowers vermilion, 6 to 7 cm long, somewhat curved, their pedicels mostly in pairs, slender, about 2 cm long, spreading. Calyx cup-shaped, the tube about 8 mm long, the teeth rather prominent, the upper one stouter than the others, 3 to 4 mm long, the two lateral ones slenderly acuminate, about 3 mm long, the lower one linear, 3 to 7 mm in length. Standard 3.5 cm long, about 2 cm wide, blunt; wings rather strongly falcate, acuminate, up to 6 cm long, about 12 mm wide. Keel slightly longer than the wings. somewhat rostrate, outer margins ciliate in the lower pai't Ovary and style hirsute. Fruit unknown. This species is well characterized by its glabrous leaves, rather large, crimson flowers, and prominent, slender calyx teeth. I' belongs with a group of species found in New Guinea, including Mucuna novo-guineensis Scheff ., M, bennettii F. Muell., and M- kraetkei Warb. Scheffer's species has bright orange flowers. LEGUMINOSAE 279 but the other two have red flowers. Warburg's species is dis- tinguished by having short calyx teeth. Mueller's species differs from the Amboina form in its distinctly larger flowers and very much longer calyx teeth. I am under obligations to Prof. A. J. Ewart, curator of the national herbarium at Melbourne, for a flower of d'Albertis's specimen, the type of Mucuna bennettii F. MuelL, for purposes of comparison, as well as for a copy of Mueller's original description of the species. MUCUNA AT ERR I MA (Piper & Tracy) comb. nov. Stizolobium aterrimum Piper & Tracy in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. PL Ind. Bull. 179 (1910) 18, t. 4, /. B, t. 7. Cacara nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 381, t. 138. Cacara pilosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 392. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. However, Cacara nigra is manifestly a Mucuna and is certainly synonymous with the form recently described by Piper and Tracy as Stizolobium aterrimum, as indicated by the Rumphian de- scription, rather poor figure, and especially the data as to the pods ''ad ventrum tribus protuberantibus costis notati,'' and the seeds *'primo rubentia, dein fusca, ac tandem nigerrima, glabra & splendentia.'' Stizolobium aterrimum was described from cultivated specimens originating in Brazil, Australia, Cochin-China, Barbadoes, Mauritius, Java, and Ceylon. Lin- naeus erroneously reduced Cacara nigra to Phaseolus unguicu- kitiis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, and to Dolichos unguicu- latus Linn., in Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1019, with which species it has nothing in common. He was followed by Burman f., Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Persoon, Henschel, Pritzel, and Miquel. By other authors, Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 255, it was reduced, with doubt, to Mucuna capitata DC, v/hich it certainly is not; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 228, thought that it might be referable to Dolichos dasycarpus ^li(l=Dysolobium dolichoides (Roxb.) Prain. Piper and Tracy,* discuss Cacara nigra under Stizolobium capitatum (Roxb.) 0. K\xnize=Mucuna capitata DC, but on account of the unsatisfactory figure given by Rumphius failed to recognize ^t as their Stizolobium aterrimum, while excluding it as a syn- ^^nym of S. capitatum O. Ktze. In spite of the poor figure the description of the fruit and flower characters applies very closely ^^ all particulars to Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr. The Florida velvet bean and related plants. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. PL ^"(^' Bull. 179 (1910) 13. 280 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE From the rather full data given by Rumphius I am unable to distinguish from this species the form described by Rumphius as Cacara pilosa. He contrasts it with Cacara nigra, but ap- parently considered it distinct from the latter chiefly because it was a wild, not a cultivated plant. Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 181, erroneously cites the name Cacara pilosa as a syn- onym of Phaseoliis pilosus Klein and erroneously cites t U2 >(=Mucuna pruriens DC.) as representing Cacara pilosa. As noted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 136, it is close to Mucuna utilis Wall., but that species has the pods covered with a tawny pubescence. It differs from Mucuna velutina Hassk. in its purple, not white flowers. The chief objection to the iden- tification of Cacara pilosa Rumph. with Cacara nigra Rumph. =Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr. is that Rumphius describes the former as having more pubescent leaves than the latter. DIOCLEA Humbolt, Bonpland, and Kunth DIOCLEA REFLEXA Hook. f. Niger Flora (1849) 306. Parrana rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 9, t. 5. Amboina, Toelehoe, Paso, and Amboina, in thickets at low altitudes and along the beach, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S97, November, 1913. Parrana rubra Rumph., one of the '*sea beans," is fairly well described but very poorly figured by Rumphius. It has remained doubtful up to the present time, but I feel confident that it is the widely distributed Dioclea reflexa Hook, f . in spite of the poor figure. Miquel thought that the figure represented a species of Mucuna, and Teysmann thought it was a species of Denis. The description of the seeds applies closely to those of Dioclea reflexa, but the figure does not show their peculiar hilum character. CANAVALIA * de Candolle CANAVALIA MICROCARPA (DC.) comb. nov. Lablab microcarpus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402 (type!). Canavalia turgida Grab, in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5534. Cacara litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 390, t. 1^1, f. 1. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 562, October 29, 1913, in fruit, climbing in thickets back of the beach; town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 561, October 26, 1913, in flower, in thickets along stream?, locally known as katjang hor. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad 4 (1759) 132, reduced Cacara litorea, with doubt, to Dolkho^ * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Canavali Adans. (1763) and Cl^' mentea Cav. (1804) are older. LEGUMINOSAE 281 lablab Linn., with which species it has nothing in common. Lablab microcarpus DC. apparently supplies the oldest valid specific name for the species, which is here accepted, although unfortunately not an appropriate specific name, as the fruits are by no means *'smair' in this species. The synonymy of the species is rather complicated, and has been discussed by Prain,* who concludes that the name Canavalia obtusifolia DC. is properly applicable to this form with the wide pods and prominent keels or ridges. Canavalia obtiisi folia DC. was based on Dolichos obtusifolius Lam., an American plant. Dolichos rotundifolius Vahl was also described from American specimens, and I believe that this name, as well as Canavalia obtusifolia (Lam.) DC, is a synonym of Canavalia lineata (Thunb.) DC. Katu-tjandi Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 8: 83, t, iS, included pods of both Canavalia lineata DC. and C turgida Grsih.^Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 136, leaves Cacara litorea as a synonym of Lablab vulgaris Savi, which is an entirely wrong disposition of it. The Rumphian figure is very greatly reduced, whence de Candolle's inappropriate specific name. CANAVALIA LINEATA (Thunb.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404. Dolichos lineatus Thunb. Fl. Jap. (1784) 280. Dolichos obtusifolius Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 295. Dolichos rotundifolius Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 81. Canavalia obtusifolia DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404. Cacara litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 390 quoad descr. p. p., non t. IJ^l, t. 1. [See Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr.]. Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rurnph. Amb. 553, September 4, 1913, along the strand. This strand form, apparently always growing on the loose sand of the beach, is not to be confused with Canavalia micro- carpa (DC.) Merr. (C. turgida Grab.), which grows in thickets back of the beach. It is apparently included in the description of Cacara litorea Rumph., but is not the form figured by him ; ^ee Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr., page 280. CANAVALIA GLADIATA (Jacq.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404. Dolichos gladiatus Jacq. Coll. 2 (1788) 276. Canavalia gladiata DC. war. machaeroides DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404 (type!). Canavalia machaeroides DC. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 273 (type!). Lobus machaeroides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 376, t. 135, f. 1. This cultivated bean is not represented in our Amboina col- *Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66' (1897) 419. 282 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE lections. The figure and description manifestly apply to the form generally known as Canavalia gladiata DC, which is found in scattered cultivation in most tropical countries. Linnaeus originally, but erroneously, reduced Lobits machaeroides to Dolh chos ensiformis Ijmn,=Canavalia ensiformis DC, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1022, in which he was followed by Burman f., Lamarck, and Loureiro. Willdenow, Sp. PL 3 (1800) 1039, referred it to Dolichos gladiatus, which as Canavalia gladiata (Jacq.) DC. is the correct disposition of it. Canavalia machaeroides DC. (C gladiata DC var. machaer- oides DC) is based wholly on Rumphius and thus becomes a synonym of Canavalia gladiata (Jacq.) DC, although placed In Index Kewensis as a synonym of Canavalia cathartica Thouars. PUERARIA de Candolle PUERARIA PHASEOLOIDES (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 9 (1867) 125. Dolichos phaseoloides Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 316. Phaseolus minimus sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 887? Amboina, Soja road, Batoe gadjah, and Amboina (town), Robinson PI Rumph,. Amb, 607, July and August, 1913, in thickets and waste places, sea level to an altitude of 200 meters, locally known as katjang panjang. The species briefly described by Rumphius is referred here with some doubt, although the description applies closely to Pueraria 'phaseoloides Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 136, thought that it might be Glycine mollis W. & A. Phaseolus minimus Rumph., described in the same chapter and figured. is Phaseolus aureus Roxb. CAJANUS * de Candolle CAJANUS CAJAN (Linn.) Millsp. in Field. Columb. Mus. Bot. 2 (19001 53. Cytisus cajan Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 739. Cytisiis pseudo-cajan Jacq. Hort. Vind. 2 (1772) 54, t. 119. Cajan inodorum Medic, in Vorles. Churpf. Phys. Ges. 2 (1787) 363. Cajaniis bicolor DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 85. Cajanus indicus Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 248. Phaseolus balicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 377, t. 135, /. 2. Amboina, Koesoe koesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Am.b. 551, August ^ - 1913, locally known as kajan kay. Phaseolus balicus was originally reduced by Linnaeus to hi^ Cytisus cajan, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad- 4 (1759) 132, to which it certainly belongs. The oldest vaW * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Cajan Adans. (1763) is older. LEGUMINOSAE 283 specific name is that supplied by the Linnean binomial, which is here accepted in place of the almost universally used Cajantcs indicus Spreng. PHASEOLUS Linnaeus PHASEOLUS VULGARIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 723. Phaseolus scriptus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 382? Faba rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 382? Both of the above plants, very briefly described by Rumphius, were exotics, which had been introduced into Amboina and cultivated. Both of them may possibly be forms of Phaseolus vulgaris Linn., but this disposition of them is a mere guess. PHASEOLUS AUREUS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 55, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 297. Phaseolus mungo auctt., non Linn. Phaseolus radiatus auctt., non Linn. Phaseolus minimus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 386, t. 1S9, f, 2. The commonly cultivated and well-known mung bean is not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus originally reduced Phaseolus minimus Rumph. to P. radiatus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, in which he has been followed by all authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure and description. However, Phaseolus radiatus Linn, is not the mung bean, but is the form described by Roxburgh as Phaseolus sub- lohatus Roxb. Phaseolus max Linn., also referred to the mung by some authors, is the soy bean, Glycine max (Linn.) Merr. (Soja max Piper, Glycine hispida Maxim.) ; see page 274. Phaseolus mungo Linn, is a species distinct from P. aureus Roxb. (P. radiatus auctt.), the urd, or black gram, of India.* PHASEOLUS CALCARATUS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54, nomen nudum, PL Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 289. Phaseolus cylindraceus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 389? Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 23S, October 6, 1913, m thickets, altitude about 90 meters. I am not sure that the plant here cited represents either naseolus cylindraceus Rumph. or F. calcaratus Roxb. The specimen is identical with the widely distributed, wild Philippine '^'^>im that I have referred to Phaseolus calcaratus Roxb.f, which Piper, C. V. Five Oriental species of beans. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bull ^""Q (1914) 1-32, t. 1-6, gives critical consideration of the mung bean and Its allies. 'Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 132. 284 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE differs from typical P. calcaratus in its more scandent habit and in its smaller seeds. VIGNA Savi VIGNA SINENSIS (Linn.) Endl. ex Hassk. PI. Jav. Ear. (1848) 386. Dolichos sinensis Linn. Cent. PI. 2 (1756) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, 326 (type!). Dolichos sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 375, t. 13Ii, This cultivated species is not represented in our Amboina col- lections, but the identity of Dolichos sinensis is unmistakable from Rumphius's figure and description. It is the commonly cultivated bean in southern China and the Indo-Malayan region with very long pods, indicated by Rumphius as "ulnam circiter longae." It is known in the Philippines as sitao, a name of Chinese origin, corresponding to the Chinese name tsjaitau quoted by Rumphius. Dolichos sinensis Rumph. is the whole basis of Dolichos sinensis Linn. Linnaeus took his name and brief description from Rumphius. I have not seen the original edition of the Centuria Plantarum 2 (1756), but in the reprint, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 326, and in the reprint of Stickman's Herbarium Amboinense, 1. c. 132, the Rumphian reference is the whole basis of the species as proposed by Linnaeus. All early authors follow Linnaeus in quoting the Rumphian figure under Dolichos sinensis Linn., but some of the more recent ones, Hasskarl and Miquel, quote it under Vigna sinensis where it properly belongs. Vigna sinensis (Linn.) Endl., however, has not always been correctly interpreted by recent authors, but strictly must be limited to the form of the cow pea with the very long pods. VIGNA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) comb. nov. Phaseolus cylindricus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132 (type!). Dolichos catjang Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 269. Phaseolus unguiculatus auctt., non Dolichos unguiculatus Linn. Phaseolus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 383, t. 139, /. 1. This cultivated bean is not represented in our Amboina col- lections. The Rumphian figure and description of Phaseolus minor are the whole basis of Phaseolus cylindricus Linn. (1759), a name that has been overlooked by all subsequent authors, and which is not listed in Index Kewensis. It antedates Dolichos catjang Linn, and supplies the earliest valid specific name for the common cow pea. This form, with the short pod^' by some authors has been considered either as identical witn Vig7ia sinensis (Linn.) Endl. or as a variety of it. Modern LEGUMINOSAE 285 authors have generally considered it as a distinct species, some under the name Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp. However, Dolichos unguiculatus Linn., the basis of Vigna unguiculata Walp., is Phaseolus unguiculatus (Linn.) Piper, in Torreya 12 (1912) 190 {Phaseolus antillanus Urban), and has nothing to do with Vigna, with which it has been confused. Linnaeus cites the Rumphian name and figure in the original publication of Dolichos catjang (1771), in which he was followed by Bur- man f., Murray, Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Persoon, de Candolle, Don, and other authors. Rumphius described two forms, I albus and II ruber, which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 135, indicated as Vigna catjang var. alba Hassk. and r. catjang var. ruber Hassk., respectively. Both are probably merely cultural forms of the species. VIGNA MARINA (Burm.) comb. nov. Phaseolus marinus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [17] (type!). Dolichos luteus Sw. Prodr. Veg. Ind. Occ. (1788) 105. Vigna lutea A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 452. Phaseolus maritimus Rumphi Herb. Amb. 5: 391, t. 1^1, f. 2. Amboina, Hatiwe and Eri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 536, September, 1913, along the strand, locally known as katjang laut. The specific name above adopted for this well-known and widely distributed strand plant seems to be the oldest valid one for it. Burman's species is typified by the Rumphian figure and descrip- tion, the figure being an excellent representation of the plant commonly called Vigna lutea A. Gray. It is one of the few species published by Burman in the Index Universalis issued with Volume VII (Auctuarium) of the Herbarium Amboinense. PACHYRRHIZUS* Richard PACHYRRHI2US EROSUS (Linn.) Urban Symb. Antil. 4 (1905) 311. Dolichos erosus Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 726. Dolichos bulbosus Linn Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1021. Pachyrrhizus angulatus Rich, ex DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402. Pachyrrhizus bulbosus Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 45' (1876) 246. Cacara erosa O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 1 (1891) 165. Cacara bulbosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 373, t 132, /. 2, The common yam bean is not represented in our Amboina col- |ections. It was introduced into Amboina from the Philippines, having been brought to the latter group from Mexico by the Spanish colonists. Cacara bulbosa was originally reduced by * Retained name, Vienna Code; Cacara Thou. (1805) is older. 286 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Linnaeus to Dolichos erosus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen, Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1163; but in the second edition of his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 1021, he placed it under Dolichos bulbosus Linn., which is manifestly a synonym of the earlier Z). erosus Linn. By most recent authors it has been considered to be Pachyrrhizus angula- tus Rich., but this name must be abandoned for the much earlier Linnean one. PSOPHOCARPUS * Necker PSOPHOCARPUS TETRAGONOLOBUS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 403. Dolichos tetragonolohus Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1020 (type!). Botor tetragonoloba O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 1 (1891) 162. Lobus quadrangularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 374, t. 133. This well-known species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but is doubtless still cultivated there as it is in most parts of the Indo-Malayan region. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Dolichos tetragonolohus Linn., and it has been consistently cited by all authors under that name or its modern equivalent, Psophocarpus tetragonolohus DC. DOLICHOS Linnaeus DOLICHOS LABLAB Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 725. Dolichos lignosus Linn. L c. 726. Dolichos albus Lour. FL Cochinch. (1790) 439. Lablab vulgaris Savi Diss. (1821) 19. Lablab perennans DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402. Cacara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 378, t. 136. Cacara alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 380, t. 137. Amboina, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 552, August 23, 1913, locally known as kakara puti. The specimen represents one of the several distinct forms of this variable species; in the shape of its pod it is somewhat different from both of the forms figured by Rumphius. Two distinct forms are figured and described by Rumphius: Cacara, with purple flowers, and Cacara alba, with white flowers. These are now, however, generally considered to represent a single species. Cacara was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Dolichos lignosus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, and ha? been cited by various authors under the names Dolichos aUissi- mus Lour, and Lablab vulgaris Savi, both synonyms of Dolicho>^ ♦Retained name, Vienna Code; Botor Adans. (1763) is older. OXALIDACEAE 287 laUab Linn. Cacara alba was cited by Loureiro in the original description of Dolichos albus Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 439, and has been cited by various authors under Lablab perennans DC, Lablab vulgaris Savi, and Lablab cultratus DC, all syn- onyms of Dolichos lablab Linn. Some authors, after Adanson, have maintained Lablab as a genus distinct from Dolichos Linnaeus, but I interpret Dolichos lablab Linn, as the type of the genus Dolichos, it being the first species cited in the Species Plantarum, while the generic descrip- tion, as given in the Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) 324, conforms to the characters of this species. LEGUMINOS^ OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Crotalaria montana VIM tsjeme tsjeme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146. A shrub from Macassar, Celebes, in sufficiently described, but manifestly a representative of the Leguminosae. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 176, thought that it might be a species of Sophora, near S. glabra Hassk. Aeschynomene theophrasti Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 124. Burman f. referred this to Aeschynomene aspera Linn., but there is no warrant for this reduction. Rumphius merely discusses the plant as de- scribed by Theophrastus. OXALIDACEAE AVERRHOA Linnaeus AVERRHOA BILIMBI Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 428. Blimbingum teres Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 118, t. 36. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 219, August 13, 1913, locally known as blimbing. This is one of the few Rumphian species that Linnaeus reduced in the first edition of his Species Plantarum, the Rumphian citation appearing in Sp. PL (1753) 428, and in all of Linnaeus's subsequent works in which the species is considered. The reduc- tion is certainly correct, and Linnaeus has been followed by all ^^ubsequent authors. AVERRHOA CARAMBOLA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 428. Prunum stellatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 115, t. 35. Amboina, from cultivated plants near the town of Amboina, Robinson '^- Rumph. Amb. 218, August 23, 1913, locally known as blimbing manis. This Rumphian species, like the preceding one, was reduced by Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753) 428, appears in the subsequent writings of the same author in ^^nich Averrhoa is considered, and the reduction, certainly cor- ^^ct, has been accepted by all subsequent authors. 288 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE BIOPHYTUM de Candolle BIOPHYTUM SENSITIVUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 690. Oxalis sensitiva Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 434. Herba sentiens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 301, t. 101^, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 217, July 20, 1913, along ditches in rocky soil, altitude 5 to 10 meters. Herba sentiens Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Oxalis sensitiva, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1038, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 622, which is certainly correct. The plant is now known as Biophy- turn sensitivum (Linn.) DC, and most authors who have cited the Rumphian figure since 1824 have so placed it. Miquel however, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1- (1858) 134, considers that the Rumphian figure represents Oxalis 7'einwardtii Zucc, which he maintains as a species distinct from Biophytum sensitivum (Linn.) DC. OXALIS Linnaeus OXALIS REPENS Thunb. Diss. OxaL (1781) 16. Oxys lutea indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 277. Amboina, on walls in the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 216 y July 22, 1913, locally known as daun kelauwar. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 107, and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 285, place Oxys lutea indica under Oxalis corniculata Linn., and most authors have considered Oxalis repens Thunb. to be a synonym of the older Linnean species. However, Dr. B. L. Robinson * has shown that two species are involved in what is generally called Oxalis corniculata Linn. The actual Amboina specimens, like most or all the material from the Malayan region usually called Oxalis corniculata Linn., are actually referable to Thunberg's species, as the two forms are distinguished by Doctor Robinson. RUTACEAE F AGAR A Linnaeus FAGARA TORVA (F. Muell.) Engl, in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3* (1895) 119. Zanthoxylum torvum F. Muell. Fragm. 7 (1871) 140. Zanthoxylum glandulosum T. & B. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 234. nomen nudum, Nugae syivarum silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 124. Amboina, Paso, on trees at low altitudes, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. -'t. October 29, 1913. * Journ. Bot. 44 (1906) 391. RUTACEAE 289 Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 99, has suggested that Nugae sylvarum silvestris might be a Zanthoxylum, With Amboina material that certainly represents the Rumphian species, this supposition can now be verified. The specimen is a very close match for Hochreutiner's PL Bogor. Exsiccatae No, 28, which is typical Zanthoxylum glandulosum T. & B., and which Hochreu- tiner interprets as typical Zanthoxylum torvum F. Muell. The same form is found in Luzon, Leyte, and Mindanao in the Philip- pines, so that the known range of the species is now from Luzon to Java, the Moluccas, and tropical Australia. FAGARA sp. Panax ? anisum DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 254 (type!). Nothopanax ? anisum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1857) 766 (type!). Anisum moluccanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 131, t, 1^2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The description in all respects applies to Fagara {Zanthoxylum) , but without specimens I am unable definitely to refer Anisum moluccanum Rumph. to any described Malayan species. So far as can be determined from the description, Panax anisum DC. is based wholly on Rumphius, Nothopanax anisum Miq. being merely a transfer of de Candolle's name. Henschel erroneously referred the Rumphian species to Zanthoxylum aromaticum Willd., an American species. The figure closely resembles Fagara avicennae Lam. EVODIA Forster EVODIA LATI FOLIA DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 724 (type!). Ampacus latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 186, t. 61, This species was based wholly on Rumphius and must be interpreted entirely from the Rumphian figure and description. F^'odia latifolia DC. has been interpreted by recent authors as being represented by Philippine specimens collected by (uniing^ but the Philippine material has been described under ^^vo different names, Evodia bintoco Blanco and Evodia philip- pniemis Merr. Burman f. thought that the plant figured by ^^"Umphius might be a species of Rhus, Lamarck a Premma ^'" ^ ^i(^x, and Poiret, with doubt, an Aubertia, De Candolle^ however, based his Evodia latifolia wholly on Rumphius. has also been called Zanthoxylum latifolium Don, Fagara ^^ ^ folia Roxb., and Zanthoxylum rumphianum Cham. It •^ undoubtedly a true Evodia. Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. j;^^- 3 (1867) 244, has redescribed Evodia latifolia DC. from ^ilmaheira specimens, and his description conforms closely 144971 19 290 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE to Philippine material referred to de Candolle's species. Am- boina specimens are desirable in order definitely to determine the true status of the species. EVODIA AMBOINENSIS sp. nov. Ampacus angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 188, t, 62. Amboina, Koesoejoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rmnph. Amb. 251 (type), October 3, 1913, in light woods at an altitude of about 225 meters; hills behind the town of Amboina, in light forests, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 252, October 27, 1913, locally known as gendarussa. Arbor parva, 8 ad 10 m alta, glabra, vel ramulis junioribus inflorescentiisque plus minusve cinereo-puberulis ; f oliis 3-f oliola- tis, foliolis petiolatis, firme chartaceis ad subcoriaceis, oblongis, usque ad 16 cm longis, acuminatis, basi acutis ad rotundatis, nervis utrinque 10 ad 12, subtus prominentibus ; paniculis axilla- ribus, pyramidatis, usque ad 13 cm longis, ramis patulis, mul- tifloris, floribus circiter 2.5 mm longis, ovario pubescente. A tree 8 to 10 m high, nearly glabrous, or the young branchlets and parts of the inflorescence more or less cinereous-puberulent. Branches terete, reddish-brown, often somewhat compressed at the nodes, smooth. Leaves opposite, 3-foliolate, their petioles 4 to 7 cm long ; leaflets in general oblong, firmly chartaceous to subcoriaceous, 9 to 16 cm long, 4 to 7 cm wide, entire, apex rather prominently acuminate, base acute to rounded, somewhat shining when dry, subolivaceous or somewhat pale, quite glabrous on both surfaces ; lateral nerves 10 to 12 on each side of the midrib. slender but prominent, anastomosing, the reticulations lax; pe- tiolules 3 to 5 mm long. Panicles axillary, pyramidal, slightly puberulent or nearly glabrous, up to 13 cm long, the branches spreading, the lower ones up to 7 cm long. Flowers white, numerous, their pedicels about 2 mm long. Sepals 4, ovate. obtuse, 0.5 mm long. Petals 4, elliptic-ovate, glabrous, slightly apiculate at the apex, 2 to 2.5 mm long; filaments elongated, glabrous; anthers 1.2 mm long. Ovary 4-lobed, pubescent. Fruit small, composed of two or three, nearly free, dehiscent cocci about 3.5 mm in length, the seeds blue-black, shining, about 2 mm in diameter. Ampacus angusiifolius has been confused with Evodia t^'^' phylla DC. by practically all authors since the publication oi the latter species in de Candolle's Prodromus 1 (1824) '^-^ which in turn was based on Fagara triphylla Lam., Encycl (1788) 447. The type of Fagara triphylla was a Philippi^^^ specimen, and it is Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr., in PhihP Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 375, where the complicated synon}T^.^ RUTACEAE 291 of the species is discussed. It is manifest, however, that most authors interpreted Evodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. not from the I hilippine specimen actually described, but from the Rumphian figure, for Lamarck in the original description of Fagara tri- phylla adds a reference to Ampacus angustifolia Rumph. The names Fagara triphylla ham,, Evodia triphylla DC, and Zan- thoxylum triphyllum Don all refer to Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr. as synonyms and cannot be applied to the Amboina plant. It was erroneously reduced by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1859) 671, to Zanthoxylum zeylanicum DC. Evodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. has been given a range of from Tenasserim to Japan southward through Malaya to New Guinea, and to it have been referred specimens representing at least four distinct species in two different genera. As already pointed out by me, true Zanthoxylum triphyllum Lam.=£'^'o- dia triphylla DC. is Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr., a species confined to the Philippines. Chinese material generally, but erroneously, referred to Evodia triphylla DC. is Evodia pteleae- folia (Champ.) Merr., in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 377; material from India, the Malay Peninsula, and the Sunda Islands for the most part is Evodia lunur-ankenda (Gaertn.) Merr., 1, c. 378 ; while the actual Ampacus angustifolius Rumph. of Amboina represents still another species, Evodia amboinensis Merr. de- scribed above. This is known only from Amboina, but ma- terial from other parts of the Moluccas and from New Guinea, erroneously referred by other authors to Evodia triphylla DC, may prove to be identical with the Amboina species. FLIN PERSIA R. Brown FLINDERSIA AMBOINENSIS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816) 650 (type!). Flindersia radulifera Spreng. Geschicht. Bot. 2 (1818) 76 (type!), ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 208. Arbor radulifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 201, t. 129. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Arbor radulifera Rumph. is the whole basis of Flindersia am- ^^ohiensis Poir. and of F. radulifera Spreng. The latter name does not appear in Index Kewensis. All descriptions of the species published, up to and including that of A. de CandoUe,'^ have been based on the data given by Rumphius, no botanist having had specimens. It is cultivated in the botanic garden ^t Buitenzorg, Java, according to botanical specimens named * Meliaceae in DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 735. 292 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Flindersia amboinensis Poir. from "III-A-7" and distributed from that institution. MURRAYA * Koenig MURRAYA PANICULATA (Linn.) Jack in Malay Miscel. 1 (1820) 31. Chalcas paniculata Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 68. Chalcas camuneng Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 104. Murray a scandens Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 233 (Neue Schliissel 91) (type!). Camunium japonense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 29, t. 18^ f. 2. Camunium javanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 27. Camunium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 26, t, 17. Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Arab. 2A9, September 13, 1913, from cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, locally known as kamuyieng; exactly COimunium japonense Rumph.! While the figures given by Rumphius represent two distinct forms, it is very doubtful whether or not two species are rep- resented. Specimens are found in herbaria that apparently present all intergradations between the form with small leaflets (Camunium japonense Rumph.) and the form with fewer and larger leaflets (Camunium vulgare Rumph.). If but one species be represented, then the oldest valid name is Murraya paniculata (Linn.) Jack, and pending a critical revision of the genus it is probably best to consider both forms described by Rumphius as representing one variable species. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, erroneously reduced Camunium japonense to Vitex pinnata Linn., the latter being given by some authors as a synonym of Aglaia odorata Lour. However, Vitex pinnata Linn, was based on FL ZeyL 415, and Hermann's specimen is Vitex altissima Linn.f The reduction of Camunium japonense to Murraya exotica Linn, was made by Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 382, in which he has been followed by numerous authors. Camunium vulgare Rumph. was placed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 104, as a synonym of Chalcas camuneng, but Chalcas camuneng Burm. f. was primarily based on Javan specimens from cultivated plants. Linnaeus based his Chalcas paniculata on Burman's species and also cited Rumphius. Whether the form actually in Burman's hands was the one with small leaflets (typical Murraya exotica Linn.) or with fewer and larger leaflets is impossible to determine from the original descrip- tion, but it was probably the former. Murraija sumatraM * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Camunium Adans. (1763), Chalet- Linn. (1767), and Bergera Koenig (1771) are older. t See Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 3 (1895) 358. RUTACEAE 293 Roxb. is apparently quite the same as Camunium vulgare Rumph. ; while Murrmja scandens Hassk., which does not appear in Index Kewensis, must be typified wholly by the Rumphian figure and description. The forms mentioned by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 91, as Camunium javanicum and Camunium e Macassar are both probably referable to Murraya paniculata (Linn.) Jack as here interpreted. FERONIA Correa FERONIA LIMONIA (Linn.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 4 (1914) 328. Schinus limonia Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 389. Limonia acidissima Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 554. Feronia elephantufn Correa in Trans. Linn. Soc. 5 (1800) 225. Anislfolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 133, t. 4S. Nothing resembling Anisifolium appears in our Amboina col- lections. Regarding the Rumphian figure, Swingle states that it is ''the wood apple or a very closely allied species.'' Linnaeus made the reduction to his Schinus limonia, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1759) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1034, and in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 554, to Limonia acidissima, the latter reduction being followed by most authors. Hamilton placed it under Feronia elephantum Corr., while Hass- karl places it under Hesperethusa acidissima Roem., a synonym of Feronia limonia (Linn.) Swingle. Rumphius's material was from Java where the species is still cultivated. AEGLE * Correa AEGLE MARMELOS (Linn.) Correa in Trans. Linn. Soc. 5 (1800) 223. Crataeva marmelos Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 444. Bilacus marmelos O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 98. Bilacus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 197, t. 81. Bilacus taurinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 199. This reduction of Bilacus was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Sp. PI ed. 2 (1762) 637, and is certainly the correct disposition of it. It was described and figured from cultivated specimens. ^ am unable definitely to place Bilacus amboinensis silvestris Rumph., Herb. Amb. 1 : 200, t, 28. It was erroneously reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. ^ (1759) 120, to Crataeva tapia Linn. Hamilton suggested that H might be an undescribed species of Aegle, but this is improb- able. The figure strongly resembles Crataeva religiosa Forst., Retained name, Brussels Congress; Belou Adans. (1763) is older. 294 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE but the description does not conform to Crataeva in the seed characters : 'In centro quatuor vel quinque locantur ossicula, a sese invicem remota, lanosa seu pilosa instar seminum Gossypii." In the original description Rumphius states that the flowers were unknown to him ; but in the plate, drawn after he became blind, the flowers are shown. His original material was from Manipa, Sula Islands, and Celebes, but in the supplementary data taken from the Auctuarium and appended to the original description he cites specimens from Leytimor, Amboina, and states regarding the fruit : 'Tructus est instar ovi minoris avis Casuarii." It is possible that the description was based on material from two different species. The figure, however, con- forms to the characters of Bilacus amboinensis silvestris as given in the text. In some respects the figure and description suggest Chaetospermumy typified by the Philippine Chaetosper- mum glutinosum (Blanco) Swingle, but Bilacus amboinensis silvestris Rumph. can hardly belong in the Rutaceae, FORTUNELLA Swingle FORTUNELLA JAPONICA (Thunb.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 171, /. S. Citrus japonica Thunb. Nov. Act. Upsal. 3 (1780) 199. Citrus madurensis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 467. Citrus inermis Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 393. Limonellus madurensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 110, t, SI. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 467, first reduced Limonellus madurensis to his Citrus madurensis, which Swingle considers to be a synonym of Citrus japonica Thunb, =F or tunella japonica Swingle. The plant is a native of China, and the only possible objection I note to the reduction of Limonellus madurensis is that Citrus japonica is not known to occur in the Malay Archi- pelago. However, Rumphius states that the plant was cultivated in Madura and at Batavia, Java, where it may have been intro- duced from China and where it has failed to persist. Hasskarl Neue Schlussel (1866) 32, suggests Atalantia monophylla DC as the proper reduction of Limonellus madurensis Rumph., but judging from the figure and description given by Rumphius the plant can hardly have been an Atalantia, ME ROPE M. Roemer MEROPE ANGULATA (Willd.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 423. Citrus angulata Willd. Sp. PL (1800) 1426 (type!). Sclerostylis spinosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 134. Limonia spinosa Spreng. Syst. Veg. 4' (1827) 162. RUTACEAE 295 Glycosmis spinosa Dietr. Syn. PL 2 (1840) 1409. Merope spinosa M. Roem. Syn. Mon. Hesp. 1 (1846) 44. Limonia angulosa W. & A. ex Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1859) 521 (type!). Atalantia longispina Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 41 ^ (1872) 295. Gonocitrus angulatus Kurz 1. c. 42^ (1874) 228, t. 18. Paramignya longispina Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 511. Paramignya angulata Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 43^ (1874) 135. Atalantia spinosa Hook. f. ex Koord. Exkurs. Fl. Java 2 (1912) 427. Limonellus angulosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 110, t. 32. The above formidable list of synonyms is copied from Swingle's paper on Merope.^ He has there given a critical consideration of Metope angulata (Willd.) Swingle and its numerous syn- onyms. Rumphius's figure and description are the whole basis of Citrus angulata Willd. and hence typify the species, which on Wight and Arnott's suggestion was transferred to Limonia as L. angulosus W. & A. by Miquel ; it is, therefore, also the type of Limonia angulosa W. & A. It is also the name-bringing syn- onym of both Gonocitrus angulatus Kurz and Paramignya angu- lata Kurz. Kurz was the first to recognize the identity of Limonellus angulosus Rumph. and its true relationships. CITRUS Linnaeus A number of representatives of the genus Citrus are figured and described by Rumphius, and these have been variously inter- preted by botanists. Some maintain that the species of this genus are reducible to a few polymorphous types with nu- merous varieties, while others maintain that the genus is composed of a large number of closely allied species. The probabilities are that there are relatively few species and that these have yielded numerous horticultural forms and hybrids; it is not at all improbable that natural hybrids occur. In such ^^ genus as Citrus it is naturally to be expected that authors have widely differed in interpreting the forms described by Rumphius. In relatively few cases is it possible definitely to determine from his figures and descriptions alone the exact 'Status of the several forms in our present system of classifica- tion. The Robinson Amboina collection presents but two species *^t Citnis, the common lime and the common pomelo, and na- turally helps but little in determining the status of the Rumphian '^Pecies or forms. Until extensive field work is prosecuted in he whole Malayan region and until the entire genus Citrus ^f^dergoes a very thorough and critical revision, any attempt Merope angulata, a salt-tolerant plant related to Citrus, from the *^aiay Archipelago. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 420-425. 296 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOfNENSE to interpret the Rumphian figures and descriptions must be unsatisfactory. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, reduced most of the forms that Rumphius figured to Citrus medica Linn, and Citrus aurantium Linn., which disposition of them is not at all satisfactory; yet succeeding attempts to interpret them are hardly more satis- factory. It is probable that all or most of them have been de- scribed by succeeding authors, but from descriptions alone it is quite impossible to determine precisely to what forms or species the Rumphian plants should be reduced. CITRUS AURANTI FOLIA (Christm.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 3 (1913) 465. Limonia aurantifolia Christm. Pflanzensyst. 1 (1777) 618. Limonia acidissima Houtt. Handl. 2^ (1774) 444, non Linn. Citrus lima Lunan Hort. Jamaic. 2 (1814) 451. Citrus acida Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 390. Citrus notissimus Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 607. Citrus limonellus Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 43. Limonellus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 107, t. 29. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 2U7y August 13, 1913, along roadsides, locally known as limon china. This is the common lime. Limonellus was erroneously re- duced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, to Citrus aurantium Linn. Both Houttuyn and Christmann cite the Rumphian figure, and Christmann's specific name is the oldest valid one for the species, as shown by Swingle. Blume cites the Rumphian plant as a synonym of Citrus javanica Blume, Bijdr. (1825) 140, while Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 32, places it under Citrus limonellus Hassk., the specific name being apparently taken from Rumphius. The form figured on the same plate by Rumphius, fig. A, Hasskarl, 1. c, considers as a variety, calling it Citrus limonellus var. oxycarpus Hassk. CITRUS MAXIMA (Burm.) comb. nov. Aurantium maximum Burm. ex Rumph. Herb, Amb. Auctuarium (1755) Ind. Univ. [16] (type!). Citrus grandis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 98. Citrus aurantium Linn. var. grandis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 783. Citrus decumana Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 508. LImo decumanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 96, t. 2U, /• 2. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 2US, August 17, 1^1^" altitude about 60 meters, locally known as limon. The common pomelo is commonly known as Citrus decuman^ Linn., but there are at least two older names, the older ot which is here accepted. Aurantium maximum Burm., a name RUTACEAE 297 not listed in Index Kewensis, is validly published by Burman in the general index to the Herbarium Amboinense by citation of the Rumphian name and description. It is to be noted that Burman on page [11] of the Index Universalis refers Limo decumanus Rumph. to Citrus aurantium Linn. Sv^ingle, in Sargent PL Wils. 2 (1914), has already pointed out that Citrus gramlis Osbeck antedates the publication of Citrus decumana Linn, and accordingly accepted Osbeck's specific name. Three forms described by Rumphius, //, ///, and /F, are all probably referable here; although Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 31, places them under the varieties pyriformis Hassk., leucosarca Hassk., and dulcis Hassk., respectively. CITRUS OBVERSA Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 218. Limo ferus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 106, t. 26, /. 3, t. 28. In this reduction I merely follow Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 32. The figures strongly resemble forms of Citrus hystrix DC, as de Candolle's species is currently interpreted; and Limo ferus Rumph., with Citrus obversus Hassk., may be merely a form of this polymorphous species. At any rate, the specific status of Citrus obversa Hassk. is very doubtful. CITRUS BERGAMIA Risso Hist. Nat. Or. Europ. Merid. (1826-28) t. 53. Limo taurinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 105. The status of both Citrus bergamina Risso, as a species, and of Limo taurinus Rumph. is very doubtful. The reduction fol- lows Miquel and Hasskarl. I suspect that Limo taurinus is merely a form of Citrus hystrix DC. CITRUS MEDICA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 782. Malum citrium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 99, t. 25. This was placed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 465, under Citrus medica Linn., and by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel* (1866) 31, under Citrus grandis Hassk. var. oblonga Hassk. CITRUS HYSTRIX DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 97. Limo tuberosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 101, t. 26, f. 1. Limo unguentarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 103. Limo agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 104, t. 27. The forms with the rugose fruits appear to be the same as ^he Philippine form described by Blanco as Citrus torosa. Limo merosus has been reduced to Citrus medica Linn, var., to C. matrix DC. var., and to Citrus bergamia Risso var. unguen^ ^^'^d Roem. Limo unguentarius has been reduced to Citrus '^^mica Linn, var., to C. hystrix DC. var., and to C. bergamia 298 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Risso var. unguentaria Roem. ; while Limo agrestis has been reduced to Citrus mediea Linn, var., C hystrix DC. var., C. bergamia Risso var. ventricosa Roem., Papeda rumphii Hassk., and Citrus papeda Miq. CITRUS AURANTIUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 782, var. Aurantium acidum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 111, t. S3. This figure seems to represent one of the sour oranges. It has been reduced by various authors to Citrus fusca Lour., C. aurantium Linn. var. vulgaris Risso, C. vulgaris Risso, C. amara Hassk., and C higaradia Risso. To Citrus aurantium should probably also be referred Aurantium verrucosum Rumph., Herb. Amb. 2: 116, of Banda, and Aurantium pumiliim madurense Rumph., 1. c, of Madura, and probably also the forms indicated as Aurantium acidum H and III on page 112. CITRUS NOBILIS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 466. Aurantium sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 113. Aurantium sinense II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 113. This is the common loose-skinned orange commonly referred to Citrus nobilis Lour. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 33, refers A. sinense to Citrus nobilis var. melanocarpa Hassk. and A. sinense II to C. nobilis var. microcarpa Hassk. CITRUS sp. Limo ventricosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 102, t, 26, /. 2. The figure represents a form somewhat approaching the true lemon. It has been reduced by various authors to Citrus mediea Risso, C. hystrix DC, C aurantium Linn. var. limonum Risso, C, bergamia Risso var. ventricosa Roem., and C. limonum Risso. CITRUS sp. Limonellus aurarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 109, t. 30. This has been reduced by various authors to Citrus aurantiim Linn., C. limetta Risso, C. limetta var. auraria Risso, and C hystrix DC. Its true position is very uncertain, but it may be a form of Citrus limetta Risso. CITRUS sp. Aurantium verrucosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 115, t. 35. This has been reduced by various authors to Citrus nobilis Lour., C, aurantium Linn., C. pompelmos var. racemosus Risso» C, decumana var. racemosa Roem., and C. decumana var. verrucosa Miq.; while Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 33, su^- SIMARUBACEAE 299 gests that it may be Citrus macracantha Hassk. The figure might be either a form of Citrus aurantium Linn, or a small- fruited form of Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr. (C decumana Linn.). SIMARUBACEAE BRUCEA J. S. Miller BRUCEA AMARISSIMA (Lour.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 10 (1915) Bot. 18. Gonus amarissimus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 658. Briicea sumatrana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 12 (type!), Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 449. Lussa radja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 27, t. 15. This characteristic and widely distributed Malayan species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure is the full basis of Brucea sumatrana Roxb. by citation in the original place of publication, Hort. Beng. (1814) 12. It is also cited by Loureiro in the original description of his Gonus amarissimus, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 658. The form "11 ex Solera'' Rumph., 1. c. 28, may be referable to the same species; it was characterized as differing from the Javan form in its longer inflorescences and in its larger and more intensely bitter fruits. AILANTHUS* Desfontaines AILANTHUS INTEGRIFOLIA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 417 (type!). Ailanthus moluccana DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 89 (type!). Arbor coeli Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 205, t. 132. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Arbor coeli Rumph. is the whole basis of Ailanthus (Aylanthus) Megrifolia Lam. as published in 1791, while A. moluccana DC, 1825, is merely a new name for Lamarck's species, so that both must primarily be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and fiescription. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 379, thought that it ^i^ht possibly be referable to Adenanthera falcataria Linn., ^^hieh is Albizzia falcata (Linn.) Backer (see p. 249) ; while Wenschel erroneously referred it to Connarus pentagynus Lam. SAMADERAf Gaertner SAMADERA INDICA Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 352, t. 156. Lanius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 194, t. 12Jf. Inis species is not represented in our Amboina collection. P^etained name, Vienna Code; Pongelion Adans. (1763) Is older. 'detained name, Vienna Code; Locandi Adans. (1763) is older. 300 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The figure is very poor and does not conform very well with Samadera indica Gaertn., although the plant described is cer- tainly referable to this genus. The only previously suggested reduction is Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 66, that it was a species of Samadera, Botan- ical material from the Moluccas may show Lanius to be speci- fically distinct from Samadera indica Gaertn. sou LA ME A Lamarck SOULAMEA AMARA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 449. Cardiocarpus amarus Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 14. Rex amaroris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 129, t. Ifl. The Rumphian species was first reduced by Linnaeus to Ophio- xylon serpentinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, an entirely erroneous disposition of it. Lamarck cites Rex amaroris Rumph. as a synonym of Soulamea amara Lam. in the original description of the genus and species, the description being based on actual specimens from New Britain ; it is barely possible that the Moluccan form is specifically distinct from the New Britain one, but this can be determined only by a comparison of specimens from these localities. BURSERACEAE CANARIUM Linnaeus CANARIUM DECUMANUM Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 99, t. 102. Pimela decumana Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 223. Canariopsis decumana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1859) 652. Canarlum decumanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 166, t. 55. This is not represented in our Amboina collections, and like several other species of the genus it must be interpreted largely from the description and the figure given by Rumphius. It is almost certain that the species as described by Engler, in DC Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 132, under Canarium decumanum is not the same as the plant that Rumphius described. The status of the species must av^ait the results of further field work. CANARJUM LEGITIMUM (Blume) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1859) 647. Pimela legitima Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 222. Dammara nigra legitima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 162, t. 53. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. It is probable that Blume in describing the species correctly reduced BURSERACEAE 301 the Rumphian plant. Blume's species was based on actual specimens with a reference to the Rumphian name and figure. CANARIUM BALSAMIFERUM Willd. Sp. PL 4' (1804) 760 (type!). Boswellia halsamifera DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 76 (type!). Pimela glabra Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1850) 222 (type!). Canariopsis glabra Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1859) 653 (type!). Canarium odoriferum leve Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 156, t. 50, This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The status of the species is wholly doubtful, and all the names cited above must be interpreted entirely from Rumphius, as all are based solely on his description and figure. Like a number of other species of Canarium, the exact status of Canarium balsa- miferum Willd. must await further botanical exploration of Amboina : the only certain thing about the status of the species is that it is a true Canarium. CANARIUM COMMUNE Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 127 (type!). Canarium mehenbethene Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 98, saltern quoad syn. Rumph. Canarium indicum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143 pro minore parte. Canarium moluccanum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 216. Canarium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 145, t. J^?, (excl. /. Ey F. G?). Amboina, Binting and the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. '^81, September 27, 1913, in flower; Gelala, Robinson PI. Ruinph. Amb. 380, July 16, 1913, in fruit, locally known as kanari. Canarium vulgare Rumph. is the whole basis of Canarium commune Linn., as originally published by Linnaeus in his Mantissa 1 (1767) 127, and the species must be interpreted from the Rumphian reference. The species has been correctly inter- preted by practically all authors, as it is widely destributed in the Malay Archipelago and is a characteristic and well-known one. Canarium indicum Linn., not listed in Index Kewensis, is ^^n older name, but I believe it should be abandoned for the reason that Linnaeus cited under it all the species of Canarium figured hy Rumphius, t, U7 to 56, inclusive. He abandoned the name, 'Apparently realizing later that numerous species were involved, ^^^tl made the first plate, t, U7, the type of his Canarium com- ftuine. While the first plate cited under Canarium indicum, ^hat is t. Jf7, might be interpreted as the type of Canarium ''>^ mtm Linn., it really represents that species only in small part. can see no valid reason for considering Canarium moluccanum '^unie other than a form of C. commune Linn. Figures E, F, 302 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE and G, of plate Jf7, probably represent merely variations of Canarium commune Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 36 places them under C. commune Linn, and C. moluccanum Blunie. CANARIUM HIRSUTUM Willd. Sp. PL 4' (1804) 760 (type!). Boswellia hirsuta DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 76 (type!). Piniela hirsuta Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 233 (type!). Canariopsis hirsuta Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1859) 653 (type!). Canarium odoriferum hirsutum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 157, t. 51. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Canarium hirsutum Willd. and all of the synonyms cited above must be interpreted v^holly from Rumphius, on whose description and figure all are based. The probabilities are that Canxirium his- pidum Blume v^ill prove to be a synonym of it, but additional botanical material from Amboina will be necessary before the exact status of Canarium hirsutum Willd. can definitely be fixed. CANARIUM ACUTIFOLIUM (DC.) comb. nov. Marignia acutifolia DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 79 (type!). Canarium nigrum Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 138. Pimela acutifolia Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 221, excl. syn. Zipp. Dammara nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t. 52. Amboina, Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S77, October 3, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 300 meters, locally known as nanari. Marignia acutifolia DC. was based entirely on the Rumphian reference cited above and must be interpreted from it and from Amboina material. After a careful study of the description as given by Rumphius, I am convinced that the specimen cited above, although v^ith an abnormal fasciated inflorescence, rep- resents the plant described and in all probability the one figured. although the figure is crude and unsatisfactory. It is very certain that Canarium rostratum Zipp., referred here by Blume, is not the plant described or figured by Rumphius, but represents a distinct species apparently very closely allied to Canarium oleosum (Lam.) Merr. (C. microcarpum Willd.). It is to be noted that Blume, in citing Rumphius under Pimela acutifoli(^' erroneously gives the reference as ''Dammara nigra IL p. 1^^' t. 72/' instead of Canarium nigrum Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t- '^- as it should be. Canarium nigrum Roxb., which is scarcel} described by him, belongs here at least in part. It is not listed in Index Kewensis. He cites Dulcamara (sic!) nigra Rumpfi' Amb. II. 162. t 52 and 53, as representing Canarium nigr^^ Roxb; but the two plates manifestly represent two distinc species, the latter being Canarium legitimum Blume (see p. '^^^ ' BURSERACEAE 303 CANARIUM OLEOSUM (Lam.) Engl, in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3^ (1896) 241. Amyris oleosa Lam, Encycl. 1 (1783) 362 (type!). Canarium microcarpum Willd. Sp. PI. 4" (1805) 760 (type!). Nanarium minimum s. oleosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 162 (t. 54.?). Amboina, Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 376, October 3, 1913, in light forest at an altitude of 325 meters, locally known as nanari. Amyris oleosa Lam. and Canarium microcarpum Willd. are both based solely on Rumphius, and strictly must be interpreted by the Rumphian description and figure; they are, therefore, exact synonyms, and the older name is here retained. The reference of Nanarium. oleosum Rumph. to Pimela oleosa Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 408, is a manifest error, as Loureiro's species was described from Cochin-China material that in all probability represents a species different from the Amboina one. Even though Loureiro cites the Rumphian name as a synonym and took his specific name from Rumphius, the reference to the Herbarium Amboinense should be excluded in interpreting his species. The present interpretation of Canarium oleosum (Lam.) Engl, follows the conventional interpretation of Cana- rium microcarpum Willd., and the Amboina specimen cited agrees closely with other botanical material from the Moluccas, so named, and with Rumphius's description ; it does not, however, agree well with the figure given by Rumphius, which may in- dicate some mixture between the Rumphian figure and descrip- tion. Canarium rostratum Zipp. should be critically compared with it. CANARIUM SYLVESTRE Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 99, t. 102. Canarium silvestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 155, t. 49. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 378, September •iO, 1913, in forests, altitude 400 meters; Hitoe messen, Robinson PI. Rum.ph. Amb. 379, October 14, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as dammara itam, nanari, nanari utan, and nanari puti daun alus. The specimens agree closely with both the description and figure given by Rumphius, and undoubtedly represent his Canu- nuni silvestre alterum. While there may be some doubt as to whether or not the fruit figured by Gaertner represents the exact form described by Rumphius, still it seems best to retain ^^aertner's name in its accepted application, especially in view ^^ the fact that he cites the Rumphian figure and description as representing his species. The citation of Rumphius under ^^^^uiriiim sylvestre Gaertn. has been followed by all authors ^^cept Loureiro, who places it, with doubt, under Pimela nigra 304 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407, where it certainly does not belong. CANARIUM ZEPHYRINUM Blume Mus., Bot. 1 (1850) 217; Miq. F|. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1859) 643; March, in Baill. Adansonia 8 (1867-68) 53; Engl, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 149. Canarium zephyrinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 151. t. U8, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, unless it be a form of Canarium commune Linn., which seems to be very probable. The figure is rather crude, but certainly represents a form very closely allied to Canarium commune Linn., where it has been referred by many authors, including Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and Don. Canarium zephyrinum Blume is a species of doubtful status and in the latest monograph of the family is placed under Canarium among the * 'species dubiae.'* CANARIUM ZEYLANICUM (Retz.) Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218. Amyris zeylanica Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 25. Arbor zeylanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 153 (in Burm. obs.). The reduction follows Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218, as this is undoubtedly the correct disposition of Rumphius's Arbor zeylanica. CANARIUM PI MELA Konig in Konig & Sims Ann. Bot. 1 (1805) 361. Pimela nigra Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407. Canarium nigrum Engl, in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3 ^ (1896) 240, non Roxb. Canarium sinense I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 154? The identity of Canarium sinense I of Rumphius with Pimela nigra hour. =Cana7Hum pimela Konig is entirely problematical as the description is inadequate. I merely follow Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 220, in this reduction. Rumphius's material was from China. CANARIUM ALBUM (Lour.) Rausch ex DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 80. Pimela alba Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 408. Canarium sinense II Rumph Herb. Amb. 2: 154. The identity of Canarium sinense II with Pimela alba Lour. is more or less problematical, although Loureiro in the original publication of the species cites Rumphius, and the native nanie^ given by Rumphius agree with those cited by Loureiro. Rumphius's material was from China, not from Amboina. Engler, in DC. Monog. Fhan. 4 (1883) 149, places Canariinn album under the ''species dubiae." ^ *See Guillaumin, in Lecomte Fl. Gen. Indo-Chine 1 (1911) 714, who gives a full description and a figure of this species. MELIACEAE 305 PIMELA CARYOPHYLLACEA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1850) 222. Canarium sinense IN Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 154 (type!). Based originally on Chinese material by Rumphius. Pimela caryophyllacea Blume is based wholly on Rumphius's very brief description, and all that can be said regarding it is that it is probably a species of Canarium. CANARIOPSIS PAUCIJUGA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1=^ (1859) 653 (type!). Pimela paucijuga Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 226 (type!). Canarium odoriferum lave var. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 156. A species of entirely doubtful status, based wholly on the Rumphian description and to be interpreted solely by it. All that can be definitely stated regarding it is that it is a species of Canarium, Its further determination must await additional botanical material from Amboina. GARUGA Roxburgh GARUGA ABILO (Blanco) Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1905) 73. Giiiacum abilo Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 364. Garuga mollis Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 31 ' (1858) 475. Caprarra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 139? Capraria Rumph. is here tentatively referred to Garuga abilo Merr. The description applies closely, although Rumphius does not describe the flowers or the fruits. The only previously suggested reduction is Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 35, that Capraria might belong in the Sapindaceae. PROTIUM Burman f. PROTIUM JAVANICUM Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 88. Amyris protium Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 65. Tingulong Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 54, t. 23, f. 1. This reduction, manifestly the correct disposition of Tingu- ^^W, was made by Burman f. in the original description of Protium javanicum Burm. f . MELIACEAE TOON A Roemer "roONA SURENI (Blume) comb. nov. Swietenia sureni Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823) 72. Ceclrela febrifuga Blume Bijdr. (1825) 180. Surenus febrifuga O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL 1 (1891) 111. Surenus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 66, t, 39. ^^his is not represented in our Amboina collections. The ustration is unmistakably that of Cedrela, or Toona as the 144971 20 306 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Indo-Malayan representatives of the group are called by some botanists. More than one species may be included in the de- scription, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, definitely stating that three are represented ;. namely, Cedrela toona Roxb., C. febrifuga Blume, and C inodora Hassk. Roxburgh was the first botanist to recognize the approximate position of Surenm and reduced it to Cedrela toona Roxb., in Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 635. The typical form of Roxburgh's species is confined to India, but a few varieties occur in the Malay Archipelago and in Australia.* Surenus alba Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 126, is con- sidered by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, to represent Cedrela inodora Hassk., which species C. de Candolle treats as a variety of Cedrela febrifuga Blume; Cedrela febrifuga Blume var. inodora (Hassk.) C. DC, Records Bot. Surv. Ind. 3 (1908) 373. Hasskarl also refers to Cedrela febrifuga Blume the form described by Rumphius as Surenus rubra Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 126, which is probably the correct disposition of it. The oldest specific name, that supplied by Swietenia sureni Blume, is here adopted. XYLOCARPUS Koenig XYLOCARPUS GRANATUM Koen. in Naturf. 20 (1784) 2. Carapa obovata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 179. Xylocarpus obovatus Juss. Mem. Mus. Paris 19 (1830) 244. Carapa indica Juss. in Diet. Sci. Nat. 7: 31. Carapa moluccensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 621 p. p., quoad Rumph, t. 61, excl. descr. Monosoma littorata Griff. Notul. 4 (1854) 502. Granatum litoreum ill parvifollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 93, t 61 This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The description, but to a less degree the figure, given by HumphiuB is dearly Xylocarpus (Carapa) o6o?;a^2^s Juss., as cur- rently interpreted, but Xylocarpus obovatus Juss. is apparently identical with the earlier Xylocarpus granatum Koen. I^ Rumphius's description the shape of the leaves, rounded at the apex, and the size of the fruits, indicated as larger than those of Granatum litoreum I latifolium, are the determining points. The synonymy between Xylocarpus granatum Koen. (X. obo- vatus Juss.) and X, moluccensis Lam. as interpreted below, i-^ curiously confused. C. de Candolle f recognizes the two species Carapa obovata Blume and Carapa moluccensis Lam., ^^^ erroneously reduced Xylocarpus grarmtum Koen. to CanP * See C. de Candolle, Records Bot. Survey India 3 (1908) 346. fMonog. Phan. 1 (1878) 718, 719. MELIACEAE 307 moliiccensis Lam. Hiern "^ erred in referring both to a single species, Carapa moluccensis Lam. The type of Koenig's species was from the Tranquebar coast, India, and his description applies unmistakably to the form with obovate leaves and large fruits; that is, the species that grows in the mangrove swamps ; *'f olia * * * oblongo-clavata, rotundata;'' ^'Habitat in silvis rhizo- phoreis." Lamarck, in the original description of Carapa moluccensis, which was based wholly on ''Granatum litoreum s, Martahul Rumph. Amb. 3. p. 92. Tab. 61," confused the two forms; the plate reference is to Xylocarpus granatum Koenig, but the description that he compiled was from Granatum lito- reum I latifolium Rumph. as indicated by the page reference and his description. He disposed of t. 62 of the Herbarium Amboinense, to which his description wholly applies, thus: ''Variat foliis acutioribus. Ibidem t. 62.'' The two species are very strongly marked. Xylocarpus granatum Koen. grows in the mangrove swamps and has oblong to obovate leaflets, very large fruits, and a smooth, rather thin bark. Xylocarpus moluccensis Lam. grows on the open coasts and has usually ovate, acute leaflets ; much smaller fruits than X, granatum Koen. ; and a thick, very flaky bark. XYLOCARPUS MOLUCCENSIS (Lam.) M. Roem. Syn. Hesper. (1846) 124 (type!). Carapa moluccensis Lam. EncycL 1 (1785) 621, quoad descr., excl. Rumph. t. 61 (type!); C. DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 719, exd. syn. Koenig et Willdenow. Carapa rumphii KosteL Allg. Med.-Pharm. FL 5 (1836) 1988 (type!). Xylocarpus carnulosus ZolL & Mor. Nat. Geneesk. Arch. Neerl. Ind. 2 (1845) 582, ex descr. Xylocarpus forstenii Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868) 62, ex descr. Granatum litoreum I latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 92, L 62. Granatum litoreum Ml latlsslmum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 92. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 491, September 19, 1913, along the seashore. Lamarck, as noted above, in proposing the binomial Carapa ^^loluccensis, based his description on Granatum litoreum I lati- folium, but erroneously referred to his species t. 61 of the Her- barium Amboinense, which is Xylocarpus granatum Koenig. His species, manifestly, should be interpreted by the form de- scribed, rather than by the figure that he erroneously referred to it. The rather confused synonymy between Xylocarpus gra- ^^^tum Koenig and X. moluccensis M. Roem., is here discussed * Hooker f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 567. 308 PwUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE under the former. The Rumphian illustration, t, 62, is the type and whole basis of Carapa rumphii Kostel. Xylocarpus carnulosus Zoll. & Mor., type from eastern Java, and X, forstenii Miq., type from Celebes, appear to be synonymous with Xylo. carpus moluccensis M. Roem. SAN DORIC UM Cavanilles SANDORICUM KOETJAPE (Burm. f.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 237. Melia koetjape Burm. f. FL Ind. (1768) 101. Trichilia nervosa Vahl Symb. 1 (1790) 31. Sandoricum indicum Cav. Diss. 4 (1787) 359, t. 202, 203. Sandorlcum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 167, t. 6Jf. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^88, July 30, 1913, near the town of Amboina. The generic name Sandoricum was apparently taken from Rumphius, and the form figured and described by him has been consistently referred to Sandoricum indicum Cav., mani- festly a synonym of Melia koetjape Burm. f . Burman's specific name, being much the older, has been previously adopted by me, and under our rules of nomenclature it must be maintained. The forms briefly described by Rumphius as Sandoricum silvestre and Sandoricum Cajim Gulur are undoubtedly referable to Sando- ricum koetjape Merr., the former the spontaneous form with acid fruits, the latter with rather large, sweet fruits. Like most cultivated fruit trees, considerable variation is found in the characters of the fruit of the santol. DYSOXYLUM Blume DYSOXYLUM EUPHLEBIUM Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 305. Alliaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 81, t. 20. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. US9, November ^n 1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters. This specimen certainly represents Alliaria Rumph., of which Rumphius figured a fruiting specimen. It is also apparently identical with the Philippine Dysoxylum euphlehium Merr., as a careful comparison between the specimen and the type of the latter species shows no essential differential characters. It i? not Dysoxylum alliaceum Blume, which was described fi^o^^ Javan specimens. It was referred to Dysoxylum alUaceutn Blume, Bijdr. (1825) 172, which disposition of it was accepted by Henschel, Walpers, Dietrich, and Miquel. Hamilton, Mem Wern. Soc. 6' (1832) 305, placed it under Guarea alliaria Ham.. MELIACEAE 309 the actual type of which, however, was a Bengal plant that is Dysoxylum hamiltonii Hiern. Hasskarl, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1844) 221, erroneously reduced it to Hartighsea forsteri J\xss.=Dysoxyhtm forsteri C. DC, a species of Australia and Polynesia; while Roemer, Hesper. (1844) 101, placed it under Prasoxylum alliaceum Roem., presumably a synonym of Dysoxy- lum alliaceum Blume, of Java and Sumatra. DYSOXYLUM sp. Arbor nussalavica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 14, t. 8, f. 2. Manifestly this is a species of Dysoxylum, and one that should be readily recognized when once collected. Hamilton thought it was referable to the genus Guarea, and Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, thought it was referable to Epicharis=Dysoxylum Blume. DYSOXYLUM sp. Arbor sebi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 7. The plant described was from Java, there known as cadoja. This name is still applied to two or more species of Dysoxylum in Java, so that Arbor sebi is probably referable to this genus. LANSIUM (Rumphius) Correa LANSIUM DOMESTICUM Correa in Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 10 (1807) 157, L 10, /. 1; Poir. in Lam. Encyd. Suppl. 3 (1813) 299; Jack in Trans. Linn. Soc. 14 (1823) 115, t. 4. Lansium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 151, t. 5Jf. This common and well-known Malayan fruit tree is not rep- resented in our Amboina collections. Lansium was originally reduced, with doubt, to Averrhoa acida Linn, by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, in which he was followed by a few authors. Correa, Jack, Poiret, and recent authors generally, have referred it to Lansium domesticum, the correct disposition of it. The generic name Lansium is taken from Rumphius, and by some authors Rumphius is quoted as its author. The tree is commonly cultivated in most parts of the Malayan region, but like many other cultivated plants, it is poorly represented in herbaria. AGLAIA Loureiro AGLAIA ODORATA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 173. Camunium sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 26, t. 18, f. 1. Tsjiulang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 38. This commonly cultivated ornamental tree is not represented iJi our Amboina collections, but the figure cited and both of the m is 310 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE descriptions apply unmistakably to this well-marked species Camunium sinense Rumph. was cited by Loureiro as a synony.,, of Aglaia odorata Lour, in the original description of that species' in which reduction he has been followed by practically all authors, as it is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Vite:r pinnata Linn., Sp. PI. (1753) 638, is cited in Index Kewensis as a synonym of Aglaia odorata Lour., but it is not clear on what grounds. It is based wholly on Pistacio-vitex Linn., Fl. Zeyl. No. U5, the description of which is clearly a Vitex, certainly no meliaceous plant. Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 3 (1895) 358, after examining Hermann's specimen, considers it to be a variety of Vitex altissima Linn. f. Druce, Bot. Exch. Club (1914) 413, has erroneously transferred Vitex pinnata Linn, to Aglaia as A. pinnata (Linn.) Druce, as the equivalent of Aglaia odorata Lour. Tsjiulang, as described by Rumphius in the Auctuarium is clearly the same as Camunium sinense Rumph., the common name of the latter being also tsjiulang, Hasskarl, Neue Schliis- sel (1866) 190, thought that it might be Aglaia odorata Lour. or Aglaia odoratissima Blume. AGLAIA SILVESTRIS (Roem.) comb. nov. § Euaglala, Lansium silvestre Roem. Hesper. (1846) 99, ex Hassk. Neue Schiiissel (1866) 20 (type!). Lansium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 153, t. 55, Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 490, October 11, 1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters. Arbor cireiter 16 m alta, ramulis et petiolis et inflorescentiis dense uniformiter cupreo- vel brunneo-lepidotis ; foliis cireiter 30 em longis, foliolis cireiter 12, suboppositis, oblongis, tenuiter acuminatis, vetustioribus utrinque glabris, usque ad 13 cm lon- gis; paniculis 20 ad 25 cm longis, anguste pyramidatis, multi- floris; floribus 5-meris, breviter pedicellatis, in ramulis ultimis racemose dispositis, calycis profunde obtuse 5-dentatis; tubo subellipsoideo, glabro, libero. A tree about 16 m high, the branchlets, petioles and rachis, and inflorescence densely and uniformly cupreous- or brownish- lepidote, the indumentum, however, not at all stellate-hairy- Leaves alternate, about 30 cm long, 6- or 7- jugate;- leaflets firmly chartaceous to subcoriaceous, subopposite, oblong, 8 to 13 cm long, 3 to 3.8 cm wide, rather pale when dry, shining^ base acute to somewhat rounded, sometimes slightly inequi- lateral, apex slenderly long-acuminate, the acumen 1 to 1-^ cm long, the lower surface browner than the upper, at maturity wholly glabrous; lateral nerves about 14 on each side of the midrib; petiolules 2 to 4 mm long. Panicles terminal and ^^ MELIACEAE 311 the upper axils, narrowly pyramidal, 20 to 25 cm long, their peduncles 4 to 6 cm long, the lower branches spreading, 4 to 6 cm long, the upper shorter. Flowers numerous, racemosely arranged on the ultimate branchlets, their pedicels 1 mm long or less, and with the calyces more or less lepidote. Calyx about 1.4 mm long, prominently 5-toothed, the teeth rounded or obtuse, 0.6 mm long. Petals 5, free, glabrous, oblong to elliptic-oblong, 2.7 mm long, rounded. Staminal-tube free, glabrous, subellip- sold, contracted at the apex, the orifice small, round. Stamens 5, the anthers attached near the base of the tube, about 1 mm long. Aglaia silvestris Merr., typified by the specimen cited above, is certainly the form described and figured by Rumphius as Lan- mmi silvestre, the exact status of which has not been previously determined. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 272, placed it under Quinaria lansium hour,— Clause7ia punctata (Retz.) W. & A., a species that has little in common with the form Rumphius described. It was later referred by de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 537, to Cookia punctata Retz., by reduction of Quinaria laTwium Lour. Lansium silvestre Roem., Hesper. (1846) 99, is ap- parently merely a repetition of Rumphius's name. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 20, correctly placed it in the genus Aglaia. Its alliance is with Aglaia perviridis Hiern and Aglaia laxi- flora Miq., but it does not appear to be any of the numerous described forms and has been accordingly redescribed here as ci new species. It is apparently the form described by Miquel as Aglaia gang go Miq. forma amboinensis Miq., in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868) 47, but I consider it to be specifically distinct ^rom Aglaia ganggo Miq., of which I have a series of excellent specimens. AGLAIA sp. Lansium montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 154, t, 56. Probably an Aglaia, and one that should very readily be re- cognized when once collected, as Rumphius's figure presents a ^ery characteristic species. Jack, Trans. Linn. Soc. 14 (1823) |18, considered that it closely resembled his Milnea montana, of '"^umatra^Agrtom; and Roemer, Hesper. (1846) 99, placed it under Selbya montana Roem., perhaps based on Rumphius's Lan- ^ntni montanum, perhaps based on Milnea montana Jack (ori- p^al publication not seen by me) . Teysmann, quoted by Hass- ^^il, Neue Schlussel (1866) 20, considers it to be a species of ' fjlaia, which is probably the correct disposition of it, although 312 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE it might possibly be a small-flowered species of Dysoxylum. In the plate the fruits are drawn entirely out of proportion to the leaves according to the measurements given by Rumphius. MELIACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS Vidoricum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 173, t. 67. This disposition of Vidoricum silvestre is sugg'ested chiefly because the seeds, as figured by Rumphius, almost certainly pertain to some meliaceous plant. The description of the species is indefinite, and from it alone no rational idea of the plant can be obtained. DICHAPETALACEAE DICHAPETALUM Thouars DICHAPETALUM MOLUCCANUM sp. nov. Funis butonicus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 77, t. Ul, f. 2. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 602 (type), November 26, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 20 meters. Frutex scandens, ut videtur dioicus, ramulis junior ibus inflor- escentiisque leviter cinereo-pubescentibus, foliis subtus ad costa nervisque plus minusve ciliato-hirsutis ; foliis oblongis, charta- ceis, usque ad 16 cm longis, integris, utrinque subaequaliter an- gustatis, basi acutis, apice breviter acuminatis, nervis utrinque circiter 7, subtus prominentibus, in siccitate nigrescentibus; cymis axillaribus, solitariis, pedunculatis, usque ad 2 cm longis, laxis, paucifloris; floribus $ 5-meris, circiter 3 mm diametro, sepalis extus parce pubescentibus, petalis oblongis, truncatis, vix retusis, glabris, glandulis pubescentibus. A scandent shrub. Branches terete, glabrous, slender, brownish or somewhat reddish-brown, lenticellate, the branchlets similar in color, slightly pubescent with pale, scattered, usually appressed hairs. Leaves chartaceous, oblong, 11 to 16 cm long, 4 to 6 cm wide, entire, subequally narrowed to the acute, equi- lateral, or rarely slightly inequilateral base, and to the distinctly but rather shortly blunt-acuminate apex, brown or olivaceous- brown when dry, the upper surface shining, quite glabrous, the lower surface of nearly the same color, ciliate-hirsute with scattered, spreading, pale hairs on the midrib, and to a less extent on the primary nerves, reticulations, and sometimes even the margins; lateral nerves about 7 on each side of the midnb. prominent, curved, blackish when dry, faintly anastomosing' the reticulations distinct; petioles about 4 mm long, sparingl} grayish-pubescent, ultimately glabrous. Cjmies axillary, soli- tary, slightly grayish-pubescent with short appressed hairs. EUPHORBIACEAE 313 peduncled, about 2 cm long and wide, dichotomous, rather lax, few-flowered, the peduncle about as long as or slightly exceeding the petiole. Male flowers pale yellow, about 3 mm in diameter, their pedicels pubescent, 1 to 2 mm long, the bracteoles very small. Calyx about 2 mm long, externally cinereous-pubescent with short, appressed hairs, the lobes 5, oblong-ovate, obtuse, about 1.5 mm long. Petals glabrous, oblong, apex rounded- subtruncate, entire or very obscurely notched, not retuse or split, nearly 1.5 mm long. Stamens 5, about 1.5 mm long, glabrous. Glands densely pubescent, small. Pistillate or perfect flowers not seen. This species is apparently closely allied to Dichapetalum timo- riense (DC.) Engl., from which it is distinguished by certain floral characters, the flowers dioecious (or polygamous?), the glands densely pubescent, not glabrous. It seems to be even more closely allied to Dichapetalum papvxinum (Becc.) Engl., of New Guinea, but has rather smaller, diflferently shaped leaves, while the petals are truncate and entire, rarely minutely notched, not at all bifid at the apex. Rumphius's description and figure agree sufficiently well with the specimen cited above to warrant the reduction of Funis butonicus minor to Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr. The only previously suggested reductions are Burman's opinion that it represented some species in the Contortae and Lamarck's opinion that it was near Menispermum. EUPHORBIACEAE PHYLLANTHUS Linnaeus PHYLLANTHUS NIRURI Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 981. Herba moeroris I alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 41, t. 17, f. 1. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 350, July 20, 1913, in ditches at low altitudes. This reduction was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1264, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1392, has been accepted by all authors ^^ho have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure, and is cer- tainly the correct disposition of Herba moeroris I alba. PHYLLANTHUS URINARIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 982. Herba moeroris II rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 42, t. 17, f. 2. Amboina, Hatiwe ketsjil, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 351, July 20, 1913, "^^ ^oral limestone at low altitudes. This reduction was made by Linnaeus in the same publica- lons as those in which Herba moeroris I alba was reduced to 314 RUxMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Phyllanthus niruri Linn., has been accepted by all authors, and is certainly the correct disposition of it. PHYLLANTHUS EMBLICA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 982. Mlrobalanus embilica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 1, t, 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1265, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1393, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. Rumphius notes that it was an introduced plant in Amboina. CI CCA Linnaeus CICCA ACIDA (Linn.) comb, nov, Averrhoa acida Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 428. Cicca disticha Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 124. Cicca nodiflora Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 1. Phyllanthus distichus Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15' (1866) 413. Phyllanthus cicca Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 32 (1863) 90. Cicca acidissima Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 700. Phyllanthus acidissimus Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 32 (1865) 50. Phyllanthus cheramela Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 104. Phyllanthus acidus Skeels in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. PI. Ind. Bull. 148 (1909) 17. Cheramela Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 34, t 17, /. 2. This widely cultivated tree is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Cheramela Rumph. to Averrhoa acida Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 613, in which he was followed by Bur man f. and Lamarck. Willdenow, followed by numerous other authors, referred it to Cicca disticha Linn. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1859) 372, referred it to Cicca nodiflora Lam., while Henschel and Pritzel referred it to Phyllanthus cheramela Roxb. All of these names are synonyms of Cicca acida (Linn.) Merr., Averrhoa acida Linn, being a synonym of Cicca disticha Linn. {Phyllanthus distichus Muell.-Arg.), but much earlier. I prefer to follow Robinson * in retaining Cicca as a genus distinct from Phyllanthus, BREYNIA Forster BREYNIA CERNUA (Poir.) Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15' (1866) ^^■ Phyllanthus ceryiuus Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 298. Melanthesa cernua Decne. in Nuov. Ann. Mus. Paris 3 (1834) 483. Aalius parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 207. Amboina, Batoe gadjah and Negri lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Jf^^< 339, August 5 and October 8, 1913, in light forests, altitude 175 to 250 meters, locally known as kartu utan. * Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1909) Bot. 87. EUPHORBIACEAE 315 The description is that of a Breyiiia in all respects, and undoubtedly Aalius parvifolia Rumph. is the same as Breynia ccrnua Muell.-Arg. The red, accrescent calyx is very character- istic. The only other suggested reduction of Rumphius's species is liasskarFs, Neue Schliissel (1866) 67, reference of it to Sauropus albicans Blume, which is certainly incorrect. Aalius latifolia Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3:207, very briefly de- scribed, is compared with Aalitos parvifolia, having leaves two to three times as long as the latter. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 67, surmises that it may be a Glochidion. Its status is quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius. BACCAUREA Loureiro BACCAUREA NANIHUA sp. nov. Nani hua Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 21, t. 9, Amboina Koesoekoesoe sereh and Mahija, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 331 (type), S30, October 3 and August 7, 1913, in light forest, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as haharu and as makarlasi. Arbor circiter 15 m alta, inflorescentiis dense ferrugineo- pubescentibus ; foliis oblongo-ovatis, coriaceis, glabris, in sicci- tate brunneis, usque ad 16 cm longis, integris, basi rotundatis, apice obtusis ad latissime obtuseque acuminatis, nervis utrinque circiter 9, subtus valde prominentibus ; racemis solitariis vel binis, 3 ad 5 cm longis, e ramis infra foliis, paucifloris, omnibus partibus dense ferrugineo-pubescentibus, sepalis oblongis, cir- citer 3 mm longis; fructibus depresso-globosis, 2 ad 2.3 cm diametro, extus ferrugineo-pubescentibus vetustioribus glabres- centibus, brunneis, pericarpio crassissimo. A tree about 15 m high, the very young branchlets and petioles slightly pubescent, the inflorescence densely ferruginous-pubes- cent, otherwise glabrous. Branches and branchlets brown or reddish-brown, terete. Leaves coriaceous, brown and somewhat shining when dry, oblong-ovate, entire, 11 to 16 cm long, 5 to 8 cni wide, base rounded, narrowed upward to the obtuse or very broadly blunt-acuminate apex, the lower surface paler than the ^PPer; lateral nerves about 9 on each side of the midrib, very prominent on the lower surface, curved-anastomosing, the re- ticulations distinct; petioles 2.5 to 3.5 cm long. Pistillate ra- cemes solitary or in pairs, from the branches beJow the leaves, ^ew-flowered, 3 to 5 cm long, simple, all parts densely ferrugi- nous-pubescent. Pedicels about 4 mm long, jointed at about ^6 middle, here supplied with a single, broadly ovate, 1.5 nma ^ng bracteole. Sepals 5, oblong to oblong-ovate, subequal, sub- acute or obtuse, about 3 mm long, densely pubescent on both 316 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE surfaces. Ovary ovoid, densely pubescent. Fruits brown when dry, depressed-globose, 2 to 2.5 cm in diameter, normally 3-celled, in cross-section with three very broadly rounded angles, more or less ferruginous-pubescent, in age becoming nearly glabrous, the pericarp very thick, inside reddish-brown when dry, some- what spongy in texture. Nani hua Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro to Baccaurea ramifiora Lour., FI. Cochinch. (1790) 661, the type of the genus, but Baccaurea ramiflora Lour, was actually described from speci- mens taken from cultivated trees in Cochin-China and is not the same as the Amboina Nani hua of Rumphius. Henschel, Poiret, and Pritzel accepted Loureiro's reduction of Nani hua. DeVriese and Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1798) 419, thought that it might be a species of Eugenia, while Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 47, quotes Teysmann's opinion that it might belong in the Myrtaceae. Baccaurea nanihua Merr. closely resembles Baccaurea phiUp- pinensis Merr. and Baccaurea bracteata Muell.-Arg. and mani- festly belongs in the same group as these two species. It is readily distinguished from both, however, by its more numer- ously nerved leaves. ANTIDESMA Burman ANTIDESMA BUN I US (Linn.) Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 826. Stilago bunius Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 122. Antidesma rumphii TuL in Ann. Sci. Nat. Ill 15 (1851) 238 (type). Bunius sativa s. domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 204, t. 131, Bunius agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 205, t. 131, /. A. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 33A, September 13, 1913, from cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, locally known as kuti kata and kata kuti, Bunius sativus Rumph. (J5. domestica Rumph.) was reduced by Linnaeus to Stilago bunius Linn, in the original description of that species, which, as Antidesma bunius (Linn.) Spreng., is certainly the correct disposition of it. Antidesma rumphii Tul. was based wholly on Bunius agrestis Rumph., which seems to me to be merely the spontaneous or subspontaneous form of Antidesma bunius Spreng.; I have accordingly here reduced Antidesma rumphii Tul. to Antidesma bunius (Linn.) Spreng. ANTIDESMA STIPULARE Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1125. Antidesma amboinense Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd, Bat. 1 (1864) 21 Arbor nuda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 89, t. 59. Amboina, Lateri, Batoe merah River, and vicinity of the town of Ambom^* Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 355, S56, August, September, and October, l^l-^- in light v^oods, altitude 40 to 150 meters, locally known as kata kuti ka^^^ EUPHORBIACEAE 317 hing; probably referable here also is Rel. Robins. 1709, from Hitoe messen, Amboina, November 6, 1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters, with smaller, narrower stipules and apparently more fleshy, slightly larger fruits than the other specimens. The Amboina specimens, typical Antidesma amboinense Miq., differ from material of Antidesma stipulare Blume from Nusa Kambangan, the type locality of Blume's species, and from Java in some details, notably in their larger, differently shaped sti- pules, but I have followed J. Mueller in the reduction of Anti- desma amboinense Miq. to Antidesma stipulare Blume. Arbor nuda Rumph. was reduced to the genus Antidesma by Teysmann, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 54. The details of the figure are not good, the leaves being rep- resented as with but 5 to 8 pairs of nerves, while in the Amboina specimens there are usually about 15 pairs of nerves, and the characteristic stipules are not shown at all. However, these are indicated in the description thus: ''folia * * * suprema vero prope suum ortum unum alterumve gerunt foliorum seu squamulas." In spite of the discrepancies between the figure and the specimens cited above, I am confident that Arbor nuda Rumph. is here correctly interpreted, although some future mo- nographer may prefer to reinstate MiqueFs Antidesma amboin- ense as a species distinct from the Javan Antidesma stipulare Blume. CROTON Linnaeus CROTON TIGLIUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1004. ^ Tiglium officinale Klotz. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843) Suppl. 1: 418. Granum moluccanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 98, t. k2. This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Granum moluccanum to Croton tiglium was first «iade by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1275, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1426, which is the correct disposition of it, and which has been accepted by all authors. MICROCOCCA Bentham ^'CROCOCCA MERCURIALIS (Linn.) Benth. in Hook. Niger Fl. (1849) 503. Tragia mercurialis Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 980. Urtica mortua Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 49, t. 20, /. 2? Nothing resembling this species is represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick- ^^n Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. 318 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ed. 10 (1759) 1264, which, as Micrococca mercurialis Benth., is possibly the correct disposition of it. The species, however, is not known from the Moluccas. Pax and K. Hoffmann, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 133, give its range as tropical Asia and Africa, extending to the southeast only as far as Malacca. MALLOTUS Loureiro MALLOTUS TILLIFOLIUS (Blume) MueH.-Arg. in Linnaea 34 (1865) 190, Rottlera tiliifolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 607. Halecus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 196, t. 126. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S67y S6.8, August 8, 1913, along the seashore near the town of Amboina, locally known as baru laut. Halectis litorea Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Croton aromaticus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, in which entirely erroneous reduc- tion he was followed by Loureiro, Murray, Willdenow, Persoon, Henschel, and Miquel. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 206, cites it under Croton tiliifolius Lam. var. aromaticus Lam., the type of the species being a specimen from Mauritius, the variety being merely a reduction of Croton aromaticus Linn. Teysmann's reduction of it to Schmidelia, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 66, is entirely wrong and was probably due to some error in transcribing Teysmann's notes. MELANOLEPIS Reichenbach f. and Zollinger MELANOLEPIS M ULTIGLANDULOSA (Reinw.) Reichb. f. & Zoll. in Linnaea 28 (185Q) 324. Croton mtiltiglandulosus Reinw. ex Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823) 105. Rottlera multiglandulosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 609. Melanolepis calcosa Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1859) 399. Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 34 (1863) 185, non Croton mohiccanus Linn. Melanolepis moluccana Pax & K. Hoffm. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 142, non Croton moluccanus Linn. Folium calcosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 129, t. 6J^, Folium calcosum II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 130. Amboina, Hitoe messen and Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. t>. Amboina, Tandjong martafrons, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amh. 1, October 16, 1913, along the beach, locally known as chenki laut. The exact form, as determined by Doctor Radlkofer, is Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. var. vulgaris Benth., forma repanda Radlk. The reduction of Caryophyllus litoreus to Ptelea viscosa Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 898, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 173, and transferred to Dodonaea as D. viscosa Linn., Mant. 2 (1771) 228, eleven years after Jacquin made the same transfer. Other names given by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 83, are Dodonaea burmanniana DC, D, dioica Roxb., D. triquetra Andr., and D. angustifolia Blanco, all of which are apparently synonyms of Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. HARPULLIA Roxburgh HARPULLIA ARBOREA (Blanco) Radlk. in Sitzb. Math.-Phys. Akad Muench. 16 (1886) 404. Ptelea arhorea Blanco FL Filip. (1837) 63. Metrosideros molucca fungosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph, Amh. U, November 4, 191o, in forests at an altitude of about 50 meters, locally known as samar ayer. A form with larger leaflets, and, for the species, rather large fruits, i> represented by Rel. Robins. 1601, from Hitoe messen, October 10, 1913, prov- ing on forested limestone hills at an altitude of about 150 meters. The identification has been made chiefly from the native name cited by Rumphius, that is, samar ayer, which also appears on one of the specimens cited above. The description given by Rumphius is entirely inadequate to warrant an identification of the form from it alone. It is to be noted, however, that the other two species described under the heading Metrosideros moluco' by Rumphius have nothing to do with Harpullia, but one i^ Homalium foetidum Benth. and the other is indeterminable. BALSAMINACEAE IM RATI ENS Linnaeus IMPATIENS BALSAMINA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 938. Lacca herba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 256, t. 90. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 70, September 27, 1'^^" Lacca herba was reduced to Impatiens balsaminxi Linn. "} Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. RHAMNACEAE 341 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1239, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1328, which is certainly the correct disposition of it, and which has been very generally followed by later authors. I consider that all of the forms indicated by Rumphius, / coccinea, II purpurea, III alba, and IV e Sina, are merely color forms of the widely dis- tributed and variable species. They have been referred by various authors to Impatiens coccinea Sims, Balsamina fasci- cidata DC, B, tilo DC, and B, hortensis Desp.* RHAMNACEAE ZIZYPHUS Linnaeus ZIZYPHUS JUJUBA Lam. EncycL 3 (1789) 318. Rhamnus jujuba Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 194. Malum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 117, t. 36. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 267, November 18, 1913, from cultivated trees, locally known as vidara. This was reduced by Linnaeus to his Rhamnus jujuba, in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 282, in which he was followed by other authors until Lamarck transferred Rhamnus jujuba to Zizyphus, where it properly belongs. All authors who have cited Rumphius since Lamarck, refer it to Zizyphus jujuba (Linn.) Lam. Skeels, U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. PL Ind. Bull. 208 (1911) 67, considers that Zizphus jujuba Lam. is invalidated by Z, jujuba Mill., Gard. Diet. (1768), and proposes to adopt for the plant commonly known as Zizyphus jujuba Lam. the name Z. mauritiana Lam. Judging from the data given by Rumphius, the three forms mentioned by him on page 118 as coming from Timor and Java are merely slight variants of this common and widely distributed species. COLUBRINAt Richard COLUBRINA ASIATICA (Linn.) Brongn. in Ann. Sci. Nat. I 10 (1827) 369. Ceanothiis asiaticus Linii. Sp. PL (1753) 196. Amara litorea Rumph, Herb. Amb. 5: 74, t. 39, f. 2. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 269, October 29, 1913, in thickets back of the beach, and at Ayer putre in similar habitat, August 23, 1913. Amara litorea Rumph. has not previously been properly I'educed. The figure is a good representation of this common and ^videly distributed Indo-Malayan strand plant. Suggested re- * See Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 118. T Retained name, Vienna Code; Marcorella Neck. (1790) is older. 342 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ductions by other authors have been Croton sp., by Burman f. ex Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 96; some aurantiaceous plant, after Poiret, Hasskarl, 1. c. ; and Teysmann's suggestion to Hasskarl that it was Zizyphus timoriensis DC. VENTILAGO Gaertner VENTILAGO sp. Funis viminalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: S, t. 2. Nothing that can be referred to the plant that Rumphius figures and describes occurs in our Amboina collections. The plant is manifestly a Ventilago, but its status must remain doubt- ful until more comprehensive collections are made in Amboina. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, erroneously referred it to Securidaca volubilis Linn., with which, however, it has nothing in common. Willdenow, Sp. PL 1 (1797) 1106, reduced it to Ventilago maderaspatmm Gaertn., in which he has been followed by all subsequent authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure. It is very improbable, however, that this Moluccan plant is identical with Ventilago maderaspatana Gaertn. Possibly it is the same as Ventilago cernua TuL, in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 8 (1857) 123, which was described from specimens collected by Gaudichaud in Rawak Island, Moluccas. VITACEAE AMPELOCISSUS Planchon AMPELOCISSUS ARACHNOIDEA (Hassk.) Planch, in DC. Mono^A Phan. 5 (1887) 375. Cissus arachnoidea Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 166. Cissus blumeana Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 39, non Span., nee Steud. Anipelopsis indica Blume Bijdr. (1825) 193, non Ampelocissus iyidm Planch. Labrusca molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 452, t, 167. This rather characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure and the description, however, apply closely to Ampelocissus arachnoidea (Hassk.) Planch, and, for that matter, also to Ampelocissits martini Planch., which must be very closely allied to the former. Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 2 (1912) 557, seems first to have made this reduction of Labnisca molucca Rumph., which is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 942, erroneously referred it to Vitis indica Linn, and again, with even greater error, placed it under Vitis trifolia Linn.. in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) VITACEAE 343 155, referred it to Vitis labrusca Linn., but the Cochin-China form he described under the Linnean name was probably Am- pelocissus martini Planch, or A. arachnoidea Planch. CISSUS Linnaeus CISSUS QUADRANGULARIS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 39. Vitis guadrangularis WalL Cat. (1832) no. 5992. Funis quadrangularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 83, t. H, /. ;!'. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections; it is, however, of local occurrence in many parts of Malaya, apparently here an introduced plant. Linnaeus cites the Eumphian name, Funis quadrangularis, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1468, as a synonym of Menispermum crispum Linn., an error for Funis felleus Rumph., as the illustration indicated is t. Uh, /. ly which is a Tinospora, In the original description of Cissus qua- drangularis Linn., Funis quadrangularis Rumph. is cited as a synonym, this reduction certainly being the correct disposition of it. Most authors have quoted the Rumphian name and figure under Cissus qundrangularis Linn., a few under its synonym Yitis quadrangularis Wall. CISSUS REPENS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 31. Cissus cordata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 11, nomen nudu7n, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 407. Vitis repens W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 125. Funis crepitans I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 446, t. 161^, f. 1. Amboina, Eri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 215, September 23, 1913, in thickets near the seashore, locally known as bunga tangong. Through confusion of Vitis alba Rumph. with t, 164, /. 1, Lin- naeus originally reduced the above figure to Bryonia cordifolia Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24; it is manifest that he intended to cite 1 166, both here and in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) L33. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762) I'^O, he erroneously reduced Funis crepitans Rumph. to Vitis ^itiginea Linn. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 18, places it under Cissus '(^tifolia Vahl, of which, however, it is not the type; Murray, Syst. (1774) 133, places it under Cissus sicyoides Linn., where it certainly does not belong; Willdenow, Sp. PI. 1^ (1797) 656, places it under Cissus latifolia Lam.; and finally Roxburgh, FL ^^fl. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 407, places it under Cissus cordata Roxb., ^'^n exact synonym of Cissus repens Lam. Cissus repens Lam. ^^as based on Neriam pulli Rheed., Hort. Malabar. 7: t. 48, and he form figured by Rheede appears to me to be "specifically ^^entical with the form figured by Rumphius as Funis crepitans major and illustrated by the specimen cited above. 344 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CISSUS ARISTATA Blume Bijdr. (1824) 183. Oculus astaci Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 479, t, 178, /. i. Amboina, Paso, Wae, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 228, 229, 230, October and November, 1913, in thickets, sea level to an altitude of about 225 meters, locally known as siri barat. The identification of these specimens with Oculus astaci Rumph. is probably correct, although the stems, as presented by herbarium material, are not quadrangular, yet some of the branchlets are distinctly so. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 149, referred it to Cissus glauca Roxb., which is supposed to be a synonym of Cissus repens Lam. Cissus aristata Blume has been reduced by Miquel and by Planchon to Cissus adnata Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 423, a species originally described from Indian material. The Amboina material seems to present some of the characters of Cissus assamica Craib, which like C. adnata Roxb. is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region, but its in- dumentum is of the adnata type. It is possible that the material should be referred to Cissus adnata Roxb. rather than to C. aris- tata Blume, but without access to the original material on which the various species were based, it is difficult to determine their exact relationships. The closely allied species involved are Cis- sus adnata Roxb., C. assamica Craib, C, aristata Blume, C. rotun- difolia Blume (C hlumeana Steud.), and Cissus pyrrhodasip Miq., the last apparently being identical with Cissus assamicd Craib var. pilosissima Gagnep., Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 353. VITIS QUADRICORNUTA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 85. Funis crepitans il minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 446, t. 16Jf, /. ^^ This form is not represented in our Amboina collections. It may be a variety of Cissus repens Lam., or it may be a closely allied form worthy of specific rank. Planchon, DC. Monog. Phan. 5 (1887) 506, repeats MiqueFs description, under Cissn^ repens Lam., with the statement that Vitis diffusa Miq., V. mo- desta Miq., Vitis raetziana Miq., and V. quadricornuta Miq. are either synonyms of Cissus repens Lam. or represent very closely allied species. The reduction of Funis crepitans II minor loHo^vs Miquel, but the plant, and for that matter Vitis quadricormt(i Miq., is a true Cissus, although the transfer is not here definite]} made in view of the uncertain status of the form described b} Miquel. CISSUS sp.? Funis crepitans IV Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 447. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 83, cites this as a synonym of Cissus trifoliata Lour., non Linn., a species of entirely uncertain VITACEAE 345 status. It must be a species of Columella or of Tetrastigma, if it belongs in the Vitaceae, as it probably does. I have not been able to refer to it any of our Amboina specimens, but further explora- tion of Amboina may yield material that will lead to a more definite determination of its status. COLUMELLA Loureiro COLUMELLA GENICULATA (Blume) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 132. Cissus geniculata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 184. Cayratia geniculata Gagnep. in Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 345. Funis crepitans III trifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 447, t. 165. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 226, October 29, 1913, on trees near the seashore. The specimen agrees perfectly with Rumphius's description and illustration and is manifestly the species commonly known as Cissus geniculata Blume, here called Columella geniculata Merr. Lamark, Encycl. 1 (1783) 31, reduced it to Cissus cafmosa Lam.= C. trifolia K. Sch. of which, however, it is not the type. In this erroneous reduction he was followed by all authors who have had occassion to cite the Rumphian illustration ; namely, Vahl, Willde- now, Retzius, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, Pritzel, and Hasskarl. COLUMELLA TRIFOLIA (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 134. Vitis trifolia Linn, Sp. PL (1753) 203. Cissus carnosa Lam. EncycL 1 (1783) 31. Cissus crenata Vahl Symb. 3 (1794) 19. Cissus acida Murr. Syst. (1774) 133 (type!). Cissus trifolia K. Sch. in K. Sch. & Hollr. Fl. Kaiser Wilh. Land (1889) 71. Cayratia carnosa Gagnep. in Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 347. Folium causonis I album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450, t. 160, f. 2. Folium causonis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450. Amboina, Batoe merah and Negri lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 227, August and September, 1913, in thickets at low altitudes, locally known ^^ kapiala. The same form is represented by Rel. Robins. 2^85, from Boeton, July 13, 1913. I'olium causonis Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Vitis Mfolia Linn, in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 942, Sp. PI. ed. 2 fl'^62) 293, which, as Cissus trifolia K. Sch., or Columella tri- folia Merr., is the correct disposition of it. Of the various syn- onyms cited above it is the type and whole basis of but one, ^^issus acida Murr., but is cited as a synonym in the original ^^scription of Cissus carnosa Lam. and of Cissus crenata Vahl. Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 3 (1818) 313, thought that it might 346 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE represent Cissus trilobata Lam., which is a true Cissiis and is known only from India. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1859) 602, placed it under Cissus cinerea Lam., which is apparently merely a pubescent form of Columella trifoUa (Linn.) Merr., and in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 1 (1863) 81 placed it, with doubt, under Vitis geniculata (Blume) Miq.=Columella genku- lata Merr., a species that it certainly does not represent. The form described by Rumphius as Folium causonis II rubrmn is apparently merely a color variant of Columella trifolia (Linn.) Merr., although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 145, thought that it might be Vitis geniculata Miq. Columella Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 85, has been accepted by me as the proper generic name for this group, although the recognition of it invalidates Columellia Ruiz & Pavon (1794) of the Columelliaceae, I am of the opinion that Gagnepain * was justified in segregating from Cissus as a distinct genus, those forms placed by Planchon in the subgenus Cayratia, dif- fering from him only in the selection of the generic name. TETRASTIGMA Planchon TETRASTIGMA sp. Folium causonis ill litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450. No Tetrastigma occurs in our Amboina collections, yet from the description given by Rumphius, I have little doubt that the form described as Folium causonis III litoreum is referable to this genus. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 145, thought that it might be referable to Vitis geniculata Miq. var. grosse- serrata Miq. LEE A Royen LEEA AEQUATA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 124. Frutex aquosus femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 103, t. U5. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rmnph. Amb. 565, July 20, 191'^. in rocky soil at low altitudes. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 78, erroneously placed this under Aralia chinensis Linn. Willdenow, Sp. PL 1 - (1797) 1177, re- ferred it to Leea sambucina Willd., in which he v^as followed by numerous authors, Persoon, Roxburgh, Roemer and Schultes, Don, Dietrich, and others. Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 98, reduced it to Leea aequata Linn., which is certainly the correct disposition of Frutex aquosus femina Rumph. The figure is poor, and from it alone it would be difficult to determine * Gagnepain, F. Un genre meconnu : classification des Cissus et Cayratia. Not SysL 1 (1911) 339-362. VITACEAE 347 which of several species of Leea'was intended ; but the description is unmistakably that of Leea aequata Linn., not of Leea sambu- cina Willd., especially in the description of the leaflets as "su- perne pilis hirta, inferne arenulosa/' *'arenulosa'' manifestly referring to the numerous glands on the lower surface that are so very characteristic of Leea aequata Linn. LEEA ACULEATA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 197; Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.- Bat. 1 (1863) 99. Leea spinosa Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 670 p. p., quoad cit. "Ins. Molucc." Leea aculeata Blume var. moluccana Miq. 1. c. Leea serrulata Miq. 1. c. Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. A i b. 4: 102, t. Uh. Amboina, Mahija and town of Amboina, Robinson PL Riiniph. Amb. 231, J32, July 23 and August 7, 1913, along river banks and edges of clearings, altitude 7 to 200 meters, locally known as kayu baduri. The specimens certainly represent Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. ; they are also undoubtedly referable to the species described by Blume as Leea aculeata Bl. and later described by Blanco from Philippine material as a distinct species under the same specific name. The trunk is supplied with short spines, but ordinary herbarium material rarely presents these as the branchlets are nearly always unarmed. Chiefly on account of the spiny stems as depicted by Rumphius, Linnaeus referred Frutex aquosus mas, with doubt, to Aralia chinensis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 967, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 393, in which he was followed by Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Burman f., and other authors. Koste- letzky, Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5 (1836) 1981, referred it to Aralia mnosa Linn. De Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830) 259, expressed the opinion that the Rumphian figure represented a species of Leea, rather than an Aralia; and finally Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 99, reduced Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. to Leea aculeata Blume, which is apparently the correct disposition of it. ^' B. Clarke, Journ. Bot. 10 (1881) 105, expresses the opinion that Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 102, t, UUy does ^^ot represent Leea aculeata Blume; but it is apparent that he Misinterpreted Blume's species, because he puts it in the section ^vith red flowers, while in Leea aculeata Blume the flowers are ^I'eenish-white or white. The name Leea spinosa Spreng. is Properly a synonym of Aralia chineusis Linn.; Sprengel ap- P^i'ently intended to refer here only the Amboina reference from ^i^phius, but does not so state. Following the short descrip- ^on he merely cites 'Ins. Molucc. China (Aralia chinensis L.)." 348 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ELAEOCARPACEAE ELAEOCARPUS Linnaeus Five or six species of Elaeocarpus are described by Rumphius under various names, such as Blimbingum sylvestre Rumph., Ganitrus, Ganitrum oblongum, Lignum momentaneum, and Arbor rediviva: v/hile Hasskarl, Neue Schussel (1866) 49, 50, suggests that Sicchiics femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 41, t. 22, and Carbonaria femina Rumph., 1. c. 53, may be species of Elaeo- carpus. The last is certainly not referable to the genus. Five species of this genus have been described from Amboina. These are Elaeocarpus oppositifolius (DC.) Miq. and E. frutico- sus Roxb. (from the Moluccas, probably from Amboina), both very imperfectly described, indicated as having opposite leaves, and certainly the same as E. edulis T, & B,; E moluccanus Scheff. ; and E, treubii Hochr. The last two were described from specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and E, treubii Hochr. may not have originated in Amboina. The Robinson collection presents three species, one of which is certainly the same as Elaeocarpus edulis T. & B. and with equal certainty is the same as Blimbingum sylvestre Rumph., but the other two I cannot definitely refer to any described species. While both have doubtfully been referred to forms figured and described by Rumphius, the identity of neither with the Rumphian plants can be considered certain. ELAEOCARPUS OPPOSITI FOLIUS (DC.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1858) 211 Aceratium oppositi folium DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 519. Elaeocarpus fruticosus Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 600. Elaeocarpus exeavatus Reinw. ex Koord. in Lorenz Nova Guinea 8 (1907) 174. Blimbingum sylvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 138, t. 73. Amboina, Negri lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 372, September 8, 1913; Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 373, August 17, 1913, PL Rumph. Amb. 190, July 23, 1913 (detached mature fruits only), river banks, altitude 15 to 40 meters. Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 69, was entirely wrong in referring Blimbingum sylvestre of Rumphius to his new genus and species, Cylindria rubra. The genus is of entirely uncertain status, has nothing to do with Elaeocarpus, and must be inter- preted from Cochin-China material. Elaecarpus edulis Teysni & Binn. was based on Amboina specimens, but these authors do not indicate the identity of Blimbingum sylvestre with then species. The actual specimens, cited above, agree with Rumpn- ius's dscription and rather poor figure and bear the native name ELAEOCARPACEAE 349 tagorela; the Amboinese name cited by Rumphius is tagorela abbal The mature fruits are red, about 4 cm long, 2 cm wide, 3-angled, apex acute or acuminate, the pericarp rather peculiarly produced at the base, giving the fruit the truncate appearance represented in Rumphius's figure. Teysmann gave the native names as bliembieng-oetan, tagorela, and kakarja. The type of Aceratium oppositifoUum DC. was from Amboina, and the description conforms with the characters of the species commonly known as Elaeocarpus edulis T. & B., the type of which was also from Amboina. The type of Elaeocarpus oppositifolius Roxb. was from the Moluccas, very likely from Amboina, and Rox- burgh's short description also conforms with Elaeocarpus edulis T. & B. Elaeocarpus excavatus Reinw., a herbarium name published by Koorders, was also based on an Amboina speci- men. The species is in cultivation in the botanic garden, Bui- tenzorg, Java, and occurs also in New Guinea. ELAEOCARPUS RUM PHI I sp. nov. § Monocera, Arbor red i viva Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 165, t. 10JI^? Amboina, between Soja and Hatalai and at Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 370 (type), October 24 and November 1, 1913, in forests, al- titude 175 to 350 meters. Arbor circiter 12 m alta, inflorescentiis exceptis glabra ; foliis oblongis, coriaceis, longe petiolatis, usque ad 20 cm longis, obscure obtuse acuminatis, basi rotundatis vel leviter cordatis, margine obscure crenatis, nervis utrinque 8 ad 10, prominen- tibus; racemis numerosis, pubescentibus, floribus longe pedicel- latis, sepalis lanceleolatis, pubescentibus, circiter 10 mm longis, petalis sepalis aequantibus, intus densissime retrose hirsutis, apice subacutis leviter parce lobatis baud fimbriatis. A tree about 12 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence. Branches reddish-brown, terete, smooth, the ultimate ones 6 to 8 mm in diameter. Leaves alternate, coriaceous, green and shining when dry, 15 to 20 cm long, 5 to 7.5 cm wide, gradually narrowed upward to the obscurely blunt-acuminate apex, the base rather broad, somewhat abruptly rounded or slightly cor- date, margins distantly and rather obscurely crenate; lateral nerves 8 to 10 on each side of the midrib, prominent, anasto- niosing, the primary reticulations slender, subparallel, the ulti- mate ones rather close, distinct, the whole lower surface with "scattered, minute dark-colored, roundish glands or gland-like bodies; petioles reddish-brown, 6 to 7 cm long. Racemes axil- ^^y, about 15 cm long, uniformly pubescent with short, grayish ^^ii's as are the pedicels and sepals. Pedicels about 1.5 cm long. 350 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Sepals 5, lanceolate, about 10 mm long, 3 mm wide, narrowed upward, subacute. Petals as long as the sepals, oblong-lanceo- late, outside densely pubescent with pale-brownish, shining, ap- pressed hairs, inside uniformly and densely hirsute with reflexed hairs, the apical 2 mm cut into few narrow lobes, usually two lateral slender ones on each side with a central somewhat stouter one. Stamens about 45, the filaments scabrid, 2 to 2.5 mm long; anthers linear, scabrid, 4.5 to 5 mm long including the slender 1 to 1.5 mm long awn that terminates one cell. Ovary ovoid, densely pubescent, 2-celled ; style 4 to 5 mm long, pubescent below. It is by no means certain that this is Arbor rediviva of Rumph- ius, although the plant figured and described by Rumphius is manifestly an Elaeocarpus. In the species above described the leaves are larger than in Arbor rediviva, rounded or cordate at the base, not acute, and do not present the peculiar protuberances (galls?) shown by Rumphius. It was by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 663, referred to Dicalyx cochinchinensis Lour., but this is a species of Sijmplocos and judging from the description is entirely different from Arbor rediviva Rumph. ELAEOCARPUS AMBOSNENSIS sp. nov. § Ganitrm. Ganitrus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 160, t. 101? Amboina, Paso, near the coast, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 371 (type), November, 25, 1913. Arbor circiter 12 m alta partibus junioribus inflorescentiisque parce pubescentibus exceptis glabra; foliis alternis, anguste oblongis, chartaceis, nitidis, usque ad 15 cm longis, utrinque subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis, apice obtusis, margine cre- nulatis, nervis utrinque circiter 13, prominentibus ; racemis e ramis def oliatis, tenuibus, 10 ad 12 cm longis ; floribus numerosis, tenuiter pedicellatis, sepalis anguste lanceolatis, acuminatis, par- cissime pubescentibus, circiter 11 mm longis, petalis aequilongis, oblongo-lanceolatis, apice usque ad f fissis, basi ad margine dense puberulis exceptis glabris ; ovario 5-loculare. A tree about 12 m high, glabrous except the slightly appressed- pubescent younger parts and inflorescence. Branches terete, reddish-brown, glabrous, the younger ones somewhat angled. brownish-olivaceous, minutely and rather sparingly pubescent. Leaves alternate, narrowly oblong, firmly chartaceous, suboliva- ceous, of about the same color on both surfaces and shining when dry, 12 to 15 cm long, 3 to 5 cm wide, subequally narrowed to the acute base and to the blunt apex, the tip sometimes slightly retuse and minutely apiculate, margins distinctly crenulate; lateral ELAEOCARPACEAE 351 nerves about 13 on each side of the midrib, slender but prominent, curved, anastomosing, the reticulations distinct ; petioles slender, about 1 cm long, the younger ones slightly pubescent. Racemes numerous, solitary, spreading, from the branches below the leaves in the axils of fallen leaves, 10 to 12 cm long, slender, the rachis and pedicels more or less pubescent with short, appressed, pale- gray hairs. Flowers 20 to 25 or more in each raceme, the buds lanceolate, acuminate, whitish when fresh, brown when dry, the opened flowers greenish, the pedicels slender, about 1.5 cm long. Sepal 5, narrowly lanceolate, acuminate, externally slightly pub- escent, about 11 mm long, 2 to 2.5 mm wide. Petals as long as the sepals, oblong-lanceolate, the upper two-fifths cut into from 15 to 20 slender fimbriae, these united into 5 or 6 primary divi- sions, quite glabrous except the densely pubescent or puberulent margins in the lower part. Stamens about 50, the filaments slender, scabrid, 1 to 1.5 mm long; anthers linear, 5 to 6 mm long including the slender, solitary, bristle-like, 1 mm long awn that tips one of the cells. Ovary ovoid, densely pubescent, somewhat sulcate, 5-celled; style 5 to 6 mm long, pubescent below. This species is very closely allied to the Philippine Elaeocarpus dolichopetalus Merr., from which it is distinguished by its blunt, not acuminate leaves, its longer racemes, longer pedicels, and smaller flowers. It is by no means certain that it is the same as Ganitriis of Rumphius. The figure of Ganitrus presents relatively shorter, fewer-nerved, rather differently shaped leaves, and relatively shorter, fewer-flow^ered racemes. It was apparently drawn from Amboina specimens, although Rumphius includes in the descrip- tion specimens from other parts of the Malay Archipelago. Historically, Ganitrus was first reduced by Linnaeus to his Ekeocarpus serratus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1075, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) '34, in which he was followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Willdenow, ^^d Lamarck. However, Elaeocarpus serratics Linn., Sp. PL (1753) 515, was based on Indian and Ceylon plants, and has nothing to do with the plant described by Rumphius. Gaertner, Fruct. 2 (1791) 271, 1 189, /. 6, takes his generic name Ganitrus ^rom Rumphius, and refers to Ganitrus sphaerica Gaertn. the ^^Ye and description of Rumphius mentioned above. Gaertner's ^ ^'scription was from an actual specimen, and his species must be ^^terpreted from the material described. Gaertner 's species is Probably the same as the one later described by Roxburgh as ^^^leocarpus ganitrus Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 592, who ^ ^^s to his species the Rumphian plant and takes his specific 352 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE name from Rumphius. However, the species actually described by Roxburgh was based on Indian material and manifestly is not the Rumphian plant. The proper name for this Indian species is apparently Elaeocarpus sphaericus (Gaertn.) K. Sch. (E, ganitrus Roxb., non Ganitrus Rumph.). The species de- scribed above should be compared critically with Elaeocarpus angustifoliics Blume (Aceratium ganitri Hassk.), to which it is manifestly allied. ELAEOCARPUS OBLONGUS Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1791) 202, t. US, f. 3. Ganitrum oblongum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 163, t, 102? This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Rumphius states that the form he described was found in Am- boina, Celebes, and Bali. Gaertner placed it under Elaeocarpus oblongus in the original description of that species, but I have no means of determining whether or not the specimens he had before him were identical with the form Rumphius described and figured. He does not state the origin of his material. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788) 604, referred it tentatively to Elaeocarpus integ- rifolius Lam., but his type was from the Isle of France and is certainly not the same as the Moluccan form. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 2^ (1799) 1170, followed Lamarck in his disposition of it Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 62, suggests that it is Elaeocar- pus macrophyllus Blume, which is very improbable. Pending a critical revision of the genus or at least of the Indo-Malayan species, it seems best to leave it under Elaeocarpus oblongm Gaertn. I have seen no authentic species of Gaertner's species. do not know of what country it is a native, and strongly suspect that current interpretations of it are merely approximate; per- haps the modern conception of the species is based more on Rumphius's figure than on Gaertner's actual specimens. ELAEOCARPUS sp.? Lignum momentaneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 164, t. 103. This reduction is suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 62, following Savigny's note in Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1798) 693, under the Rumphian name pagamat. There is little in the description or in the figure to indicate an Elaeocarpus, and n the infructcscence is drawn correctly, it certainly is not a rep- resentative of this genus, although Rumphius compares the fruits with his Ganitrus, which is an Elaeocarpus. Its status should be determinable from continued field work in Amboina- as Rumphius states that it was common in the Moluccas and ci ej the native names pagamatta and pegarig matta for Amboina ^' sal for Ternate. GONYSTYLACEAE-TILIACEAE 353 GONYSTYLACEAE GONYSTYLUS Teysmann and Binnendyck GONYSTYLUS BANCANUS (Miq.) Baill. ex Hook. f. & Jackson Index Kewensis 2 (1895) 1055. Aquilaria bancana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1860) 141, 355. Gony stylus miquelianus T. & B. in Bot. Zeit. 20 (1862) 265. Agallochum spurium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 40. Teysmann and Binnendyck reduced Agallochum spurium Rumph. to Gonystylus miquelianus T. & B., in Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1864) 133, where the species is minutely de- scribed and figured. It is impossible definitely to determine from Rumphius's description whether the plant he had in mind was G. hancanus Baill. or was one of the other species of the genus. The fact that a portion of his material came from Borneo leads one to suspect that he may have had one of the Bornean species, G. affinis Radlk., G. borneensis Gilg, G. pluricornis Radlk., or G. calophyllus Gilg. Agallochum spuriuin album Rumph., very briefly described in this chapter, is indeterminable from any data at present available. Agallochum spurium III, merely mentioned, is Excoecaria agallocha Linn., later described and figured by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. 2:237, t 79, 80 (seep. 327). TILIACEAE CORCHORUS Linnaeus CORCHORUS CAPSULARIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 529. Ganga sativa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 212, t. 78, f. 1. This spcies is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Rumphius's figure is unmistakably Corchorus capsularis Linn. It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1079, all later authors concurring in this reduction. CORCHORUS OLITORIUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 529. Ganga agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 213 (baud t. 78, f. 2). This species is not represented in the Amboina collections. The description is unmistakably that of Corchorus olitorius Linn. 1 he figure, however, is certainly no Corchorus, but I am unable ^^\ suggest what species was intended ; it does not agree at all ^'ith the description in either its leaf or its fruit characters. ^he figure was referred by Linnaeus to Corchorus olitorius in "^^ickman. Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130. 144971 23 354 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE COLUMBIA Persoon COLUMBIA SUBOBOVATA Hochr. PL Bogor. Exsiec. (1904) 25. Restiaria nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 188. Perticaria tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 189, t. 120. Perticaria tertia latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 189. Amboina, Negri lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 279, September 8, 1913^ in light woods, altitude 10 meters, locally known as hunot; Amboina (town), Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 278, July 30, 1913, river sides at 5 meters altitude, locally known as morong itam; Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 280 , near the seashore, October 29, 1913, locally known as morong mera and hunut puti. There is very little doubt that the three Rumphian descrip- tions, cited above, represent the same species, and that all are Columbia (Diplophractum) subobovata Hochr. The species presents great variation in its vegetative characters, the leaves varying from 8 to 35 cm in length and from 5 to 18 cm in width, all intermediate sizes being found on the same specimen. Like- wise the leaf bases on the same specimen yary from perfectly equi- lateral to strongly inequilateral. The figure given by Rumph- ius for Perticaria tertia is very poor, and one would never suspect that it was intended for a species of Columbia, The description, however, is unmistakable. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 639, referred, with doubt, Restiaria nigra Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 188, to Restiaria cordata Lour. Loureiro's species, how- ever, is supposed to be an Uncaria, is certainly not the same as the Rumphian one, and must be interpreted from Cochin-China material. The proper disposition of Perticaria has not before been indicated.* TRIUMFETTA Linnaeus TRIUMFETTA BARTRAMIA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1044. Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Enum. PL Carib. (1762) 22, Stirp. Am. Hist. (1763) 147, t. 90. Lappago amboinica sylvestrls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 60 (haud ^ 25, f. 2). Amboina, town of Amboina and Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ~^'' August, 1913, along the beach and in waste places at low altitudes. Lappago amboinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 59, t 25, /. ^- ^^ certainly Urena lobata Linn. The figure is poor, but the drawing of the fruits and the description are unmistakably Urena, while the drawing of the flowers on the same plant are likewise * For a further discussion of the status of Restiaria nigra Ru^^Pj^ see Trichospermum, quadrivalve Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (^^ Bot. 289. MALVACEAE 355 unmistakably those of Triumfetta, The figure has by some authors been referred to Urena, by others to Triumfetta, The description of Lappago amboinica sylvestris is certainly that of a Triumfetta, Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 163, has re- ferred it to Triumfetta rotundifolia Lam., but Lamarck's species is Indian not Malayan. The oldest name for this species is Bartramia indica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 389, but the specific name is invalidated in Triumfetta by Triumfetta indica Lam. Triumfetta bartramia Linn, was based on Bartramia indica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 389, with the addition of a reference to "Rumph. Amb. 3: t. 119,'' which is Commersonia bartramia (Linn.) Merr. I interpret the type of Bartramia indica Linn, as FL ZeyL 17i, which according to Thwaites, Fl. Ceyl. 1 (1893) 180, is Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq., who also states that : The name T. Bartramia has priority (1762), but Linnaeus may have included in it more than T. rhomboidea Jacq. as now understood. MALVACEAE ABUTILON Tournefort ABUTILON INDICUM (Linn.) Sweet Hort. Brit. (1827) 54. Sida indica Linn. Cent. PL 2 (1756) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 324. Abut i Ion laeve Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 31, t. 11. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Rel Robins, 2518 from Boeleleng, Bali, is Abutilon indicum Sweet. Abutilon laeve Rumph. was originally considered by Linnaeus to represent a variety of Sida abutilon Linn., in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125. It was first reduced to Sida indica Linn, by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 414, which as Abutilon indicum (Linn.) Sweet is cer- tainly the correct disposition of it. By some authors it is. considered to represent Sida indica Sweet var. populifolia (Lam.) Mast, in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1874) 326, while Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 178, erroneously placed it under Sida abutilon ljmn,=Abutilon avicennae Gaertn. ABUTILON HIRTUM (Lam.) Sweet Hort. Brit. (1827) 53. Sida hirta Lam. EncycL 1 (1783) 7. Sida pilosa L'Herit. Stirp. (1784-85) 130. Abutilon hirsutum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 29, t, 10. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. ^he Rumphian description and plate were cited by Lamarck in 356 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE the original description of Sida hirta, but the actual type of the species was a plant collected by Sonnerat. Linnaeus originally considered the plate to represent a variety of Sida abutilon Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125J while Burman f., Henschel, and Murray erroneously placed it under Sida asiatica Linn. By other authors it has been placed under Abutilon graveolens Wight & Arn. (Sida graveolem Roxb.) , to which Abutilon Mr turn has been reduced as a variety,* but even if varietal forms be recognized, the specific name, hirtum, being much older, should be retained. Abutilon litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 33, briefly described in the same chapter with Abutilon laeve= Abutilon indicim Sweet, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 73, possibly to represent Abutilon albescens Miq. This suggested reduction of Abutilon litoreum is possibly correct, but the definite identification of the form described by Rumphius must await further botanical exploration of the Moluccas. The plant is undoubtedly an Abutilon and may be a form of A. indicum Sweet. SIDA Linnaeus SIDA ACUTA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 147. Sida carpinifolia Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 307. Sida scoparia Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 414. Sigalurium li longifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 45, t. 18, /. 2. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 500, August 25, 1913, altitude about 100 meters. The figure given by Rumphius is unmistakably Sida acuta Burm. f., and Burman f. cites it in the original publication of his species, although his description is based primarily on actual specimens. Linnaeus erroneously referred it to Sida spinosa Linn., in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145. Loureiro, Fl Cochinch. (1790) 414, cites it as representing his Sida scoparia. Most recent authors have followed Burman f ., which is certainly the correct disposition of Sigalurium longifolium, SIDA RETUSA Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 961. Sigalurium I rotundum s. vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 44, t 1^- This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure is unmistakably Sida retusa Linn., and it is cited ^^ the original description of that species, although it is not the type. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Sida almfo'^^ Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 * Masters in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1874) 327. MALVACEAE 357 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145, where it manifestly does not belong. SIDA CORDI FOLIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 684. Abutilon montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 32. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Rel. Robins. 2512, from Boeleleng, Bali, is a form of this common and widely distributed species. The reduction of Ahu- tilon montanum to Sida cordifolia follows Hasskarl, Neue Schllis- sel (1866) 73, and is almost certainly the correct disposition of it. The form from the Cape of Good Hope, indicated by Rumphius, 1. c, as Abutilon montanum e Capite bonae spei, suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 73, as possibly Sida triloba Cav. or S. sonneratiana Cav,— Abutilon sonneratianum Sweet, may be iden- tifiable from a study of the South African Malvaceae in Sida, Abutilon, and other allied genera. It may be one of the species that Hasskarl has indicated, but again it may be quite different from both of these. SIDA spp.? Sigalurlum rotundum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 45. Sigalurium Ml album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 45. The descriptions are too indefinite to warrant accurate de- termination of these two forms. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 160, suggests that the former may be Sida carpinoides T)C.=Malvastrum coromandelianunfi (Linn.) Garcke (M. tricus- pidatttm G. Gray) and that the latter may be Sida alba Linn., but both of these suggested determinations are probably wrong. URENA Linnaeus URENA LOBATA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 692. Lappago amboinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 59, t. 25, f. 2. Amboina, Caju poeti, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^95, August 2, 1913, roadsides, etc., up to an altitude of 350 meters. So far as the Rumphian figure and description go, Urena lobata includes the forms described as I laciniata and II latifolia, while ni silvestris and the drawings of the attached flowers are Trium- ^^(ta hartramia Linn, (see p. 354). The descriptions quoted above and the figure, excepting the flowers, are unmistakably ^jena lobata Linn. On account of the mixture of two entirely different species in the drawing, the plate has by some been cited ^nder Triumfetta, by others under Urena. The plate and de- ^^^iption, for the most part, are Urena lobata Linn., although ^^iginally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 358 RUMPHLUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, to Urena sinuata Linn., but cor- rected in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1148, to Urena lobata. Other names involved in the reduction are Urena lappago Sm. and U. heterophylla Lam. ABELMOSCHUS Medikus ABELMOSCHUS MOSCHATUS Medik. Malv. (1787) 46. Hibiscus ahelmoschus Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 696. Granum moschatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 38, t. 15. Amboina, Toelehoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Jf92, November 25, 1913, in grasslands, altitude about 15 meters, locally known as daun kasturi. The original reduction of Granum moschatum to Hibiscus ahelmoschus Linn, was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Alnb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 980, v^hich is certainly the correct disposition of it, although now it is very generally recognized as representing a distinct genus and is classified as Ahelmoschus moschatus Medik. The Amboina specimen cited above is much more pubescent than the commoner forms of the species, but probably belongs here. ABELMOSCHUS MINDANAENSIS Warb. in Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 111. Granum moschatum agreste Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 39. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 493, August 17, 1913, along river banks, altitude about 50 meters. Erect, about 1.5 meters high. Granum moschatum agreste is very briefly described, but the probabilities are that the plant here determined as Ahelmoschm mindanaensis Warb. is the one intended by Rumphius. The description given by Rumphius is mainly comparative with Ahelmoschus moschatus Medik., a taller, more woody plant than the latter, with which data the cited specimen agrees. It cannot possibly be Ahelmoschus ficulneus W. & A. as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 74. The Amboina specimen is apparently a perfect match for our Mindanao material that un- questionably represents Warburg's species; it has previously been reported only from Mindanao. HIBISCUS Linnaeus HIBISCUS TILIACEUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 694. Paritium tiliaceum A. St. Hil. Fl. Bras. Merid. 1 (1825) 256. Novella Rumph. Herb, Amb. 2: 218, t. 73. Novella repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 222. Novella rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 223. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 497, October 17, 191- » in cultivated ground, altitude about 80 meters, locally known as barii- MALVACEAE 359 Novella of Rumphius was first reduced to Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 976, which disposition of it is certainly correct and which has been accepted by practically all authors. The figure is not good. The form described by Rumphius as Novella repens is certainly the form of Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn, with procumbent trunks that is very abundant in some localities, while Novella rubra is also manifestly merely a form of the same species. HIBISCUS MUTABILIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 694. Flos horarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 27, t. 9, This widely cultivated form is not represented in our Am- boina collections. The figure, however, is unmistakably refer- able to Hibiscus mutabilis Linn, and was first reduced to this species by Linnaeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 977, in which he has been followed by all authors. HIBISCUS SURATTENSIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 696. Hibiscus convolvulaceus Hassk. in Abh. Naurf. GeseUsch. Halle 9 (1866) 216 (Neue Schliissel 74) (type!). Herba crinalium domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 40, t. 16. Herba crinalium silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 41. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. j^96, August 8, 1913, near the beach. The original reduction of Herba crinalium to Hibiscus surat- tensis Linn, was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 979, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. This reduction has been followed by all authors. Hass- karl, however, Neue Schliissel (1866) 74, decided that Herba mnalium silvestris represented a distinct species, which he earned and described after Rumphius, as Hibiscus convolvulaceus, the publication of which has been overlooked by all authors and is not included in Index Kewensis. I consider this to be merely '^ form of Hibiscus surattensis Linn, with narrowly lobed leaves. ^'BISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 694. Plos festalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 24, t. 8. ^his reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, and the figure was consistently cited by Lin- ^aeiis in his subsequent writings; while his reduction, certainly ^ll^rect, has been followed by all authors. The form figured is 6 commonly cultivated one with double flowers. The form 360 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE described as ruber simplex is the ordinary type with normal red flowers. Other forms described are the one with yellowish double flowers and one with normal, pale or nearly white flowers. This commonly cultivated plant does not occur in our Amboina collections, but is doubtless common in Amboina in cultivation, as it is in all parts of Malaya. THESPESIA Solander THESPESIA POPULNEA (Linn.) Soland. ex Corr. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 290. Hibiscus populneus Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 694. Thespesia macrophylla Blume Bijdr. (1825) 73, 106. Novella litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 224, t, 74. Amboina, Amahoesoe and Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 498, August and September, 1913, along the strand. Novella litorea was first reduced by Linnaeus to Hibiscus populneus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 976, which, as Thespesia populnea Soland., seems to be the correct disposition of it. Blume, however, Bijdr. (1825) 73, has pro- posed Thespesia macrophylla as a distinct species, apparently based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description, and many authors have recognized it as a valid species. Any large series of specimens from the Malayan region presents such relatively great variations in the characters by which the two forms have been distinguished, that I am by no means certain that they are specifically distinct and prefer to retain the Amboina plant under the older name.* GOSSYPIUM Linnaeus GOSSYPIUM BRASILIENSE Macf. Fl. Jam. 1 (1837) 72. Gossypium lapideum Tussac, Fl. Antil. 2 (1818) 67, nomefi nudum. Gossypium latifollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 37, t. IS. Amboina, Koesoe koesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^9i, August 23, 1913, locally known as kapas. The Rumphian species was first reduced by Linnaeus to Gos- sypium arbor eum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1148, Sp. Pl- ed. 2 (1763) 975, where it certainly does not belong. Lamarck cites it in the original description of Gossypium vitifoU^^^^ Encycl. 2 (1786) 135, but Lamarck's type was an actual specimen collected by Sonnerat. Watt, Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants of the World (1907) 255, leaves the Rumphian name as a syn- * See Baker in Journ. Bot. 35 (1897) 52. BOMBACACEAE 361 onym of Lamarck's species, but states that **Rumphius's Celebes plant shows the leaves too deeply 5-lobed (as in G. brasiliense) to be typical G, vitifoliumJ' Other names involved in the reduc- tion are Gossypium nigrum Ham. and G. indicum Lam. While the disposition of Gossypium latifolium Rumph. as a synonym of Q. brasilierise Macf. is not certainly the correct one, it is a reasonably safe one for the present. GOSSYPIUM INDICUM Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 134. Gossypium nanking Meyen Reise 2 (1836) 323. Gossypium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 33, t, 12. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian plant was first reduced by Linnaeus to Gossypium herbaceum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1148, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 975, where it certainly does not belong. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 134, cited the Rumphian figure as representing his Gossypium indicum, although the actual type of that species is a specimen collected by Sonnerat. However, Watt considers that Gossypium indicum Lam. is a synonym of G. nanking Meyen, and as Lamarck's specific name is the oldest valid one for the species it is here accepted. Watt, Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants of the World (1907) 128, definitely refers Rumphius's figure to Gossypium nanking var. nadam Watt. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 73, interprets the Rumphian description as Gossypium minus and G. majus, considering the tall form de- scribed to be Gossypium arboreum Linn. GOSSYPIUM PURPURASCENS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 369. Gossypium floribus fusco-rubentibus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 34. The reduction merely follows Hasskarl's suggestion. It is probable that it is the correct disposition of the Javan form that Rumphius casually and very briefly describes, but the data given are too few to warrant a certain identification of it. BOMBACACEAE DURIO Adanson t^URio ZIBETHINUS Murr. Syst. (1774) 591. Durio Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 99, t. 29. Amboina, Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 69, August 5, 1913, ^oj^ a cultivated tree, locally known as durion. ^urio was reduced to Durio zibethinus by Murray in the orig- ^^^1 description of the species, the characters being apparently 362 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE taken largely, if not wholly, from Rumphius. The three forms briefly described by Rumphius on page 101 may be merely variants of the common durian or some of them may represent distinct species. CEIBA Medikus CEIBA PENTANDRA (Linn.) Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 244, t. 133. Bomhax pentandrum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 511. Eriodendron anfracttiosum DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 479. Gossampinus alba Ham. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 15 (1826) 126. Gossampinus rumphii Schott. & EndL Meletem. (1832) 35. Eriophorus javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 194, t. 80. The common kapoc or silk cotton tree is not represented in our Amboina collections, Eriophorus javana Rumph. was first reduced by Linnaeus to Bomhax pentandrum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1754) 120, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 958, but in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1141, it is placed under Bomhax aculeatum Linn., which may prove to be merely a synonym of Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. Bomhax aculeatum Linn, does not appear in Index Kewensis. STERCULIACEAE PENTAPETES Linnaeus PENTAPETES PHOENICEA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 698. Flos inpius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 288, t. 100, /. 1. This well-known species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure and description are unmistak- ably the same as Pentapetes phoenicea Linn., and Linnaeus himself made the first reduction, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1150, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 958. This reduction has been followed by all subsequent authors. COMMERSONIA Forster COMMERSONIA BARTRAMIA (Linn.) comb. nov. Muntingia bartra7nia Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124 (type!). Commersonia echinata Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 44, t. 22. Restiaria alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 187, t. 119. Amboina, Hoenoet and Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 294, August '- 1913, in flower, October 18, 1913, in fruit, locally known as marong, morong mera, and hunut. In clearings, altitude 200 to 375 meters. Restiaria alba Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, to Muntingia bartramia Linn, and is the whole basis of the Linnean species, which has been entirely overlooked STERCULIACEAE 363 In the same year Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1859) 1044, erroneously referred the same figure to Triumfetta bartramia Linn. The Rumphian plate and description were reduced to Forster's species by Linnaeus f., Suppl. (1781) 187, and this disposition of it has been accepted by subsequent authors. In this connection botan- ists generally have recognized Commersonia echinata Forst. and C. platyphylla Andr. as two distinct species. The latter is hardly more than a form or a variety of the former. Gagnepain, Not. Syst. 1 (1909) 96, in a note regarding the typical form of Fors- ter's species, reduces Commersonia platyphylla Andr. to C echi- Mia Forst. yar, platyphylla (Andr.) Gagnep. Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Fl. 1 (1891) 81, recognizes Restiaria Rumph. as the proper generic name for Commersonia, but this is inadmissible under the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. HELICTERES Linnaeus HELICTERES ISORA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 963. Fructus regis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 32, t. 17, f. 1. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Burman, in the explanation of the Rumphian fig- ure, p. 33, connects Fructus regis with. Helicteres isora Linn., citing not the Linnean binomial, but the diagnostic sentence "Helicteres foliis cordatis, serratis, fructu composito contorto, Linnaei Spec. Plant, pag. 963.'' This reduction was accepted by Linneaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, and manifestly is the correct disposition of Fructus regis, Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 88, erroneously considered it to represent a variety of his Helic- feres ovata, a Brasilian species; while Hasskarl, PL Jav. Rar. (1848) 308, Neue Schlussel (1866) 189, adds Isora corylifoUa Schott & Endl., a synonym of Helicteres isora Linn. KLEINHOVIA Linnaeus KLEINHOVIA HOSPITA Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1365. Catti marus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 177, t. 113, Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 292, September 8, 1913, f^^argins of cultivated fields, altitude about 10 meters, locally known as Ccitti marus was cited by Linnaeus in the original description of Kleinhovia hospita, but the type was an actual specimen from *^^^va, collected by Kleinhof; the generic name is corrected by ^ome botanists to Kleinhofia, but the original Linnean spelling ^s here retained. All authors subsequent to Linnaeus who have Cited the Rumphian description and figure have followed Lin- naeus in the reduction of Catti marus. 364 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE STERCULIA Linnaeus STERCULIA FOETIDA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1008. Clompanus molucanus Raf. Sylva Tellur. (1838) 73 (type!). Clompanus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 168, t. 107. Amboina, Silali, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 293^ in clearings at an altitude of about 150 meters, September 22, 1913. This reduction, manifestly correct, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1277, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1431, and has generally been accepted by all botanists who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure and description. The Rumphian description and figure typify Rafinesque's genus and species Clompanus molucanus, STERCULIA TREUBII Hochr. PL Bogor. Exsicc. (1904) 8. Clompanus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 169, t. 107 bis. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 827, August 25, 1913; Ama- hoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 398, August 28, 1913; the former in forests at an altitude of about 250 meters, the latter on coral rocks at an altitude of about 10 meters; locally known as choklat utan and saklat utan; that is, wild chocolate, the seeds being' used as a substitute for, or as an adulterant of, chocolate. Linnaeus reduced this to Sterculia balanghas Linn., in Stick- man Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Alnoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1277, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1430, and this disposi- tion of the Rumphian plant has been accepted by most authors. However, it manifestly is incorrect, as Sterculia balanghas Linn. is known only from India and Ceylon. Smith placed the Rumph- ian species under his Sterculia urceolata in the original de- scription of that species, Rees's Cyclop. 34 (1816) no. 3, in which he was followed by de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 482. Smith's material was from Honimoa Island, near Amboina, and his description, a copy of which has kindly been supplied to me by Sir David Prain, does not conform with my interpretation of Clompanus minor Rumph. The specimens cited above appear to be identical with Sterculia treubii Hochr., originally described from trees cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, their definite origin being unknown. The Rumphian figure is very poor, and from it alone one would hardly suspect the species described by Rumphlus to be even closely allied to Stercum treubii Hochr. The Rumphian description applies to the speci- mens much closer than the figure. Under Clompanus minor several forms are discussed, whicn probably represent distinct species. These are Clompanus terna- tensis femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 170 ; C. ternatensis mas Rumph- DILLENIACEAE 365 1. c, from Ternate; and C. silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 171, from Ceram. These are entirely undeterminable from the material and data now available, and their identity must await the results of field work in the two islands mentioned. ABROMA Jacquin ABROMA FASTUOSA Jacq. Hort. Vind. 3 (1776) 3, t. 1. Abroma (Ambroma) augusta Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 341. Gossypium daemon Is Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 38, t. 14- No representative of the genus Abroma occurs in our Amboina collection, yet Gossypium daemonis Rumph. is manifestly an Abroma, Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, erred in reducing it to his Hibiscus zeyla- nicTis. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 156, seems to be the first author to make the reduction to Abroma, by referring it to Abroma augusta Linn, f . The form described by Rumphius is manifestly what is currently named Abroma fastuosa R. Br.; that is, the form with spiny branchlets. Abroma mollis DC, Prodr. 1 (1824) 485, is described from specimens originating in the Moluccas, and is unquestionably the same as the spiny form currently named Abroma fastuosa R. Br. I have adopted the oldest name, Abroma fastuosa Jacq., but if this smooth-stemmed form be really specifically distinct from the form with the spiny stems, some adjustment of the synonymy will be necessary. HER IT! ERA Dryander HERITIERA LITTORALIS Dryand. in Ait. Hort. Kew. 3 (1789) 546. Atunus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 95, t. 63. This common and widely distributed strand plant is not rep- resented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was first suggested by Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 228, and has generally been accepted by subsequent authors. Roxburgh, FL Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 142, erroneously reduced it to Heritiera minor Roxb., and by others it has been referred to Heritiera fomes Ham. It is, however, unquestionably Heritiera littoralis Dryand. DILLENIACEAE TETRACERA Linnaeus "TETRACERA SCAN DENS (Linn.) comb. nov. Tragia scandens Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!). Deli7na hebecarpa DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 407. Tetracera hebecarpa Boerl. in Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 3. Pun Is urens aspera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 13, t. 9. ^his species is not represented in our Amboina collections, 366 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE yet Funis urens aspera Rumph. is unmistakably a Tetraceru and apparently the form described by de Candolle as Tetracera hebecarpa, which some authors reduce to Tetracera sarmentosa Linn., and others treat as a variety of the latter species. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Tragia scandens Linn., a species that is not included in Index Kewensis. Linnaeus later, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1390, referred Funis urem Rumph. to Tragia volubilis Linn., in which he was followed by Burman f., Poiret, and Henschel. Baillon, Etud. Gen. Euphorb. (1858) 461, 463, referred it to Tragia hirsuta Blume. The description, and for that matter the figure also, is unmistakably Tetracera and has nothing to do with the euphorbiaceous genus Tragia, TETRACERA BOERLAGEI sp. nov. Funis urens glabra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 13. Amboina, Patoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^85 (type), August 5, 1913, on trees at an altitude of about 200 meters. Frutex scandens, ramulis junioribus adpresse hirsutis; foliis oblongis ad oblongo-ellipticis, coriaceis, nitidis, usque ad 11 cm longis, glabris vel minutissime scaberulis, integris vel obscu- rissime undulatis, basi rotundatis ad subacutis, apice acutis ad obtusis, nervis utrinque 10 ad 12; inflorescentiis anguste pyramidatis, leviter hirsutis; sepalis interioribus obovatis, ro- tundatis, 6 mm longis, carpellis 2 vel 3, dense hirsutis ; f olliculis 1 vel 2, rariter 3, oblongo-ovoideis, acuminatis, 8 ad 10 mm longis, parcissime hirsutis, in siccitate pallide olivaceis nitidisque, se- minibus solitariis. A scandent shrub, nearly glabrous except the very young branchlets and the inflorescence. Branches glabrous, reddish- brown, twisted, slender, tips of the young branchlets sparingly appressed-hirsute. Leaves oblong to oblong-elliptic, coriaceous, brittle, glabrous on both surfaces or very minutely and slightly scaberulous, in young leaves the midrib on the lower surface very slightly appressed-hirsute, 6 to 11 cm long, 2.5 to 5.5 cm wide, rather pale or brownish when dry, shining. base i-ounded to subacute, apex acute to obtuse, margins entire or very obscurely undulate ; lateral nerves 10 to 12 on each side of the midrib, prominent, brown; petioles 1 cm long or less. Panicles terminal, narrowly pyramidal, up to 12 cm in length- sparingly hirsute with scattered, subappressed hairs, the branches few, distant, the lower ones 2 cm long or less. Fruiting calyx with five sepals, the outer ones broadly ovate, slightly hirsute, about 3 mm long, the inner two or three obovate, DILLENIACEAE 367 rounded, about 6 mm long, their margins minutely ciliate. Car- pels 2 or 3, narrowly ovoid, densely hirsute, the styles glabrous. Follicles 1 or 2, sometimes 3, narrowly oblong-ovate, acuminate, 8 to 10 mm long, pale olivaceous when dry, shining, with few, scattered, subappressed, rather long, stiff hairs, when fresh violet, turning brownish. Seeds solitary, broadly ovate, 2 to 2.5 mm long, the aril pale, membranaceous, loose, obovate, rounded, 3 mm long, entire or obscurely toothed, not lacerate. This species is dedicated to Doctor J. G. Boerlage, who con- tracted a fever, while carrying on a botanical exploration of Amboina, which resulted in his death. It is manifestly allied to Tetracera indica Merr. {T, assa DC), from which it differs in its smaller sepals and follicles, the latter being prominently acuminate and sparingly hirsute. From the only other endemic Amboina species, Tetracera moluccana Martelli, it differs in its much shorter petioles and smaller fewer-nerved leaves. While Rumphius's description is short and largely comparative with Funis urens asp era, the specimen cited above agrees with it in all particulars, and I consider it certainly to represent the Rumph- ian plant. Ay-assa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7 : 20 has erroneously been referred by some authors to Tetracera assa DC, but the plant that Rumph- ius describes presents little in common with Tetracera and is certainly not referable to this genus. Christmann and Panzer, Pflanzensyst. 4 (1779) 40, t 26, f, 1, after Houttuyn, Nat. Hist. Plantenk. 5 (1776) 275, referred the Rumphian plant to Assa indica Christm. & Panz., but the description was manifestly based on an actual specimen. The generic name was apparently taken from Rumphius, and de Candolle, Syst. 1 (1818) 402, selected (i^'^sa as the specific name under Tetracera, The synonymy should be adjusted, for Assa indica presents the oldest valid name: Tetracera indica (Christm. & Panz.) comb. nov. (Assa indica Christm. & Panz. Pflanzensyst. 4 (1779) 40, t 26, f. 1; Tetracera (maJ)C. Syst. 1 (1818) 402). DILLENIA Linnaeus O'LLENIA ELLIPTICA Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 1 (1791) 200 (type!). Songium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 140, t. 45. No representative of this species occurs in our Amboina col- lections. Dillenia elliptica Thunb. was based wholly on the ^^^phian figure and description. Martelli, in Beccari Malesia 3 (1887) 161, has redescribed Dillenia elliptica Thunb. from speci- ^^ns collected in Celebes by Beccari, and doubtless this interpre- 368 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE tation of the species is correct. Rumphius staters that Songium was known in Amboina as aylassalinu and as ay macaninu, in Celebes as songi and songo, and in Java as sambu. Sempu is one of the Javanese names for Dillenia indica Linn., the only white-flowered Dillenia reported from Java, so that the Javan reference included by Rumphius probably refers to Dillenia indica Linn. Linnaeus reduced both t, 45 and 46 of Rumphius to Dillenia indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082, but later authors have followed Thunberg in the disposition of t. 45. Lin- naeus was manifestly wrong in his reduction of t 46, which is the following species. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1858) 11, erro- neously reduced Dillenia elliptica Thunb. to Z>. speciosa Thunb., which is a synonym of D, indica Linn. DILLENIA SERRATA Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 1 (1791) 201 (type!). Sangius mas et femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 142, t. ^6*. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Dillenia serrata Thunb. was based wholly on Rumphius and must be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description. Linnaeus erred in reducing this plate to his Dillenia indica, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082. All authors since Thunberg have been content with calling it Dillenia serrata, although the exact status of the species is quite uncertain. It seems probable that more than one species is included in the Rumphian description, as he gives the range as Amboina, Celebes, and Java. It was said by Rumphius to be abundant in Celebes at Tambocco, near Macassar, and at Toletae. Dillenia ochreata Teysm. & Binn. should be compared critically with Dillenia serrata Thunb., as it is probably identical with Thunberg's species. THEACEAE GORDONIA* Ellis GORDONIA RUMPHM sp. nov. Lignum muscosum s. Caju la pi a Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 203, t 1 Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 276 (type), November 1, 1913, in forests, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as kayi^ l^P'-' Arbor circiter 10 m alta, floribus exceptis glabra; fol^|' oblongis, coriaceis, usque ad 14 cm longis, acutis vel obscuie acuminatis, obscure crenulatis, basi cuneatis, nervis utrinQ^^ circiter 15; floribus solitariis, axillaribus, circiter 3 cm diametio- * Retained name, Vienna Code; Lasianthus Adans. (1763) is older. THEACEAE 369 sepalis suborbicularibus, coriaceis, extus cinereo-pubescentibus, petalis extus filamentisque basi adpresse pubescentibus. A tree about 10 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence. Branches terete, reddish-brown, the branchlets smooth. Leaves oblong or oblong-elliptic, coriaceous, 8 to 14 cm long, 3.5 to 5.5 cm wide, brown or brownish-olivaceous, prominently shining when dry, base cuneate, apex acute to obscurely acuminate, margins obscurely crenulate, the lower surface minutely verrucu- lose; lateral nerves irregular, the primary ones about 15 on each side of the midrib, slender, anastomosing; petioles up to 5 mm in length. Flowers solitary, axillary, white, about 3 cm in diameter, their pedicels about 1 cm long, slightly pubescent. Sepals suborbicular, coriaceous, rounded, cinereous-pubescent ex- ternally, about 7 mm in diameter. Petals obovate, rounded, less than 1.5 cm long, externally pubescent. Stamens numerous, the basal portions of the filaments appressed-pubescent. Ovary ovoid, densely appressed-pubescent with pale hairs, the style- arms 5, short, glabrous. The identity of this plant with Lignum muscosum is certain. It bears the same native name as that cited by Rumphius for his plant, agrees well with his description, and fairly well with the rather crude plate. The identity of Lignum muscosum has not been previously determined, although Teysmann in a letter to Hasskarl considered it a species of Gordonia.^ Its alliance is with Gordonia eoQcelsa Blume, from which it is readily distin- guished by its entirely glabrous leaves and branchlets and its much smaller flowers. Caju lapia soyanansium 8. Lignum muscosum parvifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3 : 203, mentioned and casually described under Caju ^nd, is apparently an entirely different plant. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 67, mentions it, but suggests no identification of i^- It is quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius. TERNSTROEMIA t Mutis "^ERNSTRGEMIA ROBINSONM sp. nov. 'chthyoctonos montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 214, t. 139, Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 275 (type) , October ^^' 1913, in forests, altitude about 350 meters locally known as anaan mera. Arbor circiter 14 m alta, glabra ; f oliis oblongo-obovatis, crasse coriaceis, usque ad 25 cm longis, petiolatis, apice obscure latis- *See Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 67. t Retained name, Vienna Code; Mokof Adans. (1763), Taonabo Aubl. '^ '''>), Dupinia Scop. (1777), and Hoferia Scop. (1777) are older. 144971 24 370 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE sime acuminatis ad obtusis, basi cuneatis, in siccitate purpureo- brunneis, nervis utrinque circiter 15; fructibus magnis, ellip. soideis, circiter 6 cm longis, calycis lobis valde incrassatis. sublignosis. A tree about 14 m high, quite glabrous, the branches stout, grayish. Leaves purplish-brown when dry, somewhat shining, thickly coriaceous, 15 to 25 cm long, 6 to 11 cm wide, generally oblong-obovate sometimes oblong, apex obtuse to very broadly and obscurely blunt-acuminate, base narrowed, cuneate; lateral nerves about 15 on each side of the midrib, slender, distinct, very obscurely anastomosing, the reticulations obsolete or nearly so; petioles stout, about 1 cm long. Flowers not seen. Fruits ellipsoid, vermilion when fresh, dark-brown when dry, about 6 cm long, solitary, their pedicels stout, about 2 cm long, the calyx persistent, the lobes much thickened, rugose, somewhat woody when dry, more or less connate, the fruiting calyx 2 to 2.4 cm in diameter, the pericarp smooth, rather brittle, each fruit containing three, red or garnet-colored, 3 cm long pyrenes which are notched at the apex, each containing two seeds. This species agrees sufficiently closely with Rumphius's description and with the rather crude figure. It is characterized by its relatively large leaves and large fruits and is most closely allied to Ternstroemia megacarpa Merr., of the Philippines; from which, however, it differs in many characters, notably in its calyx-lobes being more or less connate, very much thickened, and somewhat woody when dry and in its much shorter pedun- cles. The form described by Rumphius in the same chapter as Ichthyoctonos litorea silvestris latifolia is possibly also referable here. GUTTIFERAE MESUA Linnaeus MESUA FERREA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 515. Calophyllum nagassarium Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 121. Nagassarlum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 3, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Nagassarium was described by Rumphius from specimens cul- tivated in Java. It was originally reduced to Mesna ferrea Linn by Murray, Syst. (1774) 525, certainly the correct disposition of it, and one that has been accepted by practically all authors. Calophyllum Tiagassarium. Burm. f . is an exact synonym of Mesn(^ ferrea Linn, and was based on Javan specimens with a reference to Nagassarium Rumph. as a synonym. GUTTIFERAE 371 CALOPHYLLUM Linnaeus CALOPHYLLUM INOPHYLLUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 513. Balsamaria inophyllum Lour. FL Cochinch. (1790) 470. Calophyllum bintagor Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 41 (type!), FL Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 607. Bintangor marjtima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 211, t. 71, Amboina, Robinson PL Rurnph. Amb, 480, September 22, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as bintangor. This is certainly the correct disposition of Bintangor marit- ima, a characteristic tree of tropical seashores of the Old World, the reduction having been made first by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1753) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1075, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 732, and generally accepted by all authors. It is the type of Calophyllum bintagor Roxb. as originally published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 41.* CALOPHYLLUM SOULATTRI Burm. f. FL Ind. (1768) 121. Calophyllum spectabile Willd. in Ges. Naturf. Fr. Berl. Mag. 5 (1811) 80. Bintangor silvestrls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 216, t. 72, Bintangor silvestrls altera Rumph. 1. c. 217. Amboina, near houses, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, ^82, August 20, 1913, locally known as sulatre; Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 481, in forests, altitude 150 meters, locally known as bintangor utan. Bintangor silvestris was originally reduced by Linnaeus, through error, to the American Calophyllum calaba Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121. Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 553, cites it, with doubt, under Calophyllum acuminatum Lam., which is supposed to be a syn- onym of Calophyllum spectabile Willd. =C. soulattri Burm. f. Choisy, in de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 562, cites it as a doubtful synonym of Calophyllum spectabile Willd. ; while Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 42, adds Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f., which IS the oldest valid specific name for this widely distributed species. Rumphius's figure is poor, but his description conforms closely to the characters of the species. Bintangor silvestris ^^iera Rumph. (PI Rumph. Amb. A81)y seems to be merely a term of Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f . with the leaves somewhat ^etuse at the apex. CALOPHYLLUM sp. Bintangor montana (B. •Ilvestrls tertia) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 217. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 483, September ' ^^^^, in forests, altitude about 300 meters. * See Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1812) Bot. 414. 372 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The specimen certainly represents the plant that Rumphius briefly described as Bintangor montana, but it appears to be an undescribed species. Unfortunately no flowers are available, so that it is impossible to determine the true relationships of the form within the genus Calophyllum. The leaves are lanceo- late, 6 to 10 cm long, 2 to 3 cm wide, acute at the base, and gradually narrowed in the upper one-half to the rather slender and blunt-acuminate apex. The fruits are less than 1 cm in di- ameter. The plant is entirely glabrous except the ferruginous- pubescent buds. GARCINIA Linnaeus GARCINIA AMBOINENSIS Spreng. Syst. Veg. 2 (1825) 448 (type!). Folium acidum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 58, t, S2. This is a species of very doubtful status, based entirely on Folium acidum majus Rumph. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 648, referred it to Oxy carpus cochinchinensis hour, =Garcinia cochinchinensis Choisy, a species based on Cochin-China speci- mens, quite different from the Amboina plant described by Rumphius and known only from Indo-China.* Doctor Robinson collected in Amboina typical Garcinia dulcis Kurz, which he thought probably represented Folium acidum majus. However, while agreeing with the figure in many respects and with the description in part, the discrepancies are too great to warrant the citation of this specimen as representing the Rumphian plant. Boerlage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 75, refers to Garcinia amboinensis Spreng., two specimens, originating in Amboina and cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg. I have sterile specimens of one of these, "VI-F-11," which certainly agrees better with the original figure and description than does Gar- cinia dulcis Kurz, and which may represent Folium acidum majus in spite of certain discrepancies between the specimen and the figure and description. GARCINIA DULCIS (Roxb.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 43' (1874) 88 Xanthochymus dulcis Roxb. PL Coromandel 3 (1819) t. 270. Mundo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 135. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. ^78, October 8, l^VS, m forests, altitude about 175 meters. The reduction of Mundo is based almost wholly on the native name, the brief description being entirely inadequate. It ^^^^^^ from Java, and the native names mundo, munder, etc., are stili * See Vesque in DC. Monog. Phan. 8 (1893) 449. GUTTIFERAE 373 in use there for this species. The type of Xanthochyrmcs dulcis Roxb.= Gar dma dulcis Kurz was from the Moluccas. GARCINIA CERAMICA Boerl. Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 76? Folium acidum minut Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 60, t. 33. Folium acidum minus Rumph. is almost certainly a species of Garcinia, and the above reduction is suggested. There are, however, some discrepancies between the characters indicated by Rumphius and the authentic specimens of Boerlage's species before me. Vesque, in DC. Monog. Phan. 8 (1893) 349, has suggested that it may be the same as Garcinia picrorhiza Miq., but to me it seems much closer to G. cei^amica Boerl. than to G. picrorhiza Miq. Two forms are described, majus and minus, which probably represent different species. Rumphius's ma- terial was not from Amboina, but from Little Ceram and Xula- bessi Islands. GARCINIA CAMBOGIA (Gaertn.) Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 701. Mangostana cambogia Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791?) 106. Gutta cam bod ja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 251. The form discussed by Rumphius as Gutta camhodja is un- doubtedly the same as Garcinia cambogia Desr., where it was placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 45. Henschel re- ferred it with doubt to Cambogia gutta Linn., but Cambogia gutta Linn, is a synonym of Garcinia morella Desr., not of Gar- cinia cambogia Desr.* GARCINIA CELEBICA Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 635 (type!). Garcinia rumphii Pierre Fl. Forest. Cochinch. :6num. XIII, t, 77 ^ A, Mangostana celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 134, t. UU* Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 823^ August 16, 1913, on banks of the river at low altitudes. Garcinia celebica Linn, was based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description, which in turn were based on specimens from Macassar, Celebes, there known as kras and as mangostaan utan. Pierre, Fl. Forest Cochinch. Enum. XIII, not satisfied that specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg,. Java, under the name Garcinia celebica Linn, were correctly earned, based his Garcinia rumphii on this material. I have ^ duplicate specimen of Pierre 4168, named Garcinia rumphii * See Trimen Fl. Ceyl. 1 (1893) 96. 374 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Pierre, originating in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, which bears the native name kiras. Specimens of ''VI-A-12a " "VI-A-16/' and ^^Vl-C-lSa'' from the Buitenzorg Botanic Garden certainly represent the same species, and agree well with the Rumphian figure and description of Mangostana celebica, Boer- lage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 69, concluded also that Garcinia rumphii Pierre is the same as Mangostana celebica Rumph. and is a synonym of Garcinia celebica Linn. The Am- boina specimen collected by Robinson, cited above, should be critically compared with the closely allied Garcinia porrecta Wall. var. schizogyna Boerl. 1. c. 69. GARCINIA MANGOSTANA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 443. Mangostana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 132, t. US. The mangosteen is not represented in our Amboina collections. Mangostana was one of the few species figured and described by Rumphius that was reduced by Linnaeus in the first edition of the Species Plantarum, where it is cited under Garcinia mangostana Linn. The reduction is certainly correct and has been followed by all authors. •GARCINIA CORNEA Murr. Syst. Veg. (1774) 368 (type!). Lignum corneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 55, t. SO. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Lignum cor- neum Rumph. is the whole basis of Garcinia cornea Murr., and the status of the species is now well known. It is a very charac- teristic species and occurs in cultivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java; "VI-C-144'' and ^'VI-C-144a'' represent stafninate and pistillate plants, both originating in Amboina. Murray has been consistently followed by all authors in this reduction of Lignum corneum. The two forms indicated and briefly described by Rumphius as latifolium and angustifoUim are indeterminable from data now available. The former may be Garcinia latissima Miq., and the latter possibly Garcinia dnlcis Roxb. GARCINIA PICRORHIZA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1866) 209. Pharmacum saguerl legitimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 136, t. U- Boerlage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 67, made this reduc- tion, and I consider that he is correct, after a comparison of the Rumphian figure and description with authentic specimens of MiqueFs species, duplicates from the numbers cited by Boer- lage. Previous to Boerlage's reduction of the Rumphian plant DIPTEROCARPACEAE 375 to Garcinia picrorhiza Miq., its position had not been recognized by any author. GARCINIA PICRORHIZA Miq. var. LIMONORHIZA Boerl. Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 68. Pharmacum limonicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 137, t. Uk, /. B, This is, in all probability, correctly placed by Boerlage. It is in cultivation at Buitenzorg, but is not represented in Robin- son's Amboina collections. GARCINIA sp.? Vidoricum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 173. This form is of wholly doubtful status. Henschel thought that it might be a species of Bassia or of Diospyros. I have suggested Garcinia, as Rumphius states that the bark yields a yellow juice, and his description otherwise conforms fairly well with the characters of Garcinia, DIPTEROCARPACEAE SHORE A Roxburgh SHOREA SELANICA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 33. Unona ? selanica DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 92 (type!). Englehardtia selanica Blume Fl. Jav. 2 (1836) Jugl. 8 (type!). Hopea selanica W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 85; Walp. Repert. 5 (1845) 128 (type!). Dammara selanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 168, t. 56. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections and is not credited to Amboina by Rumphius in the original description. The Rumphian description and figure are the whole basis of Unona selanica DC, Englehardtia selanica Blume, and Hopea selanica W. & A., and it is to be noted that Englehard- ^id selanica Blume and Shorea selanica Blume were published without reference to the earlier Unona selanica DC. In trans- ferring the species to Shorea, Blume adds a short description, Pi'obably from Moluccan specimens. Burck, Ann. Jard. Bot. ^uitenz. 6 (1887) 216, gives a more ample description based on specimens collected by Reinwardt and by Teysmann and on Plants cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java. CHOREA SELANICA Blume var. LATI FOLIA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 33. CJammara selanica femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 169 (type!). Blume originally reduced Dammara selanica femina, by error, ^^ ^Englehardtia spicata Blume FL Jav. 2 (1836) Jugl. 8, followed ^y Hasskarl's equally erroneous reduction of it to Englehardtia 376 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE acerifolia Blume. Later Blume made it the type of Shorea selanica Bl. var. latifolia BL, which is perhaps the correct dis> position of it. The forms described in this chapter as Caju cawan e Java and Dammar leomelaena are undeterminable; the latter is probably a species of Canarium. DRYOBALANOPS Gaertner DRYOBALANOPS AROMATICA Gaertn. Fruct. 3 (1805) 49, t 186. Arbor camphorifera li occidentalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65, 68. The general discussion of camphor includes the true camphor, Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees & Eberm., as well as that produced in Malaya, the resin of Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn. This reduction was made by Blume, Mus. Bot. 2 (1851) .38, and by de Vriese, who placed it under Dryobalanops cam- phora Colebr., a synonym of D. aromatica Gaertn. DIPTEROCARPUS Gaertner DIPTEROCARPUS sp.? Arbor koring Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 74. The reduction of Arbor "koring to Dipterocarpus is based wholly on the observation made by Hamilton that the oil produced by the tree was secured by the same method as that used in gathering the oil of Dipterocarpus, The probabilities are very great that this is the correct disposition of Arbor koring. No further reduction of it is possible from the data given by Rumphius. BIXACEAE BIX A Linnaeus BIXA ORELLANA Linn, Sp. PI. (1753) 512. Pigmentaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 79, t. 19. Pigmentaria Rumph. was first reduced to Bixa orellan/i Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1074, which is manifestly the correct disposition of it and has been accepted by all authors. FLACOURTIACEAE PANGIUM Rein war dt PANGIUM EDULE Reinw. in Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 12. Pangium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 182, t. 59. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 212, October 20, 191- • in light forests, altitude about 75 meters, locally known as pangi. FLACOURTIACEAE 377 The reduction of Pangium made by Reinwardt in the original pubhcation of the genus and species has been followed by all authors and is manifestly the correct disposition of it. The species is of very wide distribution in the Malayan region. FLACOURTIA L'Heritier FLACOURTIA INDICA (Burm. f.) comb. nov. Gmelina indica Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 132, t. 39, f. 5. Mespilus sylvestris Burm. Index Univ. Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [18] (type!), non Burm. 1. c. [14]. FlacouTtia sepiaria Roxb. PI. Coromandel 1 (1795) 48, t. 68, Flacourtia ramontchi L'Herit. Stirp. Nov. (1784-85) 59, t. 30, 31. Spina spinarum I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 36, t. 19, f. 1, 2. Spina spinarum II femina Rumph. 1. c. 37. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Rumphius states, however, that the plant was an introduced one there, originating in Java, where it was common. Spina spinarum Rumph. is the whole basis of Mespilvs sylvestris Burm., as published on page 18 of his Index Universalis; it is not included in Index Kewensis. The name is invalid, however, ' because Burman published the same binomial on page 14 of the same work for an entirely different species, Carissa carandas Linn, (see p. 425). I consider that the form figured and described by Rumphius is the same as Flacourtia sepiaria Roxb., from which I cannot distinguish F, ramontchi L'Herit. Lin- naeus cites the first figure as a synonym of Carissa spinarum Linn., but the plant actually described and hence the type of the species is a true Carissa; figure 3 of the same plate, the type of Mespilus silvestris Burm. Index Universalis [14] non [18], is apparently a true Carissa, Linnaeus, in his erroneous reduction of Spina spinarum Rumph., was followed by Murray, Lamarck, Willdenow, Roemer and Schultes, Dietrich, and Pritzel. Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 634, cites the Rumphian species under Stigmarota jangomas Lour. =Flacourtia jangomas (Lour.) Steud. By other authors it has been referred to ^(tmyiacanthus indicus Gaertn., of the Rubiaceae; to Flacourtia .^(^ngomas Steud.; to Roumea si>,=Flacourtia; and to Flacourtia ''(itaphracta Roxb. It is possible that Spina spinarum II femina ^umph. represents a species distinct from Spinxi spinarum I mas. Wurman's Gmelina indica supplies the oldest valid specific name ^or the species and is here adopted. Burman's type was from •Java, for which he cites the Javanese name doery roekan. 378 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE HOMALIUM Jacquin HOMALIUM FOETIDUM (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 4 (1860) 37. Ludia foetida Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 38, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 508. Blackwellia foetida Wall. Cat. (1831) no. 4899, nomen nudum, Deles- sert Ic. 3 (1837) 32, t, 53. Blackwellia moliiccana Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 27 (type!). Metrosideros molucca mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25, t. 11, Nothing resembling this species is represented in our Amboina collections. Homalium foetidum Benth. includes more than one species, the Mergui specimen cited being apparently Homalium griffithianum Kurz. It is to be noted that Bentham does not cite Ludia foetida Roxb. as a synonym of Homalium foetidim Benth. He based his species on Blackwellia foetida Wall, but Wallich quotes Ludia foetida Roxb. as a synonym ; the type of Ludia foetida Roxb. was a specimen cultivated in Calcutta, orig- inating in Amboina. In Index Kewensis Ludia foetida Roxb. is reduced to Flacourtia sumatrana Planch. Blackwellia moluc- cana Blume is based wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 47, thought that Metrosideros molucca mas might be a Helicia, but this suggested reduction is manifestly entirely wrong. CARICACEAE CARICA Linnaeus CARICA PAPAYA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1036. Papaya vulgaris Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 2. Papaja mas et femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 145, t, 50, 51. Rumphius's illustrations of the common papaya are excellent. The first reduction to Carica papaya Linn, was made by Lin- naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, which is manifestly the correct disposition of Papaja Rumph. and is generally accepted by all authors. DATISCACEAE OCTOMELES Miquel OCTOMELES SUMATRANA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1860) 336. Octomeles moluccana Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Nuturi Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 208 (Neue Schlussel 66) (type!). Octomeles moluccana Warb. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 13 (1891) 386. Palacca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 195, t. 125. Teysmann and Binnnendyck, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue BEGONIACEAE 379 Schliissel (1866) 66, correctly reduced Palacca Rumph. to Octo- ineleSy but considered the species to be distinct from 0. suma- frana Miq., calling it Octomeles moluccana. Warburg later considered that the oriental Malayan form was distinct from the one found in the Sunda Islands and described it as new under Octomeles moluccana Warb. I believe that K. Schumann and Lauterbach were correct in reducing Octomeles moluccana Warb. to 0. sumatrana Miq. At any rate, if two species are represented, Teysmann and Binnendyck should be quoted as the authority for Octomeles moluccana, for although they published no description, their name is typified by Palacca as described and figured by Rumphius. BEGONIACEAE BEGONIA Linnaeus BEGONIA TUBEROSA Lam. EncycL 1 (1785) 393 (type!), excl. syn. B, capensis Linn. Diploclinium tuberosum Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 1' (1856) 685. Empetrum acetosum I album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 457, t. 169, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe gadjah and Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 65, August, 1913, altitude 15 to 200 meters, on rocks. Empetrum acetosum was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Begonia obliqua Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1497, in which he was followed by Burman f., FL Ind. (1768) 222. This disposition of it was entirely erroneous, as Begonia obliqua Linn, is an American species. Lamarck, EncycL 1 (1785) 393, made it the type of his Begonia tuberosa. It is true that Lamarck erroneously gives as the first citation Begonia capensis Linn., but that he intended the Rumphian %ure to typify his plant is manifest from his specific name. fhis was taken from the tuber-like lower part of the plant as shown in Rumphius's figure, which, however, was intended merely ^0 i'epresent a portion of the rock on which the plant grows. ^e Candolle, Prodr. 15 ' (1864) 323, mentions this tuber-like portion of the drawing thus: ''Ex ic. Rumphii tuber 3 poll. f^'assum et habitus totus Cyclaminis.^' l^ossibly referable here is Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 66 from ^'^teri and Koesoekoesoe sereh, August and September, 1913, ^^^ rocks, with smaller leaves than No. 65, cited above, in which ^^^^ leaves are distinctly purplish when dry. Doctor Robinson l^ought this might represent Empetrum acetosum rubrum '^umph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 457, but Rumphius describes this form 'i^ having leaves a palm wide, which is not true of No. 66. 380 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE I am unable definitely to place the forms very briefly described by Rumphius under Empetrum acetosum II rubrum and III cordatum, The former Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 146, thought might be referable to Begonia (Diploclinium) rubrum Blume and the latter to Begonia mollis A. DC. It seems probable that Em- petrum acetosum II rubrum was merely a broad-leaved form of E. acetosum I album—Begonia tuberosa Lam., but E, acetosum III cordatum, described as pilose, probably represents an en- tirely different species, not, however, represented in our Am- boina collections. CACTACEAE OPUNTIA Tournefort OPUNTIA sp. Ficus indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 89. The description is very imperfect, but probably applies to Opuntia. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 80, thought that it might be Opuntia dillenii Haw. THYMELAEACEAE GYRINOPSIS Decaisne GYRINOPSIS BRACHYANTHA Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 313. Cortex filarlus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 13. Amboina, Way uri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 27A, September 9, 1913, in forests, altitude about 100 meters, locally known as melowassL The specimen of melowassi is in fruit, but is apparently iden- tical with the Luzon species described by me as Gyrinopsi^ brachyantha. It differs from G. cumingiana Dene, not only in its shorter flowers, but also in the venation of its leaves, all the veins being slender and indistinct, the primary not more prom- inent than the secondary ones. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, cites Cortex filarius as a synonym of Anxissera no- luccana Pers. and of A, rumphii Span.; -but Persoon, Syn. ^ (1805) 265, and Lamarck before him, under Anasser moluccaM Lam., 111. 2 (1797) 40, cites not Cortex filarius Rumph. but CorU^' foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, t 7, which is a Pittosporu^^^- The correct status of Cortex filarius Rumph. has not been previously indicated. The genus Gyrinopsis has been reported only from the Philippines, but apparently also occurs in Borneo LYTHRACEAE 381 AQUILARIA* Lamarck AQUILARIA MALACCENSIS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 49. Aquilaria secundaria DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 59 (type!). Aquilaria ovata Cav. Diss. (1790) 377, t. 22Ii.. Agallochum secundarium (coinamense et malaicense) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 34, 35, t. 10. This species was not described from Amboina material. It is apparently the same as Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. Lamarck cites the Rumphian description and figure in his original descrip- tion. The figure is cited by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 267, under Aloexylum agallochum Lour., but with a reference to Agallochum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 29=Aquilaria agallocha Roxb., not to Aquilaria secundarium Rumph. Roxburgh's Aqui- laria agallocha is a species published quite independently of Aloexylum agallochum Lour, and is hence not to be interpreted by Loureiro's description. From the characters assigned by Loureiro to Aloexylum^ his plant seems to belong in the Legu- minosae, although it has very generally been considered to be the same as Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. Aquilaria secundaria DC. was based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure of Agallochum secundarium and is a synonym of Aquilaria malac- censis Lam. AQUILARIA AGALLOCHA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 33, nofnen nudum, DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 59; Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 422. Agallochum 8. Calambac Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 29. The status of Agallochum or Calambac is doubtful. It was not described from Amboina material, but probably is the same as the Indian Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. Agallochum ''officina- nm Lam.,'' cited as Encycl. 1 (1783) 48 and listed in Index Kewensis as a synonym of Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. 1. c. 49, I consider has no status, as Lamarck certainly did not intend a publication, but merely discussed the plant under Bauhin's name, ^^gallochum officinarum Bauh. Pin. (1623) 393. LYTHRACEAE LAGERSTROEMIA Linnaeus UgerstroeMIA INDICA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1076 (type!), Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 734. ^^(igerstroemia chinensis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 137 (type!). Tsjinkjn Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 61, t. 28, f, 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Retained name, Vienna Code; Agallochum Lam. (1783) is older. 382 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The plate is a fair representation of the common and well-known Lage7*stroemia indica Linn. It is the whole basis of Lager- stroemia indica Linn, and of L. chinensis Linn, as originally published, both in the year 1759. As to priority of publication I have no means of determining between volume four of the Amoe- nitates Academicae and the tenth edition of the Systema, but as Linnaeus himself abandons the name Lagerstroemia chinensis in favor of L. indica and as L. indica Linn, is the name univer- sally used for this well-known species, it should be maintained. Lagerstroemia chinensis Linn, does not appear in Index Kewen- sis, but Lagerstroevfiia chinensis Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 375, also typified by Tsjinkin of Rumphius, is listed there as a synonym of L. indica Linn. LAWSONIA Linnaeus LAWSONIA INERMIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 349. Cyprus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 42, t. 17. The common henna is not represented in our Amboina col- lections. Cyprus was originally reduced to Lawsonia spvnosa Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1753) 126, Sp. PI ed. 2 (1762) 498, which is a synonym of Lawsonia inermis Linn. Some authors have referred Cyprm to Laivsonia alba Lam., L. inermis var. spinosa Pers., and L. alba var. spinosa Lam., but these are all synonyms of the common and widely distributed Lawsonia inermis Linn. PEMPHIS Forster PEMPHIS ACIDULA Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 68, t. 34. Ly thrum pemphis Linn. f. SuppL (1781) 249. Aegiceras ferreum Blume Bijdr. (1825) 693 p. p. quoad syn. Rumph. Mangium ferreum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 120, t. 79, excl. /. A, B. Mangium porcellanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 126, t. 84. This common and widely distributed strand plant is not rep- resented in our Amboina collections. Mangium ferreum w^^^ as figured by Rumphius presents a flowering branch of Pemphi^ acidula Forst., but the additional figures A and B are Aegiceras- This mixture of the two species was first pointed out by Teys- mann, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 57. The form described by Rumphius, 1. c, as Mangium ferreum fermn(i is probably merely Pemphis acidula Forst. Mangium porcelld^^^' cum Rumph. was first reduced to Lythrum pemphis Linn, b) Retzius, Obs. 5 (1789) 4, and as Pemphis acidula Forst. this is the correct disposition of it. SONNERATIACEAE 383 SONNERATIACEAE SONNERATIA * Linnaeus f. SONNERATIA ALBA Sm. in Rees. Cycl. 33 (1816) no. 2. Mangium caseolare album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 111, t. 73. Amboina, Wakeroe, and at Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 290, July 28 and October 17, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as mangi mangi. ^'Flower apetalous, sepals lilac inside." Mangium caseolare album was originally referred by Linnaeus to Rhizophora caseolaris, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Linnaeus overlooking the fact that at least two distinct species were considered by Rumphius, one having flowers without petals, and one with petals. I have not seen the original description of Sonneratia alba Smith, which may have been based in part on Rumphius. Succeeding authors, de Candolle, Don, Blume, and Miquel, cite the Rumphian plate as representing Sonneratia alba Smith. SONNERATIA CASEOLARIS (Linn.) Engl, in Engl. & Prantl Nat Pflanz- enfam. Nachtr. 1 (1897) 261. Rhizophora caseolaris Linn. p. p., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 635 (type!). Sonneratia acida Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 252. Sonneratia pagatpat Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 424. Mangium caseolare rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 112. t. 7Jf. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 291, October 29, 1913, at the back of a mangrove swamp, "petals present, lilac." This is Rhizophora caseolaris Linn, in part only. The orig- inal description in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, is as fol- lows: *73. 75. Mangium caseolare [==] Rhizophora caseolaris, foliis ovatis obtusis, floribus solitariis, fructibus orbiculatis de- Pressis mucronatis.'' The figures refer to plates 78 to 75 of Rumphius, inclusive. As noted above t, 73 represents the ape- talous Mangium caseolare album Rumph. and is Sonneratia alba Smith; t, 7^, however, represents Mangium caseolare rubrum Rumph., definitely described as having petals. Perhaps on a ^ery strict interpretation of types, t. 73 should represent the plant now known as Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Engl., in ^^nich case the name Sonneratia caseolaris would have to be applied to the plant now known as Sonneratia alba Sm., and ^^hat is here interpreted as Sonneratia caseolaris would have Retained name, Vienna Code; Blatti Adans. (1763) and Pagapate Sonn. '^'^'76) are older. 384 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE to be called Sonneratia pagatpat Blanco. Botanists very gen- erally, since the publication of Sonneratia acida Linn, f . in 1781, have referred to it Mangium caseolare rubrum of Rumphius, including tt. 7 A, 75; but Sonneratia acida Linn. f. is merely a synonym of Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Engl., as interpreted by Engler and as interpreted here. PUNICACEAE PUNICA Linnaeus PUNICA GRANATUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 472. Malum granatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 94, t, 2^, /. 1. The common pomegranate is not represented in our Amboina collections, although it is found in scattered cultivation through- out the Malayan region. Malmn granatum was first reduced to Punica granatum Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1753) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1056. which is manifestly the correct disposition of it. LECYTHIDACEAE BARRINGTONIA * Forster BARRINGTONIA ASIATICA (Linn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Bang. 45' (1876) 131; 46^ (1877) 70. Mammea asiatica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 512. Barringtonia speciosa Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 76 t. 38, f. A~C; Linn. f. SuppL (1781) 312. Agasta asiatica Miers in Trans Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 61. Agasta indica Miers L c. 63. Butonica rumphiana Miers L c. 68. Butonica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 179, t. IIU- Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. Jf66, September 16, 1913, along the river near the town of Amboina. Butonica was first reduced to Barringtonia speciosa by the younger Linnaeus, Suppl. (1781) 312, which has been followed by all authors except Miers. The latter retains Barringtonk speciosa Forst. as the sole representative of the genus which he confined to Polynesia and removed the Indo-Malayan forms fioni Barringtonia as Agasta asiatica (Linn.) Miers and A. indu^ Miers. He has not been followed by subsequent authors, the general conclusions regarding Miers's proposed classification. in which I concur, being that his three species are all merel} forms of the common and widely distributed strand plant, Bai- ringtonia asiatica (Linn.) Kurz. The type of the Linnean species, Mammea asiatica, was collected by Osbeck on a snia * Retained name, Vienna Code; Huttum Adans. (1763) is older. LECYTHIDACEAE 3g5 island near the western end of Java. Butonica rumphiana Miers is certainly identical with Mammea asiatica lArm,=Barringtonia asiatica Kurz. BARRINGTONIA RACEMOSA (Linn.) Blume ex DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 288; Roxb. FL Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 634. Eugenia racemosa Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 471. Stravadia alba Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 30. Stravadium album DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 289. Barringtonia alba Blume in FL des Serres I 7 (1851-52) 23. Barringtonia alba KosteL Allgem, Med. Pharm. FL 4 (1835) 1536. Stravadium rubrum DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 289, p. p., quoad syn. Rumph. Butonica terrestris Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Hot. 1 (1875) 69. Barringtonia rubra Blume FL des Serres I 7 (1851-52) 23. Butonica rubra Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 70. Barringtonia inclyta Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 71. Butonica terrestris rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 181 ! (t. 115?). Butonica terrestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 181, t. 116. Amboina, Paso, Robinson Rumph. Amb. 1^67, November 25, 1913, near the beach. This much-named species is widely distributed along and near the seashore from India to Malaya and Polynesia. Miers has attempted with little success to distinguish several species. As the proper authority for Barringtonia racemosa, I have selected Blume (1828) in preference to Roxburgh, as Roxburgh's original use of the name, Hort. Beng. (1814) 52, is a nomen nudum. In previous reductions of the Rumphian descriptions and figures, practically all authors have assumed that two species were involved. Butonica terrestris alba was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Eugenia racemosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1055, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 673; but other authors have reduced it to ^hrringtonia acutangula Gaertn., to Stravadia alba Pers., to J^^(irri7igtonia alba Kostel., to Butonica alba Miers, etc. The description and the figure apply unmistakably to Barringtonia ''^cemosa (Linn.) Blume as here interpreted. The description of Butonica terrestris rubra Rumph. is un- ^^istakably Barringtonia racemosa (Linn.) Blume, as here ^^^terpreted, but the figure, which is poor, may represent an- other species, possibly Barringtonia acutangula Gaertn. In Rumphius's description note: i'olia * * * unum vel sesquipedem longi, immo longiora * * * Palniam nempe lata, vel paulo latiora * * *, Flores ex longo, tenui, & I^Pendente petiolo, binos pedes longo * * * huic viridia insident capita J'^star Olivarum tenerarum, per ilium laxe dispersa, quae sese aperiunt in ^^a vel terna crassa & concava petala [sepals]. 144971 25 386 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The description otherwise apphes to Barringtonia racemosa, not to B, acutangula Gaertn., to which it has been reduced by many authors. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Eugenia acutangula Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 673; by Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 197, to Eugenia racemosa Linn.; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 410, to Meteorus coccinem Lour., which is a possible synonym of Barringtonia racemosa Blume ; and by other authors to Barringtonia acutangula Gaertn., to Stravadia rubra Pers., to Stravadium rubrum DC., to Barring- tonia rubra Blume, and finally by Miers to Butonica terrestm Miers. RHIZOPHORACEAE The Rhizovhoraceae described and figured by Rumphius are obscure, and the actual status of the several species involved is susceptible of various interpretations. The species actually rep- resented in our Amboina collections are the forms commonly known as Bruguiera eriopetala W. & A., B, caryophylloides Blume, B. parviflora W. & A., and Rhizophora conjugata Linn. By a strict interpretation of types, following the principles of priority, most of these names must be discarded, Bruguiem eriopetala W. & A. becoming J5. sexangula (Lour.) Spreng. B. caryophylloides Blume becoming B, cylindrica (Linn.) Blume, and Rhizophora conjugata auct., non Linn., becoming R. cande- laria DC. Species apparently described by Rumphius, but not included in the Amboina collections at present available for study, are apparently Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C. B. Rob. (C. candolleana Am.) and Bruguiera conjugata (Linn.) Merr. {B. gymnorhiza Lam.). A number of species and synonyms must be interpreted wholly or in part from the Rumphian figures and descriptions. An attempt has here been made to select the earliest valid specific name in each case and to adjust the syn- onymy, but a future monograph of the group, based on very comprehensive collections, may modify some of these conclusions. CERIOPS Arnott CERIOPS TAGAL (Perr.) C. B. Rob. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 3 (1908) Bot. 306. Rhizophora tagal Perr. Mem. Soc. Linn. Paris 3 (1824) 138. Rhizophora timoriensis DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 32. Ceriops candolleana Arn. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1 (1838) 363. Mangium caryophylloides II parvifollum et III latlfolium R^"^? Herb. Amb, 3: 119. No representative of the genus Ceriops occurs in our Amboina RHIZOPHORACEAE 387 collections. The suggested reduction of the two forms described under Mangium caryophylloides Rumph. is after Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 57, but Ceriops tagal is an older name than C. candolleana Arn. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 143, suggests that Mangium caryophylloides II may be the same as Ceriops zippel- iana Blume, and that Mangium caryopylloides III may be the same as Ceriops forsteniana Blume, but both of Blume's species are apparently merely forms of the common and widely dis- tributed Ceriops tagal C. B. Rob. Blume also suggests that Mangium minus Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 106 quoa{l descr., excl t, 69, may be Ceriops zippelixina Blume, which may be the correct disposition of the description; the plate is considered under Bruguiera conjugata (Linn.) Merr. and under B, cylindrica (Linn.) Blume (p. 388). RHIZOPHORA Linnaeus RHIZOPHORA CANDELARIA DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 32 (type!). Rhizophora conjugata auct. plur., non Linn. Rhizophora apiculata Blume Enum. 1 (1828) 91. Mangium candelarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 108, t. 71, 72. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 266, July 26, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as mangi mangi. While both plates given by Rumphius are very crude, they unmistakably represent the form with short peduncles bearing usually two flowers. The description, however, may include also the allied Rhizophora mucronata Lam., which is distinguished by its longer peduncles and more numerous flowers. By Lin- naeus it was erroneously reduced to the American Rhizophora mngle, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 634, in which he was followed by Lamarck, Willdenow, Burman f ., Roxburgh, and other authors. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 132, placed it under Rhizophora mucronata Lam. with the comment 'descriptio satis bona, figurae minus rectus!/' while Walpers, Kepert. 2 (1843) 70, placed it under Rhizophora conjugata Linn. Rhizophora candelaria DC. is a composite species to be inter- preted from Mangium candelarium Rumph. and Pee-kandel Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 6: t. Si, Rheede being cited first, Rumph- |us second; but as the specific name is manifestly taken from Rumphius, while the description given by de Candolle applies etter to the form generally interpreted as Rhizophora conjugata f^^ct. (non Linn.) than to R. mucronata Lam. Rheede's figure ^ considered to represent Rhizophora mucronata Lam. 388 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE BRUGUIERA Lamarck BRUGUIERA CONJUGATA (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 118. Rhizophora conjugata Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 443, non aliorum! Rhizophora gymnorhiza Linn. 1. c. Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. 111. 2 (1797) t. 397 y Encycl. 4 (1798) 696. Bruguiera rumphii Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 138. Rhizophora ? palun DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 33. Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. var. palun Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 136. Mangium celsum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 102, t. 68. Mangium minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 106, t. 69 excl. fl. et /. A, B. There is no specimen of this species in our Amboina collec- tions; and, although both of the figures cited above are crude, there is very little doubt that both are properly referable here. The reduction of Mangium celsum was first made by Lin- naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043 (Rhizophora gymnorhiza Linn.), in which he was followed by various other authors. Since the transfer of the species to Brugiera, the plate has very generally been cited under B, gymnorhiza Lam., although Blume placed it under his B. rumphii. Mangium minus Rumph. is manifestly a mixture, the leaves and fruits apparently being the same as those of B, conjugata (B. gymnorhiza), but the flowers and figures A and B certainly represent Bruguiera cylin- drica Blume, below. It is, excluding figures A and B, the whole basis for Rhizophora palun DC. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 143, suggests that the description, but not the plate, of Mangmn minus s. palun may be Ceriops zippeliana Blume (see Cenop tagal (Perr.) C. B. Rob. p. 386). It is to be noted that the two attached flowers on the plate of Mangium minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 106, t 69, and figures A and S, were copied by Burman from Rheede's figure of Cari Candel, Hort. Malabar. 6: t. .^^, and have nothing to do with the plant actually figured and described by Rumphius; see under Bruguiera cylindrica (Linn.) Blume. below. BRUGUIERA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) Blume Enum. PI. Jav. (1828) 93. Rhizophora cylindrica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 443. Rhizophora caryophylloides Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 109. Bruguiera caryophylloides Blume Enum. PL Jav. (1828) 93. Kanilia caryophylloides Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 141. Mangium minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: t. 69, pp. quoad fl. et /• A, Mangium caryophylloides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 119, t 78. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph, Anih. ^ ^• along tidal streams, July 26, 1913, locally known as tonki. RHIZOPHORACEAE 389 Rhizophora cylindrica Linn, must be interpreted solely by Cari'Candel Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 6:59, t. 33, which most authors agree represents the form described by Blume as Bru- guiera caryophylloides (Burm. f.) Blume. Mangium minus Rumph., as figured, is manifestly a composite species, the at- tached flowers and figures A and B having been copied by Burman in editing Rumphius's work from Cari-Candel Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 6 : t. 33. The leafy branch and fruits, excluding the attached flowers and figures A and B, and the description for the most part are probably referable to Bruguiera gymnor- hiza Lam. {B, rheedi Blume) . It was reduced by Linnaeus to his Rhizophora cylindrica, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 635, in which he was followed by Burman, La- marck, Willdenow, and other authors. Mangium caryophylloides Rumph. is the basis of Rhizophora caryophylloides Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 10^, fxorav^hiohdLgSLm. Bruguiera caryophylloides Blume and Kanilia caryophylloides Blume must be interpreted. The figure is not good, but is undoubtedly referable here, while the description applies closely to the form generally named Bru- guiera caryophylloides Blume=B. cylindrica (Linn.) Blume. BRUGUIERA SEXANGULA (Lour.) Poir. in Lam. Encycl. SuppL 4 (1816) 262. Rhizophora sexangula Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 297. Bruguiera eriopetala W. & A. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1 (1838) 368. Bruguiera gymnorhiza Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 136, non Lam. Bruguiera cylindrica Blume 1. c. 137. Mangium digitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 107, t. 70. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 26^, July 28, 1913, alon^ tidal streams, locally known as mangi mangi, Mangium digitatum Rumph. has been reduced by some authors to Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. and by others to B, cylindrica Blume. It seems, however, to be the species commonly known as bruguiera eriopetala W. & A., which I have here reduced to the older Bruguiera sexangula Poir. (Rhizophora sexangula Lour.). The generic description given by Linnaeus, Gen. PI. (1754) 2^2, is unmistakably Rhizophora as at present understood, although the first two species cited in his Species Plantarum (1753) 443 are representatives of Bruguiera, the third a ^^ndelia, and the last two true Rhizophorae. The first species, Rhizophora conjugata Linn., has been misinterpreted by most ^uthors since its publication, but it has page priority over Rhizophora gymnorhiza Linn. Trimen * states : * Fl. Ceyl. 2 (1894) 154. 390 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE There is no specimen in Hermann's Herb., but his drawing is unmis- takably this species [Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam.] and it is the whole foundation for Linnaeus's Rhizophora conjugata, which name has been since always applied to another plant, R. Candelaria DC, to which this bears a strong resemblance in foliage. If rules of priority be followed, the adoption of the name Bruguiera conjugata is unavoidable for this widely distributed Indo-Malayan species. COMBRETACEAE TERMINALIA * Linnaeus TERM IN ALIA CATAPPA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 128, 2 (1771) 519. Terminalia moluccana Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 349 (type!). Juglans catappa Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 573. Catappa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 174, t. 68, Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. UH, September 4, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as katappan. The Rumphian figure and description are, at least in part, the basis of Terminalia catappa Linn., as they were cited in the original publication of the species. They are also the whole basis of Terminalia moluccana Lam., cited above, and in part the basis of Juglans catappa Lour. The three forms described by Rumphius are probably all referable to Terminalia catappa Linn., which presents considerable variation in its fruit characters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 22, has referred all of them to varietal forms, Catappa, domestica to Terminalia catappa var. macrocarpa Hassk., C, silvestris litorea to T, catappa var. rhodocarpa Hassk., and C, silvestris altera to T, catappa var. chlorocarpa Hassk. The form distributed under Robinson PI Rumph, Amb. JflA is exactly Catappa silvestris litorea Rumph. QUISQUALiS Linnaeus QUISQUALIS INDICA Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 556 (type). Quisqualis pubescens Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 104 (type!). Quis qualis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 71, t. 38. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. So far as the original Linnean description shows, the genus and the species were based wholly on Rumphius, although he may have had botanical material from India or Malaya. The form figured by Rumphius is certainly the common and widely dis- tributed Malayan and Philippine form that is currently called Quisqualis indica Linn. The Linnean reduction has been fol- * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Adamaram Adans. (1763) is older- MYRTACEAE 391 lowed by most authors, but Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 104, based his Quisqualis pubescens wholly on the Rumphian Quis qualis, and his var. glabra 1. c. t 28, /. 2, on Javan specimens. Quisqualis pubescens Burm. f. is thus an exact synonym of the older Q. indica Linn. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) 43, referred the Rumphian figure to Quisqualis glabra Burm. f., which likewise is a synonym of Q. indica Linn. MYRTACEAE PSIDIUM Linnaeus PSIDIUM GUAJAVA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 470. Psidium pomiferum Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 672. Psidiuin pyriferum Linn. L c. 672. Psidium cujavus Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119 (type!). Cujavus domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 140, t. U7 . Cujavus agrestls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 142, t. US. Cujavus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 143. Amboina, Robinson PL Ru7nph, Amb. 202, July 31, 1913, on hills in the vicinity of the town of Amboina. The three forms described by Rumphius are all apparently referable to Psidium guajava Linn., the two forms figured rep- resenting the one with the pyriform fruit (Cujavus domestica Rumph.), the other with the ovoid or ellipsoid fruit (Cujavus agrestis Rumph., the type of Psidium cujavus Linn.). These forms have been recognized by some authors as distinct species, by others as varieties of Psidium guajava Linn. Both figures were originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7; t. 47 to Psidium guajava Linn, and t, i8 to Psidium cujavus Linn., the latter figure being the whole basis of the latter species. Following current modern usage both Psidium Vomiferum Linn, and Psidium pyriferum Linn, are here con- sidered as synonyms of Psidium guajava Linn. PSIDIUM CUJAVILLUS Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 114. Psidium pumilum Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 56. Psidium angustifolium Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 17. Cujavillus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 145, t. 49. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 203, September 25, ^^13, in waste places at low altitudes, locally known as guayawas china. t'sidium cujavillus Burm. f. was based primarily on a Javan specimen, and Psidium pumilum Vahl on one from Ceylon, although both authors cite Cujavillus Rumph. as a synonym, ^nd Burman f . took his specific name from Rumphius. By some 392 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE authors the species has been erroneously reduced to Psidiun guajava Linn. Lamarck also cites Cujavillus Rumph. in the original description of Psidium angustifolium Lam. Most authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure have placed Cujavillus under Psidium pumilum Vahl, but Psidiun cujavillus Burm. f . is manifestly the same species and is a much older name. Pritzel, Ic. Bot. Index, has erroneously listed the figure of Cujavillus as Psidium decaspermum Linn. t.=Decas- permum fruticosum Forst. ; while Henschel, with equal error, placed it under Nelitris jambosella G8LeYtn,=Timonius jamho- sella Thw. (See also under Decaspermum fruticosum Forst.) DECASPERMUM Forster DECASPERMUM FRUTICOSUM Forst. Char. Gen, (1776) 74, t. 37. Psidium decaspermum Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 252. Eugenia polygama Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 92, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 491. Nelitris paniculata Lindl. Collect. Bot. (1821) 16. Nelitris polygama Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 488. Nelitris rubra Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 73, excl. syn. Lour., Poir., R. & S. Nelitris alba Blume 1. c. 74. Decaspermum rubrum Baill. Hist. PL 6 (1877) 341. Decaspermum paniculatum Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 46 ' (1877) 61. Caryophyllaster albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 211. Caryophyllaster ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 211, t, 136, Amboina, Hitoe messen, Gelala, and Batoe gad j ah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 205, 206, 207, August to September, 1913, in forests and along: streams, altitude 80 to 250 meters. Caryophyllaster ruber Lour, was erroneously reduced by Lou- reiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 144, to Antherura rubra Lour., a rubiaceous plant, to which the synonyms Psychotria rubra Poir. and F. antherura R. & S. pertain, although placed by Blume with Caryophyllaster ruber under Nelitris rubra Blume. Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, and Blume cite the Rumphian plant as a synonym of Psychotria rubra Poir., F. antherura R. & S., and Nelitris rubra Blume, respectively. The form described by Rumphius as Caryophyllaster albus I consider to be referable to the same species as Caryophyllaster ruber y and accordingly here reduce it with Nelitris alba Blume to Decaspermum fruti- cosum Forst. Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. and Psidiu^^^ decaspermum Linn. f. have been confused with Timonius ja^^^^- bosella Thw., on account of Gaertner's erroneous reduction oi Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. to Nelitris jambosella Gaertn.; the species figured by Gaertner is a true Timonius, the Ceylon MYRTACEAE 393 Timoniits jambosella Thw. Gaertner's description is in part some species of Eugenia. The plant here considered appears in herbaria generally under the name Decaspermum paniculatum Kurz, but from material before me I can see no reason for con- sidering it specifically distinct from the type of the genus, Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. The species is somewhat variable. It is a common and widely distributed plant in Malaya and Polynesia. ELK5ENIA Linnaeus EUGENIA CARYOPHYLLATA Thunb. Diss. (1788) 1. Caryophyllus aromaticus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 515, non Eugenia aro- matica Berg. Caryophyllus silvestris Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 167 [Neue Schliissel (1866) 25] (type!). Caryophyllum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 1, t. 1. Caryophyllum regium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 10, t. 2. Caryophyllum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 12, t. S. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 201, October, 1913, from cultivated trees, locally known as chenki. I can see no valid reason for considering that more than one species is represented by the three forms figured and de- scribed by Rumphius, although Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 25, makes Caryophyllum silvestre Rumph. the type of Caryophyllus silvestris Teysm. The first figure represents the normal cultivated form, the second a form with somewhat fasciated inflorescences, while the third apparently represents the wild form of the same species. AH three figures were originally reduced by Linneaus to Caryophyllus aromaticus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 735, and this reduction has been very generally accepted as the correct disposition of all three. EUGENIA AQUEA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 114 (type!). Jambosa aquea DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 288 (type!). Cerocarpus aqueus Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 36 (type!). Eugenia mindanaensis C. B. Rob. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1909) Bot. 363. Jambosa aquea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 126, t. S8, f. 2. Jambosa aquea altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 126. Amboina, Hoenoet, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 192, from cultivated trees, locally known as jambu ayer. Jdmbosa aquea Rumph. is the whole basis of Eugenia aquea ^^rm. 1 and is generally cited in botanical literature under 'J^nbosa aquea DC. It was erroneously referred by Lamarck ^0 Eugenia javanica Lam. and by Pritzel to Eugenia racemosa 394 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Linn. Eugenia Tnindanaensis C. B. Rob., described from Min- danao specimens, is manifestly identical with Eugenia aquea Burm. f. This reduction had been indicated by Doctor Robin- son in the herbarium of the Bureau of Science before his de parture for Amboina in June, 1913. EUGENIA CUMINI (Linn.) comb. nov. Myrtus cuTwini Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 471. Eugenia jambolana Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 198. Calyptranthes jambolana Willd. in Usteri Ann. 17 (1796) 23. Eugenia obtusifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 485. Syzygium jambolanum DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 259. Syzygium cumini Skeels in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. PL Ind. BulL 248 (1912) 25. Jambosa ceramica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 130, t. Jfl. Jambolana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 131, t. J!f2, This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Rel, Robins. 2H8 from Macassar, Celebes, July 11, 1913, is typical Jambolana Rumph. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1745) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, reduced Jaw.bolana, with doubt, to Jambolifera pedtmculata Linn., in which he was followed by Burman f ., Lamarck, Loureiro, Murray, and Pritzel. It has been cited by various authors under Eugenia jambolana Lam., Calyptranthes jambolanxi Willd., Eugenia obtusifolia Roxb., and Syzygium jambolanum DC, and is the type of var. f3 of the last in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 260. I am now of the opinion that Myrtus cumini Linn, supplies the oldest valid specific name for this species. Jambolifera pedunculata Linn., Sp. PI. (1753) 349, was based primarily on FL Zeyl, 139, and the specimen in Hermann's herbarium is Act onychia laurifolia Blume.* The description in Flora Zey- lanica applies to Act onychia laurifolia, not to Eugenia ciiviini, but the name and the synonyms Jambolones and Jambolons apply to Eugenia cumini. It is clear, however, that Linnaeus s later conception of Jambolifera pedunculata was as Euge^^^^ cumini rather than Act onychia laurifolia, as shown by his reduc- tion of Jambolana Rumph. and the reference to Plukenet added in the Mantissa 2 (1771) 371. I believe, however, that the original description and specimen should stand as representing Jambolifera pedunculata Linn, and that it goes with AcronycM^^ laurifolia Blume as a synonym. Myrtus cumini Linn, was based wholly on Fl. Zeyl. 185, and the description and the specimen ' See Trimen in Journ. Linn. Soc. 24 (1887) 140 MYRTACEAE 395 in Hermann's herbarium is Eugenia jambolana Lam. The specific names, cumini and jambolifera, were interchanged between Eugenia and Acronychia. I can see no reason for considering Jambosa ceramica Rumph. to be other than Eugenia cumini (Linn.) Merr. Linnaeus placed it under Myrtus cumini Linn., and Willdenow placed it under CalyP^'^'^^^^^'^ caryophyllifolia Willd., both synonyms of Eugenia cumini (Linn.) Merr. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 199, placed it under Eugenia cymosa Lam., a species based primarily on specimens from the Isle of P'rance. At any rate Jambosa ceramica Rumph. is not Eugenia cymosa Lam. as Lamarck's species is currently interpreted. EUGENIA JAVANICA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 200. Jambosa silvestris parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 129, 2: t. UO, In all copies of the Herbarium Amboinense, t, kO of volume one and two are transposed ; the plate in volume one corresponds to Radix deipariae spuria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 127 and is Gmelina villosa Roxb., while the plate in volume two corresponds to Jambosa silvestris parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 129 and is the species here considered (see under Gmelinxi villosa Roxb., p. 454). Perhaps the chief reason why the description and figure as given by Rumphius have never been properly placed was due to this transposition of the plates, which is mentioned in the Auctuarium (Herb. Amb. 7: 3). The illustration seems to me to be a fairly typical representation of Eugenia javanica Lam.; and I have made this reduction with considerable confi-' dence, although I have seen no botanical material from Amboina that I would refer to this species. EUGENIA SUBGLAUCA Koord. & Valeton in Bull. Inst. Bot. Buitenz. 2 (1899) 8, var. Jambosa litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 81, t. 53. Amboina, Amahoesoe and Hoenoet, Robinson PI, Rumph. Amb. 193, 196, September and October, 1913, on cliffs near the seashore, locally known as ]fiMbu ayer and jambu puti. No previous reduction of Jambosa litorea Rumph. has been suggested, other than HenscheFs statement that it pertained ^^ the Myrtaceae. The description and figure manifestly per- ^am to Eugenia, a species in the group with Eugenia javanica ^^., E, colubcob C. B. Rob., and E. subglauca Koord. & Valeton. ^he Amboina specimens, which certainly represent Jambosa ^orea Rumph., differ from the Javanese Eugenia subglauca ^oord. & Val. in their leaves, which are more rounded at the 396 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE base and relatively somewhat broader and thicker. Even if eventually distinguished as a valid species, it must certainly be placed near the Javanese one. EUGENIA RUMPHII sp. nov. § Syzygium. Arbor rubra Mi Humph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 199 (type), 200, November 6, 1913, in forests, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as kayu mera. Arbor glabra circiter 16 m alta, ramis ramulisque teretibus vel ramulis obscure rotundato-angulatis ; foliis obovatis ad obovato-ellipticis, usque ad 10 cm longis, apice latissime rotun- datis interdum retusis vel obscurissime apiculatis, basi angus- tatis, cuneatis, margine revolutis, supra olivaceis, valde nitidis, subtus pallidis, haud puncticulatis, nervis utrinque numerosis, tenuibus ; inflorescentiis corymbosis, terminalibus, circiter 5 cm longis; floribus plerumque in triadibus dispositis, omnibus bre- viter pedicellatis, calycis circiter 7 mm longis, anguste infundi- buliformibus, subtruncatis, calyptra 5 mm diametro. An entirely glabrous tree about 16 m in height, the branches and branchlets brownish, smooth, terete or sometimes with obscure rounded angles. Leaves coriaceous, obovate to obovate- elliptic, 5 to 10 cm long, 3 to 5.5 cm vsride, apex broadly rounded, often retuse, sometimes obscurely apiculate, base gradually nar- row^ed, cuneate, margins recurved, the upper surface dark-oliva- ceous, strongly shining, the lower pale, dull, not puncticulate ; lateral nerves numerous, slender, spreading, densely arranged, the primary ones but little more prominent than the secondary, reticulations obsolete or nearly so; petioles about 1 cm long. Inflorescence terminal, corymbose, about 5 cm long and wide, branches from the base, the branches ascending, the flowers white, mostly in triads on the ultimate branchlets, all pedicelled, the bracteoles broadly ovate, rounded, thick, about 1 mm long, the pedicels stout, 2 to 3 mm long. Calyx narrowly funnel- shaped, about 7 mm long, truncate or with obscure lobes. Ca- lyptra 5 mm in diameter, broadly ovoid, rounded. Stamens indefinite, 5 to 10 mm long. This is a sufliciently characteristic species, which I cannot refer to any previously described form. It is readily recogniz- able by its densely nerved, coriaceous, obovate to obovate-ellipti^' broadly rounded, shining leaves, these often retuse at the apex. No previous attempt has been made to determine the status oi Arbor rubra III of Rumphius, other than HasskarFs reduction of it to the Myrtaceae; it is undoubtedly Eugenia rumphu- MYRTACEAE 397 EUGENIA STIPULARIS (Blume) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1855) 441. Gelpkea stipularis Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 88. Jambosa silvestris ayer utan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 129. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 191, August 25, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as ja7nbu utan and kayu javibu jambu. Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 5- (1826) 338, placed this under Eugenia laeta Ham., the description of which, however, was based on an Indian specimen. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 104, followed Hamilton in this reduction of Jambosa silvestris ayer utan and cites Jambosa linearis Korth. as a synonym. The description given by Rumphius certainly does not apply to Euge- nia laeta Ham. nor to Jambosa linearis Korth., but does apply fairly closely to Eugenia stipularis Miq., the type of which was from Amboina. EUGENIA CELEBICA (Blume) comb. nov. Jambosa celebica Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 107. Jambosa silvestris s. biawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 128? The reduction of this Celebes form, very imperfectly described by Rumphius, merely follows Blume's suggestion. It may or may not be the correct disposition of it, although the form that Rumphius described is certainly a Eugenia of the section Jamhosa, EUGENIA JAMBOS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 470. Jambosa vulgaris DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286. Jambosa rosacea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 123. The description certainly applies to the rose apple, Eugenia jambos Linn. (Jambosa vulgaris DC), where Jambosa rosacea Rumph. has been referred by Henschel, Blume, DeVriese, Miquel, and Hasskarl. EUGENIA sp. aff. jambos Linn.? Jambosa (sylvestris) alba Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 94, non Don, nee Eugenia alba Roxb. Jambosa silvestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 127, t. 39. Rumphius's figure represents a characteristic species, and ^vhen once collected in Amobina botanical material should be readily connected with it. Jambosa silvestris alba Rumph. ^^as originally reduced by Linnaeus to Eugenia jambos Linn., ^n Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, Syst. ed. 10 (17591 1055, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 672; and in this Manifestly erroneous reduction he was followed by Burman 1, Lamarck, Willdenow, Loureiro, Roxburgh, and Persoon. Wight 398 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 332, with doubt, reduced it to Jambosa aquea DC; Hasskarl placed it under Eugenia macrophylla DC; and Berg, erroneously placed it under Jambosa vulgaris DC. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (4849) 93, has maintained it as a valid species, Jambosa alba, but the specific name used by him is invalid in both Eugenia and Jambosa, EUGENIA MALACCENSIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 470. Jambosa nialaccensis DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286. Myrtus nialaccensis Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 484. Jambosa purpiirascens DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286. Eugenia purpurea Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 483. Jambosa domestica Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 91. Jambosa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1 : 121, t. S7. Jambosa nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 125, t. 38, f. 1. Amboina, Paso, Robinson Bl. Rumph. Amb, 19J^, October 29, 1913, from cultivated trees, locally known as jambu ruttun, Jambosa domestica Rumph. was first reduced to Eugenia ma- laccensis Linn, by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1055, and Jam- bosa nigra Rumph. was reduced to the same species by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7; both reductions apparently are correct. Neither figure can be considered as good, however. The Rumphian names have been cited by various authors under one or another of the synonyms given above. The several forms named and described by Rumphius were made by Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 91, the types of several varieties of Jambosa domestica Blume==Eugenia malaccensis Linn.,i as follows: Jambosa domestica II minor Rlimph.=var. minor Blume; Jambosa domestica rosacea Rumph.^var. rosacea Blume; Jambosa domestica calapparia Rumph.^^var. calapparia Blume; and Jambosa nigra Rumph. =var. nigra Blume. They are apparently all variants of Eugenia malaccensis Linn., which like most cultivated fruit trees presents a considerable range of variation in the color, size, and other characters of its fruits. EUGENIA MELASTOMIFOLIA (Blume) comb. nov. Jambosa melastomifolia Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 102. Arbor rubra il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 198, September 5, ISl-^' ^" forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as daun jambu jamhu. The specimen, which presents very young flowers, appears to agree with both Rumphius's and with Blume's descriptions, Jambosa melastomifolia Blume having been based on Amboina specimens collected by Zippel. I do not agree with MiQi^^^' MYRTACEAE 399 Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 522, in reducing Jambosa melastomifolia Blume to Jambosa bifaria Wight. EUGENIA sp. Arbor rubra I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 74, t J^7. This is a sufficiently characteristic species of Eugenia of the section Syzygium; it is, however, not represented in our Am- boina collections. No botanist has suggested its determination beyond the genus. Lamarck reduced it to Eugenia sp., and Teysmann expressed the opinion that it is, with doubt, a Jam- bosa. The figure looks suspiciously like Eucalyptus deglupta Blume (see p. 401), but although the bark is described as peeling off in thin flakes, a character found in many species of Eugenia, the description of the fruits and of the odor and taste of the leaves definitely removes it from Eucalyptus, EUGENIA sp. Arbor rubra I angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 75, t. Jf8, This is a characteristic species of Eugenia of the section Jambosa, not represented in our Amboina collections. No sug- gestions have been made by other botanists as to its possible or probable identity. In the absence of material for comparison with the various named species from the Moluccas, no suggestion can be made as to its proper disposition. EUGENIA sp. Folium Intlnctus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 202. Loureiro, Fl. Cochin. (1790) 231, mentions this under Jam- holifera odorata Lour. {^Acronychia?) , with which it has nothing in common. Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 160, places it, with doubt, under Cyminosma odorata DC, which is merely a new name for Jambolifera odorata Lour. Rumphius's descrip- tion conforms in all respects to Eugenia and probably refers to some species of this genus. EUGENIA sp. Arbor rubra II saxatllis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76. Further determination of this form is impossible from the data and material at present available. EUGENIA sp. Arbor rubra IV Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 77. The form described is probably a Eugenia, but its exact "status is indeterminable from data at present available. 400 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE EUGENIA sp.? Perticaria ferrea parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 80, t. 52. The figure resembles Eugenia in many characters, yet if the flowers be correctly delineated, the plant can be no Eugenia, and hardly a myrtaceous one. Its status is indeterminable from material and data at present available. EUGENIA sp.? Perticaria ferrea latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 80. This may or may not belong in the same genus with the preceding one. Its status is entirely uncertain, and it may not even belong in the Myrtaceae, EUGENIA sp. Jambosa sllvestrls alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 81. This is a Eugenia of the section Jambosa, but its further identity is entirely doubtful. METROSIDEROS* Banks METROSIDEROS VERA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37 (type!); Lindl. Collect. Bot. (1821) t. 18. Nania vera Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1855) 400. Syncarpia vertholenii Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 2 (1851) 307, Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 3 (1855) 411. Metrosideros vera parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 16, t. 7. IVIetrosideros vera latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 16, 19. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Metrosideros vera, usually accredited to Lindley as its author, should be accredited to Roxburgh instead. The original publica- tion of the name was based wholly on Rumphius by citation of the illustration, in Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 37.t It was later described by Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 477, from speci- mens cultivated at Calcutta, which had been introduced into the botanic garden from Ajnboina. S^jncarpia vertholenii Teysm. & Binn. was described from Amboina specimens, and its authors reduced to it Metrosideros vera parvifolia Rumph. The fi^'st reduction was that made by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 309, to Opa metrosideros Lour. Opa metrosideros Lour, is not at all Metrosideros vera Roxb., but is a synonym of Raphiolepis indica (Linn.) Lindl., of the Rosaceae, The form described by Rumphius as Metrosideros vera latifolia does not appear to * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Nani Adans. (1763) is older. t See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414. MYRTACEAE 401 be specifically distinct from the one described as Metrosideros vera parvifolia, although a more extended exploration of the Moluccas may show that two distinct species are involved. EUCALYPTUS L'Heritier EUCALYPTUS DEGLUPTA Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 83. Populus deglubata Reinw. ex Blume L c. in syn. Eucalyptus versicolor Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 84 (type!). Eucalyptus multiflora Rich ex A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 554. Eucalyptus naudiniana F. Muell. in Austral. Journ. Pharm. (1886) 239, Bot. Centralbl. 28 (1886) 179. Eugenia binacag Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 7 (1914) 2351. Eucalyptus binacag Elm. 1. c. 8 (1915) 2776. Arbor versicolor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 122, t. 80. Rumphius's material, on which his figure and description of Arbor versicolor were based, was from Ceram, not from Am- boina. The description and the figure, as far as they go, are unmistakably a Eucalyptus, I feel quite confident that Eugenia deglupta Blume, from Celebes ; E, versicolor Blume, from Ceram ; E. multiflora Rich and E, binacag Elm., of Mindanao; and E. naudiniana F. MuelL, of the Bismarck Archipelago, are all refer- able to a single species, which is now definitely known from a half-dozen localities in Mindanao, from New Guinea, and from the Bismarck Archipelago, and with the inclusion of Blume's species, from Celebes and Ceram. There is not a character given by Blume for either Eucalyptus versicolor or E. deglupta by which the two can be definitely distinguished from each other or from Eucalyptus naudiniana F.-Muell. Eucalyptus moluccana Roxb., as described, must represent a different species, at least entirely different from Eucalyptus naudiniana F.-Muell. and the Philippine synonyms cited here. Eucalyptus versicolor Blume is based wholly on Rumphius's description of Arbor versi- ^^lor, and it is to be noted that Blume, by error, cites t. 58 instead of ^. 80 as representing the species. The latter figure is Eugenia ^'^bglauca Koord. & Valeton, as I have here determined it (see p. 395). Eucalyptus sarassa Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 84, unaccom- panied by any word of description, was based on Kaju sarassa ^uniph., incidentally mentioned by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. 3: ^2, following the description of Arbor versicolor. It is inde- ^^niinable from any data now available, and there is little or no evidence that it belongs to Eucalyptus. 144971- 26 402 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE LEPTOSPERMUM Forster LEPTOSPERMUM FLAVESCENS Smith in Trans. Linn. Soc. 3 (1797) 262. Leptospermum aviboinense Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1100. Leptospermum porophylhim Cav. Ic. 4 (1797) 17, t. 330, f. 2. Melaleuca thea Wendl. Sert. Hannov. (1795-98) 24, L 13? Leptospermum thea Willd. Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 949? Macklottia amboinensis Korth. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 1 (1847) 196. Myptus ambolnensls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 77, t. 18. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 201)., September 30, 1913, on lightly forested hillsides, altitude about 250 meters. Myrtus amboinensis Rumph. has been very general^ reduced to Leptospermum amboinense Blume, but this species does not appear to be specifically distinct from the much older Leptosper- mum fiavescens Smith. The younger Linnaeus reduced it to Melaleuca virgata Linn, f., Suppl. (1781) 343; which, however, was based on Leptospermum virgatum FoYst.=Baeckea virgata A^dr., in which he was followed by Willdenow and by Lamarck. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 115, had already referred it to Myr- tus communis Linn., an entirely erroneous disposition of it. Leptospermum thea (Wendl.) Willd. may prove to be the oldest valid name for the species. MELALEUCA* Linnaeus MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 105. Myrtus leucadendra Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1056, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 676 (type!). Myrtus saligna Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 116, saltern quoad syn. Rumph. Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 59 (type!). Melaleuca saligna Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 66, non Schauer. Melaleuca viridiflora Blume Bijdr. (1026) 1099, var. angustifolia Blume 1. c. Melaleuca trinervis Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 147 (type!). Melaleuca minor Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 23 (1813) no. 2. Arbor alba major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 72, t. 16. Arbor alba minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 76, t 17. Amboina, Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 208, August 1, 1913, on open hillsides, altitude about 150 meters, locally known as kayu puti Myrtus leucadendra Linn, as originally published included both t 16 and t, 17 of Rumphius. Myrtus leucadendra Linn., Melaleuca leucadendra Linn., Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb., M. ^^' nervis Ham., and possibly M, minor Sm. are all typified by the Rumphian descriptions and figures. Some authors have as- sumed that L 17, f. 2, represents a distinct species, which has * Retained name, Vienna Code; Cajuputi Adans. (1763) is older. MELASTOMATACEAE 403 been indicated as Melaleuca minor Sm. and M. trinervis Ham., but which seems to be merely a form of Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. Cajukelam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 74 may or may not be identical with Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. Nearly all authors have cited Arbor alba Humph, under Melaleuca leuca- dendron Linn., but Linnaeus's original spelling is here retained, as he apparently never adopted the form ''leucadendronJ' Me- laleuca leucadendra Linn, is an exceedingly variable species as already noticed by Bentham. MELASTOMATACEAE OTANTHERA Blume OTANTHERA CYANOIDES (Sm.) Triana in Trans. Linn. Soc. 28 (1871) 55. Melastoma cyanoides Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 23 (1813) no. 56, 57. Melastoma moluccanuvi Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1078. Fragarius ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 135, t. 71. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 512, July 31, 1913, on wooded hillsides, altitude about 10 meters. Melastoma cyanoides Sm. was based on a specimen collected in Amboina by Mr. Christopher Smith in October, 1796, Fro- (jarius ruber Rumph. and Katou-Kadali Rheede being cited as synonyms ; Rheede's synonym must be excluded as it is not the same as the Amboina plant. Linnaeus erroneously reduced Fro- garius ruber to Melastoma asperum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1022, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 560, in which he was followed by numerous authors. Murray, Syst. (1771) 336, erroneously re- duced it to Melastoma malabathricum Linn. Blume reduced it to Melastoma moluccanum Blume in the original description of that species and later cited it under Otanthera moluccana Blume, both of which are manifestly sjmonyms of Otanthera mnoides (Sm.) Triana. I am indebted to Sir David Prain, director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, England, for a transcript of Smith's original description and for a comparison of Robin- son's specimen with the type of Smith's species, which is pre- served in the herbarium of the Linnean Society, London. MELASTOMA Linnaeus MELASTOMA POLYANTHUM Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 480. Pragarius niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 137, t. 72. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 508, July 31, 1913, on 'Slues at low altitudes, locally known as biroro and daun hiroro. The specimen is apparently referable to Melastoma polyaw- 404 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE thum Blume as currently interpreted, although the limits of Blume's species and the differential characters by which it can be distinguished from other forms are not at all clear. Lin- naeus originally reduced Fragarms niger Rumph. to MelastoTna octandrum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, an entirely erroneous disposition of it. Later, Mant. 2 (1771) 381, he transferred it to Melastoma malabathricum Linn., to which Melastoma polyaiithnm Blume is certainly closely allied. This reduction has been accepted by numerous authors, including Cogniaux in the latest monograph of the family, DC. Monog. Phan. 7 (1891) 349. Loureiro placed it with doubt under Melastoma septemnerve Lour., and Blume himself transferred it to Melastoma polyantkum Bl., the latter certainly the most satisfactory position for it. Another specimen from Amboina, Rel. Robins, 2027, from Kati-kati, altitude 80 meters, may represent a form of Melas- toma polyanthum Blume, and at the same time may represent Fragarius niger Rumph., at least in part. It differs from the specimen cited above under Melastoma polyanthum Blume in its somewhat longer calyx-lobes and in other minor characters. MELASTOMA sp. Fragarius ruber grandifoMus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 136. Amboina, Mahiya, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 511, October 3, 1913, in light woods at an altitude of about 350 meters. The specimen almost certainly represents the form described by Rumphius as Fragarius ruber grandifolius, and at the same time probably represents an undescribed species of Melastoma- Unfortunately incomplete material is represented, the petals and stamens having fallen. The branches, branchlets, and leaves are supplied v^ith scattered, minute, appressed scales, and the calyx-tube is densely covered with pale, spreading, curved, linear-lanceolate, acuminate, long, very slightly fimbriate, rather stiff paleae. The flowers are terminal and solitary. I^ seems to be most closely allied to the Philippine Melastoma lanaense Merr., but is very different from that species. MEDINfLLA Gaudichaud MEDINrLLA CRISPATA (Linn.) Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 517. Melastoma crispatum Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 560 (type!). Funis muraenarum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 66f t. S5, /. 1- Amboina, Kati-kati and Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 509, ^^ • October 19 and September 19, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 40 to < meters. MELASTOMATACEAE 405 This is a very characteristic species; it is well figured by Rumphius, and accordingly its synonymy is very simple. Funis miiraenarum mas Rumph. is the whole basis of Melastoma cris- patum Linn., which was transferred to Medinilla by Blume in 1831. Linnaeus first erroneously reduced it to Melastoma mdahathriciim Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, but soon recognized the error and in the reprint of Stickman's paper, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, he excluded the reduction to Melas- toma malabathricum and still later, in 1762, made the Rumphian description and figure the type of Melastoma crispatum Linn. MEDINILLA MACROCARPA Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 510; Rumphia 1 (1835) 14, U 2, Frutex muraenarum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67, t. 35, f, 2, Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 569, August 25, 1913, in forests, altitude about 250 meters. This is certainly the correct disposition of Frutex muraena- rum femina Rumph., the reduction having been made by Blume, whose description and figure, however, were based on Amboina specimens collected by Zippel. MEDINILLA sp. Funis muraenarum 111 Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67. This should be a very characteristic species, judging from Rumphius's description, which calls for a vine with solitary (that is, alternate) leaves, 8 to 10 inches long and 5 to 6 inches wide, long-acuminate, with 10 or 11 oblique nerves and many transverse nervules. Blume, Rumphia 1 (1835) 15, referred it to Medinilla crassinervia Blume, with which, however, it does not at all agree. Its exact status must await further botanical exploration of Amboina. ASTRONIA Noronha ASTRONIA PAPETARIA Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 526; Rumphia 1 (1835), 20, t. 6. Pharmacum papetarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 134, t, 69. Amboina, Way tommo and Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 513, 51U, August 19 and October 14, 1913, in light forests, altitude 50 to 325 meters, locally known as daun tabal. Blume's description and figure were based on specimens col- ^^cted in Amboina by Zippel, and he reduced here Pharmacum Papetarium Rumph., which is certainly the correct disposition of ^^- and a reduction that has been accepted by all subsequent ^^thors. The species is known only from Ternate and Amboina. 406 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE OENOTHERACEAE JUSSIEUA Linnaeus JUSSIEUA SUFFRUTICOSA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 388. Herba vltllaginum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 49, t. 21, /. i. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh. 259, July 25, 1913, in wet places near the town of Amboina. Herba vitilaginum was reduced by Linnaeus to Jussieua suf- fruticosa, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, but in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1021, he errone- ously cited t. H instead of t. 21, In the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1762) 556 he erroneously placed it under Jussieua erecta Linn., an American species. By other authors it has been placed under Jussieua angustifolia Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 331, Lamarck himself citing the Rumphian description and figure as possibly or probably representing his species. The actual tjHpe was a Javan specimen, and the species does not appear to be specifically distinct from the older /. suffruticosa Linn. ARALIACEAE OSMOXYLON Miquel OSMOXYLON UMBELLIFERUM (Lam.) comb. nov. Aralia umbellifera Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 224 (type!). Hedera umbellifera DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 262 (type!). Hedera amboinensis DC. ex Boerl. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887) 124, in syn. Gastonia saururoides Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 90, nomen nudum. Gastonia sasuroides Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 408, Osmoxylon amboinense Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 1 (1863) 6. Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 54, t. 12. This species is not represented in our Amboina collection? and is not definitely known to be represented by Amboina speci- mens in any herbarium. Pseudo-sandalum amboinense Rumph" which is excellently figured, is the whole basis of Aralia umbelli' fera Lam.; and this, being the earliest valid specific name for the species, is here adopted. The figure is cited by de Candolle and by Miquel, while Boerlage, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887) 124, confines Osmoxylon amboinense Miq. to the Amboina plant originally described and figured by Rumphius, redescribing the New Guinea specimen, cited by Miquel, as Osmoxylo^^ miquelii Boerl. Amboina material is necessary for study a^^" comparison, however, before the relationships of the two iorra^ ARALIACEAE 407 can be satisfactorily determined. Gastonia sasuroides Roxb. (or saururoides) is a probable synonym, as suggested by Miquel; in literature generally it is given as G. saururoides Roxb., as originally printed in the Hortus Bengalensis. However, in Rox- burgh's Flora Indiea it is given as G. sasuroides. In the very short description the Rumphian figure is cited as being nearly allied, and the specific name was taken from the local name sasuru, cited by Rumphius. Roxburgh's type was from the Moluccas. BOERLAGIODENDRON Harms BOERLAGIODENDRON PALMATUM (Lam.) Harms in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3' (1894) 31. Aralm palmata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 224 (type!). Trevesia zippeliana Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 11. Trevesia moluccana Miq. in Bonplandia 4 (1856) 137, FL Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1857) 748. Eschweileria palmata Zipp. ex BoerL in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887) 116, t. U. Unjala bifida Reinw. ex Boerl. L c. Osmoxylon moluccanum Becc. Malasia 1 (1878) 195. Osmoxylon zippelianum Becc. L c. Folium polypi mas (et femina?) Rumph Herb. Amb. 4: 101, t. JfS. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 389, September 5, 1913, in light forests, altitude 20 meters; Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 388, August 31, 1913, in forests, altitude 375 meters, locally known as papaya ((tan and poppy a utan. Folium polypi as figured and described by Rumphius is the whole basis of Aralia palmata Lam., which supplies the oldest valid specific name for this rather much-named species. All early authors, who had occasion to consider it, followed Lamarck in this reduction; but Miquel, overlooking the fact that the Rumphian figure and description typified Aralia palmata Lam., referred it to Trevesia moluccana Miq. The synonymy is given by Boerlage, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887) 116, who in taking up ZippeFs unpublished name Eschweileria overlooked 01' ignored, as a synonym of Lecythis, the previous use of the same name by Martins for a South American genus of Lecy- ^hidaceae; Eschtveilera Mart, is now recognized as a valid ^eniis distinct from Lecythis, Harms accordingly proposed the new generic name Boerlagiodendron, no other being available ^or the plants Boerlage placed in Eschweileria Zipp. Boerlage ^ives an ample description of the species and an excellent illustra- tion and cites specimens from Amboina, Banda, and Celebes. 408 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE SCHEFFLERA Forster SCHEFFLERA sp. Brassaia littorea Seem. Journ. Bot. 2 (1864) 244 (type!). Papaja lltorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 150, t. 52. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Brassaia littorea Seem, was based wholly on Rumphius's figure and description. As its status is entirely uncertain, no direct transfer is here made to Schefflera, where Papaja litorea Rumph. manifestly belongs. Walpers, Repert. 2 (1843) 430, reduced it to Aralia longifolia Reinw., the original publication of which I have not seen, but which is apparently the same as the Javanese Sciodaphyllum longifolium Blume ; in Index Kewensis the latter is given as a synonym of Brassaia littorea Seem. It has also been referred to Paratropia longifolia DC. by DeVriese, PI. Ind. Bat. Or. (1845) 89, and was mentioned by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1856-57) 760, following Paratropia macrostachya Miq., as a possible representative of Paratropia. Teysmann, cited by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 20, thought that it might possibly be Paratropia macrostachya Miq. The species is such a characteristic one and has such large leaflets and long petioles, that it should be readily recognized when once collected in Amboina. POLYSCIAS Forster POLYSCIAS NODOSA (Blume) Seem, in Journ. Bot. 3 (1865) 181. Aralia nodosa Blume Bijdr. (1826) 873. Paratropia nodosa DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 265. Hedera nodosa Hassk. in Hoev. & De Vriese Tijdschr. Nat. Gesch. 10 (1843) 131. Aralia umbraculifera Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 22, nomen nudum. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 108. Eupteron nodosum Miq. in Bonplandia 4 (1856) 139; Fl. Ind. Bat 1^ (1857) 762. Papaja sllvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 149, t. 5S, /. 1. Amboina, Ermes, Robinsort PL Rumph. Amb. 386, Au^st 9, 1913, o" forested hillsides, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as pota fn/fl" and patu tulong. The figure is very poor and is scarcely recognizable as PoMl- scias nodosa Seem., yet the description applies unmistakably to this species. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 2 (1799) 549, mislead by th^ very poor figure, erroneously referred it to Berg era koentg^^ Linn. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 108, cites it as a syn- onym of his Aralia umbraculifera, which was described f^ovfi specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta, origin- ating in the Moluccas, and which is an exact synonym o ARALIACEAE 409 Polyscias nodosa Seem. Miquel cites it as a synonym of Eupteron nodosum (Blume) Miq., while Seemann quotes it in the original transfer of the species to Polyscias as cited above. NOTHOPANAX Miquel NOTHOPANAX SCUTELLARIUM (Burm. f.) comb. nov. Crassula Scutellaria Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 78. Aralia cochleata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 224 (type!). Panax cochleatiim DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 253 (type!). Panax scutellarioides Reinw. in Blume Bijdr. (1826) 880. Nothopanax cochleatum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. I"" (1857) 766. Scutellaria prima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 75, t. SI, This commonly cultivated and characteristic shrub is not represented in our Amboina collections. The first post-Linnean description of the species seems to be that of Burman f ., whose specific name is here adopted. Burman cites Scutellaria prima Rumph. as a synonym of his Crassula Scutellaria, but by error cites the illustration as t, 30 instead of t 81. Rumphius's figure and description are the whole basis of Aralia cochleata Lam., and hence of Panax cochleatum DC. and of Nothopanax cochle- atum Miquel. The Rumphian figure has for the most part been cited in literature under the names Panax cochleatum DC. and Aralia cochleata Lam. NOTHOPANAX TRICOCHLEATUM Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1862) 340. Panax rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 220 (Neue Schlussel 78) (type!). Scutellaria secunda latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 76. This cultivated form is not represented in our Amboina col- lections. Panax rumphii Hassk. was based wholly on the Rumphian description and has been overlooked by all subsequent authors; it is not included in Index Kewensis. From the de- scription compiled by Hasskarl and from Rumphius's original and more ample description, I can see no reason for considering it other than Nothopanax tricochleatum Miq. The form de- scribed by Rumphius in this chapter as daulde probably belongs in Nothopanax, but the description is too indefinite to warrant its certain reduction. NOTHOPANAX PINNATUM (Lam.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ' (1857) 766. Panax pinnatum Lam. Encycl. 2 (1788) 715 (type!). Panax ? secundum Schultes Syst. 6 (1820) 215 (type!). Polyscias rumphiana Harms in Eng'l. & Prantl Nat. Plianzenfam 3 ' (1894) 45. Scutellaria secunda angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 76, t. 32. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 410 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE A form that almost certainly represents the Rumphian plant is in cultivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, **XIII-J~31/' which originated in the Moluccas. The Rumphian description and figure are the whole basis of Panax pinnatum Lam. and Panax secundum Schultes and hence of Nothopavm pinnatum Miq. Most authors have followed Lamarck and cite the Rumphian plant as Pan^x pinnatum Lam. The species is as yet very imperfectly known, and its relationship to several forms distinguished in comparatively recent years in horticul- tural literature is obscure, such as Aralia maculata TrufF., Amlia guilfoylei Cogn. & March., etc. Polyscias rumphiana Harms was proposed by Harms in transferring the species to Polyscias, on account of the earlier Polyscias pinnata Forst. However, Schultes's name was available, although overlooked by Doctor Harms. NOTHOPANAX FRUTICOSUM (Linn.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 (1857) 765. Panax fruticosum Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1513. Scutellaria tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 78, t. 8S. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 387, September 25, 1913, cultivated or semicultivated, near the town of Amboina, locally known as pagar pagar. The Rumphian name and figure are cited by Linnaeus in the original description of the species, and in this reduction he has been consistently followed by nearly all authors. I prefer, how- ever, to follow Miquel in considering the species under Notho- panax. Harms, in Engl, and Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3 (1894) 43-45, places all species of Nothopanax under Polyscia^^ PANAX Linnaeus PANAX GINSENG C. A. Mey. in BuH. Phys.-Math. Acad. Petersb. 1 (1843) 340. Radix sinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 42, t. 21, f. 1. There is little doubt that the plant discussed by RumphiiK^ is the common Chinese ginseng, but the figure given by Rumph- ius, other than that of the root, appears to be largely imagi- nary. Henschel referred it to Sium ninsi Linn., a species the status of which is not understood ; it may prove to be the oldest name for Panax ginseng, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190. placed it under Sium siarum Linn. var. ninsi DC. ; both tnl^ reduction and the one suggested above are open to serious objec- tions, although the matter of the exact identity of the pl'^" Rumphius discussed is of slight importance, as no question o nomenclature is involved. UMBELLIFERAE 411 UMBELLIFERAE CENT ELLA Linnaeus CENTELLA ASIATJCA (Linn.) Urban in Mart. FL Bras. 11': 287. Hydrocotyle asiatica Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 234. Pes equinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 455, t. 169, /. 1. Amboina, Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 326, August 1, 1913, common up to an altitude of 300 meters. The reduction of Pes equinus to Hydrocotyle asiatica was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 953, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 338, which has been followed by many succeeding authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 176, cites the Rumphian figure as representing the new genus and species Trisanthus cochinchin- ensis Lour., which is a synonym of Centella asiatica (Linn.) Urban. ANTHERISCUS Bernhardi ANTHERISCUS sp.? Levisticum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 269, t. 93, f. 3. Nothing resembling this is represented in our Amboina col- lections, and Levisticum indicum Rumph. has never been satisfac- torily reduced. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 179, places it under Bubon macedonicus ljmn.=Athamantha macedonica Spreng., while Henschel thought it might be Ligusticum striatum ^iOxh.=Selinum striatum Benth. & Hook, f, ; the range of this, Himalayan, makes the suggested reduction of Rumphius's Levis- ticum indicum an impossible one. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 119, mentions the resemblance of the figure to Apium in- volucratum Roxb. and Cnidium diffusum DC. Field work and a critical study of the various species of Umbelliferae cultivated in the Malay Archipelago should solve the problem of the status of Levisticum indicum, as Rumphius states that the plant was cultivated only, and that it was rare in Amboina, but more abundant in Java and Ternate. It may prove to be Antheriscus ^('reifolium Hoffm., which Koorders reports from Java, but should ^Q critically compared with Ligusticum acutilobum Sieb. & Zucc. CARUM Ruppius CARUM COPTICUM (Linn.) Benth. ex C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 2 (1879) 682. Ammi copticum Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 56. Ligusticum ajowan Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 21, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 91. 412 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Ptychotis ajowayi DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 109. Carum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 270. Amudium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 270. The form described by Rumphius under the name Carum is unquestionably Ptychotis ajowan I)C.=C(irum copticum Benth., for which Rumphius cites the native names aydjuan and djintam soa, Henschel thought that it might be de Candolle's species. Amudium was thought by Henschel to be Ptychotis roxburgh- iana I)C.=Ca7^um roxburghianum Benth. It is certainly ident- ical with the Philippine form described by Blanco as Ammi glaucifolium (non Linn.) Blanco FL Filip. (1837) 21S=:^Daucus anisodorus Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 150, for which he cites the native name lamudio, Rumphius took his data regarding Amudium from Nieremberg's description of the Philippine plant. Of uncertain status, other than that it is an umbelliferous plant, is Mussi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 271. It may be Carmn carvi Linn., but the description is too indefinite to be at all certain. Mussi is given by Rumphius as the Javanese name. CRITHMUM Linnaeus CRITHMUM MARITIMUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 246. Crithamus verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166, t. 72, f. 2. The plant discussed is the European Crithmum maritimum Liiln., and it was apparently figured from European specimens. MYRSINACEAE MAESA !Forskal MA'ESA TETRANDRA (Roxb.) A. DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 82. Baeobotrys tetrandra Roxb. Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 238. Maesa amboinensis Scheff. Comm. Myrsin. Archip. Ind. (1867) 29. Perlarlus ii Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 122, t. 57, Amboina, Mahija, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Amahoesoe, and town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 2Jfl, 21,2, 23J^, July to October, 1913, in thickets and light forests, sea level to an altitude of 300 meters, locally known as kayo mani mani. Perlarius II Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 124, fo Dartus perlarius Lour., the specific name being taken from Rumphius. The plant actually described was fron) Cochin-China and manifestly is not the same as the Amboma one figured and described by Rumphius. In this erroneous reduction Loureiro has been followed by Poiret, Roemer ano MYRSINACEAE 413 Schultes, Henschel, Kosteletzky, Don, Endlicher, Walpers, Pritzel, A. de Candolle, and Miquel. Rumphius's figure, while crude, is a fair representation of Maesa tetrandra A. DC, the type of which was from the Moluccas, probably Amboina, while the description applies perfectly. I consider the correctness of this reduction absolutely certain. The form described in the same chapter as Perlarius III silvestris is one of uncertain status. It may be an allied species of Maesa or may refer to a species of some other genus or even of some other family; Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 84, thought that it might be a Callicarpa. A EG IC ERAS Gaertner AEGICERAS CORNICULATUM (Linn.) Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 79. Rhizophora corniculata Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123 (type!). Rhizophora aegiceras Gmel. Syst. (1791) 747. Aegiceras majus Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 216, t. A6. Aegiceras minus Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 216 p. p., quoad syn. Rumph. Umbraculum comiculatum 0. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 1 (1891) 405. Mangium fruticans I corniculatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 117, t. 77. Umbraculum maris ceramense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 124, t. 82. Umbraculum maris amboinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 124. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 25^, July 28, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as brappat. Mangium fruticans I corniculatum Rumph. is the whole basis of Rhizophora corniculata IAnii,=Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco, as cited in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 635. It has also been cited by various authors under Aegiceras majus Gaertn. and under Aegiceras fragrans Koenig, both synonyms of Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco. Umbraculum maris ceramense Rumph. is 'manifestly the same as Mangium fruticans I corniculatum Rumph. and was ^'educed by Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 216, to Aegiceras minus Gaertn. in the original description of that species. Aegiceras ^hus Gaertn. is, however, to be typified by the species figured by him, a Ceylon plant, which is Rourea santaloides (Vahl) ^V. & A.=Rourea minor (Gaertn.). Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, Sprengel, Henschel, Spanoghe, de Candolle, Pritzel, and Miquel have followed Gaertner in this reduction, but '^^giceras minu^ Gaertn., in part, only as to the Rumphian syn- ^^^ym, is Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco. Umbraculum '^^ns amboinensis Rumph. is placed here after Mez in Engl. 414 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Pflanzenreich 9 (1902) 56, but may well be the same as Aegiceras floridum Roem. & Schultes. AEGICERAS FLORIDUM Roem. & Schultes Syst. 4 (1819) 512 (type!). Aegiceras ferreum Blume Bijdr. (1826) 693. Aegiceras nigricans A, Rich. Voy. Astrolabe 2 (1834) 57, t. 2.1. Mangium floridum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 125, t. 83. Mangium ferreum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 120 p. p., quoad t. 79 f, A,B. Mangium fruticans II parvifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 117. Amboina, Paso, Robinso7i PL Rumph. Amh. 253, October 31, 1913, along the seashore. Mangium floridum Rumph. is the whole basis of Aegiceras floridum Roem. & Schultes, a species very different from Aegi- ceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco. The flowering and fruiting branchlets figured on t 79, f. A, B, under Mangium ferreum Rumph. are also manifestly referable to Aegiceras floridum R. & S., although Mangium ferreum Rumph. is for the most part Pemphis acidula Forst. (see p. 382). Mangium fruticans II parvifolium Rumph. is also apparently referable to this species, judging from the description; while Umbraculum maris am- boinense Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 124, may be referable to Aegiceras floridum R. & S., rather than to Aegiceras cornicu- latum (Linn.) Blanco where I have placed it. PLUMBAGINACEAE PLUMBAGO Linnaeus PLUMBAGO INDICA Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133 (type!). Plumbago rosea Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 215. Plumbago coccinea Salisb. Prodr. (1796) 122. Radix vesicatoria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 453, t. 168. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. ^^i, August 16, 1913- Plumbago indica Linn., validly published by citation of Rumphius, is not included in Index Kewensis, and this specific name has been entirely overlooked by all botanists. Linnaeus, Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 921, abandoned the name Plumbago indica and erroneously referred Radix vesicatoria to Plumbago zeylanica Linn. In the Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 215, he referred it correctly to Plumbago rosea Linn., but this now becomes a synonym of the older name. Plumbago indica Linn. The description is unmistakably that of the plant commonl} known as Plumbago rosea Linn, and as P. coccinea Salisb. ; tne figure is not particularly good, although manifestly a Plumbago- SAPOTACEAE 415 SAPOTACEAE PA YEN A A. de Candolle PAYENA LEERII (Teysm. & Binn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 40^ (1871) 69." Azaola leerii Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 6 (1854) 116. Hapaloceras ? arupa Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 193 (Neue Schliissel 51) (type!). Arupa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 66, t. 38. Under Arupa Rumphius briefly describes two forms which he indicates as Arupa alba and Arupa rubra. He distinctly states that the flowers and fruits were unknown to him, yet figures a plant with fruits, probably the one mentioned in the postscript following the original description. Arupa alba Rumph. is the whole basis of Hapaloceras arupa Hassk., a name not listed in Index Kewensis. The illustration, and for that matter the de- scription, applies fairly well to Payena leerii Kurz, a species already reported from Amboina by Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 (1885) 56. This may, however, prove not to be the correct disposition of Arupa, but this matter can be definitely determined only after a more comprehensive exploration of Amboina. The form very imperfectly described as Arupa rubra probably pertains to some entirely different plant, but its status is wholly problematical and cannot be determined from the description. The figure might pass for Cratoxylon formosum Dyer, but the indicated size of the leaves and the fruit charac- ters, as given in the description, make this identification an impossible one. PALAQUIUM Blanco PALAQUIUM AMBOINENSE Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 (1885) 37. Cicadaria latifolla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 210, t. 135? The figure conforms fairly well with specimens of Burck's species taken from trees cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java. The correctness of the reduction, however, IS very doubtful. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliis- sel (1866) 68, referred it to the Sapotaceae, where it certainly belongs. The forms described in this chapter as Cicadaria angustifolia ^^d as C. zeylanica are undeterminable, and probably neither ^^longs in this family. ^'^Uquium sp.? Sicchlus I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 40, L 21? ^'^cchius I mas is of very doubtful status, and the description 416 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE is possibly a mixture of the characters of two different species. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 48, quotes it under Hapaloceras leerii }isi^sk,=Keratophoriis leerii IlsiSsk.=Payena leerii Kurz, where it certainly does not belong ; at least the form figured by Rumphius. He also suggests that it is an AegiceraSy an equally wrong disposition of it. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, con- sidered that it belonged to the Sapotaceae, The description and the plate indicate Sapotaceae, but no species is known to me that conforms with the characters indicated by Rumphius. The drawing of the fruit certainly represents no sapotaceous plant, and it does not conform with Rumphius's description. The name sicM in Amboina appears to be applicable to Litsea, but the plant figured and described is no lauraceous species. SIDEROXYLON Linnaeus 8IDEROXYLON M ICROCARPUM Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 (1885) 17. Arbor facum major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 77, t. 49. Rumphius's figure is an excellent one and unmistakably rep- resents a Sideroxylon, and I believe S, microcarpum Burck in spite of the discrepancies between the fruit as figured by Rumphius and as described by Burck. The type of Sideroxijlon microcarpum Burck was from Amboina, with the native names ay-lapei and kajoe lapei-lapei; two names cited by Rumphius are caju lobe and caju lape-lape. The figure agrees very closely with flowering specimens from trees cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 234, cites it with doubt under Bassia longifolia Lam., where it manifestly does not belong. The only other suggested indentification of it is Teysmann's reference of it to the Sapotaceae, as quoted by Hasskarl. SIDEROXYLON sp. Sicchius ii femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 41, t. 22? The figure certainly represents a sapotaceous plant and is prob- ably a species of Sideroxylon as placed by Teysmann in Hassk. Neue Schlussel (1866) 49. It has, however, much the appear- ance of Payena leerii Kurz, which is known from Amboina. The brief description given by Rumphius does not agree with the figure as to fruit characters. It is certainly no ElaeocarfV-'^ as suggested by Hasskarl. The form briefly described as Sicchius III in this chapter is entirely undeterminable. SAPOTACEAE 417 SIDEROXYLON sp. Lignum eurinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 63, t. 35. There is no previous reduction of Lignum eurinum Rumph. except HasskarFs tentative suggestion that it might be Melan- thesia or Maesa, The presence of milky sap, mentioned by Rumphius in the description, invalidates these suggested reduc- tions. The plant is undoubtedly a species of Sideroxylon; it closely matches specimens from plants cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg distributed as Sideroxylon attenvxihim A. DC, var. amboinense Scheff . If these are correctly named, they are certainly specifically distinct from Sideroxylon attenuatum A, DC. MIMUSOPS Linnaeus MIMUSOPS ELENGI Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 349. Flos cuspid um Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 189, t. 6S. This common and well-known species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Rumphius states that it was an intro- duced plant in Amboina, as it is in most parts of the Malayan region. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1000, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 497, which is manifestly the correct disposition of Flos cuspidum and has been accepted by all authors. MIMUSOPS PARVIFOLIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 531. Tanjonus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 193, t. 61^. Not represented in our Amboina collections. The species is manifestly a Mimu^ops, and I cannot distinguish it from a large series of specimens from the coastal regions in the Philippines, others from Celebes, and others from New Caledonia that I believe represent Mimusops parvifolia R. Br. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 39, states "ob calycem quadripartitum insignis ^rbor et Mimusopi aliena;" while Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, ^' c., referred it to Uvaria tripetala Roxb. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 86, reduced it to Mimusops elengi Linn. The whole de- scription, except the 4-parted calyx, native names, etc., is Mimu- '^^Ws, and the figure is an excellent representation of Mimusops, ^^'ith some of the calyces indicated as 5-parted, while Rumphius definitely states that the flowers and fruits are very similar to ^hose of the domesticated tanjonus, that is, the form considered ^y him in the preceding chapter, Mimusops elengi Linn. 144971 27 418 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE MIMUSOPS KAUKI Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 349. Metros! deros macassarensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 19, t. 8. This reduction was originally made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 11, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1000, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 497, which has been accepted by most authors and is probably the correct disposition of the Rumphian species. Rumphius's material was from Celebes, not from Amboina. Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 186, referred it to Mimiosops ohtusifolia Lam., but this species was based on actual specimens, and it may or may not prove to be the same as Mimusops kauki Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 47, considered that the flowers represented by t, 8 were referable to Mimusops manilkara Don, but this species is supposed to be a synonym of Mimusops kauki Linn. SAPOTACEAE indet. Vidoricum silvestre II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 184. Gaertner, Fruct. 2 (1794) 104, mentions this in the original description of Bassia dubia Gaertn. as possibly representing that species. Bassia dubia Gaertn. is an entirely doubtful spe- cies of which the flowers and leaves are unknown. Its country of origin is also unknown, except that it probably came from the Indo-Malayan region. SAPOTACEAE indet. Vidoricum silvestre IV Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185, t. 118. The form figured is possibly a species of Sideroxylon, but the figure does not conform especially well with the description of Vidoricum^ silvestre IV, which it is supposed to represent. It may be the form of Vidoricum that Gaertner intended to cite under Bassia dubia Gaertn., but he does not mention the figure. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 65, thought that it might be a Diospyros, This is possibly the correct disposition of the description, but is manifestly not the correct disposition of the figure. The other forms described under Vidoricum are all indeter- minable from data at present available. They are as follows: Vidoricum silvestre M var. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 184. Vidoricum ill Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185. Vidoricum V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185. Vidoricum VI Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 186. SAPOTACEAE indet. Lignum clavorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 97, t. 6Jlf, This was placed by Henschel, with doubt, under Calophyll^^^^ EBENACEAE 419 spurium Choisy, in Vita Rumph. (1833) 156, following Rumph- ius's comparison of it with Tsjerou-Ponna of Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 4: 81. Its status is indeterminable from the data at present available, although it undoubtedly belongs in the Sapo- taceae. This was Teysmann's disposition of it, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 55. EBENACEAE MABA Forster MABA BUXI FOLIA (Rottb.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 606? Pisonia ? buxifolia Rottb. in Nye Saml. Kong. Danske Skrift. 2 (1783) 536, t. 4, /. 2. Maba ebenus Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 126 (type!). Ebenus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 1, t. i. Nothing resembling this is represented in our Amboina col- lections. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 613, discusses it under his Ebenoxylum verum, which manifestly is a species of Maba, but certainly not Maba elliptica Forst. where it was placed by Hiern, Trans. Cambr. Philos. Soc. 12 (1873) 122. Loureiro's pecies must be interpreted from his original specimens or, failing these, from Cochin-China material. It is apparently a form of Maba buxifolia Pers. or a closely allied species. Maba 'henm Spreng. is based wholly on Rumphius and must be nterpreted from the Rumphian figure and description. From Humphius's description of the flower as 3-merous the species is a Maba, not a Diospyros. Ebenus e Madagascar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 6 is indetermin- able; Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 46, suggested that it might be Maba madagascariensis A. DC. DIOSPYROS Linnaeus OIOSPYROS MARITIMA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 669. Ebenus molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 6, t. 2. Nothing resembling this species is presented by our Amboina ^^liections. Ebenus molucca Rumph. is certainly a species of 1%'Pyros, and it is either D. maritima Blume or a very closely Jed form. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1859) 1049, suggested that ^ Rumphian plant pertained to Diospyros, but no further deter- ^^ation of it has been suggested by other authors. '^SPYRos EBENUM Koen. in Physiogr. Salsk. Handl. 1 (1776) 176? Hebenaster Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 13, t. 6. j^^ othing resembling this species occurs in our Amboina col- ^ons. Hebenaster has been referred to Diospyros ebenaster 420 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Retz. by various authors, but this does not seem to be the proper disposition of it. I agree with Scott * that it conforms much better with Diospyros ebenum Koen. than with D, ebenaster Retz. The exact identity of Hebenaster cannot be determined until actual Moluccan specimens are available for comparison. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 227, erroneously refers it to his Diospyros decandra; but Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1859) 1047, definitely reduces it to Diospyros ebenum Koen., and Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 529 expresses the same opinion. Still another species is probably represented by Hebenaster amalyensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3 : 15, casually discussed under Hebefiaster, Native names given by Rumphius are: Amboina, lolin, lorin, secur; Banda, boa djarong; Uliassar and Ceram, ahuelli DIOSPYROS KAKI Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 439. Anona sariffa Roxb. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 142 (type!). KhI Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 137. Rumphius describes one of the Chinese persimmons, which Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 19, refers to Diospyros kaki Linn., this doubtless being the correct disposi- tion of it. Anona sariffa Roxb., as published by Henschel, does not otherwise appear in botanical literature ; it is typified by the Rumphian description and hence becomes a synonym of Diospyros kaki Linn. The name is not listed in Index Kewensis. DIOSPYROS sp.? Ebenus alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 8, U 3. This may ultimately prove to be no Diospyros. The descrip- tion is fair, but the figure of the infructescence does not look like any Diospyros known to me. The reduction follows Teys- mann's opinion as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 46. SYMPLOCACEAE SYMPLOCOS Jacquin SY MP LOCOS J AV AN 10 A (Blume) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. ^^ (1871) 64. Dicalyx javanicus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1117. Dicalyx saldccensis Blume 1. c. 1118. Symplocos ferruginea Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 40, nomen nudinn. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 542. Arbor aluminosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 160, t. 100, Symplocos javanica Kurz {S. ferruginea Roxb.) is not repi^^ *Kew Bull. (1915) 65-67. SYMPLOCACEAE 421 ented in our Amboina collection, but the species has been reported from Amboina, two collections, by Brand. It is barely possible, however, that the Amboina specimens I have referred to Symplocos syringoides Brand * represent Arbor akminosa; one of these specimens bears the native name kayu reha, the second and really essential part of this name manifestly corresponding to leha cited by Rumphius as the Amboinese name of Arbor aluminosa. In size this shrub also agrees with Rumph- ius's description, but the leaves are but very slightly toothed, while Rumphius's figure presents leaves prominently toothed. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 315, refers Arbor aluminosa to his Decadia aluminosa^ but Decadia aluminosa was actually described from Cochin-China specimens. Loureiro's generic description is faulty, as shown by S. LeM. Moore in Journ. Bot. 42 (1914) 148, who has critically examined Loureiro's type specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum. His con- clusion is as follows : On the whole, I think it likely that D[icalyx] aluminosa may be S[ym- plocos] syringoides, as such it has been written up provisionally in the National Herbarium. However, Symplocos syringoides Brand is a species known only from Amboina, and as species go in Symplocos it seems rather improbable that the Cochin-China specimen actually described by Loureiro is identical with the Amboina plant. Dicalyx aluminosus Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 1117, was based essen- tially on specimens from Java and Nusa Kambangan and is Symplocos aluminosa (Blume) Brand. Both Loureiro's and Blume's specific names were from Rumphius, but the plants actually described are not Arbor aluminosa Rumph. If the syn- onymy given by Brand, Engl. Pflanzenreich 6 (1901) 40, is cor- rect, the earliest valid specific name is Symplocos javanica ^Blume) Kurz, for Symplocos ferruginea Roxb., 1814, is merely a nomen nudum, Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 186, has suggested that Parens muscarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 16, t 9, f. 2, may be a \y^plocos. There is nothing in the description that would indicate this, while the figure presents a seedling or sapling shrub ^^^h galls on the leaves. The status of Parens muscarum '"niph. is quite undeterminable. The native name cited by ^"^Phius is ay lala. Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 304. 422 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE OLEACEAE JASMINUM Linnaeus JASMINUM SAMBAC (Linn.) Ait. Hort. Kew. 1 (1789) 8. Nyctanthes sambac Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 6. Flos manorae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 52, t. SO, Amboina, Hinting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 258, August 13, 1913, on limestone formation at an altitude of about 2 meters. The reduction to Nyctanthes sambac was made by Linnaeus in the year following the publication of that species, Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, and appears in Linnaeus's later publica- tions; but in the more modern literature it is placed under Jasminum sambac (Linn.) Ait., this being certainly its proper disposition. Here should be referred not only Flos manorae Rumph., but also Flos manorae planus Rumph. 1. c. 52, t SO A; the latter being the commonly cultivated form of Jasminum sambac with double flowers. JASMINUM sp. Jasminum lltoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 54 (non 2: 86, t. I^6). The species described is undoubtedly a true Jasminum, and from the description and habitat given by Rumphius I make the suggestion that the plant may prove to be the same as the widely distributed Malayan species, /. bif avium Wall. This species, however, does not appear in our Amboina collections. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 94, made the suggestion that it might be a Jasminum, but he was not sure as to the genus and suggested no species. The reference is unimportant, and no other author has even suggested a possible identification for the plant described by Rumphius. Jasminum litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 84, t. 46, is Clerodendron commersonii (Lam.) Spreng. MYXOPYRUM Blume MYXOPYRUM MACROLOBUM A. W. HUl in Kew BuU. (1910) 42. Sirjoldes alter Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 50, t. 29, f. 1? Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 518, October 29, 1913, on trees along the beach. A fruiting specimen. Sirioides alter, as figured by Rumphius, was reduced h} Kosteletzky, Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1074, to Strychnos^ bicirrhosa Lesch., but is certainly not the species described h> Leschenault in Roxb. Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 267=5. colubrina Linn There are serious objections to the reduction of Sirioides om^^ to Myxopyrum, but it is certainly Myxopyrum in part. ^ ^ figure shows a plant with tendrils, which is no Myxopyriin^^ bui LOGANIACEAE 423 a Strychnos character. Sirioides, as described by Rumphius on page 49 and in the same chapter with Sirioides alter, is certainly a Strychnos. It is possible that the drawing is due to the combination of Strychnos and Myxopyrum characters from two different plants. I am under obligations to Mr. A. W. Hill of the Royal Gardens, Kew, England, for the determination of No, 518 with Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill. Regard- ing it he writes : 'The Myxopyrum is almost certainly M. macro- lobum A. W. Hill, but our specimens have no fruit and yours have no flowers.'* LOGANIACEAE STRYCHNOS Linnaeus STRYCHNOS MURICATA Kostel. AUg*. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1072 (type!). Strychnos ligustrina Blume Rumphia 1 (1836) 68, t. 25. Lignum colubrinum tlmorense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 121, t. 38. The plant that Rumphius figured and described under the name Lignum colubrinum timorense was not from Amboina, but from Timor. Willdenow, Sp. PL V (1797) 1052, errone- ously reduced it to Strychnos colubrina Linn., in which he was followed by several authors. It is the whole basis of Strychnos nmricata Kostel., which, in publication, antedates Strychnos ligustrina Blume; the two species are certainly identical. In spite of the fact that some of the fruits were drawn by Rumphius's artist as somewhat muricate, there is no doubt whatever as to the identity of his plant with Strychnos ligustrina Blume =S. muricata Kostel. Some authors have erroneously cited t. 87 as representing Lignum colubrinum timorense, but this figure represents Vidara litorea Rumph.=Ximenia ameni- cana Linn. The form very briefly described by Rumphius as Upas alterum, Herb. Amb. 2: 264, under Arbor toxicaria=Antiaria toxicaria Lesch., is considered by Blume and by Hasskarl to be the same as Strychnos tieute Lesch., which may be the correct disposition of it. STRYCHNOS BARBATA A. W. Hill in Kew Bull. (1909) 359. Sirioides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 49? Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 611, September 18, ^^^•^, on cliflps, altitude about 6 meters; Liang, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^'^2, November 29, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 15 meters. From Rumphius's description Sirioides is certainly a species ^^ Strychnos, in all probability the form represented by the 424 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE specimens here assigned to it. Sirioides has not previously been definitely placed, Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 94, merely indicating that it pertains to the Piperaceae, manifestly an entirely erroneous identification. Sirioides alter, described by Rumphius in the same chapter and figured, t. 29, /. i, seems to be Myxopyrum, although the drawing may be a combination of Myxopyrum and Strychnos characters (see p. 422, under Myxopyrum) . I am under obligations to Mr. A. W. Hill, of the Royal Gardens, Kew, for the identification of the above speci- mens with Strychnos barbata A. W. Hill. The species was previously known only from New Guinea. Mr. Hill writes that the specific determination of No. 612 is not certain, as it is in fruit, while the venation of the leaves is not quite the same as in the other number cited here, which is in flower. FAGRAEA Thunberg" FAGRAEA AM BOIN ENSIS Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 166. Fagraea littoralis Blume var. amboinensis Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 28. Funis toaccae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 481, t 179. Amboina, Mahiya and Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5.19, August, 1913, on limestone rocks and on trees, altitude 25 to 300 meters; Hitoe lama, PL Rumph. Amb. 244, November, 1913, along roadsides in light forests, altitude about 50 meters, locally known as tonki utan. Funis toaccae Rumph. is well figured, but rather poorly de- scribed, perhaps erroneously described as to the seeds, the seed characters assigned perhaps pertaining to some apocynaceous plant. The description otherwise and the figure conform very closely to the plants here identified as Fagraea amboinensis Blume. Blume himself discusses Funis toaccae Rumph. in the original description of Fagraea littoralis Blume var. amboinensis Blume. As to the status of Fagraea amboinensis Blume as a species distinct from other described and allied forms of the same genus, I can express no opinion, other than that I do not consider it the same as the Javan Fagraea littoralis Blume. GENTIANACEAE LIMNANTHEMUM Linnaeus LIMNANTHEMUM INDICUM (Linn.) Griseb. Gen. Sp. Gent. (1839) 343. Menyanthes indica Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 145. Nymphaea indica minor II ceramlca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1^'^' t. 72, f. S. The Rumphian species was originally reduced to Menyanthes indica Linn., by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, APOCYNACEAE 425 Amoen. Acad. 4 ^1759) 136, and has been cited by various authors under this name, under Villarsia indica Vent., a syn- onym, and under Limnanthemum indicum Griseb. It is to be noted that in the description of the plate in Rumphius the figure is listed as representing Nymphaea indica minor /, but the de- scription of this is Nymphaea; the description of Nymphaea indica minor II ceramica is unmistakably Limnanthemum and of the plant figured. APOCYNACEAE NEUBURGIA Blume NEUBURGIA M USCULIFORM IS (Lam.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 403. Cerbera musculif ormis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 62 (type!). Banh'sia musculif ormis Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 221 (type!). Neiiburgia tuber culata Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 157. Fructus musculiformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 184, t. 60. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections; Rumphius's material was from Ceram. Fructus musculiformis Rumph. is the whole basis of Cerbera musculiformis Lam. and of Banksia musculiformis Gaertn., and hence of Neuburgia musculiformis Miq. and of N, tuberculata Blume. It is not at all clear that Neuburgia tubiflora Blume, of New Guinea, is speci- fically distinct, and Miquel reduces it as a synonym of N, muscu^ Uf ormis (Lam.) Miq. CARISSA * Linnaeus CARISSA CARANDAS Linn, Mant. 1 (1767) 52. Mespilus silvestris Burm. Index Vniv, Kerb, A.mb. (1755) [14] (type!) non [18]? Carissa spinarum Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 559, saltern quoad syn. Rumph. Echites spinosa Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 69. Capparis carandas Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 118, 119, saltem quoad syn. Rumph. Oxyacantha javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 39, t. 19, f. 3? Carandas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 57, t. 25. Carandas Rumph. is cited in the original descriptions of all ^^ the species listed above, except Carissa spinxirum Linn, and ^^espilus silvestris Burm., and is undoubtedly referable to typical ^(irissa carandas Linn. It has been almost universally cited ^nder the Linnean name. Oxyacantha javana Rumph. is of ^oubtful status, but is possibly the same as Carissa carandas ^^^n. It was placed by Linnaeus under Carissa spinarum Linn. ^^ the original description of that species, but Linnaeus mani- Retained name, Vienna Code; Arduina Mill. (1760) and Carandas •^cians. (1763) are older. 426 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE festly had specimens before him when writing the description. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 318, places it under Phoberos chinensis Lour.; Endlicher placed it under Damnacanthus ; and Dietrich placed it under Canthium indicum Dietr.=Damnacan- thus indicus Gaertn. It is the whole basis of Mespilus silvestrk Burm. as published on page 14 of his *'Index UniversaHs/' but Mespilus silvestris Burm. as published on page 18 of the same work is entirely different and is Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merr. Blume reduced Oxyacantha javana Rumph. to Carissa carandas Linn., but there are certain objections to this reduction in Rumphius's description. I cannot, however, suggest any more likely reduction of it. If correctly placed, Burman's specific name is the oldest valid one, but no change is here made owing to the uncertain status of Oxyacantha javana Rumph. Spina pectinata Rumph., Herb. Amb. 7: 39, probably also belongs here. CHILOCARPUS Blume CHILOCARPUS sp. Funis pulassarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 34, t, 21. Amboina, Gelala, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. JfSJ^y September 19, 191:], along small streams, altitude about 120 meters. Rumphius's figure is unmistakably that of a species of Chilo- carpus; so far as I can determine from the material available for study, it has remained undescribed in modern botanical litera- ture. The Amboina specimen I have referred here presents only immature flowers, and as the Rumphian figure presents no inflorescences, but only a branch with leaves and fruits, I con- sider it advisable for the present merely to refer Funis pulassa- rius Rumph. to the genus only. Teysmann, quoted by HasskarL Neue Schliissel (1866) 92, considered that Funis pulassarvm Rumph. represented a species of Chilocarpus, LEPINIOPSIS Valeton LEPINIOPSIS TERNATENSIS Valet, in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (18^^) 352, t. 28. Pulassarius arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 90, t. 60. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 73, October 8, 1^1 ' in forests, altitude about 200 meters. The genus Lepiniopsis Valeton, a very characteristic one, wa> originally described from specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, originating in Ternate Island Later, what I took to be the same species was collected ^^ Mindanao and has now been found to be rather vsddely distn - uted in the southern and central Philippines ; this has still mor^ APOCYNACEAE 427 recently been described by Elmer as Lepiniopsis philippinensis Elm. Pulassarius Rumph. is manifestly identical with Lepin- iopsis ternatensis Valet. ; the Rumphian plant, up to the present time, has not been reduced to any modern genus or species. PLUM I ERA (Plumeria) Linnaeus PLUMIERA ACUMINATA Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 2 (1811) 70. Plumiera acutifolia Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1812) 667 (type). Flos con vol ut us Rumph, Herb. Amb. 4: 85, t. 38. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 78, October 27, 1913, on hills behind the town of Amboina, locally known as kalan susu and kambodja. Flos convolutus was originally reduced by Linnaeus, by error, to Plumiera alba Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 944, but in Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 307 he placed it, with doubt, under Plumiera obtusa Linn., in which he was followed by Lamarck, Loureiro, Burman f., and Willdenow. Flos convolutus Rumph. is ap- parently the whole basis of Plumeria acutifolia Poir., which, however, although the commonly used name for the species, is antedated by about one year by Plumiera acuminata Aiton. ALSTON I A R. Brown ALSTONIA SCHOLARIS (Linn.) R. Br. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 1 (1809) 75. Echites scholaris Linn. Mant. 1 (1867) 55. Lignum scholare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 246, t. 82. Not represented in our Amboina collections. Lignum scholare Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 945, to Tahernxiemontana citrifolia Linn., with which species it has very little in common. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 69, erroneously reduced it to T ah ernaemontana alternifolia Linn. It is cited by Linnaeus in the original description of Echites scholaris Linn. ; it is, at least in part, the basis of this species and hence of Alstonia scholaris (Linn.) R. Br. I can see no valid reason for considering that the plant figured by Rumphius IS other than the one described, yet various authors, following R- Brown and A. de Candolle, have considered that the descrip- tion refers to Alstonia scholaris R. Br. and the figure to Alstonia mctabilis R. Br. ALSTONIA SUBSESSILIS Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868) 140. Cofassus citrina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 30, t. 15. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 77, October 10, 1913, ^^ forested limestone hiUs, altitude about 150 meters. Previously no definite determination of Cofassus citrina ^^mph. has been made, other than Burman's statement that 428 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE it belonged in the Apocynaceae and Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 48, that it was doubtfully a representative of the genus Alstonia. The species is known only from Amboina. The specimen cited above is apparently identical with '*IV-A--55'' cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, from Amboina, under the unpublished name Alstonia hoedti T. & B. TABERNAEMONTANA Plumier TABERNAEMONTANA CAPSICOIDES sp. nov. Capsicum sNvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 133, t. 67. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 76 (type), August 11, 1913, on cleared hillsides, altitude 25 to 40 meters; Hitoe messen, PI Rumph. Amb. 75, October 14, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters. Frutex vel arbor parva, glabra; foliis in paribus valde inae- qualibus, oblongis, chartaceis, usque ad 13 cm longis, utrinque subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis vel leviter acuminatis, apice acuminatis, acuminis obtusis vel breviter apiculatis, nervis tenuibus, utrinque 10 ad 12; cymis terminalibus vel in axillis superioribus, plerumque pedunculatis, dichotomis, ebracteolatis, paueifloris; floribus tenuiter pedicellatis, ealycis lobis brevibus, obtusis, intus glandulosis, corollae tubo circiter 14 mm longo; foUiculis 2 ad 3 cm longis, oblongis, prominente rostrato- acuminatis, patulis, curvatis, leviter 2-carinatis, seminibus 4 ad 6. A glabrous shrub or small tree 2 to 7 meters high, the branches and branchlets slender, subterete, pale-gray. Leaves oblong, those of each pair distinctly unequal in size, one one-half to two-thirds longer than the other, chartaceous, oblong, somewhat shining, brownish-olivaceous on the upper surface when dry, paler beneath, 5 to 13 cm long, 1.5 to 4.5 cm wide, subequally narrowed to the acute or somewhat acuminate base and to the distinctly acuminate apex, the acumen blunt or shortly apiculate ; lateral nerves slender, spreading, somewhat curved, 10 to 12 on each side of the midrib, the reticulations obscure; petioles slender, about 5 mm long. Cymes terminal and in the upper axils, usually peduncled, dichotomous, few-flowered, slender, ebracteolate, 3 to 4 cm long. Flowers white, their pedicels slender, about 1 cm long. Calyx about 3 mm long, the lobes broadly ovate, obtuse to rounded, 1 to 1.5 mm long; glands small oblong, 0.5 mm long. Corolla-tube slender, cylindric, about 14 mm long, the lobes oblong, 5 to 6 mm long. Stamens inserted at about the upper two-thirds. Follicles in pairs, spreading, some- what curved, oblong-cylindric, 2 to 3 cm long, about 7 mm i^ APOCYNACEAE 429 diameter, slightly 2-keeled, prominently rostrate-acuminate, the acumen slender, acute, 3-angled. Seeds 4 to 6. Previously the status of Capsicum silvestre Rumph. had not been definitely determined, although Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 117, cites it under Tabernaemontana bufalina Lour. Loureiro's species, however, was described from Cochin-China material and is manifestly not the form described and figured by Rumphius. Some authors, following Loureiro's suggestion, have thought that the drawing of the fruits represented another species, T, bovina Lour., but this is certainly not the case. I have described the form as a new species with some hesitation, for I have not been able definitely to determine the status of Tabernaemontana corymbosa Roxb. This species is described in Roxburgh's Flora Indica, ed. 2, 2 (1832) 25, from specimens originating in the Moluccas. The description is entirely in- adequate, as follows: T. corymbosa R. Leaves petioled, oblong. Corymbs terminal, ample, decompound, all the primary divisions dichotomous. Anthers enclosed. A native of the Moluccas. As interpreted by other authors, however, A. de Candolle, Hooker f., and King and Gamble, Tabernaemontana corymbosa Roxb. has little to do with the Amboina form above described and is typified by specimens collected in Penang, as described by Wallich, Bot. Reg. sub t. 1273, It seems probable that two entirely different plants are involved in Tabernaemontana corymbosa Roxb., and that the one described by Roxburgh him- self, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 25, may be the same as Tabernae- montana capsicoides Merr. In examining Rumphius's figure of Capsicum silvestre it should be borne in mind that the fruits are drawn on a scale very much larger than that of the leaves. TABERNAEMONTANA DIVARICATA (Linn.) R. Br. ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 4 (1819) 427. Nerium divaricatum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 209. Nyctanthes acuminata Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 5. Nerium coronarium. Jacq. Coll. 1 (1786) 138. Tabernaemontana coronaria Willd. Enum. Hort. Berol. (1809) 275. Flos manilhanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 87, t. 39, This v^idely cultivated shrub is not represented in our Am- boina collections. The form figured is the one v^ith double flowers and was introduced into Amboina during Rumphius's '^^J^e. It is cited by various authors under one or another of ^he synonyms listed above : by Burman f . in the original descrip- tion of Nyctanthes acuminata; by Lamarck under Nerium coro- 430 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE narium Jacq. ; by Roemer and Schultes under Tabernaemontana divaricata R. Br., its proper name; and by Willdenow, A. de Candolle, and Miquel under Tabernaemontana coronaria Willd. Rumphius surmised that the species was introduced into the Moluccas from Manila, whence his specific name ; the species is not a native of the Philippines, but is occasionally found in cultivation here. ALYXIA * Banks ALYXIA LAURINA Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 451, t. 62. Pulassarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 32, t. 20. Amboina, Salahoetoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 7-4, November 27, 1913, in forests, altitude about 850 meters. There is little doubt that Pulassarium Rumph. is the same as Alyxia laurina Gaudich., the type of which was from Rawak Island in the Moluccas. I am not in a position to express any opinion as to the relationships of Alyxia laurina Gaudich. and Alyxia stellata Roem., as I have seen no material representing the latter species, and Forster's original description is entirely inadequate. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 699, referred Pulassarium verum Rumph. to Alyxia stellata, citing Gynopogon stellatum Forst. as a possible synonym, and gave an ample description from specimens grown in the botanic garden at Cal- cutta that originated in Amboina. Gaudichaud, Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 451, thought that it was the same as his Alyxia laurina. A. de Candolle, Prodr. 8 (1844) 347, excludes the Rumphian synonym under Alyxia laurina Gaudich. and places it as a possible synonym of Alyxia stellata Roem. and Schultes. Pulassarium spurium Rumph., described in the same chapter with Pulassarium verum, Herb. Amb. 5: 33, is indeterminable from the data now available. It is probably a representative of the Apocynaceae, but not an Alyxia. RAUWOLFIA Plumier RAUWOLFIA SERPENTINA (Linn.) Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 3 (1882) 632. Ophioxylon serpentinum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1043. Radix mustelae I alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 29, t. 16. Radix mustelae II rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 30. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. According- to Rumphius it was introduced into Amboina from Java; it may no longer occur in the island. Radix mustelae Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ophioxylon ser- pentinum Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 * Retained name, Vienna Code; Gynopogon Forst. (1776) is older. APOCYNACEAE 431 (1759) 1303, which is certainly correct, at least for the form figured and described as Radix mustelae I alba, Linnaeus has been followed by most authors in this reduction, but among his contemporaries, Burman f., FI. Ind. (1768) 42, erroneously placed it under Ophiorrhiza mungos Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 188, refers / alba to Ophioxylon serpentinum Linn., to 0. album Gaertn., a synonym, and, with doubt, to 0. majits Hassk., apparently also a synonym; and refers // rubra to Ophioxylon trifoliatum Gaertn. Rumphius's description of // rubra agrees with the characters of Gaertner's species, but Ophioxylon trifoliatum Gaertn. is generally considered to be a synonym of 0. serpentinum hmn.=Rauwolfia serpentina (Linn.) Hook, f . OCHROSIA Jussieu OCHROSIA OPPOSITI FOLIA (Lam.) K. Schum. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 4' (1895) 156. Cerhera oppositifolia Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 62 (type!). CaljncarpuTn ? lamarckii Don Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 100 (type!). Ochrosia salubris Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 158, Cerhera salutaris Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1033, non Lour. Bleekeria salubris Hassk. Retzia 1 (1855) 41. Lactaria salubms Rafin. Sylva Tellur. (1838) 162 (type!) ; Hassk. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 4 (1859) 9. Lactaria salubris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 255, t. 84. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Most of the above synonyms are typified by the Rumphian figure 'ind description ; Cerbera oppositifolia Lam., Calpicarpum kmarckii Don, Cerbera salutaris Blume (?), Lactaria salubris Rafin., and Bleekeria salubris Hassk. wholly so. The description of Ochrosia salubris Blume was based primarily on Amboina specimens with the addition of a reference to the Rumphian %ure and description. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 136, cites Lactaria salubris Rumph. as a synonym of Cerbera salutaris Lour., but the status of Loureiro's species is very uncertain; irom the description it cannot possibly be the same as Scaevola f^^utescens (Mill.) Krause, to which it has been reduced. ^^hrosia elliptica Labill. may be identical with Ochrosa opposit- ^{^^^^« (Lam.) K. Schum., but I consider that 0. borbonica ^mel. represents an entirely different species. Material from the "^^uthern Philippines and from the Marianne Islands, agrees very closely with Rumphius's figure and description, and I think ^^^'tainly represents Lactaria salubris Rumph.— Ocferosm oppobit- 'f'^^'^ (Lam.) K. Schum.* See Valeton in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (1895) 226. 432' RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE CERBERA Linnaeus CERBERA MANGHAS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 208. Cerbera odollam Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 193. Cerbera lactaria Ham. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 353. Tanghinia lactaria Don in Sweet Hort. Brit. ed. 3 (1839) 461. Arbor lactaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 243, t. 81. Arbor lactaria terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 245. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 72, along the seashore near the town of Amboina, August 8, 1913; Gelala, PI. Rumph. Amb, 71, September 26, 1913, on hills near the seashore, altitude about 6 meters, locally known as manga berabii. Arbor lactaria and Arbor lactaria terrestris certainly rep- resent but a single species, and that is Cerbera manghas Linn., as actually described by Linnaeus from Osbeck's Javan specimen. Arbor lactaria Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Cerbera manghas Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, in which he was followed by many early authors. Valeton, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (1895) 245, has proposed to keep Cerbera odollam Gaertn. (C manghas Linn.) and Cerbe7^a lactaria Ham. distinct, but after a careful consideration of the descriptions and of a large series of speci- mens I am now of the opinion that but a single species is rep- resented. I deliberately reinstate the Linnean name, Cerbem manghas Linn., as this is manifestly the species amply described by him in the original description of the species from Osbeck's specimens. Some of the references added by him include Taher- naemontana dichotoma R. Br.* PAR AM ER I A Bentham PARAMERIA BARBATA (Blume) K. Schum. in Engl. & Prantl Nat Pflanzenfam. 4^ (1895) 162. Parsonsia barbata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1042. Ecdysanthera barbata Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 451. Cortex consolidans Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 30, t. 19. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. No previous reduction of Cortex consolidans Rumph. has been sug- gested other than that it belongs in the Apocynaceae. The figure, which is apparently an excellent one, and the description agree closely with the characters of Parameria glandiiUf^^'^^ (Wall.) Benth., of F. philippinensis Radlk., and of P. vuhuram Radlk., all of which are apparently forms of a single species Blume's specific name, being the oldest, is here retained. *See Trimen Fl. Ceyl. 2 (1895) 128, 132. APOCYNACEAE 433 ICHNOCARPUS* R. Brown ICHNOCARPUS sp.? Funis papius parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 15, t. 11, This has been reduced with Funis papius latifolius Rumph. to Cynanchum mauritianum Lam., to Periploca mauritianum Poir., and to Streptocaulon mauritianum Don, following Lamarck's original doubtful reference of it to the first. It manifestly represents a species distinct from Funis papius lati- folius and is perhaps a species of Ichnocarpvs. The form described as Funis papius rugosior Rumph. in this chapter is quite undeterminable from Rumphius's description. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 90, has suggested that it may be a species of Melodinus, NERIUM Linnaeus NERIUM INDICUM Mill Gard. Diet. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2. Neriiim odorum Soland. in Ait. Hort. Kew. 1 (1789) 297. Oleander sinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 15, t. 9y f, 1. This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. Oleander sinicus Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 115, to Nerium oleander linn. However, it appears to be Nerium indicum Mill., rather than N. oleander Linn., and is here so placed. The form described as 11 minor, Rumph. 1. c. 16, is of doubtful status. It may be a form of this species, or it may be an entirely different plant. The description is too short to warrant a guess at its true identity. WRIGHTIA R. Brown WRIGHTIA sp.? Andawas s. Dawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 89. Andawas is briefly described in the chapter with Cassia fistula ^ilvestris=:Cassia javanica Linn., and Hamilton and Miquel both thought that it might be a species of Cassia, The description of the seed characters, however, is unmistakably that of an apocy- ^^aceous plant. Teysmann, cited by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 30, considers that it represents Wrightia pubescens R. Sr.; this is possibly the correct disposition of it. Rumphius's Material was from Bali Island, where it is known as andawas or ^mvas, so that field work in Bali should eventually yield material ^^d data that will enable some botanist to determine the status of the plant intended by the description. Retained name, Vienna Code; Quirivelia Poir. (1804) is older. 144971 28 434 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE VALLARIS Burman f. VALLARIS GLABRA (Linn.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PL (1891) 417. Pergularia glabra Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 53. Vallaris pergulana Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 51. EmeHcia pergiilaria Roem. & Schultes Syst. 4 (1819) 401. Echites hircosa Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 85, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 18. Vallaris ovalis Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 427. Flos pergulanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 51, t. 29, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. According to Rumphius the plant was not a native of Amboina, but was introduced from Java. Flos pergulanus Rumph. has been cited under all the synonyms given above, including the original publications of both Pergularia glabra Linn, and Vallaris pergulana Burm. f. It commonly appears in botanical literature as Vallaria pergulana Burm. f., but the oldest name is here adopted. The species is of special interest in that it is the type of the genus Vallaris. APOCYNACEAE indet. Funis cratium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 16, t. 12. This figure is sufficiently characteristic, so that the species should be readily recognized when once collected in Amboina. It is apparently a scandent species of Apocynaceae and much resembles Urceola. Funis cratium litorea Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 17, may belong in the same group, but the description is too short and imperfect to warrant more than a guess at its position. It may belong in either the Asclepiadaceae or the Apocynaceae. ASCLEPIADACEAE FINLAYSONIA Wallich FINLAYSONIA OBOVATA Wall. PI. As. Rar. 2 (1831) 48, t. 162. Olus crepitans mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 480, t, 178, f. 2. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 89, July, September, and October, 1913, climbing over trees in mangrove swamps, locally known as kapok kapok. The description and figure agree perfectly with Wallich's species, which is found in mangrove swamps from India to the Malay Peninsula, the Philippines, Java, Celebes, and Amboina. No previous reduction of Olus crepitans mas has been suggested. CALOTROPIS R. Brown CALOTROPIS GIGANTEA (Linn.) Dryand. in Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2. 2 (1811) 78. ASCLEPIADACEAE 435 Asdepias gigantea Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 214. Madorius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 24, t. 11^, f. 1, This characteristic species, fairly well figured by Rumphius, is not represented in our Amboina collections. Madorius Rumph. was originally reduced to Asdepias gigantea Linn, by Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, which as Calotropis gigantea Dry. is manifestly the correct disposition of it. It has been very generally cited in botanical literature under Calo- tropis gigantea Dry. The form described by Rumphius in the same chapter as Madorius II albiiloris is probably merely a variant of Calotropis gigantea Dry. CYNANCHUM Linnaeus CYNANCHUM OVALI FOLIUM Wi^ht Contrib. (1834) 57. Sussuela escuSenta 11 femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 467, t. 173 ^ /. 2. Amboina, Hatiwe and Liang, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 86, September and November, 1913, in thickets, altitude 15 to 100 meters, locally known as sayor susu laki laki. The specimen agrees perfectly with Rumphius's figure and description and certainly represents Sussuela esculenta mas. I am unable from the published descriptions alone to distinguish this Amboina specimen from Cynanchum ovalifolium Wight. If it does not represent Wight's species, then it represents a very closely allied one. The only previously suggested reduction of Rumphius's species was HasskarFs doubtful reference of it to Secarnone lineata Blume, where manifestly it does not belong. CYNANCHUM sp.? Sussuela esculenta I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 467, L 173, /. 1. Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 85, September '"^^0, 1913, climbing over trees, altitude about 40 meters. The specimen probably represents the form that Rumphius described, but this is uncertain, and its further identification is impossible at this time as the material presents only leaves and mature follicles. Sussuela esculenta mas Rumph. is certainly ^^0 Dischidia, where it was doubtfully placed by Hasskarl. A possible generic identification of it is Telosma. GYMNEMA R. Brown GVmnema SYRINGAEFOLIUM (Decne.) Boerl. Handl. Kenn. FI. Nederl, Ind. 2" (1899) 437. Bidara syringaefolia Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 623. ^farsdenia syringaefolia I)ecne. in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 9 (1838) 275, L 10, f. G. O'us crudum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 75, t. AO, f. 2? 486 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Gymnema syringae folium Boerl. is probably the correct dis- position of Olus crudum minus Rumph. The first reduction was that made by Murray, Syst. (1774) 213, who cited the Rumphian name as a synonym of Apocynum reticulatum Linn., where it certainly does not belong, although following Murray it has been so listed by Loureiro, Willdenow, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, Henschel, Don, Dietrich, and Pritzel. Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1783) 214, placed it under Apocynum indicum Lam., a synonym of A, reticulatum Linn. Wight and Arnott and Dietrich placed it with doubt under Gymnema tingens W. & A. ; and likewise Decaisne and Miquel, with doubt, placed it under the synonym Bidara tingeyis Decne. GYMNEMA sp. Olus crudum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 76, t. JfO, /. 1. The figure represents a species apparently very similar to Olus crudum minus Rumph., but its status cannot be determined without material from Amboina representing it. Wight, Don, Decaisne, and Miquel placed it with doubt under Marsdenia angustifolia Wight, and Dietrich placed it under the synonpi Pergularia angustifolia Dietr. The species described and fig- ured by Rumphius is probably a Gymnema; it certainly is not Marsdenia angustifolia Wight. TYLOPHORA R. Brown TYLOPHORA sp.? Olus crepitans I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 469, t. 17U, /• 1- Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 92, August and Septem- ber, 1913, climbing over trees at low altitudes. I am not certain that the specimen is a Tylophora, although the specimen cited evidently represents Olus crepitans mas of Rumphius. The only previously suggested reduction of it was HasskarFs doubtful reference of it to Hoya latifolia Don, where it certainly does not belong. DISCHIDIA R. Brown DISCHIDIA NUMMULARIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 461. NummularIa lactea minor I minima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 472, 176, f. i. Amboina, Way tommo and Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^^ August and October, 1913, on trees in mangrove swamps and on M^"'^' leuca at an altitude of about 100 meters. This reduction was made by R. Brown in the original descrip- tion of Dischidia nummularia R. Br. and is apparently the cor- rect disposition of the Rumphian species. Miquel, however, ASCLEPIADACEAE 437 Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 508, reduced it to Dischidia gaudichaudii Decne. Beccari, Malesia 2 (1886) 267, who made a critical study of the Malayan species of Dischidia known up to that time, retained it under Dischidia nummularia R. Br. and reduced D. gaudichaudii Decne. as a variety. DISCHIDIA RUMPHII Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 509 (type!). Nummularia lactea minor 11 major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 473, t. 176, /. 2. Amboina, Batoe merah River and Wakal, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 87y August and November, 1913, on trees at low altitudes. This reduction is mad^ in the original description of Dischidia rimphii Miq. So far as can be determined from MiqueFs description, the species was based wholly on Rumphius's descrip- tion and figure. The dried specimens do not agree especially well with the figure, chiefly on account of the shrinkage and wrinkling of the leaves in drying. Doctor Robinson, who studied the fresh material in connection with Rumphius's description and figure, considered that the specimens certainly represented Rumphius's species. DISCHIDIA sp. Olus crepitans M femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 469, t. 17^, f. 2. Amboina, Ayer putri and Hitoe lama, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 93, September and October, 1913, on trees, altitude 5 to 150 meters. The specimen agrees fairly closely with Rumphius's figure and description, the latter being very brief. The chief differences between the specimen and the figure appear to be due to the shrinking of the leaves in drying. This species of Dischidia appears to be undescribed in modern literature. CONCHOPHYLLUM Blume CONCHOPHYLLUM IMBRICATUM Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1061. Dischidia imbricata Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 519. Pustula arborum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 473, t. 175, f. S. Amboina, Paso and Wakeroe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 91, October, ^913, on trees in mangrove swamps. Pustula arborum Rumph. was reduced by Blume to ConchophyU wm imbricatum in the original description of that species, and ^his is apparently the correct disposition of it. Henschel placed }t with doubt under Dischidia collyris Wall., and Miquel reduced ^t with Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume to Collyris major Vahl, apparently mislead by Vahl's erroneous reduction of Pustula ^noriim Rumph. in the original description of his species; Collyris major Vahl is a true Dischidia=DiscliiAiB. major (Vahl) 438 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE (Dischidia collyris WalL). Beccari, Malesia 2 (1886) 258, give:^ a detailed description of Conchophyllurn imbricatum Blume with figures. HOY A R. Brown HOYA LUTEA Kostel. Algem. Med.-Pharm. FL 3 (1834) 1083 (type!). Hoya lutea Decne. in DC Prodr. 8 (1844) 635 (type!). Corona ariadnes lutea Rumph. Amb. 5: 465. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 82, August and Novem- ber, 1913, on cliffs at low altitudes. The specimen cited above apparently represents Corona ariad- nes lutea Rumph. which is the whole basis of both Hoya Z?itca Kostel. and Hoya lutea Decne., Decaisne overlooking the fact that Kosteletzky had already published the binomial. The specimen has yellow flowers and differs from Hoya sussuela (Roxb.) Merr. {Corona ariadnes punicea Rumph.) not only in its leaf characters, but also in its different, very much smaller flowers, which are but about 12 mm in diameter. HOYA RUM PHI I Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1065. Acanthostemma rumphii Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 29, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 58. Nummularia lactea major I fusca Rumph. Herb, Amb. 5: 470, t. 175, /. 1. Amboina, Lateri and Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 8If, &)■), August and November, 1913, in forests, altitude 150 to 200 meters, locally known as biiah tali tali. Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. Suppl. 1 (1810) 407, reduced the Rumphian species with doubt to Apocynum agglomeratum Vo\\\, which was based on specimens from Santo Domingo, and to which it certainly does not refer. Blume apparently based his description of Hoya rumphii on Javan specimens, but in the original description of the species reduced the Rumphian illustra- tion as a synonym, which has been accepted by most subsequent authors. The Amboina specimens may or may not be the same as the Javan form. HOYA SUSSUELA (Roxb.) comb. nov. Asclepias sussuela Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 20, nomen midtm, H- Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 31. Hoya corona anadnea Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 31, t. 182, 1S!>. Hoya speciosa Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 634. Hoya ariadna Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 635 (type?). Corona ariadnes punicea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 464, i^. 172. Amboina, Amahoesoe and Batoe merah River, Robinson PL Rumph. /i'*'^ 90^ August and September, 1913, on trees and rocks, sea level to 100 iiiete^^ altitude, locally known as biinga pleta. ASCLEPIADACEAE 439 The type of Asclejnas sussucla Roxb. was from the Moluccas. \v]iil(3 the original description is very short, the species is certainly the same as the one later minutely described and figured by Blume as Hoya corona ariadnes. Roxburgh reduces Corona ariadnes punicea to his species in the original description of Asclepias sussuela Roxb. ; his species has been reduced to Hoya imperialis Lindl. (1846), which is perhaps another synonym of Hoya sussuela (Roxb.) Merr. The type of Hoya speciosa Decne. was from Amboina. Hoya ariadna Decne. was apparently based wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 1063, originally reduced the Rumphian species to Hoya coronaria Blume, a species based on Javan material and distinct from Hoya sussuela (Roxb.) Merr. (H. coronxi ariadnes Blume). HOYA ALBA Kostel. Allgem. Med. Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1084 (type!). Nummularia lactea major II alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 470. This species is of entirely doubtful status. It was referred by Henschel to Hoya diversifolia Blume, while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 148, thought that it might be Cyrtoceras multi- flora Rejnh.^Hoya multiflora Blmne=^C entrostemma nmltifto- nini Decne. There is no reason, however, for considering it other than a true Hoya, HOYA ELEGANS Kostel. Allgem. Med. Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1084 (type!). Nummularia lactea major III (albo-purpurea) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 471. Amboina, Soja and Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. A'tnb. 83, 604, August and October, 1913, in light forests, altitude 175 to 300 meters, locally 'viiown as bung a nasi. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 148, thought that this Rumphian form might be a synonym of Hoya macrophylla Blume, a species originally described from Javan material. Hojia elegans Kostel. was based wholly on the Rumphian de- '^cription, and this name is here retained. HOYA sp. Nummularia lactea minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 471 (in expl. pi.) t. 175, f. 2. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. A77ib. 81, November 1, 1913, ^'•^' trees, altitude about 150 meters. The specimen agrees fairly closely with the figure, which was placed by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1783) 214, with doubt under ■}i''^('!;rr-imi tiliaefolmni Lam., w^here it certainly does not belong. ^^^^e species figured is manifestly a Hoya, but I cannot locate ^^^IV description of it in Rumphius, merely the name in the ^'^Planation of the plate. 440 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE TELOSMA Coville (Prageluria N. E. Brown) TELOSMA ODOR AT I SSI MA (Lour.) Coville in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 384. Cynanchum odoratissimum Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 166. Pergularia odoratissima Sm. Ic. (1790-93) t 16. Apocynum odoratissimum Lour, ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 202. Asclepias odoratissima Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 20, nomen nudum, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 46. Flos siamicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 58, t. 26, f. 1. This widely cultivated species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Flos siamicus Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro to Cynanchum odoratissimum Lour, in the original description of that species, which, as Telosma odoratissima Coville, is certainly the correct disposition of it. It has been cited by various authors under all of the synonyms listed above. The species is generally known as Pergularia odoratissima Sm.; but Pergularia of Linnaeus is an entirely different African genus, as pointed out independently by Coville and by N. E. Brown, the former proposing the generic name Telosma in 1905 for the Indo-Malayan species of Pergularia, and the latter the name Prageluria in 1907. ASCLEPIADACEAE indet. Funis papius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 14, t. 10. A woody vine, not represented in our Amboina collections. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 236, placed it with doubt under Cynanchum mauritianum Lam., which Poiret later referred to Periploca mauritiana Poir., in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 188, and Don, to Streptocaulon mauritianum Don. It is certainly not this species, whatever it may be. CONVOLVULACEAE M ERR EM I A Dennstedt MERREMIA UMBELLATA (Linn.) Hallier f. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 16 (1893) 552. Convolvulus umbellatus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 155. Convolvulus cymosus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 556. Ipomoea cymosa R. & S. Syst. 4 (1819) 241. Ipomoea bifida Roth Nov. PL Sp. (1821) 118. Convolvulus bifidus Vahl Symb. Bot. 3 (1794) 30. Convolvulus lacvls minor f femlna, II mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 431, t 158. CONVOLVULACEAE 441 Amboina, Hatalai Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. UOJf., October 24, 1913, roadsides at an altitude of about 300 meters. The reduction of Convolvulus laevis Rumph. to Convolvulus cymosus Desr. was made by Desrouss, in Lamarck's Encycl. 3 (1791) 556, but the description was based on an actual specimen collected by Sonnerat. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 30, makes the reduction to his Convolvulus bifidus in the original description of that species, but as was the case with Convolvulus cymosus, the description was based on an actual specimen. There is not the shghtest doubt that the figure given by Rumphius represents the common and well-known species, Merremia umbellata Hallier f. The Amboina specimen cited above is the form with white flowers, designated by Hallier as Merremia umbellata var. orien- talis Hallier f. ; but this varietal name, if the variety be main- tained, should probably give place to the designation cymosa, this being the oldest name for the oriental form. MERREMIA PELTATA (Linn.) Merr. comb. nov. Convolvulus peltatus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1194 (type!). Ipomoea peltata Choisy Mem. Soc. Phys. Genev. 6 (1833) 452 (type!). Convolvulus laevis indicus major (alba) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 428, t. 157, f. 1, 2, Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 4.01, September 30, 1913, climbing on trees at an altitude of about 225 meters; flowers white. Convolvulus laevis indicus major ''Rumf, amb. 6, p, 4,28, t. 159" is the whole basis of Convolvulus peltatus Linn., and the species must be interpreted solely from the Rumphian figure and description. Two plants are figured on the plate, not clearly separable, and probably both are forms of one species; but figure 2 is indicated by Rumphius as belonging with the descrip- tion Linnaeus designated as the type of his species. Merremia mmphaeifolia (Blume) Hallier f. {Ipomoea nymphaeifolia Blume) has been distinguished from the Linnean species by Hallier f. as distinct because of its yellow flowers, the Amboina plant having white flowers, both as described by Rumphius and ^s the field note on the Amboina specimens, cited above, shows. 1 cannot, however, detect a single other character by which the two species can be distinguished ; and I consider it very probable that Merremia nymphaeifolia Hallier f . must be reduced to M. PMata (Linn.) Merr., as a variety or form* with yellow flowers. have for purposes of comparison a very full series of specimens ^^om the Philippines and some material from Java, named by hallier himself as Merremia nymphaeifolia. All of our numer- ous Philippine specimens have yellow flowers. Figure 1 of 442 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE plate 157, which is supposed to represent the second species '"rubra" of Rumphius, I take to represent the same form as figure 2, that is, typical Merremia peltata (Linn.) Merr., but it mav prove to be Merremia nymphaei folia (Blume) Hallier f. (see below, under Ipornoea rumphii Miq.). OPERCULINA S. Manso OPERCULINA TURPETHUM (Linn.) S. Manso Enum. Subst. Braz. (1836) 16. Convolvulus tiirpethurn Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 155. Batatta mammosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 370 p. p., et t. 131 p. p. Nothing corresponding to this plant as described and figured by Rumphius, wholly or in part, appears in our Amboina collec- tions. Batatta mammosa Rumph. is apparently a composite species, the flowers and leaves of a convolvulaceous plant being figured with the tubers of a diflferent plant attached. From the figure of the tubers, as given by Rumphius, this part of the drawing is almost certainly referable to Dioscorea, not to the Convolvulaceae, The figure of the leaves and flowers agrees very closely with the common and widely distributed Operculina tur- pethum S. Manso, and I believe this to be the correct disposition of Batatta mammosa Rumph., at least for the most part. The de- scription of the flowers also applies very closely and does not apply so well to any other species of Convolvulaceae known to me. The following part of the description is especially signi- ficant : Flores primo sunt oblonga, acuminata, & viridia capita instar Capsici fructus, diuque clausa manent, dein sese aperiunt in albos campaniformes flores uti in Batatta, sed majores sunt, ac longiore tube donati, qui profundo insident ac viridi calici, ante meridiem tantum aperti. The stems, however, characteristically winged in Opercidina turpethiim, are described as ''rotunda, & glabra," the leaves as resembling those of Ipomoea batatas Poir., but : flaccidiora, * * * glabriora, magisque sinuosa, inferius nullos geriint angulos, sed rotundas auriculas iristar foliorum Sirii [Piper]. As to the origin of the plant, note : Naturalis ejus patria sunt Manilhae, & magna inprimis MincK'^^^^^'^' vulgo Magendanau [i. *e. Mindanao] dicta, ex qua PampaHgenses qui^^-^'*^'' banc in Amboinam adduxerunt. The first reduction of Batatta mammosa was suggested b) Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 108, who placed it under hJ^ Convolvulus mammosus. While the specific name is manif^'^^^-^ CONVOLVULACEAE 443 taken from Rumphius, the plant actually described was a cul- tivated specimen known in Cochin-China as khoai tu, in all probability a cultural variety of Ipomoea batatas Poir. Choisy transferred it to Ipomoea, as /. mammosa (Lour.) Choisy, in Mem. Soc. Phys. Genev. 6 (1833) 475, and in de Candolle's Pro- dromus, 9 (1854) 389, retained it as an Ipomoea under his 'Species non satis notae/' Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 620, compiled his description from Rumphius and Loureiro and placed it at the end of the genus under the heading '^Species denuo ex- jiminandae.'' No previous author has suggested that the plant figured and described by Rumphius was based on material from more than one species, and nobody has previously suggested that it is, for most part, referable to Operculina turpethum S. Manso, an explanation that is on the whole fairly satisfactory. Prain * suggests that the form figured by Rumphius may be the same as Convolvulus platypeltis Span., of Timor, which Choisy placed as a doubtful synonym of Ipomoea campanulata Linn. ; Spanoghe's species is entirely unknown to me, nor do I understand the status of the form interpreted by Hallier f. as Merremia mcmmosa Hallier f. In regard to Rumphius's statement as to the Philippine origin of the plant he figured and described I can merely add that no known Philippine species agrees with the description and figure in toto. IPOMOEA Linnaeus IPOMOEA BATATAS (Linn.) Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) 14. Convolvulus batatas Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 154. Batatas edulis Choisy Conv. Or. (1834) 53. Batatta Rumph, Herb. Amb. 5: 367, t. ISO. Amboina, Hoenoet, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. Jf.02, October 8, 1913, cultivated, altitude about 125 meters, locally known as batatas. The reduction of Batatta to Convolvulus batatas Linn, was fiist made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 922, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 220, and this has been followed by numerous other authors, some under the Linnean name Convolvulus batatas, ^Jthers under the name Ipomoea batatas (Linn.) Poir. There is ^'^ doubt whatever as to the American origin of this plant, but ^^umphius's opinion is well worth quoting in connection with ^•'e matter. He states : ommunis opinio est, quam etiam sequor usque ad ulteriorem decisionem, '" ^'^tas primum per Castilienses ex Americanis re<:^'ionibus in Manilhas, ^■'^^' in Moluccas, ac Portugalos in reliquas porro Indiae Orientalis regiones *Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 74' (1905) Extra Number 307. 444 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE fuisse introductas, quod nomen etiam testatur apud omnes fere Orientales populos, qui Batattas colunt. The names cited by Rumphius, batattas, uby castila, ima castila (that is, Spanish yam), lutu castila, castela, and camotes, are all of American origin or refer to the origin of the plant in the Moluccas through the agency of the Spaniards. IPOMOEA REPTANS (Linn.) Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 460. Convolvulus reptans Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 158, p. p. quoad syn. Rheed. Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. Fl. Aegypt. Arab. (1775) 44. Olut vagum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 419, t. 155, f. 1. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Olus vagum Rumph. is unmistakably identical with Ipomoea reptans Poir. (/. aqvxitica Forsk.) as currently interpreted. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 225, which is additional evidence in support of the idea that Linnaeus's conception of Convolvulus reptans was based on Battel, Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 11: 107, t. 52, rather than on the actual specimen so named in his herbarium. Hallier f., Meded. Rijks Herb. (1910) 21, states that the actual specimen in the Linnean herbarium is Merremia caespitosa Hallier f., a species totally different from Ipomoea reptans Poir. as cur- rently interpreted.* I accept the plate and description of Rheede, cited by Linnaeus, as typifying Convolvulus reptans Linn., as this interpretation will avoid the change of the specific name for the plant now called Merremia caespitosa Hallier f. Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 922, erroneously reduces Olus vagum to Convolvulus medium Linn., with which species it has little in common. Choisy considers Convolvulus medium to be Anisaea medmn (Linn.) Choisy, but Index Kewensis reduces it to Ipomoea denticulata Choisy. JPOMOEA PES-CAPRAE (Linn.) Roth Nov. PI. Sp. (1821) 109. Convolvulus pes-caprae Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 159. Convolvulus bilobatus Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 485. Convolvulus maritiTuus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 550. Convolvulus marlnus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 433, t. 159, /• ^ Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 400, September 13, 1913, on the beach near the town of Amboina. * See Merrill in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 244, for a discussion of the synonymy involved. CONVOLVULACEAE 445 The reduction of Convolvulus marinus Rumph. to Convolvulus peS'Caprae Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 924, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 226, which is certainly the correct disposition of it, although it is now placed in Ipomoea rather than in Convolvulus. The figure, which is good, has very gen- erally been cited by subsequent authors either under the Linnean name or under the various synonyms cited above. IPOMOEA GRACILIS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 484; House in Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 18 (1908) 248. Ipomoea denticulata Choisy in Mem. Soc. Phys. Genev. 6 (1833) 447. Ipomoea littoralis Blume Bijdr. (1826) 713. Convolvulus denticulatus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 540, non Ipomoea denticulata R. Br. Ipomoea choisyana W. F. Wight in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 298. Convolvulus riparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 435, t. 159, /. 2. Amboina, Paso and Batoe gadjah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 399, August 5, 1913, in thickets back of the beach and on grassy hillsides, altitude about 200 meters. No definite reduction has been suggested for Convolvulus ri- parius Rumph. other than that it represents a species of Ipomoea. The figure corresponds closely with Ipomoea gracilis, but the description as given by Rumphius does not agree so well. It is probable that more than one species was included by Rumphius in his description, as he indicates two forms under the names minor and major. Again this may be the correct disposition of Convolvulus marinus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 433, that Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 143, suggests may be the same as Ipomoea rugosa Choisy or Convolvulus flagelliformis Roxb. Both of these, however, are synonyms of Ipomoea beladamboe R. ^ S., a species known only from India and Ceylon, so that the Rumphian plant has nothing to do with the latter species, what- ever else it may be. 'POMOEA INDICA (Burm.) comb. nov. Convolvulus indicus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [6] (type!). Ipomoea congesta R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 485. Convolvulus caeruleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 432. The Rumphian species is the whole basis of Convolvulus indicus ^urm., which is not listed in Index Kewensis. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 143, reduced it to Ipomoea nil (Linn.) Roth. ^ile Roth's species occurs in Amboina, Rumphius's description 446 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINBNSE conforms much more closely to Ipomoea congesta R. Br. than to /. nil Roth, and I believe that it is here correctly placed. IPOMOEA RUMPHII Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 605 (type!). Convolvulus laevis indlcus major 11 rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 429 (excl. t. 157, f. 1). Ipomoea rumphii Miq. is a species of doubtful status and is based wholly on Rumphius, from whose description it must be interpreted. Our Amboina specimens do not include sufficient material to solve the status of the species. The figure, t 157, f, ly supposed to represent Convolvulus laevis indicus major rubra of Rumphius, is discussed under Merremia peltata (Linn.) Merr. above, as almost certainly representing that species ; there are no characters in the two figures by which two species can be distinguished. The description, however, calls for a plant with cordate leaves, usually solitary flowers, the corolla purplish toward the apex, and the tube white within and deep purple at the base. I suggest that the description for the most part applies to Stictocardia campanulata (Linn.) Merr. (aS. tiliaefolia Hallier f.), and that Ipomoea rumphii Miq. may thus be a synonym of this species. Additional material from Amboina will be neces- sary before the matter can be definitely settled, for no Sticto- cardia appears in our collections, although the species is certainly to be expected in Amboina. IPOMOEA PELTATA Choisy var. NIGRICANS Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. 19 (1866) 284 (Neue Schliissel (1866) 142) (type!). Convolvulus laevis indicus major 111 nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 429. The variety proposed by Hasskarl is based solely on Rumphius, and an exact interpretation of it must wait for a more intensive botanical exploration of Amboina. It may prove to be Sticto- cardia campanulata Merr. QUAMOCLIT Tournefort QUAMOCLIT PENNATA (Desr.) Bojer Hort. Maurit. (1837) 224. Ipomoea quamodit Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 159. Convolvulus pennatus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 567. Quamodit vulgaris Choisy in Mem. Soc. Phys, Genev. 6 (1833) 434. Flos cardlnalls Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 421,^. 155, /. 2. Amboina, Soeli, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 1^03, November 25, 191'^' ^" roadside thickets, altitude about 10 meters. The Rumphian figure is an excellent one, thus rendering tne accurate identification of his Flos cardinalis very definite, was first reduced by Linnaeus to his Ipomoea quamodit, i" BORAGINACEAE 447 Stickman Herb. Atnb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 227, which reduction has been followed by numerous other authors, either under the Linnean name or under the various synonyms cited above. It is to be noted that Rumph- iiis describes both the red- and the white-flowered forms. The species is a native of tropical America, introduced into the East at an early date in colonial history. * BORAGINACEAE CORDIA Linnaeus CORDIA SUBCORDATA Lam. 111. 1 (1791-97) 421. Cordia orientalis R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 498. Cordia campanulata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 17 (type!), Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 590, 593. Cordia rumphii Blume Bijdr. (1826) 843. Novella nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 226, t. 75. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 385, October 31, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as kanawa. Novella nigra was originally, but erroneously, reduced by Lin- naeus to Cordia sebestena Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 936, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 274, in which he was followed by Burman f. and by Willdenow. Cordia sebestena Linn, is, however, a different species, confined to tropical America. Cordia subcordata Lam. was based entirely on a specimen collected by Commerson on Pralin or Praslin Island, but Poiret cites the Rumphian name under this species, as doubtfully representing it, in Lamarck's Encycl. 7 (1806) 41. Novella nigra is the whole basis of Cordia campanulata Roxb., as definitely published in the Hortus Ben- galensis (1814) 17, by citation of Rumphius; and it is also wholly or in part the basis of Cordia rumphii Blume Bijdr. (1826) 843. The species is of wide distribution in Malaya and Polynesia, always growing along the seashore. CORDIA MYXA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 190. Arbor glutinosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 155, t. 97. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 383, November 29, 1913, ^lon^^ roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as gandal. This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Cordia myxa Linn., ^"^ Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) ^2^' Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 936, and after examining abundant l^^^^terial from various parts of India, the Philippines, and Malaya '^^d the Amboina specimens, I am inclined to consider this dis- ^'^^ition of Arbor glutinosa the correct one. The species is 448 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE rather variable, and it certainly includes the Philippine form described as Cordia blancoi Vidal. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 61, considers that the species described by Rumphius is Cordia subpubescens Spanogh., which de Candolle, Prodr. 9 (1845) 482, retains as a valid species, the description of which does not appear to me to apply to Arbor glutinosa Rumph. TOURNEFORTIA Linnaeus TOURNEFORTIA ARGENTEA Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 133. Buglossum lanuginosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 119, t. 55. (err. t.^S). Amboina, Latoe halat, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S84, September 22, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as kol laut. This was reduced, with doubt, by Linnaeus to Tournefortia foetidissima Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, but Tournefortia foetidissima Linn, is an American species entirely different from T. argentea Linn. f. The reduction of the Rumphian name Buglossum lanuginoswn to Tournefortia argentea Linn, f . seems first to have been made by Willdenow, Sp. PI. V (1797) 793, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. VERBENACEAE CALLICARPA Linnaeus CALLICARPA CUSPIDATA Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 394. Mamanira alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 124, t. 59. Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 299, November 6, 1913, in forests at an altitude of about 100 meters, "buds lilac but flowers white, fruit deep lilac, not white.*' Doctor Robinson notes on the field label that he considers the identification of this specimen with Mamanira alba as certain; the only discrepancy between the specimen and the description is that the fruits are deep lilac, not white. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, has suggested that Mamanira alba is Spojm pubigera Miq. (=Trema), but this cannot possibly be the case in view of the ample data given by Rumphius in the description. The inflorescences in Rumphius's figure are very poorly drawn. Schauer * has reduced Callicarpa cuspidata Roxb., which was very briefly described by Roxburgh from specimens originating in the Moluccas (probably Amboina), to the Indian CaUm^^P^ lanata Lmn,=^Callicarpa tomentosa (Linn.) Murr., in which ne is certainly in error. Nor is the Australian Callicarpa pedu^^' * De Candolle Prodromus 11 (1847) 644. VERBENACEAE 449 culata R. Br., which Schauer cites as a synonym, properly placed, as it is very distinct from both CalUcarpa tomentosa (Linn.) Murr. and C. cuspidata Roxb. CalUcarpa cuspidata Roxb. is manifestly allied to C longifolia Lam., but it differs in many characters and is certainly specifically distinct from Lamarck's species. Possibly referable here also is Robinson PI. Rumph, Amh. 300, from Binting, Amboina, August 13, 1913, but the leaves are less pubescent, less acuminate, and the flowers are described by Doctor Robinson as being pale lilac. Doctor Robinson thought that this might be Mamanira Rumph., Herb. Amb. 4: 123, t, 58, but it does not agree very well with the figure, which represents a plant with 4- and 5-nerved leaves. CALLICARPA CANA Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 198? Mamanira Rumph. Herb Amb. 4: 123, t. 58. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 84, thought that this might possibly be Sponia amboinensis Planch. ^Trema amboinensis Blume, while Teysmann, 1. c, suggested that it might be a species of CalUcarpa, I consider that Teysmann is correct in his sup- position, as the description is unmistakably that of a CalUcarpa, while the figure is a fair representation of CalUcarpa except for the very poorly drawn inflorescences. I am of the opinion that the widely distributed CalUcarpa cana Linn, was the species intended, but nothing approaching this species is represented in nur Amboina collections, although Rel Robins, 2i65, from Macassar, Celebes, is unquestionably referable to it. Further field work in Amboina will doubtless clear up any doubt there may exist as to the exact identity of Mamanira. CALLICARPA sp. Frutex ceramicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 124, t. 60, This was described from material originating in Ceram and Banda and is undoubtedly a species of CalUcarpa, Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 84, suggested that it might be Grewia inaequalis Blume, but the drawing certainly represents no G^^eivia, while the description seems to conform to CalUcarpa, f'ield work is necessary in Ceram and Banda before the position ^f frutex ceramicus can be definitely settled. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 84, also suggests that Perlarius ^^ter silvestris may be a species of CalUcarpa, but the description ^^^ too incomplete to warrant a definite reference of this to any l^articular genus. 144971— 2» 450 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE TECTONA * Linnaeus f. TECTONA GRANDIS Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 151. Tectona theka Lour. Fl, Cochinch. (1790) 137. Jatus s. caju jati Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 84, t. 18. Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 298y July 29, 1913, on open hillsides at low altitudes, locally known as jati. The teak tree is too well known to need discussion here. The Rumphian description and figure are unmistakably Tectom grandis, and the figure has been very generally cited by various authors under one or the other of the synonyms listed above. The species is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region; in some countries it is very extensively cultivated. PR EM N A Linnaeus PREMNA OBTUSI FOLIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 512. Premna cyclophylla Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 899? Premna laevigata Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 895? Premna integrifolia auct. plur. non Linn. Gumira litorea (G. sllvestrls) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 209 t. ISJ^. Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 307y August 8, 1913, along the beach near the town of Amboina, locally known as gumira laut, that is, gumira of the beach or ocean. The specimen cited above is unmistakably Gumira litorea Rumph., as it agrees perfectly with his description and figure, in its habitat, and in its native name, gumira laut. Its proper name in our present system of classification is not so certain, but it appears to me to be identical with Premna obtusifolia R. Br., also a coastal shrub or small tree, of northeastern Australia; the two species described by Miquel, cited above as doubtful syn- onyms; and the widely distributed coastal form in the Indo- Malayan region that has very consistently, but erroneously, been called Premna integrifolia Linn. The name ''Folium hircinum" of Rumphius, another species of Premna, has been confused by several authors with plate ISi. The first reduction of Gwritra laut was by Linnaeus in the original publication of his Pi^emiui integrifolia, Mant. 2 (1771) 252, who cites Rumphius as ''Folium hirci Rumph. amb. 3. p. 28. 1. 13^/' thus originating the confusion between the description of Folium^ hircinum and t, ISi of Rumph- ius, the figure cited being that of Gumira laut; t, 133 pertains to Folium hircinum. However, Premna integrifolia Linn, is based on Cornutia corymbosa Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 132, ^' ♦Retained name, Vienna Code; Theka Adans. (1763) is older. VERBENACEAE 451 ^^ /. 1, which in turn was based wholly on Ceylon material, "Cornutoides Linn. FL Zeyl. 195, ubi descr/' and *'Sambucus zeylanica odorata aromatica Herm, herb. Burm. zeyl. 209." Hermann's specimens, as noted by Trimen, FL Ceyl. 3 (1895) 352, are Premna serratifolia Linn. ; and according to strict prior- ity Premna corymbosa (Burm. f.) Rottl. & Willd., in Gesell. Nat. Freunde Neue Schr. 4 (1803) 187, 188, is the correct name for the plant that Linnaeus named Premna integrifolia, even though C. B. Clarke and Trimen have retained Premna corymbosa Rottl. & Willd. as a species entirely distinct from Premna integ- rifolia Linn, and P. serratifolia Linn. ; all three are typified by the same material. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 77, placed Gumira litorea under his Premna spinosa, but Premna spinosa Roxb. was described from Indian specimens. C. B. Clarke re- duced Premna spinosa to Premna integrifolia Linn, with which Gumira litorea has been confused. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 894, repeats the confusion between Gumira litorea and Folium hircinum, citing as a synonym of Premna corymbosa (Burm. f.) Rottl. & Willd. ''Gumira litorea vel Folium hirci Rimph. Herb. Amb. III. p. 289. tab. ISUJ' PREMNA NITIDA K. Sch. Fl. Kaiser Wilhelmsl. (1889) 121. Premna subglabra Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 234? Folium hircinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 208, t. 133, Amboina, various localities, such as Amahoesoe, Paso, and Soja, from sea level to an altitude of about 375 meters, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 308, August to October, 1913, locally known as gumira and gumira dara. The identity of the cited material with Folium hircinum is certain, but as is the case with the preceding species, its proper name under our present system of classification is uncertain. It seems to be the same as both the comparatively recently described Premna nitida K. Sch., of New Guinea, and P. subglabra Merr., a common and widely distributed Philippine species, but it is very probable that it has an older published name, perhaps several. Suggested reductions by various authors have been to Premna integrifolia Linn, (see above under Premna obtu^ifolia R. Br.), to Premna cordifolia Roxb., to P. tomentosa Willd., to P' foetida Reinwardt, and to Gumira foetida Hassk., with none 0^ which it agrees sufficiently to warrant considering Folium hircinum referable to any of them. Whatever else it may be, Polium hircinum is certainly very closely allied to Premna gaudi- ^haudii Schauer, of the Marianne Islands, and definitely seems ^^ be identical with the New Guinea Premna nitida K. Schum. 452 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE VI TEX Linnaeus VITEX MOLUCCANA Blume Bijdr. (1826) 813. Tittius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 38, t. 20. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 296, August 23, November 26 and 29, 1913, in light woods at Liang, Gelala, and Wae, altitude 15 to 20 meters, locally known as titti and daun titti. This very characteristic species is known only from Amboina and Banda, the specimens cited above agreeing perfectly with Rumphius's figure and description and with a series of speci- mens collected in Amboina by B otter, Heyne, Teysmann 5031, and Binnendyck and with Teysmann 5158 from Banda. Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. 5 (1804) 163, suggested that t, 20 might be Clerodendron mfortunatum Linn., but erroneously cites the description of Tittius litorea. It has nothing in common with that species. The plate is Vitex moluccana, but the description cited is a Clerodendron. Blume cites the Rumphian plant in the original description of his Vitex moluccana, in which he has been followed by later authors. It seems very probable that the two forms indicated by Rumphius as Tittius alba and Tittius rubra are merely slight variants of the same species. VITEX COFASSUS Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1826) 813. Cofassus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 28, t. 14B. Amboina, Liang, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S02, November 29, 1913, in open fields at an altitude of about 15 meters, locally known as gofassa- This is unquestionably Cofassus of Rumphius for the most part. The description includes at least two forms, and the figure pre- sents a species of Vitex with simple and trifoliolate leaves on the same plant. Cofassus mas, C. alba, and C. femina should probably all be referred here, although C. mas, described as having simple and trifoliolate leaves may be due to a mixture of material, and as Teysmann suggests, in Hasskarl Neue Schliissel (1866) 48, the trifoliolate-leaved form may be Vite^- timoriensis Walp.=F. littoralis Dcne.=:F. parvi flora Juss. Cofassus is cited by Reinwardt in the original description of Vitex cofassus. The material cited above agrees with a series of specimens from Amboina, from Celebes (Heyne), and with material from New Guinea collected by Hollrung and to Weinland. It is strongly suspected that Vitex monophyll(^ K- Sch., Fl. Kaiser Wilhehnsl. (1889) 121, of New Guinea, will prove to be identical with Vitex cofassus Reinw. VERBENACEAE 453 VITEX TRI FOLIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 638. Lagondium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 48, t. 18. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. SOUy August 13, 1912, along the beach at Binting, locally known as lagondi. The same form is also repre- sented by Rel. Robins. 2J^J^9 from Macassar, Celebes, and Rel. Robins. 2J^93 from Boeton. The reduction of Lagondium vulgare to Vitex trifoUa Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1122, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 890, which is certainly the correct disposition of it. It is very widely distributed along the seashore through- out the Indo-Malayan region. VITEX NEGUNDO Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 638. Lagondium litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 50, t. 19. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 305, September 18, 1913, along the beach, locally known as lagondi. The specimen, as Doctor Robinson notes, shows every inter- gradation between what is called Vitex trifolia Linn, and V. negundo Linn., a character that is also presented by many herbarium specimens sometimes placed under one name, some- times under the other. It is strongly suspected that the two species, at least as currently interpreted, are really not distinct. The reduction of Lagondium litoreum Rumph. to Vitex negundo Linn, was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1122, which disposition of it has been accepted by practically all authors. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788) 612, placed it under his Vitex pani- ndata, but Vitex paniculata Lam. is a synonym of Vitex negundo Linn. The ''species'' has the range of Vitex trifolia Linn. Lagondium nigrum Rumph., extensively treated by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. 3: 52, and supposed to grow in Buru Island, is ' probably purely an imaginary plant. Regarding it, Hasskarl, ^'eue Schlussel (1866) 75, states: ''fabula, nee arboris descriptio enarratur; arbor ex hac fabula intelligi baud potest." PETRAEOVITEX Oliver ^ETRAEOVITEX MULTIFLORA (Sm.) comb. nov. Petrea multiflora Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 27 (1817) no. 2. Petraeovitex riedelii Oliver in Hook. Ic. 15 (1883) 16, t. 1J^20. ■^unls quadrlfldus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 4, t 3. This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina ^^llections. Rumphius's description and figure agree closely 454 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE with those of Petraeovitex riedelii Oliver, the type of which was from the neighboring island, Buru. I have here adopted what is manifestly the oldest valid specific name for the species. Petrea multiflora Sm. was based on a specimen gathered by Christopher Smith on Honimoa Island, one of the Moluccas, in the original description of which Funis qicadrifidus Rumph. is cited as a synonym. I am indebted to Dr. A. B. Rendle, of the British Museum, who has kindly looked up both the original description and the type specimen of Smith's species and informs me, under date of July 22, 1916, that there is no doubt as to its identity with Petraeovitex riedelii Oliver. Smith's species, which has been previously considered as one of doubtful status, was excluded from the Verbenaceae by Schauer, in DC. Prodr. 11 (1857) 620, where, however, it manifestly belongs. The only other suggested reductions of Funis quxidrifidv^ Rumph. was Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 89, that it was an Illigera {Hernandiaceae) and HasskarFs own opinion that it was possibly a species of Vitis; both of these suggested reductions are manifestly wrong. GMELINA Linnaeus GMELINA VILLOSA Roxb, Hort. Beng. (1814) 46, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 86. Radix deiparae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 124, t. 39. Radix deiparae spuria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 125, sed 1: t. JtO. Amboina, near Paso, common everywhere, and at Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S06, July 20, 1913, locally known as kranjang, kelanjan, and daun kranjang. This is certainly Radix deiparae Rumph. and is equally certainly Gmelina villosa Roxb. Roxburgh's description was based on specimens from Penang, but he also cites Radix deiparae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 124, t, 39, as representing his species. Radix deiparae spuria, which Rumphius thought distinct from his R. deiparae, undoubtedly is also referable to Gmelina villoso. Roxb., although by many authors it has been referred to Gmelina asiatica Linn. The former was erroneously reduced by Li^' naeus to Gmelina asiatica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (l'^54) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, while the latter also has been very generally referred to the same species. It is to be notet that in the Herbarium Amboinense t 40 of Volumes I and have been transposed. VERBENACEAE 455 CLERODENDRON Linnaeus CLERODENDRON SPECIOSISSIMUM Paxt. Mag. Bot. 3 (1837) 217, 271. Clerodendron fallax Lindl. in Bot. Reg. (1844) sub. t. 19. Petasltes agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 108, t. 49. Amboina, Paso and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. SOS, July 20 and 23, 1913, along the banks of streams, locally known as daun picha piring. This was reduced by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 423, followed by Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 483, to Clerodendron infortunatum Linn., which it somewhat resembles ; it is, however, quite distinct from the Linnean species. This reduction was followed by Willdenow, Blume, Walpers, Hasskarl [Retzia 1 (1855) 59], Schauer, and Miquel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 388, placed it under his Volkameria petasites, apparently taking his specific name from Rumphius. However, Volkameria petasites Lour., as described, is very different from Petasites agrestis Rumph. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 82, suggests that it may be the same as Clerodendron viscosum Vent., which, however, has been considered by all recent authors as a synonym of Clerodendron infortunatum Linn. In adopting the name Clerodendron speciosissimum Paxt. I have followed the synonymy as given by Schauer, in DC. Prodr. 11 (1847) 666, but have had no opportunity to examine the original description of either Clerodendron speciosissimum Paxt. or C. fallax Lindl. The Amboina specimens, however, agree perfectly with Javan material named C. speciosissimum Lindl. as well as with material from the Caroline Islands, Samoa, and Cuba (cultivated) named Clerodendron fallax Lindl. Neither is given for Java by Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 3 (1912) 137-139, although Clerodendron fallax Lindl. was apparently de- scribed from Javan specimens; perhaps this form is included in Koorders's work under Clerodendron paniculatum Linn. CLERODENDRON COM MERSONM (Poir.) Spren^. Syst. Veg. 2 (1825) 758. Volkameria commersonii Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 688. Volkameria nereifolia Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 64. Clerodendron neriifolium Wall. Cat. (1829) no. 1789. Clerodendron inerme auct. plur. p. p. Jasminum lltoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: S6y t 46. Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 297, July 28, 1913, ^^on^ tidal streams. This widely distributed coastal plant is commonly named Cler- ^dendron inerme (Linn.) Gaertn., but several authors have 456 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE maintained the Malayan-Polynesian form specifically distinct from the typical Indian Clerodendron inerme (Linn.) Gaertn. If this distinction be maintained, the Malayan-Polynesian form must be called Clerodendron commersonii (Poir.) Spreng., which is the oldest valid name for it. Jasminum litoreum was first reduced by Linnaeus to Volkameria inermis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1122, and all succeeding authors have followed Linnaeus, citing the Rumphian figure, under either Volkameria inermis Linn, or Clerodendron inerme Gaertn. CLERODENDRON RUMPHIANUM DeVriese & Teysm. in Flora 43 (1860) 622, ex Hassk.; DeVriese in Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. 3 (1867) 252. Petasites amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 107, t. JfS. Nothing resembling this plant occurs in our Amboina collec- tions. There can be no doubt whatever that the Rumphian Petasites amboinensis represents the same species as the plant described by DeVriese, who reduces the Rumphian name as a synonym. The type material of Clerodendron rumphianum DeVr., as described in MiqueFs Annales, was from Amboina and Ceram. AVICENNIA Linnaeus AVICENNIA OFFICINALIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 110. Mangium album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 115, t. 76. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. SOI, October 29, 1913, in mangrove swamps. Mangium album, as figured, is certainly the typical form of Avicennia officinalis Linn., which is found along the seashore throughout the tropics of the Old World. Early authors gen- erally made no attempt to reduce this species; Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, merely indicating that it per- tained to the genus Rhizophora, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 57, considers that the description included both Avicen- nia officinalis Linn, and the allied A. alba Blume. The species is enormously variable in size, often flowering when less than one meter high, but it is normally a tree, frequently reaching a large size. LABIATAE ROSMARINUS Linnaeus ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 23. Rosmarinus verus sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 26. This is merely mentioned by Rumphius, under the description of Crategonum amboinicum Rumph., but is unquestionably the LABIATAE 457 true European Rosmarinus officinalis Linn., which is cultivated for medicinal purposes in sandy soil near the sea in the Philip- pines and, probably, in various parts of Malaya. It is very generally known in the Philippines by its Spanish name, romero. LEUCAS Burman LEUCAS ZEYLANICA (Linn.) R. Br. ex Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 472 (ceylanica) . Phlomis zeylanica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 586. Herba admiratlonis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 39 quoad descr., excl. t 16, /. 1. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. U75, July 20, 1913, in open places at low altitudes. The description appears to me to apply unmistakably to the widely distributed Leucas zeylanica R. Br., but the plant figured is certainly the next species, Leucas lav anduli folia Sm. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 127, originally reduced Herba admirationis to Leonuru^ indicus Linn., which is correct as to the plant figured. Murray, Syst. (1774) 450, placed it under Phlomis zeylanica Linn., in which he was followed by Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret, Henschel, and Pritzel, while Don and Dietrich cite it under Leucas zeylanica R. Br.; Walpers, Repert. 3 (1845) 877, refers it to Leucas linifolia ^^Teng,=Leucas lavandulifolia Sm., the correct disposition of the figure, but scarcely of the description. LEUCAS LAVANDULIFOLIA Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 20 (1813) no. 2. Leonurus indicus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1101, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 817, non Leucas indica R. Br. Leucas linifolia Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 743. Herba admirationis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: t. 16, f. i, excL descr. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure of Herba admirationis Rumph. unmistakably rep- resents this species, but the description applies to Leucas zeyla- ''^m (Linn.) R. Br., above. SALVIA Linnaeus SALVIA PLEBEIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 501. Tschintschau javanense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90; 7: t. 21, /. 2. This reduction of Tschintschau javanense is probably correct. The plant described was from China and from Semarang, Java. The Chinese name is given by Rumphius as tsinsau and sienthau. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 167, merely placed it in the ^ttfemtoe. It is, at least, a Salvia, whether or not Salvia plebeia R. Br. 458 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE MENTHA Linnaeus MENTHA ARVENSIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 577. Mentha crispa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 267, t. 9S, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The form figured and described by Rumphius, however, of which he never saw flowers or fruits, is the common mint introduced into the orient by the early Portuguese and Spanish explorers, and now widely, but not extensively, cultivated by the natives and Europeans in the Philippines (here known as yerba buena), and probably in other parts of the Indo-Malayan region. By Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, it was erroneously reduced to Ocimum menthoides Ijmn,=Geniosporum prostratum Benth. POGOSTEMON Desfontaines POGOSTEMON CABLIN (Blanco) Benth. in DC. Prodr. 12 (1848) 156; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 345. Mentha cablin Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 473. Pogostemon patchouly Pellet, in Mem Soc. Sci. Orleans 5 (1845) 277 t. 7. Pogostemon suavis Ten. in Giorn. Bot. Ital. 2 (1847) 56. Pogostemon patchouli Hook. Kew Journ. Bot. 1 (1849) 328, t. 11. Melissa lotoria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 292, t 102, f, 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure is poor and presents only a leafy branch greatly reduced in size. From the description, however, the plant is unmistakably Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth., which is widely cultivated in the Indo-Malayan region. Walpers, Repert. 3 (1845) 516, thought that it might be the same as Coleus atropurpureus Benth., while Don reduced it to Colevs aromaticm Benth,=C oleics amboinicus Lour., perhaps by confusion with the latter species, which is figured on the same plate. It is mani- festly no Coleus, but is certainly referable to Pogostemon cablin Benth. DYSOPHYLLA Blume DYSOPHYLLA AURICULARIA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1826) 826. Mentha auricularia Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 81. Mentha foetida Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 126. Majana foetida Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 41, t. i^, /. ^. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure and the description unmistakably represent this well-known species. The reduction was made by Linnaeus m the original publication of Mentha auricularia Linn., and also by Burman f . in the original publication of Mentha foetida Burm. f- Henschel erroneously referred it to Cyclostegia strobiUf^^^ Benth. LABIATAE 459 COLE US Loureiro COLEUS AMBOINICUS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 372. Plectranthus aromaticus Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 22, non Hort. Beng. (1814) 45. Coleus aromaticus Benth. in Wall. PL As. Rar. 2 (1831) 16. Coleus suganda Blanco FL Filip. (1837) 483. Marrublum album amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 294, t. 102, /. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The plant figured and described by Rumphius is certainly the same species as that described by Loureiro as Coleus amboinicus, the type of the genus Coleus. Loureiro described the species from specimens cultivated in Cochin-China and quotes the Rumphian figure and description as representing his species, also taking his specific name from this source; the plate, by error, is cited as 72 instead of 102, It was originally reduced by Lin- naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, to Nepeta indica Ijmn,=Anisomeles indica (Linn.) 0. Kuntze (A. ovata R. Br.), an entirely wrong disposition of it. Later authors have cited it under Coleus aromaticus Benth., a synonym of Loureiro's species. Plectranthus aromaticus Roxb., as originally published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 45, by citation of Rumphius Herb. Amb. 5: t 101, is a synonym of Coleus scutellaroides (Linn.) Benth., but as described by Rox- burgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 22, it is a synonym of Coleus amboinicus Lour.* COLEUS TUBEROSUS (Blume) Benth. Lab. Gen. Sp. (1832) 59. Plectranthus tuberosus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 838. Coleus parviflorus Benth. in DC. Prodr. 12 (1848) 72. Glans terrestris costensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 372, t. 132, f i. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Rumphius's figure and description apply unmistakably to Coleus tuberosus. The reduction seems first to have been made by Don, Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 685, and the Rumphian figure has been Cited under this species, sometimes with doubt, by Walpers, Dietrich, Bentham, and Miquel. Some authors have abandoned ^he name Coleus tuberosus (Blume) Benth. (1832) in favor of Coleus parviflorus Benth. (1848), on account of the use of the same specific name for another species by Richard, but Coleus ^^berosus Richard dates from 1851 and is, of course, invalidated oy Coleus tuberosus Benth. See Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414, 418. 460 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE COLEUS SCUTELLAROIDES (Linn.) Benth. in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 2 (1831) 16. Ocimum scutellaroides Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 834 (type!). Plectranthus scutellaroides Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 21. Majana (alba et rubra) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 291, t. 101. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^TS, July 18, 1913, in wet places in woods and along roadsides near the town of Amboina, locally known as mayana, mariana, and Johanna. Majana rubra Rumph. was originally and erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Ocimum frutesceus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1105. Recognizing this error, however, Linnaeus, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 834, made the Rumphian description and figure the whole basis of Ocimum scutellaroides Linn., which in turn is the basis of Coleus scutellaroides Benth. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, erroneously referred it to Ocimum gratissimum Linn. COLEUS BLUM EI Benth. Lab. Gen. Sp. (1832) 56. Majana aurea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 296, t. 102, f. 3. The form described and figured is one of the common cul- tivated types of Coleus with variegated leaves, commonly known as Coleus blumei Benth. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 130, placed it under Ocimum scutellaroides lAxm,=Coleus scutellaroides Benth., from which, however, it appears to be sufficiently distinct. Miquel thought that this cultivated form was merely a variety of Coleus scutellaroides Benth. and considered it as Coleii^ scutellaroides Benth. var. hlumeiM\(i, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1759) 950. COLEUS sp.? Marrubium album semisilvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 294. This form was briefly described by Rumphius, who compared it with Marrubium album amboinense —Coleus amboinicus Lour. It may represent a species of Coleus, as suggested by Hasskarl, but its exact status is indeterminable from data now available. OCIMUM Linnaeus OCIMUM BASILICUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 597. Basillcum indlcum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 263 t. 92, /• ^* Rumphius's figure is a fairly good representation of OciwM^'^ basilicum Linn. The reduction to this species seems first to have been made by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, in which he was followed by Lamarck and by Loureiro. Henschel placed it under Ocimum sanctum Linn., while Hasskarl placed it under Ocimum basilicum Linn. var. pilosum Benth. Hasskarl, Neue SOLANACEAE 461 Schliissel (1866) 118, 119, disposes of the three forms described by Rumphius as follows: fuscum=0 cimum sanctum Linn.?; album=0. basilicum Linn. var. album Benth. and var. pilosum Benth. ; nigrum=0. basilicum Linn. var. purpurascens Benth. With no material from Amboina for study, no modifications of these reductions, which may or may not be correct, can be suggested. OCIMUM SANCTUM Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 85. Basilicum agreste Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 265, t. 92, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1105, to Ocimum gratissimum^ Linn. ; but in the Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 833, he reduced it to Ocimum tenuiflorum Linn., which may not be specifically distinct from 0. sanctum Linn. The plant figured is apparently a form of the common Ocimum sanctum Linn., where it was placed by Don, Dietrich, Walpers, Bentham, and Miquel. The figure is a very poor one. OCIMUM sp. aff. basilicum Linn. Ozimum citratum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 266, t. 93, f. 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1105, to Ocimum tenuiflorum Linn. ; by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, to Ocimum minimum Linn.; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 370, it was discussed under Ocimum africanum Lour.; and by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 119, it was thought to be Ocimum basilicum Linn., either the var. anisatum Benth. or the var. difforme Benth. I suspect that Hasskarl is correct and that it is a form of Ocimum basilicum Linn. SOLANACEAE PHYSALIS Linnaeus PHYSALIS ANGULATA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 183. Halicacabus indicus I major s. albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 60. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 282, ^u^ust 8, 1913, in ditches. The specimen appears to be typical Physalis angulata Linn. and agrees well with Rumphius's description. The reduction ^^ the Rumphian plant is in agreement with Nees, Henschel, valpers, Hasskarl, and Dunal, as cited by Hasskarl, Neue SchlUssel (1866) 163. The figure, t 26, /. Jf, given by Rumphius 462 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE as representing the second form, minor s. niger, distinctly re- sembles this plant. PHYSALIS MINIMA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 183? Halicacabus indicus II minor s. niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 61, t, 26, /. 1. The description seems to apply to Physalis minima Linn., at least as that species is now understood. It was reduced to Physalis pubescent Linn., an American species, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 933, which is certainly incorrect. By Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 133, it was placed under Physalis alkekengi Linn., but Loureiro's description apparently applies to Physalis minima Linn. ; at any rate, the Rumphian plant has nothing to do with Physalis alkekengi Linn. Authors generally have considered it as representing Physalis indica Lam., which is apparently a synonym of P. minima Linn. CAPSICUM Linnaeus CAPSICUM FRUTESCENS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 189. Capsicum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 247, t. 88, f. 1-U. Amboina, Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 283, August 16, 1913, locally known as chili and representing Capsicum II minus rubrum Rumph. t. 88, f. 2. Four forms of this common Capsicnm are figured by Rumph- ius, which Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 116, 117, refers to various described varieties of this widely distributed and variable species. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, who included all the figures given by Rumphius, but later, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 271, definitely excluded fig. 2. Irish, Kept. Mo. Bot. Gard. 9 (1908) 99, places Capsicum indicum II minm rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 247, t 88 /. 2, under Capsicnm frutescens Linn. var. baccatum (Linn.) Irish, which is probably its correct disposition, if it be considered worth while to attempt the distinction of varieties in this polymorphous species. SOLAN UM Linnaeus SOLANUM MELONGENA Linn. Sp, PL (1753) 186. Trongum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 238, t. 85. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 288, July 26, 1913, locally known as trong; Way tommo, Robinson PI. /^wwP" Amb. 287, August 16, 1913, representing Trongum hortense album ambo'- ■ ense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 238. SOLANACEAE 463 Several forms of this commonly cultivated plant are described by Rumphius, notably I fuscum, the variety w^ith purplish fruits, and II album, the variety v^ith pale or nearly w^hite fruits. All are certainly referable to Solanum melongena Linn. The reduc- tion was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 266, v^hich has been very generally followed by later authors. Some, how- ever, for example, Murray, Syst. (1774) 188, Lamarck, Willde- now, and others, referred it to Solanum insanum Linn., which is apparently merely a form of Solanum melongena Linn. Other synonyms to which the Rumphian figure has been referred are Solanum melongena Linn. var. esculentum Walp. Repert. 3 (1844) 81 and S. esculentum Dunal Hist. Solan. (1813) 208, t 3, The form described by Rumphius under Trongum hortense II album as ''tamatte,'' page 238, to which Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 115, refers t, 88, /. A (apparently a typographical error for t 85, /.A), was thought by Hasskarl to represent Solanum aethiopicum Lour, or its variety violaceum Dunal. It is probably merely a small-fruited form of Solanum melongena Linn. SOLANUM TRONGUM Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 308 (type!). Solanum trongum Poir. var. rumphii Dunal in DC. Prodr. 13 ' (1852) 361 (type!). Trongum agreste spinovsum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 240, t. 86, f. 1, Amboina, Binting, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 285, September 25, 1913, along roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as trong. Solanum trongum Poir. was based wholly on the Rumphian reference, and I consider that the specimen cited above represents the plant described and figured by Rumphius. However, I am not prepared to state whether or not the species is a valid one, although it has been very generally recognized as such. It has been referred by some authors to Solanum indicum Linn., while Roxburgh referred the Rumphian figure to Solanum insanum Linn. SOLANUM ALBUM Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 129. Solanum album Lour. var. rumphii Dunal in DC. Prodr. 13^ (1852) 361. Solanum pressum Dunal Hist. Solan. (1813) 217 (type!)? Trongum agreste album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 241. Trongum agreste rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 241, t. 86, f. 2? Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 286, November 1, '^^, m forests on limestone formations, altitude about 150 meters, locally Known as trong badurL 464 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE The specimen almost certainly represents Solanum agreste album Rumph., but S, agreste rubrum may be different. I am not prepared to state that it is the actual form described by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 129, as Solanum album, although he cites the Rumphian name as a synonym. It is, at any rate, the whole basis of Solanum album Lour. var. rumphii Dunal. Solanum pressum Dunal was based wholly on Trongum agreste rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 241, t. 86, /. 2, and must be inter- preted from the Rumphian figure and description. It may prove to be specifically distinct from the form I have here placed under Solanum album Lour., but no botanical material is available to assist in determining this point. SOLANUM NIGRUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 186. Solanum triangulare Lam. Encycl. 4 (1789) 290. Solanum rumphii Dunal Hist. Sol. (1813) 157 (type). Solanum nigrum Linn. var. rumphii Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 63B. Halicacabus baccifer Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 62, t, 26, f. 2. This common and widely distributed species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Halicacabus baccifer was cited by Lamarck in the original description of Solanum triangulare, but is not the actual type. It seems, however, to be the whole basis of Solanum rumphii Dunal. The Rumphian figure was first reduced to Solanum nigrum Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, and this is certainly the correct disposition of it. SOLANUM VERBASCIFOLIUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 184. Adulterina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 58, t. 25, f. 1. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 289, November 26, 1913. The figure cited by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 162, is not that of Adulterina, but of Lappago laciniata; that is, t, 25, f. 2, which is Urena lobata Linn. (p. 357) and Triumfetta bartramia Linn. (p. 354). The reference by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 229, under Laivsonia falcata Lour, is apparently a pure error, for the plant Loureiro describes is totally different from the one that Rumphius figures. It was reduced by Hamilton m Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 307, to Solanum verbascifolum Linn, and is S, verbasci folium Linn. var. adulterinum Ham. i^ Walp. Repert. 3 (1844) 53. The plant figured by Rumpbius appears to be typical Solanum verbascifolium Linn. SOLANACEAE 465 LYCOPERSICUM Hill LYCOPERSICUM ESCULENTUM Mill. Gard. Diet. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2. Solanum lycopersicum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 185. Pom urn amoris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 416, t. 154,, f. 1. The common tomato, cultivated and wild in most parts of the Malayan region, is not represented in our Amboina collections. The form figured is one of the cultivated types v^ith medium- sized fruits; the form indicated by Rumphius as II rotundum is apparently the small-fruited wild form with fruits 1 to 2 cm in diameter ; that is, the common wild form of the plant that occurs in the Malayan region. The reduction of Pomum amoris to Solanum lycopersicum Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Atnb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 265, which, as Lycopersicum esculentum Mill., is the correct disposition of it. DATURA Linnaeus DATURA FASTUOSA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 932. Stramonia indica IN dutra rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 243, t. 87 y f.2. No representative of the genus Datura occurs in our Amboina collections, but the form figured and described by Rumphius is certainly Datura fastuosa Linn. The figure presents a form occasionally found in cultivation in the MaJ^j^n region with a double corolla. Both forms figured by B^5»pjgh|l^s on plate 87 were erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to,^s^ra metel Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoe|HW^c§d. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 932, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (176^)^556, in which he was followed by numerous other authors. Other names involved are Datura hummatu Bernh. and D. fastuosa var. rubra Dunal. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 53, first made the correct reduction to Datura fastuosa Linn. DATURA FASTUOSA Linn. var. ALBA (Nees) C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 4 (1883) 243. Datura alba Nees in Trans. Linn. Soc. 17 (1834) 73. Datura nigra Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 142 (type!). Stramonia indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 242, t. 87, f. 1 (inel. Dutra alba et Dutra nigra). This was originally reduced with Stramonia indica III to Datura metel Linn, by Linnaeus, as noted above. It is, however, ^he common, white-flowered form described by Nees as Datura ^Iha, which is apparently merely a variant of the common Datura 144971 30 466 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE fastuosa Linn. Dutra nigra Rumph., on which Datura nigra Hassk. was wholly based, is manifestly only a form of the com- mon, white-flowered plant with colored branches. NICOTIAN A Linnaeus NICOTIAN A TABACUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 180. Tabacus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 225. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 28If, October 8, 1913, cultivated, locally known as tabak. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 111, referred this to Nicotiana fruticosa Linn., but the commonly cultivated Nicotiana tabacim Linn, was undoubtedly the plant described by Rumphius and is so considered by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 670. SCROPHULARIACEAE LIMNOPHILA* R. Brown LIMNOPHILA AROMATICA (Lam.) comb. nov. Ambulia aromatica Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 128. Gratiola aromatica Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 14. Limnophila punctata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 750. Terebinthina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 150, t. 67, f. 2. No Limnophila occurs in our Amboina collections, yet Rumphius's figure and description are unmistakably the form described by Blum#-as Limnophila punctata, but which manifestly is a synonym o¥^€Bfft%iuch older Ambulia aromatica Lam. Am- bulia aromatica^^l^^&.^Rs HenscheFs reduction of the Rumphian plant and figu^§,3Avffile Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 177, thought that it ml§Iit be either Limnophila punctata Blume or L. conferta Benth. LIMNOPHILA RUGOSA (Roth) comb. nov. Herpestis rugosa Roth Nov. PL Sp. (1821) 290. Capraria gratissima Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 92. Stemodia menthastrum Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1835) 23. Limnophila roxburghii G. Don Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 543. Menthastrum amboinlcum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 151, t. 68, /• 1- The Rumphian figure is very characteristic and, unquestion- ably, is referable to the present species. Henschel erred in refer- ring it to Nepeta malabarica Lmn.= Anisomeles. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 177, considered that it was Limnophila balsamea Benth. * Retained name, Vienna Code; Ambulia Lam. (1783), Diceros Lo^^^* (1790), and Hydropiton Gaertn. (1805) are older. SCROPHULARIACEAE 467 ADENOSMA R. Brown ADENOSMA CAPITATUM Benth. ex Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 4 (1884) 264. Stemodia capitata Benth. in Wall. Cat. (1831) no. 3926, nomen nudum, Bot. Reg. sub. t, U70, fide C. B. Clarke. Pterostigma capitatum Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1835) 21. Erinus bilabiatus Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 92. Stoechas pllosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 51, t. 22, /. 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure and description, however, both refer unmistakably to Adenosma capitatum Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190, referred it, with doubt, to Acrocephalus capitatus Benth., which is manifestly wrong. The whole plant is pleasantly aro- matic when crushed. Clarke states that Erinus bilabiatus Roxb. and Stemodia capitata Benth. were published in the same year. ILYSANTHES Rafinesque {Bonnaya Reichenbach) ILYSANTHES ANTIPODA (Linn.) comb. nov. Ruellia antipoda Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 635. Ruellia anagalUs Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 135. Gratiola veronicae folia Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 8. Bonnaya veronicaefolia Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 41. Ilysanthes veronicaefolia Urban Berich. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. 2 (1884) 436. Crusta ollae major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 460, t. 170, f. 2. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 261, August 20, 1913, in a sag'o swamp near sea level. RueUia antipoda Linn., typified by Fl. Zeyl. 28 5, supplies the oldest specific name for this common, well-known, and widely distributed species. The reduction to Ruellia antipoda Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, in which he was followed by Willdenow, Loureiro, Poiret, and other authors. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, referred it to his Ruellia anngallis, while various other authors have cited it under one or another ^f the synonyms mentioned above. The species appears in most recent botanical literature as Bonnaya veronicae- folia Spreng. CURANGA Jussieu CURANGA FEL-TERRAE (Lour.) comb. nov. Picria feUerrae Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) '393. Caranga amara Vahl Enum. 1 (1804) 100. Curanga amara Juss. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 319. Curania amara R. & S. Syst. 1 (1817) 138. Gratiola amara Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 80, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 135. 468 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Herpestis amara Benth. Scroph, Ind. (1835) 30. Serratula amara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 459, t. 170, f, 1, Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 263, October 17, 1913, in wet meadows and in cleared places near streams, altitude about 70 meters, locally known as kakuran mera. Serratula amara was erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Scutellaria indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 836, in which he was followed by Burman f ., Willdenow, Poiret, Persoon, and Pritzel. Vahl, however, placed it under his Caranga amara, Enum. 1 (1804) 100, given by all authors since Jussieu as Cu- ranga amara Juss. Various authors have cited the figure under the other synonyms given above. I can see no reason for not accepting Loureiro's specific name, for Picria fel-terrae Lour, is manifestly the same as Curanga amara Juss., and Loureiro's specific name is at least fourteen years older than that proposed by Vahl. It is also to be noted that the generic names Picria and Caranga are both older than Curanga of Jussieu. LINDERNIA Allioni (Vandellia Linnaeus) LINDERNIA CRUSTACEA (Linn.) F. MuelL Census (1882) 97. Capraria Crustacea Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 87. Vandellia Crustacea Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1835) 35. Crusta ollae minor Rumph. Herb. Amb, 5: 461, t. 170, f. 2. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 262, July 20, 1913, in various habitats, altitude 5 to 15 meters. In Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Linnaeus reduced ''170 Crusta ollae'' to his Ruellia antipoda, overlooking the fact that two distinct species are described and figured. Of these Crusta ollae major, t. 170, /. 2, is Ruellia anti- poda hinn.^Ilysanthes antipoda (Linn.) Merr. (see p. 467). while Crusta ollae minor, t, 170, /. 3, is Capraria Crustacea Linn. —Lindemia Crustacea (Linn.) F. Muell. Burman f., FI. Ind (1768) 134, refers Crusta ollae minor, 1. 170, /. 8, to Ruellia anti- poda Linn., but also on the preceding page refers the same figure to Capraria Crustacea Linn, where it properly belongs. Other names concerned in the reduction of the Rumphian figure are Gratiola lucida Willd., Torenia Crustacea Cham. & Schlecht., ana T. edentula Griif . The plant figured and described by Rumphiu? is manifestly the common, well-known, and widely distributed Lindernia {Vandellia) Crustacea (Linn.) F. MuelL, which ap- pears in most recent botanical literature as Vandellia cnistac^^ Benth. BIGNONIACEAE-PEDALIACEAE 469 BIGNONIACEAE DOLICHANDRONE Fenzl DOLICH AN DRONE SPATHACEA (Linn, f.) K. Schum. Fl. Kaiser Wilhelms Land (1889) 123. Bignonia spathacea Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 283. Dolichandrone rheedii Seem, in Journ. Bot. 8 (1870) 380. Lignum equinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 73, t. 46. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. 86^ October 1'7, 1913, along the seashore. Lignum equinum was originally reduced to Bignonia spathacea by the younger Linnaeus in the original description of the species. The first reference is to Rumphius, but the actual type was material collected by Koenig. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 380, referred it to his Bignonia longissima, but B. longissima Lour, is an exact synonym of Dolichandrone spathacea K. Schum. PANDOREA Spach PANDOREA sp.? Cam pan a rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 42. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190, has suggested that Cam- pana rubra is a bignoniaceous plant and gives a description com- prising the essential characters of the plant after Rumphius. I consider that he is correct in his surmise as to the family, and I further suggest Pandorea as the possible correct disposition of the Rumphian plant. At any rate, the species described by Rumphius should be critically compared with authentic botanical material of the species described as Tecoma amboinensis Blume and T. dendrophila Blume, the former from Atnboina, the latter from New Guinea, both of which are apparently referable to Pandorea, PEDALIACEAE SESAMUM Linnaeus SESAMUM ORIENTALE Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 634. Sesamum indicum Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 634. Sesamum indicum nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 204, t. 76, f. 1. Sesamum indicum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 204. The common sesame is not represented in our Amboina collec- tions, but it doubtless still occurs in Amboina, as it is a plant of Wide distribution in cultivation and in cultivated lands in the ^^do-Malayan region. Rumphius's illustration was first reduced 'o Sesamum indicum Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. *l^-54) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1120, ^P; Pi. ed. 2 (1763) 884. Sesamum orientale Linn, has page Priority over the more commonly used Sesamum indicum Linn. 470 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE GESNERIACEAE CYRTANDRA Forster CYRTANDRA DECURRENS DeVriese PL Ind. Bat. Or. (1845) 14. Macuerus femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 132, t. 58, /. 1. Amboina, Halong, Batoe merah, Soja, and Lateri, Robinson PL Rumpk. Amb. 210, September, 1913, along river banks, in thin forests, and on wooded hillsides, altitude 20 to 300 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 174, thought that this might be Cyrtandra nemorosa Blume, a species known only from Java. The Amboina specimens agree perfectly with the Rumphian figure and description and with the description of Cyrtandra decurrens DeVriese, which was based on Amboina material. Clarke, DC. Monog. Phan. 5 (1883) 232, cites Amboina material collected by DeVriese, Zippel, Barclay, C. Smith, Dolleschal, and Lahaie ; and Doctor Robinson collected it in four different locali- ties, so the species is apparently common in Amboina. The typical form is also known from Buru, with varieties in Penang, Borneo, Celebes, and New Guinea. ACANTHACEAE HEMIGRAPHIS Nees HEMIGRAPHIS ANGUSTIFOLIA Hallier f. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 70 (1897) 203, t. 10, /. 3, Prunella molucca hortensis angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 30, t, 13, /. A, B. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 99, August 20, 1913, in a sag'o swamp near the town of Amboina, locally known as biana. Linnaeus referred ''Prunella molucca Rumph. amb. 6. p. 30. t. 13. /. BJ' to Ruellia repanda Linn, in the original description of that species, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 886, in which he has been followed by all authors, until very recently, some of whom added also fig, 2 of the same plate. The species was based primarily on Javan specimens. Hallier, however, has distinguished the form described and figured by Rumphius as Hemigraphis angustifolia, describing the species from a specimen collected by Treub in Amboina and citing the Rumphian name and illustration as given above. This is undoubtedly the correct disposition of it. HEMIGRAPHIS PETOLA Hallier f. Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 70 (1897) 206, t. 10, f. 1. Prunella molucca hortensis III lire petola Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: ^^l The reduction follows Hallier's suggestion, his species being ACANTHACEAE 471 based on specimens from Ceram Island; Rumphius's material was from Ternate. The forms described by Rumphius, 1. c, as Lire papua and Lire kitsjil are probably representatives of Hemi- graphis, at least of the Acanthaceae; but their exact status is indeterminable from data and material now available. HEMIGRAPHIS REPTANS K. Schunfi. var. GLAUCESCENS Hallier f. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 70 (1897) 207. Prunella silvestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 31, t, IS, f. 2. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Riimph. Amb. 100, July 20, 1913, in wet soil at low altitudes. The specimen is apparently referable to the variety described by Hallier, the type of which was from Amboina. It is not so certain that it represents Prunella silvestris alba Rumph., but it agrees with the description rather better than with the figure. It was reduced by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, to Ruellia alternata Burm. f . {R. discolor Nees) , a species known only from Java ; and by Nees and Miquel it was placed under Ruellia discolor l>lees=Hemigraphis alternata T. And. HEMIGRAPHIS sp. Prunella molucca silvestris II rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 32, t. 13, /. 3. This is clearly a species of Hemigraphis, but beyond this its exact status is indeterminable at the present time from want of material representing it. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, re- duced it to Ruellia alternxita Burm. f.= Hemigraphis alternata T. Andr.; while Nees, in DC. Prodr. 11 (1857) 145, placed it under Ruellia colorata Blurrie=Hemigr aphis colorata Hallier f. Prunella molucca silvestris III rotunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 32 is certainly a species of Hemigraphis, apparently close to the preceding, but its status cannot be definitely determined at present. HEMIGRAPHIS sp. Prunella molucca hortensis latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 30, t. IS, f. 1. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 157, thought that this might be a species of Strobilanthes or Lepidagathis. The figure is unmistakably that of a species of Hemigraphis, but the plant is ^^ot represented in our Amboina collections and cannot be prop- erly placed within the genus until more extensive collections of Amboina material are available for study. 472 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE RUELLIA Plumier RUELLIA REPENS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89; Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, t. Uy /. 2. Dipteracanthus lanceolatus Nees in Wall. PL As. Rar. 3 (1832) 82. Justicia moretiana Burm. f. PL Ind. (1768) 10 p. p., quoad syn. Rumph. Moretiana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 53, t. 23, f. 1. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amh. 101, July 20, 1913, in rocky soil and along ditches at low altitudes; also represented by Rel Robins. 2500 from Baoebaoe, Boeton, July 13, 1913. The specimen cited above certainly represents Moretiana as described and figured by Rumphius and is likewise Ruellia repens Linn., as currently interpreted. C. B. Clarke * states regarding Ruellia repens Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89: The plate of Burmann (Fl. Ind. t. 41, fig- i) is g'ood, and represents a plant not of the genus Ruellia. In the Addit. to Mant. 515 (1771), Lin- naeus says his Ruellia repens was Burmann, t. 41, fig. 1. I consider that the figure given by Burman f . is a crude rep- resentation of Ruellia repens Linn, as currently interpreted ; but at any rate it has no bearing on the interpretation of Ruellia repens Linn., which was published one year before Burman's work was issued. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 10, referred More- tiana Rumph. to Justicia moretiana Burm. f ., taking his specific name from Rumphius. This species was based primarily on Burman Thes. Zeyl. 7, t. 3, f. 1, an entirely different plant, which has little in common with Moretiana as figured and described by Rumphius.f BARLERIA Linnaeus BARLERIA PRIONITIS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 636. Barleria hystrix Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89. Prionitis hystrix Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 809. Hystrix frutex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22, t. 13. This common and well-known species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction of Hystrix frutex Rumph' to Barleria prionitis Linn, was first made by Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1121, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 887. Barleria hystrix Linn, is a synonym of B, prionitis Linn, and was bas^d primarily on a specimen collected by Royen» with a reference to Hystrix frutex Rumph. and one to Plukenet added. * Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 74 ^ (1907) Extra Number 649. tSee Trimen FL Ceyl. 3 (1895) 335. ACANTHACEAE 473 LEPIDAGATHfS Willdenow LEPIDAGATHIS RUMPHII sp. nov. Bungum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 52, t. 22, f. 2. Amboina, Way tommo and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 97 (type), July and August, 1913, along river banks and in thickets, altitude 5 to 50 meters. Erecta vel suberecta, circiter 50 cm alta, ramosa, inflorescentiis exceptis glabra vel subglabra, ramis ramulisque quadrangulatis ; foliis longe petiolatis, chartaceis, oblongis ad oblongo-lanceolatis, aequilateralibus, usque ad 7 cm longis, utrinque subaequaliter an- gustatis acuminatisque, nervis utrinque circiter 5, tenuibus; inflorescentiis terminalibus, spicis numerosis, anguste oblongis, 1.5 ad 2.5 cm longis, aggregatis, bracteis bracteolisque subaequi- magnis, oblongo-ovatis, 4 mm longis, breviter mucronato-acumi- natis, extus pubescentibus, eglandulosis ; calycis 5-partitis, 5 mm longis, pubescentibus. An erect or suberect, branched, nearly glabrous herb about 50 cm high, the branches and branchlets prominently 4-angled. Leaves opposite, those of each pair subequal in size, oblong to oblong-lanceolate, chartaceous, olivaceous, dull, paler beneath, 4 to 7 cm long, 1.5 to 2.5 cm wide, the upper ones smaller, sub- equally narrowed to the acuminate base and apex, equilateral, entire, the cystoliths small, numerous on both surfaces ; petioles slender, 1.2 to 2.5 cm long. Spikes terminal, numerous, mostly in threes on each ultimate branchlet, cylindric, continuous, 1.5 to 2.5 cm long, about 6 mm in diameter, pale when dry, pubescent, niany-fiowered, secund. Bracts and bracteoles similar in size and shape, oblong-ovate, apiculate-acuminate, about 4 mm long, uniformly pubescent with rather long pale hairs, the indumentum on the calyx quite similar. Calyx about 5 mm long, the upper segment 2 mm wide, the two lateral ones nearly free, less than one-half as wide as the upper one, the lower segment cleft about one-third. Corolla 5 mm long. Capsule narrowly oblong, nar- rowed upward, obtuse, about 5 mm long. This species is manifestly in the group with Lepidagathis '^^ucronata Nees, L. parviflora Blume, and L. javanica Blume, o^t is apparently distinct from all of these and from the other allied species. It is well characterized by its oblong to oblong- ^aneeolate, relatively long-petioled leaves ; its equal bracts and oracteoles; its short, dense, somewhat crowded spikes; and its ; ^^all flowers. ^he species manifestly represents Bungum mas as figured and ascribed by Rumphius, a form that previously has not been 474 RUMPHIUS'S HERBAEIUM AMBOINENSE correctly placed, even as to its genus. In the early literature Bungum mas was confused with Justicia purpurea Linn, and with Justicia bivalvis Linn, (see Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., page 476). It has also been referred by various authors to Hypoestes purpurea R. Br., to Rostellularia purpurea R. Br., and to R, diffusa Nees, with none of which it has much in common. ACANTHUS Linnaeus ACANTHUS EBRACTEATUS Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 75, t. UO ; 3 (1794) 85. Dilivaria ebracteata Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 179. Aquifolium indlcum I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 163, t, 71, /. 1. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 106, October 29, 1913, in mangrove swamps, flowers white, with a faint tinge of violet. Both forms of Aquifolium indicum Rumph. were reduced by Linnaeus to Acanthus ilicifolius Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1123, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 892, in which he was followed by Burman f. and by Loureiro. However, two species are described and fig- ured; / mas, clearly the form characterized by Vahl as Acaiithm ebracteatus, and // femina, equally clearly the form characterized by Wallich as Acanthus volubilis (see the following species). The Rumphian figure and description were referred by Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 85, to Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl, in which he was followed by Willdenow. Poiret, Henschel, Dietrich, Nees, Pritzel, and Miquel cite it under Dilivaria ebracteata Pers., but in the more modern literature it is cited under Acanthus ebract- eatus Vahl. ACANTHUS VOLUBILIS WalL PL As. Rar. 2 (1832) 56, L 172. Dilivaria volubilis Nees in WalL PL As. Rar. 3 (1833) 98. Dilivaria scandens Nees in DC, Prodr. 11 (1857) 269. Aquifolium indicum II femlna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 163, t 71fi'^- Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 107, July 28, 1913. along tidal streams, subscandent. As noted above under Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl, Linnaeus originally reduced this form to Acanthus ilicifolius Linn. Nees and Miquel cite it under Dilivaria scandens Nees ; which, as Acan- thus volubilis Wall., is certainly the correct disposition of it. GRAPTOPHYLLUM Nees GRAPTOPHYLLUM PICTUM (Linn.) Griff. NotuL 4 (1854) 139. Justicia picta Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 21. Graptophyllum hortense Nees in Wall. PL As. Rar. 3 (1832) 102. Folium bracteatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 73, t. SO (incL vulgare pubrum, et Igneum Rumph. I. c. 73, 74). ACANTHACEAE 475 Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh 108, November 1, 1913, from cultivated plants, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as telaga. Folium bracteatum is cited by Linnaeus as a synonym of Justi- cia picta Linn, in its original place of publication; which, as Graptophyllum pictum Griff., is certainly the correct disposi- tion of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 78, has referred the several color forms, vulgare, rubrum, and igneum, to the varieties album Hassk., rubruTYi Hassk., and igneum Hassk., respectively. PSEUDERANTHEMUM Radlkofer PSEUDERANTHEMUM PULCHELLUM (Hort.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 248. Eranthemum pulchellum Hort. Gartenmag. (1810) 176, t. 17. ErantheTYium bicolor Schrank Hort. Monac. (1819) t. 8. Pseiider'anthemum bicolor Radlk. ex Lindau in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam, 4 '" (1895) 330. Bungum femina Rumph. Herb. iVmb. 6: 52, t. 21, f. 2. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL RuTnph, Amb. 96, August 30, 1913, at low altitudes, locally known as bung a burong. The specimen cited above agrees closely with Rumphius's description and figure and certainly represents Bungum femina Rumph. It is also unmistakably the form commonly known as Eranthemum bicolor Schrank or Pseuderanthemum bicolor Radlk., for which Pseuderanthemum pulchellum (Hort.) Merr. is an older name. The Rumphian species has not been previous- ly determined in connection with modern taxonomy. Hass- karl, Neue Schllissel (1.866) 161, suggested that Bungum femina flight be Dipteracanthus ventricosus Nees or D. patulus Nees. PSEUDERANTHEMUM CURTATUM (C. B. Clarke) comb. nov. Eranthemum curtatum C. B. Clarke in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1905) 89. Ophiocolla altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 34. Amboina, Lateri and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 91^, August and September, 1913, in forests, altitude not indicated. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 157, thought that possibly Ophiocolla altera Rumph. might be referable to Justicia ecbolium Linn., but this suggested reduction is certainly wrong. The specimen cited above agrees fully with Rumphius's description ^nd with our very large series of Eranthemum curtatum C. B. Clarke, a species of wide distribution in the Philippines, this species in turn being allied to Eranthemum malaccense C. B. Clarke and E, crenulatum Nees; all of these species must be deferred to Pseuderanthemum, 476 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE PSEUDERANTHEMUM RACEMOSUM (Roxb.) Radlk. ex Lindau in Engl & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 4*^ (1895) 330. Eranthetnum racemosum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 3, nomen nudum Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 113. 01 us caprinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 54. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 95, August 30, 1913, along roadsides at low altitudes, flowers pale purplish. No previous identification of Olus caprinum Rumph. has been suggested, other .than HasskarFs reference of it to the Acan- thaceae. The specimen cited above agrees very closely with Rumphius's description and even better with that of Roxburgh. The type of Eranthemum racemosum Roxb. was from the Moluccas. PERISTROPHE Nees PERISTROPHE BIVALVIS (Linn.) comb. nov. Justicia bivalvis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 850 (type!). Justicia tinctoria Roxb. Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 124. Peristrophe tinctoria Nees in Wall. Fl. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 113. Folium tinctorium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 51, t. 22, f. 1. Amboina, Soja and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 98, August, 1913, in light woods, altitude 200 to 400 meters. The synonymy of this species is especially complicated, but Justicia bivalvis Linn, as originally published, not as currently interpreted in modern botanical literature, is clearly based wholly on Folium tinctorium Rumph. and nothing else. In Stickman's Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Linnaeus erroneously referred it to Jussiaea [sic!] purpurea Linn., a manifest error for Justicia purpurea Linn., this species having been based on specimens collected by Osbeck in China. In Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134 it appears thus: *'22 Folium tinctorium— Justicia bivalvis," clearly indicating from the cited name, Folium tinctorium, that t, 22, /. Jf, was indicated. However, in the same year, Linnaeus published Justicia bivalvis with a short description, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 850, with an erroneous reference to ''Rumph. VI. t, 29/' which is a fern, Athyrium esculentum Copel; the descrip- tion unmistakably applies to Folium tinctorium Rumph. from which it was apparently taken. In the same place Linnaeus erroneously referred t, 22, /. 1 (Folium tinctorium) , to Justicia purpurea Linn., following his first treatment of it in Stickman s Herbarium Amboinense. Again, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 23, Lin- naeus referred to Justicia purpurea the Rumphian Folium tinc- torium Herb. Amb. 6: 51, t. 22, /. 1, and on the same page he referred to Justicia bivalvis the Rumphian Bungum Herb. Amb- ACANTHACEAE 477 6: 55, t. 22, f. 1 [/. 2 intended], Bungum being a species of Lepi- dagathis (see p. 473). Burman f., Lamarck, Loureiro, and Poiret followed Linnaeus and apparently interpreted Justicia purpurea Linn, from Folium tinctorium Rumph., citing the Rumphian name and figure as a synonym. Vahl, Murray, Willdenow, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, and Roxburgh cite the Rumphian name and figure under Justicia bivalvis Linn., which, as Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., is certainly the correct disposition of it. More recent authors cite Folium tinctorium Rumph. under Peristrophe tinctoria Nees, a syn- onym of P. bivalvis (Linn.) Merr. Justicia purpurea Linn, was described from specimens col- lected by Osbeck in the vicinity of Canton, China, and has not been definitely placed, although a simple examination of the specimen in the Linnean herbarium should settle its status; it is probably a species of Rostellularia, Justicia bivalvis Linn. has been misinterpreted by modern authors. It is described as Dicliptera bivalvis Juss., a species that has nothing to do with the Linnean species as originally published. Additional synonyms of Peristrophe bivalvis Merr. are Sautiera tinctorium Span, and Justicia roxburgiana R. & S. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 161, refers Folium tincto- rium I to Peristrophe tinctoria Nees var. concolor Hassk. and Folium tinctorium II to Peristrophe tinctoria Nees var, rubri- nervis Hassk., but the two are manifestly merely color variants of a single species. RHINACANTHUS Nees RHINACANTHUS NASUTA (Linn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39' (1870) 79. Justicia nasuta Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 16. Rhinacanthus communis Nees in Wall. PI. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 109. Gendarussa femlna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 72, t. 29. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 105, September 13, 1913, in hedge rows. Linnaeus referred this to Justicia nasuta Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126; which, as Rhinacanthus nasuta (Linn.) Kurz, I consider to be the cor- ^^ct disposition of Gendarussa femina Rumph. In the Systema ^d. 10 (1759) 850, Linnaeus erroneously refers "Rumph. amb. IV. t. 17/'=Laivsonia inermis Linn., to Justicia nasuta; and at ^he same time he refers "Rumph. VI. t. 29'' to Justicia bivalvis. '^^(sticia bivalvis Linn, is Peristrophe tinctoria Nees=Peristrophe ^^mlvis (Linn.) Merr., while "Rumph. VI. t 29'' is Rhinacanthus 478 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE nasuta (Linn.) Kurz. Other authors, however, have referred it to Justicia gendarussa Burm. f., which is represented by Gendor TMSsa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 70, t. 28 (see below). The form described as Grendarussa femina II from Bali is indeterminable from the data at present available and may not even belong to the Acanthaceae, JUSTICIA Linnaeus JUSTICIA GENDARUSSA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 10. Justicia gendarussa Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 85. Gendarussa vulgaris Nees in Wall. PL As. Rar. 3 (1832) 104. Gendarussa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 70, t. 28 (incl. vulgaris alba, vulgaris nigra, and vulgaris fusca Rumph. 70, 71). Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 101^, October 31, 1913, near the seashore, locally known as gandarussa mera; Hitoe messen, in light forests, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. lOS, November 5, 1913, altitude about 100 meters, locally known as gandarussa puti. Gendarussa Rumph. was reduced by Burman f. to Justicia gendarussa Burm. f., in the original description of the species, which was primarily based on actual specimens in Burman's hands. The species is Burman's and was not originally described by Linnaeus as credited in most modern publications. Most authors have followed Burman in citing Rumphius's Gendarmsa under Justicia gendarussa Burm. f ., but a few have followed Nees and have cited it under Gendarussa vulgaris Nees, a synonym of Justicia gendarussa Burm. f . The forms described by Rumphius are hardly worthy of note, although Hasskarl referred the first to the variety viridis Hassk. and the second to the variety nigra Hassk. RUBIACEAE * DENT ELLA Forster DENTELLA REPENS (Linn.) Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 26, t. IS. Oldenlandia repens Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 40. Crusta ollae (ri angustjfolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 461, t. 170, f- ^ This common and widely distributed herb is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure and description, however, unmistakably apply to Dentella repens Forst. Th^^ reduction to Dentella repens was first made by Loureiro, r^* Cochinch. (1790) 78 (Oldenlandia repens Linn.). All authors, since Willdenow, who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian * I am indebted to Dr. Th. Valeton for assistance in identifying ^^^ Amboina Rubiaceae, and for critical notes regarding Rumphian specie of this family. RUBIACEAE 479 illustration, have placed it where it manifestly belongs, under Dentella repens Forst. HEDYOTIS Linnaeus HEDYOTIS VERTICILLATA (Linn.) Lam. 111. 1 (1791) 271. Oldenlandia verticillata Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 40. Hedyotis hispida Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 23. Spermacoce articularis Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 119. Hedyotis crateogonum Spreng. PL Min. Cog. Pugillus 2 (1815) 35. Crateogonum amboinicum II majus Rumph. Herb, Amb. 6: 25, t. 10. Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 158, July 20, 1913, on coral rocks, altitude 5 meters. Oldenlandia verticillata Linn, was based primarily on speci- mens cultivated in the botanic garden at Upsala, with an additional reference to Crateogonum amboinicum Rumph. The description applies in all particulars to the widely distributed plant commonly known as Hedyotis hispida Retz. Spermacoce articularis Linn. f. was likewise based on specimens cultivated at Upsala, also with a reference to Rumphius, and is undoubtedly correctly placed as a synopym of Hedyotis verticillata Lam. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 33, erroneously referred it to Sper- macoce tenuior Linn.; and Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 17, considered that the Rumphian figure represented Parietaria indica Linn., which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it. Hedyotis crateogonum Spreng. was based, at least in part, on Rumphius and is unquestionably a synonym of Hedyotis verti- cillata (Linn.) Lam. as here interpreted. HEDYOTIS TEN ELLI FLORA Blume Bijdr. (1826) 971. Crateogonum amboinicum I minu« Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25. This was reduced by the younger Linnaeus to Spermacoce stricta Linn. f. in the original description of that species, Suppl. (1781) 120, in which he was followed by Willdenow, Roemer and Schultes, Poiret, and Henschel. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 182, thought that it might be the same as the Philippine Hedyotis ^'^Qustifolia Miq., which is entirely improbable. The reduction ^0 Hedyotis tenelliflora Blume was suggested by Doctor Valeton, )^hich in all probability is the correct disposition of the Rumph- '^^ species. UNCARIA* Schreber ^'^CARjA CORDATA (Lour.) comb. nov. Restiaria cordata Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 639. Uncaria pedicellata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 86, nomen nudum, FL __ Ind. 2 (1824) 128. I^etained name, Vienna Code; Ourouparia Aubl. (1775) is older. 480 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Nauclea tanosa Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816) 64 (type!). Funis uncatus lanosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 65, t. ^-4, /. S {fig, c, in expl. pi.). Amboina, Ermes, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 154, August 9, 1913, alon^ the edges of forests, altitude about 250 meters. Funis uncatus lanosus Rumph. is apparently the whole basis of Nauclea lanosa Poir., which Haviland reduces to Uncam lanosa Wall., although Poiret's species may have been based on actual specimens. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 126, referred t, 2Jf, /. 2, 3, of Rumphius to Uncaria gambir (Hunter) Roxb., which is certainly an erroneous disposition of both figures. The type of Uncaria pedicellata Roxb. was from the Moluccas. I have adopted Loureiro's specific name for the species as it is much older than any of the others and as there is no doubt as to the identity of Restiaria cordata Lour. ; for Haviland, who cites it as a synonym of Uncaria pedicellata Roxb., examined Loureiro's original specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum. Rumphius's reduced figure of Funis uncatus lanosus is rather poor, but his description applies unmistakably to the plant here interpreted as Uncaria cordata (Lour.) Merr. Dr. Valeton thinks that fig. 8 may go with Uncaria pteropoda Miq. and fig. 1 with U. cordjata Merr. UNCARIA SETILOBA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 2 (1843) 223. Uncaria florida Vid. Phan. Cuming. Philip. (1885) 176. Funis uncatus angustifollus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 63, t. SJ^, f. 2 (fig' B. in expl. pi.). Amboina, Batoe merah and Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. U^- August, 1913, on river banks and hillsides, altitude 5 to 80 meters. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 126, referred this to Uncarin gambir Roxb., which is certainly wrong. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 150, thought that it might be Uncaria ferrea DC. It is unquestionably the same as Uncaria setiloba Benth., the type of which was from Amboina, and which is identical with the rather widely distributed Philippine form later described by Vidal as Uncaria florida. The species is known only from the Philippines and Amboina. UNCARIA LONGIFLORA (Poir.) comb. nov. Nauclea longiflora Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816) 63 (type- • Uncaria pteropoda Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 343. ^ Funis uncatus latlfollus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 63, t, Sj^, f- 1 (fi^- in expl. pi.). Amboina, Way tommo and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rtimph. ^' 153, August and October, 1913, in thickets, altitude 80 to 225 meters. RUBIACEAE 481 Nauclea longiflora Poir. was based wholly on Funis uncatus latifolius Rumph. and has been reduced to Uncaria acida Roxb., where it certainly does not belong. Under no. 153, cited above, two species are involved, one of which is apparently a form of Uncaria pteropoda Miq. Unfortunately the specimens are sterile. Dr. Valeton states that the Amboina specimen closely resembles those of Malacca and the Philippines in which the petioles are mostly destitute of the wings that are characteristic of the typical form of Uncaria pteropoda Miq., but that in the form and nervation of the leaves they are almost identical with those of the typical Sumatran and Javan form with large wings. ADINA Salisbury ADINA FA Gl FOLIA (Teysm. & Binn.) Valeton in herb. comb. nov. Nauclea fagifolia Teysm. & Binn. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 117, nomen nudum; Havil. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 33 (1897) 63. Neonauclea fagifolia Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 539. Ulassium mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 42, t. 23. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, yet unquestionably Ulassium mas is identical with Nauclea fagi-^ folia Teysm. & Binn., a species of which the flowers and fruits have not as yet been described. Dr. Valeton has studied the species and finds it to be an Adina; it will be figured and de- scribed by him in a forthcoming number of Icones Bogoriensis. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, referred the Rumphian species to Nauclea fagifolia Teysm. and Binn.; but Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 633, was entirely wrong in reducing it to Echinus trisulcu^ Lour., with which it has nothing in common. The species is cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and is known from Celebes and Buru. The two forms described in the same chapter with Ulassium mas, U. femina and U. lapideum, are too inadequately treated to Warrant even a surmise as to their identity. One or both may be referable to Adina fagifolia Val., or they may represent entirely different species. NEONAUCLEA Merrill (Nauclea and., non Linnaeus) NEONAUCLEA MOLUCCANA (Miq.) Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 541. Nauclea moluccana Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lu^d.-Bat. 4 (1868-69) 183. Laharus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 44, t. 24. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Liang, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL ^'^mph. Amb. U8, 161, 162, August and November, 1913, hillsides and light ^ods at low altitudes, locally known as laharong and nessat karang, 144971 31 482 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE This is manifestly the form Rumphius described as Laho^rus, which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49, thought might rep- resent Nauclea parvifolia Roxh, =Mitragyna parvifolia Korth. of India and Ceylon. The Amboina plant is a true Neonaucka and is identical with Neonauclea moluccana (Miq.) Merr., the type of which was from Buru. Dr. Valeton has indicated to me that this species, although closely resembling Nauclea purpuras- cens Korth., can be distinguished by its linear-lanceolate stipules, which in Korthals's species, as in the Philippine Neonauclea calycina (Bartl.) Merr., are obovate-spatulate ; Nauclea purpu- rascens Korth. is apparently a synonym of Neonauclea calycim (Bartl.) Merr. A large-leaved form, PL Rumph. Amb, 162, from coral limestone cliffs at Amahoesoe, August 28, 1913, locally known as laharing, was thought by Doctor Robinson to represent Laharus femina Rumph. Under Laharus Rumphius described three forms, distinguished wholly on wood characters; these are Laharus lapideus, L. femina, and L. mixta. The first two are certainly Neonauclea, and I con- sider both to be Neonauclea moluccana Merr. ; the status of the third is very doubtful, and it probably does not belong in Neon/iuclea. NEONAUCLEA sp. Nessatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 45, L 25, Regarding this form, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49, states: ''Nauclea spec? s. forsan Anthocephalus indicus Rich.?" The figure is poor and is greatly reduced in size. The leaves are described as 7 to 8 inches long, 24 to 3 inches wide, with few nerves (5 to 7 in the figure), the heads solitary, long- peduncled, and smaller than those of Laharus {Neonauclea moluccana Merr.). Nessatus can scarcely be Anthocephalus indicus Rich., but is apparently a species of Neonauclea allied to N. moluccana Merr. NAUCLEA Linnaeus (Sarcocephalus Afzelius) NAUCLEA UNDULATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, nomen nudum, FI Ind. 2 (1824) 117. Sarcocephalus undulatus Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 133. Cadamba noctuma Ham. ex Hensch. Vita Rumph. (1833) 156 (type'* Arbor noctis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 82, t. 5^. Amboina, Negri lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 150, September 8, l-^^'^' in light forests, altitude about 30 meters, locally known as humeleng. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 141, placed this under Nauclea RUBIACEAE 483 orientalis Linn., to which Nauclea undulata Roxb. is manifestly very closely allied. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 53, placed it with doubt under Sarcocephalus undulatus Miq.=Nauclea undulata Roxb., and I consider that he was correct in this reduc- tion ; Roxburgh's type was from the Moluccas. The species can be distinguished from the very closely allied Nauclea orientalis Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq.) only by some relatively unimportant characters. Arbor noctis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 83 is probably merely a form of the same species. NAUCLEA MITRAGYNA (Miq.) Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 536. Sarcocephalus mitragynus Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868-69) 180. Bancalus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 84, t, 55. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus originally reduced Bancalus to Cephalanthus orientalis Unn.=Nauclea orientalis Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq.), in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 887, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 243, in which he was followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Poiret, de Candolle, Henschel, and Pritzel. Willdenow, Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, and other authors have referred it to Nauclea purpurea Roxb.; but Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 123, explicitly states that Bancalus Rumph. is not the same as Nauclea purpurea Roxh, =Neonauclea purpurea (Roxb.) Merr. The identification of ''Bancalus mas sive parvifolius'' Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 83, t, 55, f.ly2, with Sarcocephahis mitragynus Miq. was made by Miquel, his type being from Ceram. I first referred it to Nauclea (Sarcocepha- lus) subdita (Korth.) Merr., a species that is not definitely known from the Moluccas. Nauclea mitragyna Miq. is in cul- tivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, the specimen having been secured by Teysmann in Amboina. Dr. Valeton writes that it greatly resembles Sarcocephalus subditus Korth., and that he doubts whether or not it is specifically distinct from Korthals's species. Rumphius included in his description what he took to be two "species,'' Bancalus mas and Bancalus media (major in expl. pi.) ; but no definite characters are indicated, either in the descriptions ^^ in the figures, by which two distinct species can be recognized, ^^d it is suspected that the entire description and both figures are referable to Nauclea mitragyna (Miq.) Merr. It is a true ^^uclea (Sarcocephalus), not a Neonauclea^ * Merrill, E. D. On the application of the generic name Nauclea of L'^naeus. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 530-542. 484 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ANTHOCEPHALUS A. Richard ANTHOCEPHALUS MACROPHYLLUS (Roxb.) Haviland in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 33 (1897) 23, t, ^, /. 32-37. Nauclea macrophylla Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, nomen nudum, PI. Ind. 2 (1824) 120. Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 190 (Neue Schltissel 48) (type!). Samama Rumph. Herb, Amb. 3: 36, t. 19. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 156, October 20, 1913, on hillsides, altitude about 50 meters, locally known as samama. Nauclea macrophylla Roxb. was originally described from specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta and received from Amboina, the original tree still existing at Calcutta as late as .1897. Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, placed Samama, with doubt, under Cephalanthus orientalis Linn., which was manifestly an erroneous disposition of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 48, thought that it might be the same as Antho- cephalus morindifolius Korth., but also quoted Teysmann to the effect that it was Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn., a name that otherwise seems never to have been published and which must be typified by Samama Rumph.; it is not included in Index Kewensis. Samama is manifestly the same as Anthocephalus macrophyllus Havil. M U SS A E N D A Linnaeus MUSSAENDA FORSTENIANA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Ludg.-Bat. 4 (1868-691 188. Folium principissae angustifollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 111. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 165 , August 25, 1913, in forests, altitude about 160 meters. Rumphius does not indicate to which of the two forms de- scribed the illustration pertains, but after a study of the two descriptions I have concluded that it goes with Folium princi- pissae latifolium, not with Folium principissae angustifoliuvh the reverse of HasskarFs consideration of the two. Folium prin- cipissae angustifolium as described is certainly represented by the specimen cited above, which differs radically from the illus- tration in its inflorescence. See the following species for a historical discussion of Folium principissae. MUSSAENDA REINWARDTIANA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1856) 211. Mussaenda dasyphylla Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868-6. 111. Folium principissae latlfolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 111, *• ^^' Amboina, Batoe gadjah, Batoe merah, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robvnso^ RUBIACEAE 485 PI Rumph. Amb. 168, August, 1913, on wooded hillsides and in ravines, altitude 25 to 250 meters. The specimens agree entirely with Rumphius's description of Folium principissae latifolium and, except for the shape of the leaves, with the illustration of Folium principissae. The Rumph- ian plant manifestly has been interpreted by most authors largely by the figure, and Hasskarl has referred the figure to Folium principissae angustifolium, citing under this name the various species to which it has been reduced. Linnaeus placed it under Mussaenda frondosa Linn., a species typified by Ceylon specimens, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 931, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 251, in which he was followed by Burman f ., Loureiro, Willdenow, Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, and Pritzel. Lamarck, followed by Poiret, placed it under Gardenia frondosa Lam., a synonym of the Linnean species. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 38, in dis- tinguishing Mussaenda glabra Vahl from M. frondosa Linn. states: "Rumph. Folium Principissae hue potius pertinere vi- detur," in which disposition of it he was followed by Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, de Candolle, Don, Henschel, Wight and Arnott, and Dietrich; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 212, placed it under Mussaenda frondosa Linn. var. glabra (Vahl) Miq. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1759) 211, suggested that Folium principissae latifolium Rumph. was the same as Mussaenda reinwardtiana Miq. and in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868-69) 187 that Folium principissae ''mains'' (that is, latifolium) , might be Mussaenda dasyphylla Miq. Dr. Valeton states that the spe- cimen cited above agrees absolutely with the description of Miissaenda dasyphylla Miq., as well as with specimens collected by Teysmann and by Boerlage, and that, although he has not -een the type specimen of Mussaenda reimvardtiana Miq., he can detect no real differences between the two descriptions. GARDENIA Linnaeus GARDENIA AUGUSTA (Linn.) comb. nov. Varneria augusta Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136 (type!). Gardenia jasminoides Ellis in Philos. Trans. 51 "^ (1761) 935. Gardenia florida Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 305. Catsjopiri Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 26, t. IJf, f. 2. This commonly cultivated shrub is not represented in our ^niboina collections. The form figured by Rumphius is the one ^^^th double flowers and has been very generally cited as a syn- ^^ym of Gardenia florida Linn, since it was thus reduced by ^i^naeus in the original description of the species. However, 486 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Gardenia jasminoides Ellis is older than the Linnean name G. florida; and both are antedated by Varneria augusta Linn., which was based wholly on the Rumphian illustration and description, but which involves a generic name never taken up by Linnaeus in his later writings, and one that has been entirely overlooked by all authors. GUETTARDA Linnaeus GUETTARDA SPECIOSA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 991. TIttlus lltorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 39. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 167, August 28, 1913, along the seashore. The only previously suggested identification of Tittius litorea is HenscheFs reference of it to Clerodendron infortunatum Linn., which is manifestly wrong. The description applies very closely to Guettarda speciosa Linn., and I am confident that this is the correct disposition of it. The wood from Ternate that is de- scribed in the same chapter, under the name Bololo maluhi, prob- ably belongs to this species. TIM ON I us* de Candolle TIMONIUS SERICEUS (Desf.) K. Sch. Fl. Kaiser Wilhelmsland (1889) 131. Polyphragmon sericeum Desf. in Mem. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 6 (1820) 6, t. 2, Timonius rumphii DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 461 (type!). Erithalis timon Spreng. PI. Min. Cog. Pugillus 1 (1813) 18 (type!). Timonius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 216, t. 11^0. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 166, July 20, 1913, on grassy hillsides, altitude about 10 meters, locally known as timon. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 1=^ (1800) 997, made the first reduction of Timonius, placing it as a variety of Erithalis polygama Forst. It is the type and whole basis of Erithalis timon Spreng. and of Timonivs rumphii DC. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 234, correctly reduced it, with Timonius rumphii DC, to Polyphrag- mon sericeum Desf., the tjnpe of which was from Timor. By other authors it has been erroneously reduced to Polyphragmon miniis Rich, and to Bobea wallichiana Kostel. The species is known from Timor, Banda, Amboina, Ternate, and New Guinea with varieties in Timor, New Guinea, and Queensland. f * Retained name, Brussels Congress; Nelitris Gaertn. (1788), Porocarf^^ Gaertn. (1791), Polyphragmon Desf. (1820), Helospora Jack (1823), ami Burneya C. & S. (1829) are older. t See Valeton in Bull. Dept. Agr. Ind. Neerl. 26 (1909) 52. RUBIACEAE , 487 IXORA Linnaeus IXORA CHINENSIS Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 344. Ixora stricta Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 10 (type!). Flamma silvarum peregrina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 107, t. ^7. Amboina, Ermes, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 159 , August 9, 1913, from cultivated plants. Linnaeus originally reduced this to Pavetta indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 894, Mant. 2 (1771) 331, in which erroneous disposition of it he was followed by Burman f ., Murray, Willde- now, and Pritzel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 75, discusses it under Ixora coccinea Linn., to which it is allied, but from which it is manifestly distinct. Lamarck cites it in the original description of Ixora chinensis, his actual type being a specimen collected by Sonnerat, supposed to have come from China. It is the whole basis of Ixora stricta Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis * and is undoubtedly the form later described under this name by Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 388, ed. 2, 1 (1832) 379, from specimens cultivated in the botanic garden in Calcutta, which were introduced from the Moluccas in 1798. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 268, placed it under Pavetta stricta Blume, which is a synonym of Ixora stricta Roxb. The species is not a native of Amboina, but according to Rumphius it was introduced from Java about 1675. IXORA FULGENS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 10 (type!). Flamma silvarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 105, t. 4^6. Amboina, Soja, Mahija, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Am6. 169, August, 1913, in light forests, altitude 250 to 450 meters, locally known as daun pichapiring. Flamma silvarum Rumph., representing a very characteristic species, was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ixora coccinea Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 893, Sp. Fl. ed. 2 (1762) 159, a species with which it has little in common, and to which it is not ^t all closely allied. This disposition of it was accepted by Burman f., Loureiro, Willdenow, and Persoon. Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 3 (1818) 179, erroneously placed it under Ixora ^ncarnata Roxb. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 343, placed it under ^^^ora lanceolata Lam., but the species described is certainly not fte same as the Amboina plant. Flamma silvarum is the whole * C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413. 488 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE basis of Ixora fulgens Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 10, * while the species that Roxburgh later described under this name, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 387, is probably the same as the plant here referred to Ixora fulgens Roxb. The specimens on which the description was based were grown in the botanic garden at Calcutta, introduced from the Moluccas, and under it Roxburgh cites ''Flamma silvarum Rumph. Atnb. IV. 105. t, i6? pretty good." It has also been cited under Ixora longiflora Sm., Pavetta longiflora Sm., and by Miquel under Pavetta amboinica Blume. I strongly suspect that the last is a synonym of Ixora fulgens Roxb., but not having access to the original publications, I am unable to settle the status of Ixora longiflora Sm. (Pavetta longiflora Sm.) in connection with Ixora fulgens Roxb. Ixora macrothyrsa Teysm. & Binn. should be critically compared. PSYCHOTRIA Linnaeus PSYCHOTRIA sp. Caju panu Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, t. 6, f. 2. The figure represents a rather characteristic species of Psycho- tria, and the description of the seeds confirms this generic identification of Caju panu, Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, placed it in Psychotria. It is not represented in our Amboina collections, and further identifica- tion of it is impossible at this time. The only species of the genus known from Amboinia is Psychotria leptothyrsa Miq. (Rel Robins. 1736, 17^9, det. Valeton), but Caju panu cannot be re- ferred to Miquel's species. HYDNOPHYTUM Jack HYDNOPHYTUM AMBOINENSE Becc. Malesia 2 (1885) 138, t. S2, /. i-^. Nidus germinans formicarium niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119, t 55, /. 1, Amboina, Wakeroe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 16^, October 7, 1913, on trees in a mangrove swamp. In the original description of Hydnophytum formicarium Jack the Rumphian species was reduced as a synonym, but Jack's species is entirely distinct from the Amboina form. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 309, placed it under Hydnophytum monta- num Blume, which Beccari considers as a form or variety of H, formicarium Jack. Hydnophytum amboinense Becc. was de- scribed from Amboina specimens and is certainly the form that Rumphius described as Nidus germinans formicarium nige'^^> which Beccari reduced to Hydnophytum amboinense Becc. *See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci, 7 (1912) Bot. 413. RUBIACEAE 489 MYRMECODIA Jack MYRMECODIA RUM PHI I Becc. Malesia 2 (1884) 117, t. 12, f. 1-6. Nidus germinans formicarium ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119, t. 55, /. 2, Amboina, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 152, September 24, 1913, epiphytic on Melaleuca, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as laru. Jack, Trans. Linn. Soc. 14 (1823) 123, reduced the Rumphian plant to Myrmecodia tuberosa Jack in the original description of that species, but Myrmecodia tuberosa Jack is a species known from Sumatra, Singapore, Java, and Borneo and is quite dif- ferent from the Amboina plant. De Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830) 450, referred it to Myrmecodia inermis Gaudich., which is Hyd- nophytum gaudichaudii Becc. Beccari's description of Myrme- codia rumphii was based on an Amboina specimen collected by him in January, 1873, and to this species he reduced Nidus germinans formicarium ruber Rumph., which is certainly the correct disposition of it. Myrmecodia amboinensis Becc, Ma- lesia 2 (1884) 97, nomen nudum, is apparently merely a misprint for Myrmecodia rumphii Becc. PA ED ER I A * Linnaeus PAEDERIA. FOETIDA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 52. Apocynum foetidum Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 71. Paederia amboinensis Miq. in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1869) 254. Convolvulus foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 436, t. 160. Amboina, Wakal, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 163, November 5, 1913, in thickets near the seashore, locally known as daun konto konto. Convolvulus foetidus Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Paederia foetida Linn, and by Burman f ., to Apocynum foetidum Burm. f., although the types of both species were actual speci- niens. Practically all authors have cited Convolvulus foetidus ^s a synonym of Paederia foetida Linn., but there is nothing ^n the description or figure by which it can be distinguished from Paederia tomentosa Blume ; for that matter there is nothing in the original description of either Paederia foetida Linn, or P- tomentosa Blume by which the two can be distinguished, yet authors generally agree in retaining them as distinct ; Convol- ^'ulus foetidus Rumph. could with equal propriety be referred 'o Paederia foetida Blume. The actual Amboina specimen, cited above, is quite glabrous, with lanceolate leaves, and unfortun- l^etained name, Vienna Code; Hondbessen Adans. and Dauncontu ^^ans. (1763) are older. 490 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE ately presents no fruits. The fruit characters are the ones depended upon by modern botanists for distinguishing the two species here discussed. Whatever else it may prove to be, it is certainly the form described by Miquel as Paederia amboinensis. MORI N DA Linnaeus MORINDA CITRIFOLIA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 176. Bancudus latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 158, t. 99. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 151, August 30, 1913, along the seashore, locally known as binkudong. Bancudus latifolia Rumph, was first reduced to Morinda din- folia Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 930, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 250, which disposition of it is manifestly correct and has been accepted by all authors. Morinda latifolia Rumph. is certainly the same as Bancudus latifolia Rumph. and accordingly is placed here, following Miquel and Hasskarl. MORINDA BRACTEATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 15, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 198. Bancudus angustifolla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 157, t. 98. Amboina, Hatiwe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 155, September 14, 1913, in formerly cultivated lands, altitude about 10 meters. Linnaeus erroneously reduced Bancudus angustifolia Rumph. to Morinda umhellata Linn., Sp. PL ed. 2 (1762) 250, in which he was followed by Burman f ., Loureiro, Lamarck, Roemer and Schultes, and Pritzel. Willdenow, Sp. PI. 1 (1798) 992, thought that it might be a variety of Morinda citrifolia Linn.; while Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 5 (1819) 215, placed it with doubt under Morinda angustifolia Roth. Roxburgh cites it in the original description of Morinda bracteata Roxb., with the state- ment that it "has the process of the calyx of my plant, but I cannot say they agree in other respects.'' It seems to be the same as Morinda bracteata Roxb. var. celebica Miq.* CUCURBITACEAE MELOTHRIA Linnaeus MELOTHRIA INDICA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 35. Cucumis murinus viridis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 463, t. 171, /• ^• Amboina, Robinson, PI. Rumph. Amb. 39J,., July 22, 1913, along the banks of the river, locally known as daun pepinyu tikus. This reduction was made by Loureiro in the original descrip- * See Valeton Ic. Bogor. 3 (1908) t. 269. CUCURBITACEAE 491 tion of Melothria indica and is apparently correct. As noted by Rumphius, the fresh plant has quite the odor and taste of the ordinary cucumber, Cucumis sativiis Linn. MELOTHRIA JAVANICA (Miq.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 625, ex descr. Karivia javanica Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1856) 661. Cucumis murinus ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 463, t. 171y /. 1. Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S93, October 28, 1913, in open ravines, altitude about 70 meters, the fruit red, locally known as pepinyo tikos. The identity of the specimen with Cucumis murinus ruber is quite certain, although the petioles are shorter than indicated by Rumphius's figure. Its identification with Melothria javanica has been made from the description alone, as I have seen no authentic specimens of that species; it is, however, reported from Amboina by Cogniaux. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 147, suggests that it is Aechmandra hlumeana Iloem..= Melothria marginata (Blume) Cogn. Just what species is represented is possibly doubtful, but there is no question as to the correctness of the generic identification. LUFF A (Tournefort) Linnaeus LUFFA ACUTANGULA (Linn.) Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 70, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 713. Cucumis acutangulus Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1011. Petola bengalensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 408, t. 1^9. This species is not represented in our Amboina collection, but is generally cultivated in the Indo-Malayan region and probably still occurs in Amboina. Petola bengalensis was reduced by Linnaeus to Cucumis acutangulus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1436, and by many subsequent authors it was cited under Luffa (icutangula (Linn.) Roxb. Rumphius's figure is excellent. LUFFA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) Roem. Syn. 2 (1846) 63. Momordica luffa Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1009. Momordica cylindrica Linn. 1. c. Luffa sylvestris Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat 1 ' (1856) 666 (type!). Luffa petola Ser. in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 303 (type!). Petola seu Petola Tschina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 405, t. 1U7. Petola silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 409, t. 150. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 395, climbing on trees near 'he beach, locally known as kalabasa utan. The specimen cited is the ordinary wild form, which differs ^^oxn the commonly cultivated form in its somewhat smaller 492 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE leaves and much smaller fruits. This wild form is of wide distribution in the Malayan region, especially in thickets near the seashore. Plate 147 of Rumphius is an excellent representa- tion of the cultivated form, while plate 150 is a fair representa- tion of the wild form. Petola of Rumphius was reduced by Linnaeus to his Momordica lujfa, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, but in Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1433 he cites t 1^8, It is the whole basis of Luff a petola Ser. in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 303. Another syn- onym is Luff a pentandra Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 712, this author also citing Petola Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: t, H? as representing his species. Petola silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 409, t 150, is the whole basis of Luff a sylvestris Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1856) 666, which was erroneously reduced by Cogniaux, DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 461, to Luff a acutangula Roxb.; this synonym should be transferred to Luff a cylindrica Roem., the actual Amboina specimen cited above being a topotype of MiqueFs species. CITRULLUS Necker CITRULLUS VULGARIS Schrad. in Linnaea 12 (1838) 412. Cucurbita citrullus Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1010. Anguria Indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 400, t. IJfG, f. 1. Anguria indica altera Rumph. L c. 400. Amboina, in waste places near Castle Victoria, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S92j November 13, 1913, locally known as pateka. The figure given by Rumphius is a good representation of the common watermelon. It was first reduced to Cucurbita citrullus by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1435, this reduction being followed by all early authors. CUCUMIS Linnaeus CUCUMIS SATIVUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1012. Cucumis ? rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 280 (Neue Schliissel (1866) 138) (type!). Cucumis indicus I vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404. Cucumis indicus lit sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404, t. IJ^O, /. ^ The common cucumber is not represented in our Amboina collections, but is widely cultivated in the Malay Archipelago. There is no doubt whatever as to the correctness of the reduc- tion of Cucumis indicus vulgaris, while I am equally certain that C. indicus sinensis is but a small form of the same species; CUCURBITACEAE 493 the latter is the whole basis of Cucumis ? rumphii Hassk., v^hich, incidentally, is not listed in Index Kewensis. The figure is very poor. Cucumis indicus II boetonensis Rumph. 1. c. 404 is probably another form of Cucumis sativum Linn, with somewhat 3-angled fruits; Hasskarl suggests that it may be C trigonu^ Roxb. or C, turhinatus Roxb. (= trigonus Roxb.), which can hardly be accepted on account of the geographic range of Roxburgh's species, while Rumphius's description does not agree with the characters of C. trigonus Roxb. Cucumis indicus IV maximus Rumph. is referred by Hasskarl to Cucumis conomon Thunb.==C. melo Linn., and is probably a form of the latter. CUCUMIS MELO Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1011. Melo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404. The description doubtless applies to this Linnean species, to which Melo Rumph. was reduced by Henschel. The major part of the description in this chapter, however, refers to the common cucumber, Cucumis sativum Linn. BENINCASA Savi BENINCASA HISPIDA (Thunb.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 513. Cucurbita hispida Thunb. Fl. elap. (1784) 322. Benincasa cerifera Savi in Bibl. Ital. 9 (1818) 158. Camolenga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 395, t. l^S. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 396, August 23, 1913, along road- sides, locally known as labu. The identity of Camolenga is so evident that it scarcely needs discussion, for Rumphius's figure is an excellent one of this commonly cultivated plant. By Linnaeus it was erroneously reduced to Cucurbita pep o Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1859) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, but generally it has been correctly placed by modern authors. LAGENARIA Seringe LAGENARIA LEUCANTHA (Duch.) Rusby in Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 4: 43. Cucurbita leucantha Duch. in Lam. Encycl. 2 (1782) 150. Cucurbita lagenaria Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1010. Lagenaria vulgaris Ser. in Mem. Soc. Phys. Genev. 3* (1825) 25. Cucurbita lagenaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 397, t. IJfJ^. This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1859) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, has been very generally followed by ^^her authors, and is certainly the correct disposition of the ^umphian plant. It is suspected that the plant described as 494 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Cucurbita indica vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 398, is also a form of Lagenaria leucantha Rusby; although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 137, does not definitely place it. It has been confused with Cucurbita pepo Linn, and C. melopepo Linn. TRICHOSANTHES Linnaeus TRICHOSANTHES TRI FOLIA (Linn.) comb. nov. Momordica trifolia Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278 (type!). Momordica trifoliata Linn. S^p. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1434 (type!) ; Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 309; Willd. Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 604. Trichosanthes trifoliata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 936; Cogn. in DC. Mono?. Phan. 3 (1881) 383. Involucraria trifoliata Roem. Syn. (1846) 99. Poppya sylvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 414, t. 152, f. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. The change of name is necessary as Momordica trifolia Linn, antedates M. trifoliata Linn.; both are based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description. It is to be noted, however, that while Linnaeus in his first and second references correctly cited the plate, he gave as the name Olus vespertilionis, which appears, not in the descriptive text, but as a secondary name on page 413 in the explanation of the plate. Trichosanthes trifoliata Blume was based on Momordica trifoliata Linn., with the addition of Javan specimens. It is barely possible that the Amboina plant is not specifically identical with the Javan one, a point for the future monographer to determine. TRICHOSANTHES ANGUINA Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1008. Cucumis anguinus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1279, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1437 (type!). Petola anguina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 407, t. 1^8. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. There is no doubt, however, as to the identity of Petola anguina with the widely cultivated Trichosanthes anguina Linn. It is to be noted that Cucumis anguinus Linn, was based wholly on the Rumphian reference and published quite independently of Trichosanthes anguina Linn., both appearing in the second edition of the Species Plantarum, the former on page 1437, the latter on page 1432. CUCURBITA Linnaeus CUCURBITA PEPO Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1010 p. p. Pepo indicus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) L^i (type!). Pepo indicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 399, t. 1^5. CUCURBITACEAE 495 Three forms are described by Rumphius, all of which I consider to represent variants of Cucurbita pepo Linn. The figure rep- resents a form of the common squash, but was thought by Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 138, to represent Lagenaria hispida Ser.=Benincasa hispida Cogn., which is figured and described by Rumphius under the name Camolenga (see p. 493). Hasskarl thought that it was pos- sibly intended for Cucurbita cantalupensis Haberle. Pepo in- dicus Burm. does not appear in Index Kewensis. COCCI NEA Wight and Arnott COCCINEA CORDIFOLIA (Linn.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 529. Bryonia cordifolia Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 1012. Bryonia grandis Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 126. Momordica monadelpha Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 708. Vitis alba indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 448, t. 166, /. 1. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections; according to Rumphius it was an introduced and cultivated plant in Amboina. Vitis alba indica Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Bryonia cordifolia Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1279; but later, Mant. 1 (1767) 126, it was placed under Bryonia grandis Linn., which, however, is a synonym of Coccinea cordifolia (Linn.) Cogn. It is cited by Roxburgh in the orig- inal description of Monnordica monadelpha Roxb. ; and by other authors it has been cited under Coccinea indica W. & A., C. loureiriana Roem., and C. grandis Roem., all synonyms of Coccinea cordifolia (Linn.) Cogn. The species is widely dis- tributed in the Indo-Malayan region in cultivation and is prob- ably a native of British India. MOMORDICA (Tournefort) Linnaeus MOMORDICA CHARANTIA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1009. Momordica indica Linn, in Stickm. Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132 (type!). Amara indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 410, t. 151. Amara sinica Rumph. 1. c. 411. Amara sllvestris Rumph. 1. c. 413, t, 152, f. 1? Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 391, on trees near the beach, October 31, 1913, locally known as papari. The reduction of Amara indica Rumph. to Momordica char- ^ntia Linn, is manifestly correct and scarcely needs discussion. ^t is to be noted, however, that the Rumphian figure is the ^^hole basis of Momordica indica Linn., published in 1754, re- Plated in 1759, but which does not appear in subsequent liter- ature; it is not included in Index Kewensis. Amara sinica 496 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Rumph. is manifestly one of the cultivated forms with long fruits. Amara sylvestris may be the wild form with greatly reduced fruits, but there are some points in Rumphius's descrip- tion that militate against this reduction. The figure of the latter is very poor, presenting a habit sketch only, without flowers or fruits. MOMORDICA COCHINCHINENSIS (Lour.) Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 14. Muricia cochinchinensis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 596. Poppya rotunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 414, t. 15S. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. S90, November 29, 1913, climb- ing on trees along small streams near sea level, the fruit orange-red, locally known as pepinyu tikus. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. V (1856) 676, has placed this under Trichosanthes cucumerina Linn. ; but the description, especially of the characteristic bracts and of the flower, is manifestly ap- plicable to Momordica, not to Trichosanthes. Poppya oblonga Rumph., 1. c. 414, is unquestionably also a species of Momordica, from the description; although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 140, suggests that it is Involucaria palmata B.oem.—Trichosan- thes bracteata Voigt. GOODENIACEAE SCAEVOLA Linnaeus SCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS (Mill.) Krause in Engl. Pflanzenreich 54 (1912) 125. Lobelia frutescens Mill. Gard. Diet. ed. 8 (1768) no. 1. Lobelia taccada Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 119, t. 25. Scaevola koenigii Vahl Symb. Bot. 3 (1794) 36. Buglossum litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 116, t. SU- Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 214-, September 18, 1913, on rocks along the seashore, locally known as bapacheda. Buglossum litoreum Rumph. was first reduced by Linnaeus to Lobelia plumieri hinn.^Scaevola plumieri Vahl, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1237, which is a species distinct from Scaevola fru- tescens Krause, not the same as Buglossum litoreum Rumph. Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 178, referred it to Scaevola lobelia Murr., a synonym of S, plumieri Vahl. Other authors have re- duced it as follows : Poiret to Lobelia taccada Gaertn. ; Vahl to Scaevola koenigii Vahl; Roxburgh to Scaevola taccada Roxb., and de Candolle to Scaevola velutina Presl ; all are synonyms o Scaevola frutescens (Mill.) Krause. COMPOSITAE 497 COMPOSITAE VERNON I A Schreber VERNONIA CINEREA (Linn.) Less, in Linnaea 4 (1829) 291. Conyza cinerea Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 862. Senecio amboinlcus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 36, t. i^, /. 2. Amboina, in and about the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. }^26, August 4, 1913, in waste places, along roadsides, on walls, etc. Senecio amboinicus was first reduced by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1213, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1208, to Conyza chine7isis Linn., which is supposed to be Blumea chinen^is (Linn.) DC. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1768) 83, correctly reduced it to Conyza cinerea hinn. =Vernonia cinerea Less. Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 893, places it under his Vernonia linifolia, while de CandoUe, Prodr. 5 (1836) 25, places it under Vernonia leptophylla DC. ; both of these are synonyms of Vernonia cinerea (Linn.) Less. ADENOSTEMMA Forster ADENOSTEMMA LAVENIA (Linn.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. 1 (1891) 304. Verbesina lavenia Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 902. Adenostemma viscosum Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 90. 01 us scrofinum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 34, t. i^, /. 1. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. h27, July 25, 1913, in wet places. Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1208, followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 179, erroneously reduced Olus scrofinum to Conyza cinerea hinn.^V ernonia cinerea Less. The description given by Rumphius is unmis- takably applicable to Adenostemma, while the figure is a fair representation of this common and widely distributed species. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 158, considered that Olus scrofinum album was in all probability Adenostemma viscosum Forst. AGERATUM Linnaeus AGERATUM CONYZOIDES Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 839. Olus scrofinum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 35. Amboina, roadsides in and about the town of Amboina, Robinson PL f^imph. Amb. J^28y August 4, 1913. The description agrees sufficiently well with Ageratum cony- ^oides Linn, to render this determination of Olus scrofinum '^ubrum fairly certain. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 158, has suggested that it may be a species of Conyza (Blumea) or Vernonia. 144971 32 498 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE BLUMEA * de Candolle BLUMEA BALSAM I FERA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 447. Conyza balsamifera Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1208. Conyza odorata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 55, t. 24., f. 1. Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amh, U17 , August 25, 1913, in open woods, altitude about 100 meters. The Rumphian reference given by Linnaeus in the original publication of Conyza balsamifera Linn, is presumably the type of the species. It is the first citation given by Linnaeus, and there is no evidence that he had an actual specimen before him. The species has very generally been correctly interpreted by succeeding authors, Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC. being a rather well-marked and characteristic species of wide Indo- Malayan distribution. Loureiro placed the Rumphian figure under his Baccharis salvia, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 494, but Baccha- ris salvia Lour, is a synonym of Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC. Another synonym is Pluchea balsamifera Less, in Linnaea 6 (1831) 150. It is to be noted that the actual Amboina specimens are much less pubescent than are Indo-Malayan specimens gener- ally placed under Blumea balsamifera DC. ; the leaves are more lobed at the base, as shown in Rumphius's figure, and in aspect approach the Malayan species generally known as Blumea appendiculata (Blume) DC. The involucral bracts, however, are densely pubescent. BLUMEA APPENDICULATA (Blume) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 447. Conyza appendiculata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 895, non Lam. Conyza mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56? Conyza cadaverum Rumph. 1. c? Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. ^16, August 25, 1913, in wet places at an altitude of 100 meters, the plant 1 to 2.5 meters high. The specimen probably represents both Conyza mas and C. cadaverum as described by Rumphius and is the same as the Philippine plant that has been interpreted as Blumea apperi- diculata (Blume) DC. The specific name appendiculata is invalidated by Conyza appendiculata Lam., but no change is made here in consideration of the fact that the status of Blumea appendiculata DC. is very uncertain ; it may prove to be merely a form of Blumea macrophylla (Blume) DC. or of Blumea aromatica (Wall.) DC, or both of these may prove to be but a single species. An examination of the actual types and a critical revision of the entire genus are desirable. *Retained name, Vienna Code; Placus Lour. (1790) is older. COMPOSITAE 499 BLUMEA CHINENSIS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 444. Conyza chinensis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 862. Conyza pubigera Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 113, saltern quoad syn. Rumph.! Sonchus volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 299, t. 103, f. 2. Amboina, Way tommo, PL Rumph. Amb. 4-21, August 17, 1913, in thickets along the river, altitude about 50 meters, flowers yellow. Conyza chinensis Linn, was based solely on a specimen col- lected in China by Toren, and must be interpreted from that specimen. Later, Linnaeus himself referred to it Sonchus volu- hiUs Rumph. ; and, as Blumea chinensis DC. is at present inter- preted, this reduction seems to be correct. At least the Amboina plant is identical with the Philippine and Malayan form that appears in herbaria as Blumea chinensis DC. The reduction was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, but is excluded in the reprint of this work in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. The figure is again cited by Linnaeus, Mant. 1 (1767) 113, under Conyza pubigera Linn.; but the species was based primarily on specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Upsala, and these specimens, in all probability, were not of the same species as the plant Rumphius described and figured. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 485, placed it under his Cacalia procumbens, but Cacalia procumbens Lour, is supposed to be identical with Gynura sarmentosa DC. De Candolle, Prodr. 6 (1837) 298, places it under Gynura sarmentosa (Blume) DC. with the following statement: Icon. Rumph. 5 t. 103, f. 2 nostram plantam non male refert et ideo forte Cacalia procumbens Lour. coch. 2. p. 592 hue referenda? Sonchus volubilis Rumph. is certainly not the same as Gynura mmentosa (Blume) DC. BLUMEA sp. Conyza indica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56? Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. U5, October 19, 1913, in grasslands, altitude about 70 meters. The identity of Conyza indica minor with Blumea is merely possible, the description being too indefinite to warrant a positive identification at this time. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 180, Mentions it under Conyza hirsuta Linn., but it certainly is not this species. It can hardly be Blumea balsamifera DC. as sug- gested by Henschel, and it certainly cannot be Vicoa indica DC. ''^^' attenuata DC. as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel u866) 162. Even if the specimen cited above represents the ^^inphian Conyza indica minor, which is very doubtful, I cannot 500 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE refer it definitely to any species of Blumea, although it doubtless represents some described species of this difficult genus. PLUCHEA Cassini PLUCHEA INDICA (Linn.) Less, in Linnaea 6 (1831) 150. Baccharis indica Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 861. Sonchua volubills javanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 299, t. iO-4, /. i. Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. m, September 25, 1913, along borders of tidal swamps, locally known as biluntas. The Rumphian species was correctly reduced to Baccharis in- dica by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 178; but Loureiro, FL Cochinch. (1790) 495, erroneously referred it to Conyza puhigem Linn., which is a species of Blumea (see p. 499). Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1768) 84, suggested that it might be the same as Cony- za prolifera Lam.=Fernonm cinerea (Linn.) Less.; and, finally, de CandoUe, Prodr. 5 (1836) 320, placed it under Microglossa volubilis DC. Pluchea indica (Linn.) Less, is certainly the correct disposition of Sonchns volubilis javanicus Rumph. and the figure cited above, but Sonchns volubilis Rumph. 1. c. 5 :299, t. 103 y /. 2, is Blumea chinensis DC. ECLIPTA * Linnaeus ECLIPTA ALBA (Linn.) Hassk. PL Jav. Rar. (1848) 528. Verbesina alba Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 902. Ecliptica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 43, t. 18, f. 1. Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. Jf23, July 29 and August 30, 191o. near the town of Amboina, in sago swamps and in wet places, locally known as gandarussa utan. This was erroneously reduced by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 184, to Verbesina biflora Linn. (= Wedelia biflora DC.) , in which he was followed by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 475, and by Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 648. Other names involved are Eclipta erecta Linn., E. prostrata Linn., and E. alba Hassk. var. erecta Hassk., all of which are properly synonyms of Echv^^ alba (Linn.) Hassk. WEDELIA Jacquin WEDELIA BIFLORA (Linn.) DC. in Wight Contrib. (1834) 18. Verbesina biflora Linn. Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1272. ^,^ Verbesina aquatica Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [18] (tyP^' Seruneum aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 423, t. 156, f. 1- ♦Retained name, Brussels Congress; Eiipatoriophalacron Adans. ( is older. COMPOSITAE 501 Amboina, Caju poeti, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. j(^19, August 2, 1913, borders of light forests, ascending to an altitude of about 400 meters. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 73, suggests that Seruneum aqiiatile is nearly allied to Wollastonia strigulosa DC; while Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 142, places it under Wedelia scaberrima DC. I cannot see why the Amboina plant, which certainly represents Seruneum aquatile, should not be referred to the common and widely distributed Wedelia bi flora (Linn.) DC. The forms mentioned by Rumphius, 1. c. 423, 426, as / al- hum, 11 rubrum, and /// album lanuginosum are all apparently referable to Wedelia and may be forms of Wedelia biflora DC. SPILANTHES Jacquin SPILANTHES ACM ELLA (Linn.) Murr. Syst. (1774) 610. Verbesina acmella Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 901. ABCdaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 145, t. 65. Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 418, August 20, 1913, in a sago swamp near the town of Amboina. This common and widely distributed species was unquestion- ably correctly reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1271, to Verbesina acmella Linn. = Spilanthes acmella Murr. Through error it is cited as a synonym of Hedysarum gangeticum Linn. {= Desmodium gangeticum DC.) by Linnaeus in his Systema ed. 10 (1759) 1169. Other names involved, to which ABCdaria has been reduced, are Bidens acmella Lam., Spilan- thes pseudo-acmella Murr., and Spilanthus tinctorius Lour. ; the first two being proper synonyms of Spilanthes acmella Murr., the latter supposed to be Adenostemma viscosum Forst., with which ABCdaria of Rumphius has little in common. BIDENS Linnaeus BIDENS CHINENSIS Willd. Sp. PI. 3 (1804) 1719. Bidens pilosa Linn. var. chinensis Linn. Mant. 3 (1771) 281? Agrimonla molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 38, t. 15, f. 2. Amboina, Batoe merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. J^H, July 30, 1913, in ^ocky soil, altitude about 10 meters. Linnaeus originally reduced Agrimonia molucca Rumph. to ^Mem bipinnata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen Acad. 4 (1759) 134, where it certainly does not belong. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 488, transferred it to Bidens pilosa Linn., a species closely allied to B. chinensis Willd., and one to which Willdenow's species has very generally been reduced ^y most authors. Willdenow cites Agrimonia molucca in the 502 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE original description of Bidens chinensis, this being manifestly the correct disposition of it. De Candolle, Prodr. 5 (1836) 596, placed it with doubt under Bidens wallichii DC, which is a synonym of B, chinensis Willd. ; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 78, placed it under Bidens peduncularis Gaudich. The form described by Miquel under this name is not Gaudichaud's species, but is Bidens chinensis Willd. As noted above Bidens chinensis Willd. has very generally been sunk in B, pilosa Linn., but it is specifically distinct.* The Amboina material has been determined as Bidens chinensis Willd. by Mr. E. E. SherfF, who is making a critical study of the genus. CHRYSANTHEMUM Linnaeus CHRYSANTHEMUM INDICUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 889. Matricaria sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 259, t. 91, f. 1 (incl. / alha, II lutea, III rubra). This widely distributed, cultivated plant is not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure is an excellent represen- tation of one of the commonly cultivated Malayan forms. It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1221, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1253, and this reduction has been followed by all subsequent authors. ARTEMISIA Linnaeus ARTEMISIA VULGARIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 848. Artemisia latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 261, t. 91, /. 2. Artemisia latifolia rubra Rumph. L c. 261? There is no specimen of this widely distributed and well-known species in our Amboina collections. The figure is an excel- lent representation of Artemisia vulgaris. The reduction of the Eumphian figure and description was first made by Burmaii f., FL Ind. (1768) 177, in which he was followed by Loure- iro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 491. Wiildenow, Sp. PI. 3 (1800) 1846, placed it under his Artemisia indica, which he considered to represent a species distinct from the common European Arte- misia vulgaris Linn.; it is, however, a synonym of Artem^^^^^ vulgaris Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 118, suggested that Artemisia latifolia rubra Rumph. might be the same as Artemisia grata Wall. = A. roxburghiana Bess.; the range oi the latter makes this suggested reduction an impossible one. * See Schulz, 0. E. Bidens chinensis (L.) Willd. und verwandte Arten- Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 50 (1914) Suppl. 176-187. COMPOSITAE f03 may be a form of the common Artemisia vulgaris Linn., or it may be an entirely different species. The description is too indefinite to permit of its certain determination. It was not from Amboina, but from a small island, Tagoelanda, near the northern end of Celebes. CART HAM us Linnaeus CARTHAMUS TINCTORIUS Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 830. Cnicus indicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 215, t. 79, /. 2. This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. It is found in scattered cultivation throughout the Malayan region, and Rumphius's figure is a fair representation of this common and well-known plant. Cnicus indicus was first reduced to Carthamus tinctorius by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1202, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 1163, in which he has been followed by numerous other authors. This is unquestionably the correct disposition of the plant figured and described by Rumphius. EMILIA Cassini EMILIA SONCHIFOLIA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 6 (1837) 302. Cacalia sonchifolia Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 835. Sonchus amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 297, t, 103, f. 1. Amboina, Batoe merah and Roemah tiga, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, U^O, July 20, 1913, in rocky and sandy soil, sea level to an altitude of about 15 meters, locally known as buka manis, Sonchus amboinicus Rumph. was first reduced to Cacalia sonchifolia Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1204, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1169, in which he was generally followed by later authors until de Candolle transferred the species to Emilia, In the more recent literature it appears under Emilia sonchifolia DC, to which species it manifestly belongs. CREPIS Linnaeus CREPIS JAPONICA (Linn.) Benth. Fl. Hongk. (1861) 194. Prenanthes japonica Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 107. Olus scrofinum luteum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 35? Amboina, Batoe mera, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. j^25, in ditches, altitude about 5 meters, July 20, 1913. The description given by Rumphius is not sufficient to de- termine whether or not Crepis japonica is the plant intended by ^in^. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 158, has suggested that the description applies to some species of Blumea. The most 504 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE that can be definitely said regarding the Rumphian plant is that it Vas a small composite with yellow flowers and pappiferous achenes. COMPOSITAE ? indet. Pllosella ambolnica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 148. The description is not sufficiently definite to warrant an identi- fication of the plant. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 177, thought that it might be a species of Vernonia. Two forms are described, with blue and with white flowers. SPECIES DESCRIBED OR MENTIONED BY RUMPHIUS THAT CANNOT BE DEFINITELY REFERRED TO THEIR PROPER FAMILIES Below are listed forty-six Rumphian species that cannot, from data at present available, be definitely referred to species de- scribed under the binominal system. Other species of somewhat similar doubtful status occur in the Herbarium Amboinense; but those that can be definitely referred to their proper families, genera, or probable species are discussed under the family, generic, or specific names, as the case may be, in the preceding systematic enumeration. It is very doubtful if many of the species listed below can be definitely determined, yet some of them can be certainly placed through field work carried on with special reference to the native names cited by Rumphius. From a systematic standpoint, however, these remaining doubtful Rumphian species are of no importance, as in no case has a binominal been based on any of the descriptions. Lignum moschatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 41. Under this name three kinds of wood are described. There is no description of the plants themselves. The only suggested reduction is that of Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 146, who quotes Hamilton's opinion that at least one of the species is Limonia acidissima Linn. There is little or no authority for this reduction. Lignum tsjidji Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 50. Under this name a wood is described, which according to Rumphius came from Kwangtung, Cambodia, and Siam. The only suggested reduction is that made by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 146, who referred it to Erythroxylum monogynum Roxb. The range of Roxburgh's species, India and Ceylon, makes this reduction an impossible one. DOUBTFUL SPECIES 505 Pseudo-Sandalum buroense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 55. The description is sufficiently long and detailed, but I am unable to recognize the family to which the plant belongs. It was from Buru, there known as roweyl, lowelle, rawelle, and Uhamalosey. An exploration of Buru will doubtless yield material by which its status can be determined. The other plant described in this chapter, Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense, is Osmoxylon umbelliferum (I^am.) Merr. Jamtsja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 17. The description is of the wood only. No data are given by which it can be identified. Metrosideros molucca femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25, t. 12. I do not recognize the group to which this species belongs, although the description is good, as is also the figure. It is not represented in our Amboina collections. It has nothing to do with the two other forms described in this chapter, of which Metrosideros molucca mas is Homalium foetidum Benth., and Metrosideros molucca fungosa is apparently Harpullia arborea Radlk. Morfalla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 46. A tree from the Sula Islands and Coram, briefly described. From the digitate leaves Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49, suggested that it might belong in the Araliaceae. The wood characters given by Rumphius make this reduction an impos- sible one. The flowers and fruits were unknown to Rumphius. Corius mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 48, t. 27, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49, quotes Teysmann's opinion that this may be a species of Tanghinia=^Cerbera. This sug- gested reduction is certainly incorrect. The description is ample, and the figure presents a characteristic plant that should be easily recognized when once collected in Amboina. The native names cited are ekora, ekore, caju kore, aykole, and kole. It probably belongs in the A'pocyivaceae, Corius femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 48. This description, forming a part of the same chapter as Covins mas, applies to a quite different form. No suggestion has been made as to its status, and I do not recognize the group to which it belongs. Carbonaria mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 52, t. 29. A species of doubtful status. Thouars, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. (1813) 727, placed it under Monimia, where is certainly does 506 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE not belong. Hasskarl thought that it belonged in Elaeocarpus while Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 50, placed it in Aglaia, If an Aglaia, which is very improbable, it belongs in the group of very few species with simple leaves. It cannot possibly be an Elaeocarpus. The figure represents a characteristic species, and it should be readily recognized when once collected in Amboina. Carbonaria femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 53. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 50, has suggested that this may be a species of Elaeocarpus, There is nothing in the de- scription to indicate that this reduction is the correct disposition of it. Carbonaria altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 54. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 727, thought that this might be some species of Monimia; it possibly belongs in the Monimiaceae, The native names cited are hanet and nlit halewan. The form described in the same chapter as angusti- folia may belong in the same group as Carbonaria altera, what- ever this may prove to be. Carbonaria altera litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 55. Undeterminable from any data given by Rumphius. Possibly in the same group as Carbonaria altera Rumph. Mangium si I vest re Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 57, t. 31. This has been considered by several authors as possibly re- presenting a species of Garcinia; while Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 154, placed it, with doubt, under Mangifera laxiflora Desr., where it certainly does not belong. The figure looks suspiciously like Buchanania arborea Blume, and the species may ultimately prove to be a Buchanania. The description of the fruits, however, does not at all apply to Buchanania, although the figure of them conforms well to those of this genus. It is possible that the description is a mixture of two different species. Buchanania amboinensis Miq., represented by Rel. Robins. 1776, 1777, should be compared with this. Lignum sal is minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 61. Undeterminable from any data given by Rumphius. The description includes data regarding the habit of the plant, its leaves, and its wood, with no data regarding the flowers or the fruits. The native names cited are aytassi, aytassi laun mau% and aytassi kitsjil. DOUBTFUL SPECIES 507 Arbor facum minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 79, t. 51. The description is very short, and the figure presents merely a leafy branch. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 53, placed it in the Sapotaceae; but there is no warrant for this reduction. Cauda felis saxatilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 84. Undeterminable from the description alone. The species has nothing to do with the other forms described in this chapter, which pertain to the genus Acalypha. Kowacki( Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 91. The description is very brief and applies chiefly to the vege- tative characters of the plant. It is compared with Pulasarius arbor, described in the same chapter, which is Lepiniopsis ter- natensis Valet. Its status is quite undeterminable. Arbor palorum nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 99, t. 66. Unrecognizable, yet the figure represents a sufficiently charac- teristic plant, which should be readily determinable when once collected in Amboina. Vertifolia alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 100. Under Vertifolia Rumphius described two forms, V, alba and F. rubra, and figured one (t 67), but did not indicate to which of the two the figure pertained. Our Amboina material shows conclusively that the figure belongs with Vertifolia rubra, which is Perrottetia moluccana (Blume) Loesen. ; see p. 335. Hass- karl, apparently judging chiefly from the figure, thought that the species might belong in the Euphorbiaceae, while Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 55, de- finitely placed it in Ehretia, where it manifestly does not belong. Vertifolia alba, as described, is entirely different from V, rubra, and its status is undeterminable from any data at present available. Olus catappanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 182. The status of this form is unrecognizable from the data given by Rumphius. The form very briefly described in the same chapter as Olus catappanicum aliud may be a Barringtonia. "Tanarius major II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 192. Undeterminable. The other form described in this chapter, and of which a figure is given, is Schizomeria serrata Hochr. ^aun parawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 203. This was from Batavia, Java. It is probably some rutaceous plant, as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 67, ^nd is possibly a species of Clausena, 508 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Frutex carbonari us I albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126, t. 62. The figure is rather characteristic, but might represent either a rubiaceous or a melastomataceous plant. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 85, thought that it might be a species of Marumia; while Teysmann, as quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in the Rubiaceae, Its status cannot be definitely determined with- out more material from Amboina. The same name, without description, is given by Rumphius Herb. Amb. 3: 33. Frutex carbonarius II ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126. Perhaps a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by Hasskarl. Frutex carbonarius latifollus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127. Probably a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by Hasskarl. Frutex carbonarius asper Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127. Probably a species of the Melastomataceae. Hasskarl, Neue Schllissel (1866) 85, suggested that it might be a Rhodamnia, of the Myrtaceae, Frutex cerasiformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 134, t. 68. The figure represents a very characteristic species, which, however, I do not recognize. It has much the appearance of Mimusops, but the description does not conform to this genus. Limonelius litoreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 24. Undeterminable from the very brief description given by Rumphius. Sinapister Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 73, t. S9, f. 1. Undeterminable from data at present available. The draw- ing presents a leafy branch with mature and juvenile leaves, but no flowers or fruits. Sinapister minor described in the same chapter may or may not belong to the same genus, whatever this may prove to be. Funis butonicus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 77, t. 4i, /. 1. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 97, considered this to be a species of Artabotrys, but the special characters of Artabotrys are entirely wanting in both the de- scription and the figure. I do not recognize the group to which the form figured belongs. Serratula amara parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82. Undeterminable from the description alone. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 98, thought it was a scandent species of Compositae. DOUBTFUL SPECIES 509 Funis pinguis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 83. Hasskarl thought this was a species of Euphorbiaceae. The description is not sufficiently definite to warrant a guess as to its identity. Blitum brasilianum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 233. The brief discussion probably applies to a species of Amaran- thus, Herba timoris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 462. This small herb is not determinable from the brief description given by Rumphius. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 147, placed it under Callitriche verna Linn., to which it cannot pos- sibly be referred. Whatever else it may be, it cannot be a Callitriche, Aylll in Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 34. Undeterminable from the brief description given by Rumphius. It has nothing to do with the other plant described in this chapter, Ophiocolla altera, which is P sender anthemum curtatum Merr. Radix etter Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 6, f. J^. The description is inadequate, while the figure presents only a leafy branch and the roots. It may possibly be a species of Connarus, The plant was not from Amboina, but from Timor, Etter, and Kisser. Cortex acris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 9. A tree, the flowers and fruits not described. The plant was from Ceram, there known as sapela and appacau, from which it may later be possible to determine the status of the plant described. Camean Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 14, t. 8, f, 1. This possibly belongs to the Sapindaceae; Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, placed it in Evodia, where it can scarcely belong. The tree was known in Amboina as camean. Ay assa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 20. The description is suggestive of the Sapindaceae, but is scarce- ly definite enough to warrant a reduction of Ay assa at the Pi'esent time. It has been referred to Tetracera assa DC, and in fact the specific name of that species seems to have been derived from Ay assa Rumph. It has, however, nothing what- ever to do with Tetracera, the description not applying in any particular. It may prove to be an Evodia, of the Rutaceae. 510 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Lignum vinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 21. The material that Rumphius had was from Rotte, an island southeast of Timor, the plant there being known as caju larat or caju laro. The only possible way of determining its status is through the native name and uses of the plant. The plant itself is not described, the data given by Rumphius applying chiefly to its uses. Pangel boaja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22. The material was from Bali. Undeterminable from the data given by Rumphius. Stercus squillarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22. The status of this plant cannot be determined from the data given by Rumphius. A further exploration of Amboina may yield material by which it can be determined. Nanium calapparium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 55, t, 23, /. 2. The figure presents only a leafy branch, the drawing being rather crude. There is nothing in the description by which the proper place of the plant described can be determined. Malum aruanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 55, t. 2^, /. 1. This plant was from the Aru Islands, there known as caim gulur. It should be readily determined from a study of botanical material from that region, as from the description it must be a very characteristic species. The figure is very crude and presents only a branchlet with four alternate, oblong leaves. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 191, suggested that it might be a Hydnocarpus, Caju gora aruana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 56, t. 24, /. 2. There is no description, and the figure, which is very crude, presents only a leafy branchlet. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, thought that it might be a species of Uvaria, There is no reason for considering that this suggested reduction is correct. Scrotum cussi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 59, t. 26, f. 2, The status of this plant probably can be determined when it is once collected in Amboina, as the figure is fairly good, and the description is ample. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 192, thought that it might belong in the Apocynaceae, a reduction that I consider to be an impossible one from the data given by Rumphius. SEQUENCE OF SPECIES IN RUMPHIUS'S HERBA- RIUM AMBOINENSE WITH THEIR BINOMIAL EQUIVALENTS This list of Rumphian species is presented in order to make the present work more complete in itself. The list is arranged as the names appear in the Herbarium Amboinense, with the page and the plate references added, with also the binomial equiv- alent for each species as determined in the preceding systematic enumeration. The Rumphian names are in general those used by Hasskarl, but I have not thought it necessary to give the native names, which are often included by Rumphius in his designations. VOLUME I Palma indica major: calappa 1-25, t. l-'3 = Cocos nucifera Linn. (Palmae) . Pinanga (incl. alba et nigra) 26, t. Jf—Areca catechu Linn. {Palmae), Pinanga calapparia 2S= A ctinorhytis calapparia H. WendL & Drude (Palmae) . Pinanga silvestris globosa 38, t. 5, /. 1—Calyptrocalyx spicatus Blume (Palmae) . Pinanga silvestris glandiformis I 38, t. 6=Areca glandiformis Lam. (Palmae). Pinanga silvestris glandiformis 11 ^9 = Pinanga sp. (Palmae). Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis 40, t. 5, f. 2 = Pinanga globulifera Merr. (Palmae) . Pinanga silvestris e Buro 41 =Mischophloeus paniculata Scheff. (Palmae). Pinanga silvestris saxatilis 42, t. 7=Drymophloeus sp. (Palmae). Saribus 42, t. 8=Livistona rotundifolia Mart. {Palmae). Licuala arbor 44, t. 9=Licuala rumphii Blume (Palmae). Lontarus domestica 45, t. 10—Borassus flabellifer Linn. (Palmae). Lontaro simile lignum h2—Eusideroxylon zwageri T. & B. (Lauraceae) . \ Lontarus silvestris I 53, t. ll=:Corypha utan Lam. (Palmae). Untarus silvestris e Philipp. M — Corypha elata Roxb. (Palmae). Lontarus silvestris s. cabang ^b = Corypha gehanga Blume (—C. elata Roxb.?) (Palmae). Lontarus silvestris altera 56, t. 12—Pholidocarpiis ihur Blume (Palmae). 3lnia indica vinaria 57, t. 13=Arenga pinnata Merr. (Palmae). ^fbor tsjang QS—Livistona sp, (Palmae). ^sguaster major 64, t. l^=:Caryota rumphiana Mart. {Palmae). 3guaster minor 67, t. 15=:Saguaster olivaeformis Mart. (Palmae). ^''aile QS=:Drymophloeus appendiculatus Becc. (Palmae). ^ypa 69, t. 16=Nipa fruticans Wurmb (Palmae). ^^9us genuina 72, 75, t. 17, 18=:Metroxylon sagu Rottb. (Palmae). 3gus genuina II 75=Metroxylon micranthum Mart. ( = ? M. sagu Rottb.) (Palmae). 511 512 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Sagus sllvestris lb=Metroxylon silvestre Mart. ( = ? M. sagu Rottb.) (Palmae). Sagus longispinus lb=Metroxylon longispinum Mart, ( = ? M. sagu Rottb.) (Palmae). Sagus laevls 16=Metroxylon laevis Mart. ( = ? M. sagu Rottb.) {Palmae). Sagus filarius 84, t. 19=Pigafettia filifera Merr. (Palmae). Wanga Sb=Pigafettia elata H. Wendl. (Palmae). Bissula 85=Livistona ? bissula Mart. (Palmae). Olus calappoides 86, t. 22, 23 — Cycas rumphii Miq. (Cycadaceae) . 01 us calappoides 11 e Celebes 87, t. 20, 21=:Cycas rumphii Miq. [Cyca- daceae). Arbor calappoides sinensis 92, t. 2I^ = Cycas revoluta Thunb. (Cycadaceae). Manga domestica (incl. 1, 2, 3, 6) 93, t. 25, 26 = Mangifera iyidica Linn, (Anacardiaceae) . Manga domestica 4 minor d4:=Mangifera m,inor Blume (Anacardiaceae). Manga domestica 5 si mi arum 94=Mangifera laurina Blume (Anacar- diaceae) . Manga sllvestris 97, t. 27=Mangifera utana Ham. (Anacardiaceae). Manga sllvestris e Banda 9S=Mangifera tapia Ham. (Anacardiaceae). Manga foetida 98, t. 28 = Mangifera foetida Lour. (Anacardiaceae). Manga foetida II s. wan! 99=:Mangifera caesia Jack (Anacardiaceae). Durio 99, t. 29 — Durio zibethinus Murr. (Bombacaceae) . Saccus arboreus major 104, t. 30 =.Arto carpus integra (Thunb.) Merr. (Moraceae) . Saccus arboreus minor 107, t. 31=Artocarpus champeden Spreng. (Mor- aceae). Caju bandaa 109 Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae) . Soccus lanosus 110, t. 32— Artocarpus communis Forst. (Moraceae). Soccus granosus 112, t. 33= Artocarpus communis Forst. (Moraceae). Soccus sllvestris 114, t. 3 J^= Artocarpus elastica Reinw. (Moraceae). Soccus sllvestris li lib = Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae). Prunum stellatum 115, t. 35=zAverrhoa carambola Linn. (Oxalidaceae). Blimbingum teres 118, t. 36=Averrhoa bilimbi Linn. (Oxalidaceae). Jambosa domestica 121, t. 37=Eugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae). Jambosa domestica 11 minor 122 = Eugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae)- Jambosa domestica rosacea 122=Eugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae)- Jambosa domestica calapparia 122=Eugenia malaccensis Linn. {Myr- taceae). Jambosa rosacea 12S=:Eugenia jambos Linn. (Myrtaceae). Jambosa nigra 125, t. 38, f. l=:Eugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae)- Jambosa aquea 126, t. 38, f. 2=Eugenia aqiiea Burm. f. (Myrtaceae). Jambosa sllvestris alba 127, t. 39=:Eugenia sp. aff. jambos Linn. {Mf- taceae). Jambosa sllvestris parvifolia 129, vol. 2: t. ^0*=:Eugenia javanica Lam (Myrtaceae). Jambosa sllvestris ayer utan 129=:Eugenia stipularis Miq. (Myrtaceae)- Jambosa ceramica 130, t. j^l=Eugenia cumini Merr. (Myrtaceae). Jambolana 131, t. 42 = Eugenia cumini Merr. (Myrtaceae). Mangostana 132, t. A3-=Garcinia mangostana Linn. (Guttiferae). Mangostana celebica 134, t. H-=Garcinia celebica Linn. (Guttiferae)- * Plate 40 is interchanged between Volumes I and IL SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME I 513 Arbor mundo lSb = Garcinia dulcis Kurz (Guttiferae) . Anona 135, t. Jf5z=.Annona reticulata Linn. {Annonaceae) . Khi ISl = Diospyros kaki Linn. {Ebenaceae) . Anona tuberosa 138, t. Jf6—Annona squamosa Linn. {Annonaceae). Cujavus domestica 140, t. j^7—Psidium guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae) . Cujavus agrestis 142, t. 48=Psidiuni guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae). Cujavus silvestris 14:S=Psidium guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae). Cujavillus 145, t. 49 — Psidiuin cujavillus Burm. f. (Myrtaceae). Papaja mas et femlna 145, t. 50, 51=Carica papaya Linn. (Caricaceae) . Papaja silvestris 149, t. 53, f. 1—Polyscias nodosa Seem. (Araliaceae) . Papaja silvestris minor 150, t. 53, f. 2 — Jagera serrata Radlk. (Sapin- daceae) . Papaja litorea 150, .t. 52z=zSchefflera sp. (Brassaia littorea Seem.!) (Ara- liaceae). Lansium 151, t. 5^=:Lansium domesticum Correa (Meliaceae) . Lansium silvestre 153, t. 55=Aglaia silvestris Merr. (Meliaceae). Lansium montanum 154, t. 56=Aglaia sp. (Meliaceae). Cussambium 154, t. 57= Schleicher a oleosa (Lour.) Merr. (Sapindaceae) . Linkeng W7 =Euphoria longana Lam. (Sapindaceae). Pomum draconum 157, t. 58=Dracontomelum mangiferum Blume (Anacar- diaceae) . Pomum draconum silvestre 159, t. 59=zDracontomelum silvestre Blume (Anacardiaceae) . Condondum 161, t. 60=Spondias dulcis Forst. (Anacardiaceae). Condondum malaccense 162, t. 61=:Spondias pinnata Kurz (Anacar- diaceae) . Cynomorium 163, t. 62 = Cynometra cauliflora Linn. (Leguminosae) . Cynomorium silvestre 167, t. 63 = Cynometra rantiflora Linn. (Legumi- nosae). Sandoricum domesticum 167, t. 6j^=Sandoricum koetjape Merr. (Meliaceae) . Gajanus 170, t. 65 z=z I no car pus edulis Forst. (Leguminosae). Atunus 171, t. 6 6 :=zP armarium glaberrimum Hassk. (Rosaceae) . Vidoricum domesticum ll^znGarcinia sp. (Guttiferae) . Vidoricum silvestre 173, t. 67=Meliaceae indet. Catappa domestica 175, t. 68 = Terminalia catappa Linn. (Comhretaceae) . Catappa silvestris litorea nS=Terminalia catappa Linn. (Comhretaceae) . Catappa silvestris altera nb = Terminalia catappa Linn. (Comhretaceae). Cassuvlum 177, t. 69=:Anacardium occidentale Linn. (Anacardiaceae). Cassuvium silvestre 179, t. 70= Seme carpus cassuvium Roxb. (Anacar- diaceae). Cassuvlum silvestre p. p. (e Tern ate) 180 = Seme car jows forstenii Blume {Anacardiaceae) . Cnemon domestica mas 181, t. 72 = Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae) . • Gnemon domestica femlna 181, t. 71=Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae). Qiemon silvestris 183, t. 73 = Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae). '^ofunga (incl. mas et femlna) 185, t. 7U, 75=:Moringa oleifera Lam. iMoringaceae). ^uria 188, t. 76=:Seshania grandiflora Pers. (Leguminosae). ^uria minor 190, t. 77=Seshania grandiflora Pers. (Leguminosae). Cius album domesticum 191, t. 78 = Pisonia alba Span. (Nyctaginaceae) . ^'"s album insulare 193, t. 79, f. l=Pisonia grandis R. Br. (Nyctagi- naceae). 144971 33 514 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Sajor volubllls 194, t. 79, f. 2=:Pluckenetia voluhilis Sm. (Euphorbiaceae). Eriophorus javana 194, t. 80=iCeiba pentandra Gaertn. (Bombacaceae) Bilacus 197, t. 81=zAegle marmelos Correa (Rutaceae). Bilacus taurinus 199 =:Aegle marmelos Correa (Rutaceae), Bilacus amboinensis sMvestrls 200, t, 82=1 (sub Aegle, Rutaceae). VOLUME II Caryophyllum 1, t. l=Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myrtaceae). Caryophyllum regium 10, t. 2=Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myrtaceae). Caryophyllum silvestre 12, t. S= Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myr- taceae). Nux myristlca 14, L 4=Myristica fragrans Houtt. (Myristicaceae) . Nux myristica mas 24, t. 5=Myristica fatua Houtt. (Myristicaceae), Palala secunda 26, t. 6=Horsfieldia sylvestris Warb. (Myristicaceae). Palala tertia 27, t. 7=Horsfieldia sp. (Myristicaceae). Palala quanta 27, t. 8=Hor8fieldia canariformis Merr. (Myristicaceae). Palala quinta 28, t. 9 = Gymnacranthera zippeliana Warb. (Myristicaceae). Palala sexta 2S=Knema tomentella Warb. (Myristicaceae). Agallochum s. calambac 29=Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. (Thymelaeaceae) . Agailochum secundarium coinamense 34=Agm?arm m,alaccensis Lam, ( Thymelaeaceae) . Agallochum secundarium malaicense 35, t. 10=:Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. ( Thymelaeaceae) . Agallochum spurium 40 = Gonystylus bancanus BailL (Gonystylaceae) . Agallochum spurium album 40=? (sub Gony stylus, Gonystylaceae). Agallochum spurium ill Al=:Excoecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphorbiaceae). Lignum moschatum 41=? Sandalum 42, t. ll=Sant alum album Linn. (Santalaceae) , Sandalum rubrum 47 =:Ptero car pus santalinus Linn. (Leguminosae) . Lignum tsjidji 50=? Pseudo-sandal um amboinense 54, t. 12 = Osmoxylon umbelliferum Merr. (Araliaceae) . Pseudo-sandalum buronense 55 = ? Lignum papuanum 57=? Altingia excelsa Noronha (Hainamelidaceae) . Lignum papuanum II 58=? (sub Altingia excelsa Noronha). Lignum papuanum III 58=? Caju galedupa 59, t. 13=Sindora galedupa Prain (Leguminosae). Cortex oninius 62=:Massoia aromatica Becc. (Lauraceae). Cortex oninius II 62= ? Massoia aromatica Becc. (Lauraceae). Cortex caryophylloides albus 65, t. l^ = Cinnam>omum culilawan Blume (Lauraceae) . Cortex caryophylloides ruber 6Q=:Cinnamomum culilawan Blume var ?^^6rwm Blume (Lauraceae). Culltlawan ex Papuan is insulis 66=:Cinnamomum xanthoneurum Blume (Lauraceae) . Sintoc 69 = Cinnamomum javanicum Blume (Lauraceae). Lauraster amboinensis maxima 70, t. 15 = Cryptocarya sp. (Lqburaceae) • Lauraster amboinensis minor 70=? Cryptocarya sp. (Lauraceae). Arbor alba major 72, t. 16, 17, f. l^Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Ml/?'- taceae). Caju-kelam 14=Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Myrtaceae). Arbor koring 74=? Dipterocarpus sp. (Dipterocarpaceae) . SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME II 515 Arbor alba minor 76, L 17, f. 2=Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Myrtaceae). IVlyrtus amboinensis 77, t. 18=:Leptospermum flavescens Sm. (Myrtaceae), Pigmentaria 79, t. 19=Bixa orellana Linn. (Bixaceae) miliaria 81, t. 20~Dysoxylum euphlebium Merr. (Meliaceae) . Cassia fistula 83, t. 21=Cassia fistula Linn. (Leguminosae) , Canna fistula javanica 86 = Gassm javanica Linn. (Leguminosae). Cassia fistula silvestris 88, t. 22 = Cassia javanica Linn. (Leguminosae) , Andawas S9=zWrightia sp. (Apocynaceae) . Biialangh 89 = ? Leguminosae. Ke ule 89=? Leguminosae. Tamarindus 90, t. 23 = Tamarindus indica Linn. (Leguminosae). Tamarlndus altera 9S=Dialum indum Linn. (Leguminosae). Malum granatum 94, t. 24, f. l=Punica granatum Linn. (Punicaceae) . Limo decumanus 96, t. 2Uy f- 2 = Citrus maxima Merr. (Rutaceae) . Malum citrium 99, t. 25 = Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Limo tuberosus 101, t. 26, f. 1— Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae). Limo ventricosus 102, t. 26, f. 2 = Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Limo unguentarius 103 = Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae). Limo agrestis 104, t. 27=Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae). Limo taurinus 10b = Citrus bergamia Risso (Rutaceae). Limo ferus 106, t. 26, f. 3, t. 28 — Citrus obversa Hassk. (Rutaceae). Limonellus 107, t. 29 = Citrus aurantifolia Swingle (Rutaceae). Limonellus fructu acutissimo 108, t. 29, f. A = Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Limonellus aurarius 109, t. SO=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Limonellus madurensis 110, t. 31—Fortunella japonica Swingle (Rutaceae). Limonellus angulosus 110, t. 32~Merope angulata Swingle (Rutaceae). Aurantium acidum I t. 33=zCitrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae). Aurantium acidum II 112 = Citrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae). Aurantium acidum Ml 112 = Citrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae). Aurantium sinense 113, t. 3 Jf — Citrus nobilis Lour. (Rutaceae). Aurantium sinense II 113 — Citrus nobilis Lour. (Rutaceae). Aurantium verrucosum 115, t. 35z=.Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Aurantium verrucosum e Banda llQ = Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). Aurantium pumilum madurense llQ = Citrus sp. (Rutaceae). I^alum Indicum 117, t. 36—Zizyphus jujuba Lam. (Rhamnaceae) . Vidara llttorea 119, t. 37=Ximenia americana Linn. (Olacaceae). Lignum colubrinum timorense 121, t. 38=Strychnos muricata Kostel. (Lo- ganiaceae) . Radix delparae 124, t, 39 — Gmelina villosa Roxb. (Verbenaceae). •^adix deiparae spuria 125, Vol. 1: t. /i.O* = Gmelina villosa Roxb. (Verbe- naceae). Rex amaroris 129, t. 41=Soulamea amara Lam. (Simarubaceae) . ^nisum moluccanum 132, t. Jt.2 — Fagara avicennae DC. (Rutaceae). Anisifojium 133, t. 43=:Feronia limonia Swingle (Rutaceae), Saponaria lS4c=Sapindus rarak DC. (Sapindaceae) . ^harmacum sagueri 136, t. ^Jf — Garcinia picrorhiza Miq. (Guttif erae) . ^harmacum limonicum 137, t. JfJf, f. B = Garcinia picrorhiza Miq. var. liman- orhiza Boerl. (Guttif erae) . ^apraria 139 = Garuga abilo Merr. (Burseraceae) . ^ongium 140, t. 45=Dillenia elliptica Thunb. (Dilleniaceae) . * Plate 40 is interchanged between Volumes I and 11. 516 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Sanglus mas et femina 142, t. ^6z=Dillenia serrata Thunb. (Dilleniaceae) . Canarium vulgare 145, 146, t 47=:Canarium commune Linn. (Burseraceae) Canarlum vulgare majus rotundum 146, t. U7, f. E~Canarium commimf Linn., var. (Burseraceae). Canarium vulgare parvum oblongum 146, L U7 , f. Fz=zCanarium commwie Linn., var. (Burseraceae). Canarium vulgare parvum rotundum 146, t. 47, f. G = Canarium commune Linn., var. (Burseraceae). Canarium zephyrlnum 151, t. 48 = Canarium zephyrinum Blume (Burse- raceae). Arbor zeylanica lb3 = Canarium zeylanicum Blume (Burseraceae). Canarium sinense I 154 = Canarmm pimela Koenig (Burseraceae). Canarium sinense 11 1M=: Canarium album Riiusch (Burseraceae), Canarium sinense ill 154:=Pimela caryophyllacea Blume = Canarium sp, (Burseraceae) . Canarium silvestre II 155, t. 4-9 = Canarium sylvestre Gaertn. (Burse- raceae.) Canarium odoriferum leve 156, t. 50 — Canarium halsamiferum Willd. (Bur- seraceae,) Canarium odoriferum leve, var. lb6 = Canarium sp. (Canariopsis paucijuga Miq.) (Burseraceae). Canarium odoriferum liirsutum 157, t. 51~Canarium hirsutum Willd, (Burseraceae) . Dammara nigra 160, t. 52 — Canarium acutifolium Merr. (Burseraceae). Dammara nigra II femina 161=zCanarium sp. (Burseraceae). Dammara nigra legitlma 162, t. 5S = Canarium legitimum Blume (Burse- raceae), Nanarium minimum s. oleosum 162, t. 5Ji, = Canarium oleosum Engl. (Burse- raceae). Canarium decumanum 166, t. 55=Canarium decumanum Gaertn. (Burse- raceae). Dammara selanica mas 168, t. 56=Shorea selanica Blume (Dipterocar- paceae). Dammara selanica femina lQ9 = Shorea selanica Blume var. latifolia Blume (Dipterocarpaceae) . Dammara leucomelaena 172 = ? Dammara alba 174, t. 57=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae) . Dammara alba mas 174=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae). Dammara alba femina llh~Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae). Dammara alba regia 178=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae). Dammara celebica 119 = Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae). Camirlum 180, t. 58=Aleurites moluccana Willd. (Euphorbiaceae) . Panglum 182, t. 59=Pangium edule Reinw. (Flacourtiaceae) . Fructus musculiformis 184, t. 60=Neuburgia musculiformis Miq. (Ap^^' naceae). Ampacus latifolia 186, t. 61=Evodia latifolia DC. (Rutaceae). Ampacus angustlfolla 188, t. 62~Evodia amboinensis Merr. (Rutaceae)- Ampacus litorea I 188= Allophyllus timorensis Blume (Sapindaceae) > Ampacus litorea angustifolia minor 189 = Allophyllus ternatus Radlk. (^ pindaceae) . Flos cuspidum 189, t. 63z=zMimusops elengi Linn. (Sapotaceae) . Tanjonus litorea 193, t. 64=Mimusops parvifolia R. Br. (Sapotaceae)- SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME II 517 Cananga 195, t. 65=Canangium odoratum BailL (Annonaceae) , Cananga silvestris I 197, t. 66, f, l — Goniothalamus sp. (Annonaceae) , Cananga silvestris II 198, t. 66, f. 2 = Polyalthia sp. (Uvaria ligularis Lam.) (Annonaceae). Cananga silvestris Ml latifolia 19S=Melodorum latifolium Hook. f. & Th. (Annonaceae) . Sampacca 199, t. 67=:Michelia champaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae) , Sampacca 11 parvifolia 200z=:Michelia parvifolia DC.=:Michelia champaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae) . Sampacca III coerulea 200=Michelia coerulea DC.=M. champaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae) . Sampacca IV alba 200=Michelia alba DC. (Magnoliaceae). Sampacca silvestris 202, t. 68=Michelia tsiampaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae) . Sampacca silvestris luteo-viridis 202=Michelia tsiampaca Linn. (Magno- liaceae). Arbor violaria 203=? (sub Talauma, Magnoliaceae) . Sampacca montana 204, t. 69 = Talauma rumphii Blume (Magnoliaceae). Lingoum rubrum 205, t. 70 =Ptero carpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae) , Lingoum II album 20Q =Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae) . Lingoum III rubrum 209 =Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae). Lingoum saxatile 210 =zPterocar pus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae). Lingoum saxatile (e Ceram) 210=? Pterocarpus papuanus F. Muell. (Le- guminosae). Bintangor maritima 211, t. 71—Calophyllum inophyllum Linn. (Gutti- ferae). Bintangor silvestris 216, t. 72 = Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f. (Guttiferae), Bintangor montana II 217 = Calophy Hum soulattri Burm. f. (Guttiferae). Bintangor montana Ml 211 = Calophyllum sp. (Guttiferae). Novella 218, t. 7S=Hihiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae). Novella repens 222, t. 73, f. A=Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae). Novella rubra 22S=Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae). Novella litorea 224, t. 7J^ = Thespesia populnea Corr. (Malvaceae). Novella nigra 226, t. 75 — Cordia subcordata Lam. (Boraginaceae) . Novella cinerea 227=? Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae). Gelala litorea 230, t. 76=Erythrina variegata Linn. var. orientalis Merr. {Leguminosae) . Geiala litorea (e Java et e China) 232, 232=? Erythrina variegata Linn. var. orientalis Merr. (Leguminosae). ^clala alba 234, t. 77 z=: Erythrina variegata Linn. (Leguminosae), ^clala alba (e Java) 2^4= Erythrina variegata Linn. (Leguminosae). Gelala aquatica 235, t. 78=Erythrina fusca Lour. (Leguminosae). ^'"bor excoecans 237, t. 79, 80 = Excoecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphorbia- ceae). ^rbop excoecans M variegata 239 =Excoecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphor- biaceae). ^''bor lactaria 243, t. 81=Cerbera manghas Linn. (Apocynaceae) . '-'gnum scholare 246, t. 82=Alstonia scholaris (Linn.) R. Br. (Apocy- naceae). ^''bor bindaus 248=? ''^0'* pinguis 249, t. 83=Pimeleodendron amboinicum Hassk. (Euphor- biaceae) . ^^^3 cambodja 2bl = Garcinia cambogia Desr. (Guttiferae). 518 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Lactaria salubris 255, t. 8^=:Ochrosia oppositifolia K. Sch. (Apocynaceae). Arbor regis 257, t. 85=Endospermum moluccanum Becc. (Euphorbiaceae) . Arbor vernlcls 259, t. 86 — Gluta benghas Linn. (Anacardiaceae) . Arbor toxicaria 263, t. 87=:Antiaris toxicaria Lesch. (Moraceae) . Arbor toxicaria femina 264:z=zAntiaris toxicaria Lesch. (Moraceae). Upas alterum 264:=Strychnos sp. (Loganiaceae) . VOLUME III Ebenus 1, t. l=:Maba buxifolia Pers. (Ebenaceae) . Ebenus e Madagascar 6=? Maba sp. (Ebenaceae). Ebenus molucca 6, t. 2=Diospyros maritima Blume (Ebenaceae) . Ebenus alba 8, t. 3~1 Diospyros sp. (Ebenaceae). Arbor nigra parvifolia 10, 11, t. 4, /. ^, t. 5=Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae) . Arbor nigra latifolia 10=:? Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae). Arbor nigra maculosa 12, t. Uy /. i = ? Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae). Hebenaster 13, t. 6— Diospyros ebeneum Keen. (Ebenaceae) . Hebenaster amalyensis 15=Diospyros sp. (Ebenaceae). Metrosideros vera parvifolia 16, t. 7 =^ Metrosideros vera Roxb. (Myrtaceae) Metrosideros vera latifolia 16= Metrosideros vera Roxb. (Myrtaceae) . Jamtsia 17=? Metrosideros macassarensis 19, t. 8=Mimusops kauki Linn. (Sapotaceae) • Nani hua 21, t. 9=zBaccaurea nanihua Merr. (Euphorbiaceae) . Metrosideros amboinensis mas 21, t. 10=Intsia bijuga O. Kuntze (Legu- minosae). Metrosideros amboinensis femina 22=? Intsia sp. (Leguminosae) . Metrosideros molucca mas 25, t. ll=Homalium foetidum Benth. (Flacour- tiaceae). Metrosideros molucca femina 25, t. 12 = 'i Metrosideros molucca fungosa 25=zHarpullia arborea (Blanco) Radlk. (Sapindaceae) . Metrosideros spuria I mas 26, t. 13, f. A=Artocarpus fretissii T. & B. (Moraceae) . Metrosideros spuria II femina 27, t. IS, f. B = Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae). Coffassus mas 28, t. IJf, f. A = Vitex cofassus Reinw. (Verbenaceae). Coffassus albus (et femina) 2S = Vitex cofassus Reinw. (Verbenaceae) . Cofassus citrlna 30, t. 15=Alstonia subsessilis Miq. (Apocynaceae) . Dabanus lapidea 31, t. 17=Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae) . Dabanus rubra 82, t. 16=:Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae). Dabanus mollis S2=Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae). Jatus 34, t. 18 = Tectona grandis Linn. f. (Verbenaceae) . Samama 36, t. 19z=:Anthocephalus macrophyllus Havil. (Rubiaceae). TIttlus rubra 38, t. 20 = Vitex moluccana Blume (Verbenaceae). Tittius alba 38 = ytfea; moluccana Blume (Verbenaceae). Tjttius litorea S9 = Guettarda speciosa Linn. (Rubiaceae). Sicchius I mas 40, t. ^i = ? Palaquium sp. (Sapotaceae) , SIcchlus M femina 41, t. 22=1 Sideroxylon sp. (Sapotaceae). Sicchius Ml Intermedia 41 = ? Ulassium mas 42, t. 23z=:Adina fagifolia Valeton (Rubiaceae). Ulassium femina 42=? Adina sp. (Rubiaceae). Ulassium lapideum 43=? Adina sp. (Rubiaceae). Laharus lapideus (incl. femina et mixta) 44, t. 24=Neonauclea moluccan Merr. (Rubiaceae). SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME III 519 Nessatus 45, t. 25=Neonauclea sp. (Rubiaceae), Morfalla 46 = ? Lignum emanum 47, t. 26=Podocarpus rumphii Blume {Taxaceae) . Corius mas et femina 48, t. 27='! (cf. Sapotaceae) . Lignum murinum majus 50, t. 28=Alhizzia procera Benth. (Leguminosae) . Lignum murinum minus 50=Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae). Lignum murinum parvifolium bl=:Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae). Arbor pete 51=Parkia speciosa Hassk. (Leguminosae), Caju ticcos leytimorensis 52 = ? Albizzia procera Benth. (Leguminosae) . Carbonaria mas 52, t. 29=1 (cf. Elaeocarpus, Elaeocarpaceae) . Carbonaria femina 53=? Frutex carbonarius 53=? Carbonaria altera 54=? Carbonaria litorea 55=? Lignum corneum 55, t. SO = Garcinia cornea Linn. (Guttiferae) . Lignum corneum angustifolium b6 = Garcinia sp. (Guttiferae). Mangium silvestre 57, t. 31 = 1 (cf. Buchanania, Anacardiaceae) . Folium acidum majus 58, t. 32 = Garcinia amboinensis Spreng. (Gutti- ferae.) Folium acidum minus 60, t. 3S = 1 Garcinia ceramica Boerl. (Guttiferae). Lignum salis minus 61=? Diet 62, t. 3J!f = Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vid. (Moraceae). Lignum eurinum 63, t. 35=Sideroxylon sp. (Sapotaceae). Sirlfolia 64, t. 36=Celtis philippensis Blanco (Ulmaceae) . Sirifolia iitorea 65, t. 37=Celtis philippensis Blanco (Ulmaceae) . Arupa alba 66, t. 38=Payena leerii Kurz (Sapotaceae). Arupa rubra 66=? Payena leerii Kurz (Sapotaceae). Surenus 67, t. 39 = Toona sureni Merr. (Meliaceae) . Machilus I mas 68, t. 40, f. A=Litsea sp. (Lauraceae). Machilus II femina 69, t. IfO f. B. = Litsea sp. (Lauraceae). Machilus III media 70, t. Jfl=Dehaasia media Blume (Lauraceae). I^achilus IV minima 70, t. Jf2=Machilus sp. (Lauraceae). Lignum leve latlfolium 71, t. 43=Litsea stickmanii Merr. (Lauraceae). Lignum leve angustifolium 71, t. 44=Litsea sp. (Lauraceae). Lignum leve alterum 72, t. Jf5=Litsea rumphii F.-Vill. (Lauraceae). •-ignum equinum 73, t. 46=Dolichandrone spathacea (Linn, f.) K. Schum. (Bignoniaceae) . Arbor rubra I 74, t. j^7=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae) . Arbor rubra I angustifolia minor 75, t. 48=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). Arbor rubra II 16=Eugenia melastomifolia Merr. (Myrtaceae). Arbor rubra II saxatills 76=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). Arbor rubra IN 76=Eugenia rumphii Merr. (Myrtaceae). Arbor rubra IV ll=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). Arbor facum major 77, t. 49=Sideroxylon microcarpum Burck (Sapo^ idceae). ^3ju lape 78, t. 50=Euonymus sp. (Celastraceae) . •-'gnum satis 79, t. 51 = 1 urticaria ferrea parvifolia 80, t. 52=1 Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). urticaria ferrea latifolia 80 = ? Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). anibosa litorea 81, t. 53=Eugenia subglauca K. & V. (Myrtaceae). Sfinbosa silvestris alba Sl=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae). 520 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Arbor noctis 82, t. 5Jt,=Nauclea (Sarcocephalus) undulata Roxb. {Hu- biaceae). Bancalus mas 84, t. 55, f. 2=Nauclea (Sarcocephalus) mitragyna Merr. (Rubiaceae) . Bancaius media 84, t. 55, f. lz=zNauclea mitragyna Merr. (Rubiaceae). Quercus moiucca 85, t. 56 = Quercus molucca Linn. (Fagaceae) . Quercus molucca II 85 =:Quer*c2is sp. (Fagaceae), Casuari na litorea 86, t. 57=:Casuarina equisetifolia Linn. (Casuarinaceae) . Casuarina montana 87, t. 58 = Casuarina rumphiana Miq. (Casuarinaceae) , Casuarina celebica 87, t. 58, f. A=:Casuarina sumatrana Miq. (Casuari- naceae). Arbor nuda 89, t. 59~Antidesma stipulare Blume (Euphorbiaceae) . Pulassarius arbor 90, t. 60=Lepiniopsis ternatensis Val. (Apocynaceae) . Kowackil 91 = ? Granatum litoreum latifolium 92, t. 62—Xylocarpus moluccensis Roem. (Meliaceae) . Granatum litoreum II latissimum 92 =zXylocar pus moluccensis Roem. (Me- liaceae). Granatum litoreum III parvlfoNum 93, t. 61=zXylocarpus granatum Koemg (Meliaceae) . Atunus litorea 95, t. 6S=zHeritiera litoralis Dry. (Sterculiaceae) . Lignum clavorum 97, t. 6J^=Sapotaceae. Arbor palorum alba parvifolia 98, t. 65 = 1 Lepisanthes sp. (Sapindaceae) . Arbor palorum alba latlfolla 99, t. 65, f. A=Mischocarpus fuscescens Blume (Sapindaceae) . Arbor palorum nigra 99, t. 66—1 Vertifolia alba 100=? Vertifolia rubra 100, t. 67z=Perrottetia moluccana Loesen. (Celastraceae). iVIangium celsum 102, t. 68=Bruguiera conjugata Merr. (Rhizophoraceae) . IVIanglum minus 106, t. 69 (excl. fls. et fig. A, B.) =Bruguiera conjugata Merr. (Rhizophoraceae). Mangium digit at um 107, t. 70=Bruguiera sexangula Poir. (Rhizopho- raceae). Manglum candelarlum 108, t. 71, 72=:Bruguiera candelaria DC. (Rhizopho- raceae.) Mangium cased a re album 111, t. 7Sz=Sonneratia alba Sm. (Sonneratia- ceae) . IVIangium caseolare rubrum 112, t. 7Jf, 75=.Sonneratia caseolaris Engl (Sonneratiaceae) . IVIangium album 115, t. 76=Avicennia officinalis Linn. (Verbenaceae) . Mangium fruticans I corniculatum 117, t. 77=Aegicera8 corniculaturf^ Blanco (Myrsinaceae) . Mangium fruticans N parvifollum 117 =Aegiceras floridum R. & S. (Myr- sinaceae). Mangium caryophylloides I 119,^. 78=Bruguiera cylindrica Blume (i^"'' zophoraceae) . Mangium caryophylloides II parvifollum 119 = Ceriops tagal C, B. B<>'' (Rhizophoraceae) . Mangium caryophylloides III latifolium 119=:Ceriops tagal C. B. R^ (Rhizophoraceae), Mangium ferreum mas 120, t. 79=:Pemphi8 acidula Forst. (Lythraceae) ■ SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME III 521 Manglum ferreum mas 120, t. 79, fig. A, B=Aegiceras floridum R, & S. (Myrsinaceae) . Mangium ferreum femina 120=? Aegiceras floridum R. & S. (Myrsi- naceae). Arbor versicolor 122, t. 80= Eucalyptus deglupta Blume (Myrtaceae) . Arbor versicolor s. Caju Sarassa= Eucalyptus sarassa BluTne=? E. deg- lupta Blume (Myrtaceae). Mangium montanum 123, t. 81= Acacia mangium Willd. (Leguminosae) . Umbraculum maris ceramense 124, t. 82=:Aegiceras corniculatum. Blanco (Myrsinaceae) . Umbraculum maris ambolnense 124=Aegiceras comiculatum Blanco (Myr- sinaceae ) . Mangium floridum 125, t. 8S=Aegiceras floridum R. & S. (Myrsinaceae). Mangium porccManicum 126, t. 8U—Pemphis acidula Forst. (Lythraceae) . Surenus alba 126=:Toona sureni Merr. (Meliaceae) . Surenus rubra 12Q = Toona sureni Merr. (Meliaceae) . Varinga latifolia 127, t. 8^ bis=Ficus altissima Blume (Moraceae) . Varinga repens 134, t. 85=Ficus sp. aff. calophylla Blume (Moraceae) . Varinga supa 135, t. 86=1 Ficus forstenii Miq. (Moraceae) . Varinga pelal 135=? Ficus forstenii Miq. (Moraceae) . Grossularia domestica 136, t. 87, 88=Ficus trematocarpa Miq. (Moraceae) . Grossularia domestica long if ol la lS6=Ficus sp. (Moraceae) . Grossularia domestica parvlfolla lS6 = Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Varinga funlcularls l^l=Ficu8 sp. (Moraceae) . Varinga nounouck lSl = Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Grossularia silvestris 138, t. 89=Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Varinga parvifolia alta 139, t. 90=Ficus benjamina Linn. (Moraceae) . Varinga parvifolia humilis 140=? Ficus benjamina Linn. (Moraceae). Arbor eusanda 141=Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Arbor conclliorum 142, t. 91, 92=Ficus rumphii Blume (Moraceae). Caprificus amboinensis esculenta latifolia 145, t. 93=Ficus racemifera Roxb. (Moraceae). Caprificus amboinensis esculenta angustlfolia 146=Ficus sp. (Moraceae) . Caprificus amboinensis esculenta silvestris 148=Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria 149=Ficu8 sp. (Moraceae). Caprificus aspera latifolia 150, t. 9J^=Ficus wassa Roxb. (Moraceae) . Caprificus aspera il angustlfolia lbl=Ficus wassa Roxb. (Moraceae). Caprificus aspera III glabra lbl=Ficus moseleyana King (Moraceae). Caprificus viridis major 152, t. 95=Ficus conora King (Moraceae). Caprificus virldls minor lB2=Ficus adenosperma Miq. (Moraceae). ^'cus septica 153, t. 96=Ficus septica Burm. f. (Moraceae) . f^'cus septica silvestris 15S=Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Picus septica angustlfolia lM=Ficus sp. (Moraceae). Arbor glutinosa 155, t. 97 = Cordia myxa Linn. (Boraginaceae) . Sancudus angustlfolia 157, t. 98=Morinda bracteata Roxb. (Rubiaceae). Bancudus latifolia 158, t. 99=Morinda citrifolia Linn. (Rubiaceae). '^orinda latifolia lb9=Morinda citrifolia Linn. (Rubiaceae). Arbor aluminosa 160, t. 100=Symplocos javanica Kurz (Symplocaceae) . Ganitrus 160, t. 101 = 1 Elaeocarpus amboinensis Merr. (Elaeocarpaceae) . ^sf^itrum oblongum 163, t 102=1 Elaeocarpus oblongus Gaertn. (Elaeo- carpaceae). 522 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Ganitrum 16S =Elaeocarpus sp. {Elaeocarpaceae) , Lignum momentaneum 164. t, 103=:*l Elaeocarpus sp. (Elaeocarpaceae), Arbor redlviva 165, t. 104= Elaeocarpus rumpkii Merr. (Elaeocarpaceae) , Fructus bobae 166, t. lOS—Stemonurus sp. (I cacinaceae) . Arbor spiculorum latifoiia 161=Actinodaphne moluccana Blume {Lau- raceae). Arbor spiculorum brevifolia 167=? Actinodaphne moluccana Blume (Lau- raceae). Arbor spiculorum aeruginea 167, t. 10 6= Actinodaphne rumphii Blume (Lauraceae). Clompanus major 168, t. 107=zSterculia foetida Linn. (Sterculiaceae) . Ciompanus minor 169, t 107 his—StercuUa treubii Hochr. (Sterculiaceae), Clompanus ternatensis femlna 110=Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae), Clompanus ternatensis mas lld—Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae), Clompanus silvestris 171 r=? Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae), Folium mappae 172, t, 108=Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg. (Euphor- biaceae), Corallaria parvifolia 178, t, 109=Adenanthera pavonina Linn. (Legumi- nosae) , Corallaria latifoiia 175, t. 101=0rmosia calavensis Azaola (Leguminosae) . Clypearia alba 176, t, lll~Alhizzia falcata Backer (Leguminosae), Clypearia rubra 176, t. 112 = Pithecolobium clypearia Benth. (Leguminosae) . Clypearia rubra s. Sye II in = Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae), Catti marus 177, t, 113=Kleinhovia hospita Linn. (Sterculiaceae), Butonica 179, t, 114=Barringtonia asiatica Kurz (Lecythidaceae) , Butonica terrestris rubra 181, t, 115— Barring tonia racemosa Blume (Lecy- thidaceae), Butonica terrestris alba 181, t, 116=Barringtonia racemosa Blume (Lecy- thidaceae), Olus catappanicum 182=? OIus catappanicum aliud 182 = ? Malaparius 183, t, 117=Pongamia pinnata Merr. (Leguminosae), Malaparius e Nussanlve 184=Pongamia pinnata Merr. (Leguminosae). Vidorlcum silvestre I 184=? Diospyros sp. (Ebenaceae), Vidoricum silvestre ll-IV 184, t, 118=Sapotaceae indet. Restiaria alba 187, t, 119 = Commersonia bartramia Merr. (Sterculiaceae)- Restiaria nigra lSS=Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tiliaceae), Perticaria III parvifolia 189, t. 120 = Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tilia- ceae), Perticaria 111 latifoiia lS9 = Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tiliaceae). Tanarius minor alba 190, t. 121—Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. (Eu- phorbiaceae) , Tanarius minor rubra 190 =Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. (Euphor- biaceae) , Tanarius major 192, t, 122=Schizomeria serrata Hochr. (Cunoniaceae) • Tanarius major 11 192=? Arbor ovigera femlna 193, t, 123=Hemandia ovigera Linn. (Hernan- diaceae). Arbor ovigera mas 19S=Hemandia peltata Meisn, (Hernandiaceae) . Lanius 194, t, 124=Samadera indica Gaertn. (Simarubaceae) , Palacca 195, t, 125=Octomele8 sumatrana Miq. (Datiscaceae) , SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME IV 523 Halecus lltorea 196, t, 126=Mallotus tiliifolius Muell.-Arg. (Euphor- biaceae), Halecus terrestris vulgaris 197, t. 127=Macaranga involucrata Baill. {Eu- phorbiaceae) , Halecus terrestris alba 198, t* 127 bis=:Macaranga involucrata Baill. (Euphorbiaceae) . Halecus rugosa 198=Macaranga hispida Muell.-Arg. (Euphorbiaceae). Clypearia maritima 199z=Albizzia retusa Benth. (Leguminosae) , Solulus arbor 200, t, 128 = Ormocarpum orientale Merr. (Leguminosae). Arbor radulifera 201, t. 129=zFlindersia amboinensis Poir. (Rutaceae) . Folium intinctus 202=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae) . Daun parawas 203=? Lignum muscosum 203, t. 130=:Gordonia rumphii Merr. (Theaceae) . Lignum muscosum parvifolium 203=1 Gordonia rumphii Merr, (Theaceae). Bunius domestica 204, t. 131=Antidesma bunius Spreng. (Eurphorbiaceae) . Bunius agrestis 204, t. ISl, /. A=:Antidesma bunius Spreng. (Euphor- biaceae). Arbor coeli 205, t. 132=Ailanthus integrifolia Lam. (Simarubaceae) . Aalius parvifolia 207=Breynia cernua Muell.-Arg. (Euphorbiaceae). Folium hirclnum 208, t. 13S=Premna nitida K. Sch. (Verbenaceae) . Folium hirclnum femina 20S=Premna nitida K. Sch. (Verbenaceae) . Gumira litorea (silvestrls) 209, t. lS^=zPremna obtusifolia R. Br. (Verbe- naceae) . Cicadaria angustifolia 210=? Palaquium sp. (Sapotaceae) . Cicadaria latifolia 210, t. 135=:1 Palaquium amboinense Burck (Sapo- taceae). Cicadaria zeylanica 210 = ? Caryophyllaster albus 211 =Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. (Myrtaceae). Caryopjiyljaster ruber 211, t. 136=Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. (Myr- taceae). Cortex papetarlus 212, t. 137=Weinmannia fraxinea Sm. (Cunoniaceae) . Ichtiiyoctonos litorea 213, t. 138=Sapium indicum Willd. (Euphorbiaceae). Ichthyoctonos montana 214, t. 139 = Temstroemia robinsonii Merr. (Thea- ceae) . Iclithyoctonos litorea silvestrls latifolia 214=? Ternstroemia robinsonii Merr. (Theaceae). Timonius 216, t. IJfOzzzTimonius sericeus K. Sch. (Rubiaceae). Folium urens latlfolium 217, t. lj^l=Laportea amplissima Miq. (Urtica- ceae) . Polium urens angustifollum 211=Laportea sp. (Urticaceae) . Folium urens rubrum 21S=Laportea sp. (Urticaceae). Phallus daemonum 21S =:Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. (Phallineae) . VOLUME IV Afundarbor tenuis 1, t. 1 (incl. alba, nigra, prava, picta, II n eata ) =Bam- husa atra Lindl. (Gramineae) . ^''undarbor tenuis amahussana S=Bambusa atra Lindl. var. amahussana Merr. (Gramineae). Af'undarbor cratium 5=zSchizostachyum brachycladum Kurz (Gramineae). Arundarbor spiculorum 7=Bambusa longinodis Miq. =Schizostachyum sp. (Gramineae). 524 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Arundarbor vasaria 8 = ? Bamhusa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae) . Arundarbor vasaria cho 10=? Bamhusa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae). Arundarbor aspera 11, t. 2=:Gigantochloa aspera (Schultes) Kurz (Gra- mineae). Arundarbor maxima 12=:Bambusa excelsa Miq. (Gramineae), Arundarbor spinosa 14, t. 3— Bamhusa spinosa Roxb. (Gramineae). Arundarbor fera flava 16, t. Jt.:=^Bam.husa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae). Arundarbor fera silvestris 16, lS=Bamhusa sp. (Gramineae). Arundarbor fera elegantiseima 16=jBam6usa vulgaris Schrad. var. striata Gamble (Gramineae), Arundarbor ferae adf. l^=zBamhusa sp. (Gramineae), Arundarbor fera nigra l^=iBamhusa sp. (Gramineae). Arundarbor fera s. cha. l^=:Bamhusa sp. (Gramineae). Canna palustris 20, t, 5z=Phragmites vulgaris Trin. (Gramineae). Arundo farcta I 21=Miscanthus sinensis Anders. (Gramineae). Arundo farcta II 21, t. 6=Miscanthu8 japonicus Anders. (Gramineae). Arundastrum 22, t. 7=Donax canniformis K. Sch. (Marantaceae) . Flos festalis (incl. ruber simplex, plenus, albus simplex, flavus plenus) 24, t. 8=1 Hibiscus rosa sinensis Linn. (Malvaceae) . Flos meutan 26z=:Paeonia meutan Sims (Ranunculaceae) , Flos horarius 27, t. 9=:Hihiscus mutahilis Linn. (Malvaceae) , Abutilon hirsutum 29, t. 10=Ahutilan hirtum Sweet (Malvaceae). Abutilon laeve 31, t. ll=Abutilon indicum Sweet (Malvaceae) . Abutilon montanum S2=:Sida cordifolia Linn. (Malvaceae). Abutilon litoreum 33=? Abutilon indicum Sweet (Malvaceae) , Gossypium 33, t. 12 = Gossypium indicum Lam. (Malvaceae) . Gossyplum fl. fusco-rubentibus S4=zGossypium purpurascens Poir. (Mal- vaceae) . Gossypium latlfolium 37, t, lS = Gossypium hrasiliense Macf. (Malvaceae) . Gossypium daemon is 38, t. H—Ahroma fastuosa J acq. (Sterculiaceae) . Granum moschatum 38, t, 15 z=:Abelmoschu8 moschatus Medik. (Malvaceae). Granum moschatum agreste ^S=:Ahelmoschus mindanaensis Warb. (Mal- vaceae). Herba crinalium domestica 40, t, 16=Hibi8cu8 surattensis Linn. (Mal- vaceae) . Herba crinalium silvestris AlrzzHibiscus surattensis Linn. (Malvaceae). Cyprus 42, t. 17—Lawsonia inermis Linn. (Lythraceae) . Lagondium vulgare 48, t. 18=:Vitex trifolia Linn. (Verhenaceae). Lagondium litoreum arborescens 50, t. 19 = Vitex negundo Linn. (Verhe- naceae) . Lagondium nigrum 52=? (sub Vitex negundo Linn., Verhenaceae) . Crista pavonis 53, t. 20 — Caesalpinia pulcherrima Sw. (Leguminosae) . Soffera 55 = Cassia sophera Linn. (Leguminosae), Lignum sappan 56, t. 21—Caesalpinia sappan Linn. (Leguminosae). Anticholerica 60, t. 22=:Sophora tomentosa Linn. (Leguminosae). Flos fiavus 63, t. 23 = Ca8sia glauca Lam. (Leguminosae) . Gajatus niger 64, t. 2J^—Seshania sesban Merr. (Leguminosae). Gajatus luteus 64=/Ses6anm cannabina Pers. (Leguminosae). Codiaeum simplex 65, t. 25=Codiaeum variegatum Blume (Euphorbiaceae)- Codiaeum taeniosum 68, t. 26 = Codiaeum variegatum var. taemositw Muell- Arg. (Euphorbiaceae). Codiaeum sllvestre 69, t. 27=Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb. (Euphorbiaceae)- SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME IV 525 Gendarussa (incl. alba, nigra, fusca) 70, t. 28=Justicia gendarussa Linn. (Acanthaceae) . Gendarussa femina 72, t, 29=Rhinacanthus nasuta (Linn.) Kurz (Acan- thaceae). Involucrum cusci 7S—Euphorbiaceae indet. Folium bracteatum (incl. vulgare, rubrum, et igneum) 73, t. SO = Grap- tophyllum pictum Griff. (Acanthaceae). Scutellaria prima 75, t. 31:=^Nothopanax scutellarium Merr. (Araliaeeae) . Scutellaria secunda latlfolia 76=Nothopanax tricochleatum Miq. (Ara- liaeeae) . Scutellaria secunda angustifolia 76, t. 32=:Nothopanax pinnatum Miq. (Araliaeeae) . Scutellaria tertia 78, t. 33=zNothopanax fruticosum Miq. (Araliaeeae), Terminalis alba domestica 79, t. S4, /. l=:Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Lil- iaceae). Terminalis alba silvestris 80 =:Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae) , Terminalis rubra 80, t. SU, /. 2 = Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae). Terminalis angustifolia 81, t. 35=.Pleomele angustifolia N. E. Br. (Li- liaceae). Cauda fells domestica 82, t. 36=Acalypha hispida Burm. f. (Euphorbia- ceae) . Cauda fells agrestis rubra 84, t. 37, f. l=Acalypha amentacea Roxb. (Euphorhiaceae) . Cauda fells agrestis alba 84, t. 37, f. 2=Acalypha amentacea Roxb. (Eu- phorhiaceae). Cauda fells agrestis saxatilis 84=? Flos convolutus 85, t. 38=:Plumiera acuminata Ait. (Apocynaceae) . Flos manilhanus 87, t. 39=zTabemaemontana divaricata R. Br. (Apocy- naceae) . Ligularia lactea 88, t. 40=Euphorbia neriifolia Linn. (Euphorhiaceae). Ligularia lactea e Java 88=? Euphorbia neriifolia Linn. (Euphorhiaceae) . Ficus indica S9 = 0puntia sp. (Cactaceae) . Ligularia minor 90— Euphorbia neriifolia Linn. (Euphorhiaceae). Ricinus albus domesticus (incL agrestis et ruber) 92, 97, t. J^l=Ricinus communis Linn. (Euphorhiaceae) . Ricinus americanus d2=Jatropha curcas Linn. (Euphorhiaceae). Cranum moluccanum 98, t. 4.2=:Croton tiglium Linn. (Euphorhiaceae) . Folium polypi mas (et femina) 101, t. ^3 =Boerlagiodendron palmatum Harms (Araliaeeae). Frutex aquosus mas 102, t. 4^z=:Leea aculeata Blume (Vitaceae). Frutex aquosus femina 103, t. 4'5=Leea aequata Linn. (Vitaceae). Flamma sylvarum 105, t. Jf6~Ixora fulgens Roxb. (Rubiaceae) . Flamma sylvarum peregrina 107, t. ^7=Ixora chinensis Lam. (Rubiaceae). Petasltes amboinensis 107, t. 48 = Clerodendron rumphianum De Vr. & Teysm. ( Verbenaceae) . Petasites agrestis 108, t. 49 = Clerodendron speciosissimum LindL (Verbe- naceae). Caryophyllaster litoreus 110, t. SO — Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae) . Solium principissae latlfolium 111, t. 51—Mussaenda reinwardtiana Miq. (Rubiaceae) . 526 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Folium principissae angustifolium lll=:Mi*ssaenda forsteniana Miq. (Ru. biaceae). Folium crocodill latifolium (et parvifolium) 112, t, 52=^Desmodium urn- bellatum DC. (LeguTninosae) , Frutex lintearius 114, t. 5S=Broussonetia papyrifera Vent. (Moraceae). Buglossum litoreum 116, t. 5Jf=Scaevola frutescens Krause (Goodeniaceae) , Buglossum lanuginosum 119, t. 55=Tournefortia argentea Linn. (Boragi- naceae) . Perlarius (incl. parvifolius) I 120, t. 56=Pipturus argenteus Wedd. (Urti- caceae), Perlarius latlfolius 121 =Robinsoniodendron ambiguum Merr. (Urticaceae) . Perlarius II 122, t. 57=:Maesa tetrandra A. DC. (Myrsinaceae) . Perlarius III 122=? Maesa sp. (Myrsinaceae). Mamanira 123, t. 58 = Callicarpa cana Linn. (Verbenaceae) , Mamanira alba 124, t. 59=.Callicarpa cuspidata Roxb. (Verbenaceae). Frutex ceramicus 124, t. 60 = Callicarpa sp. (Verbenaceae) . Cortex piscatorum 125, t, 61 = Trema amboinensis Blume, non auctt. (T. virgata Blume) (Ulmaceae) . Frutex carbonarius I albus 126, t. 62=1 Frutex carbonarius 11 ruber, latifolius, asper 126, 127 = ? (Melastoma- taceae). Folium politorium vulgare fruticosum 128, t, 63=Ficus ampelos Burm. f. (Moraceae). Folium politorium arborescens 12S=Ficus coronata Reinw. (Moraceae) , Folium politorium flagellare 12S=Ficus ampelos Burm. f. (Moraceae). Folium calcosum 129, t. 64=Melanolepis multiglandulosa Rchb. f. & Zoll. (Euphorbiaceae) . Frutex excoecans 130, t. 65=Homalanthus populneus Pax (Euphorbiaceae). Cortex saponarius 131, t. 66=Albizzia saponaria Blume (Leguminosae) . Capsicum silvestre 133, t. 67=Tabernaemontana capsicoides Merr. (Apo- cynaceae) . Frutex cerasiformls 134, U 68=1 Pharmacum papetarium 134, t. 69=Astronia papetaria Blume (Melasto- mataceae) . Lignum aquatile 135, t. 70 = Oreocnide rubescens Miq. (Urticaceae). Fragarius ruber 135, t. 71 = 0tanthera cyanoides Triana (Melastomataceae Fragarius ruber grandifolius lS6=Melastoma sp. (Melastomataceae). Fragarius niger 137, t. 72=Melastoma polyanthum Blume (Melastoma taceae) . Blimbingum silvestre 138, t. 7S=Elaeocarpus oppositifolius Miq. (Elaeocar- paceae). Pandanus verus 139, t. 74=Pandanus tectorius Soland. (Pandanaceae) Pandanus spurius 142, t. 75=Pandanus robinsonii Merr. (Pandanaceae)- Pandanus humilis 143, t. 76=Pandanus polycephalus Lam. (Pandanaceae) Pandanus montanus sllvestris lib=Pandanus terrestris Warb. (Panda naceae) . Pandanus silvestris terrestris 145, t. 77=Pandanus amboinensis Warb (Pandanaceae). Pandanus latlfolius 146, t. 78 = Pandanus hasskariii Merr. (Pandanaceae) Pandanus moschatus lil = Pandanus tectorius Soland. var. moschatus Merr (Pandanaceae). Pandanus ceramicus 149, t. 79=Pandanus conoideus Lam. (Pandanaceae) SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 527 Folium baggea verum 150=Pandanus bagea Miq. (Pandanaceae) . Folium baggea quoad t. 81—Pandanus tectorius Soland. (Pandanaceae). Folium baggea maritimum 151, t. 80=zPandanus dubius Spreng. (Panda- naceae) . Pandanus repens lb2=:Pandanus repens Miq. (Pandanaceae). Pandanus funicuiarls 153, t. 82=Freycinetia funicularis Merr. (Panda- naceae) . Pandanus caricosus lb4:=:Scirpiodendron ghaeri Merr. (Cyperaceae) . VOLUME V Folium linguae 1, t. 1—Bauhinia lingua DC. (Leguminosae) . Folium linguae litorea alba 2z=zBauhinia sp. (Leguminosae). Funis viminalis 3, i., 2 = Ventilago sp. (Rhamnaceae) . Funis quadrifidus 4, t. 3=:Petraeovitex multiflora Merr. (Verbenaceae) . Faba marina 5, t. j^=Entada phaseoloides Merr. (Leguminosae). Parrana nigra Rumph. 1 = 1 Entada sp. (Leguminosae). Parrana rubra 9, t. 5=zDioclea reflexa Hook. f. (Leguminosae). Lobus litoralis 10, t. 6=:Mucuna gigantea DC. (Leguminosae) . Parrana miniata 10=:Mucuna miniata Merr. (Leguminosae) . Funis gnemoniformis 11, t. 7=Gnetum gnemonoides Bron^. (Gnetaceae) . Gnemon funicularis 12, t. 8 = Gnetum indicum Merr. (Gnetaceae). Funis urens aspera 13, t. d = Tetracera scandens Merr. (Dilleniaceae) . Funis urens glabra lS=:Tetracera boerlagei Merr. (Dilleniaceae). Funis papius latlfolius 14, t. 10=Asclepiadaceae indet. Funis papius parvifolius 15, t. ll=:Ichnocarpus sp. (Apocynaceae) . Funis cratlum 16, t. 12= Apocynaceae indet. Lacca lignum 17, t. lS=Dalbergia parviflora Roxb. (Leguminosae). Spina vaccarum 21, t. 14=Artabotrys suaveolens Blume (Annonaceae) . Cudranus bimanus 22, t. 15, f. 2 = Cudrania javanensis Tree. (Moraceae) . Cudranus amboinicus 22, t. 15, f. l=Cudrania javenensis Tree. (Moraceae) . Limonellus litoreus 24=? Cudranus amboinensis silvestrls 25, t. 16z=zCudrania javanensis Tree. (Mo- raceae). Limonellus funicularis montanus 2b^=^Pisonia aculeata Linn. (Nyctagi- naceae). Camunium vulgare 26, t. 17=Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae). Camunium javanicum 21 = Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae). Camunium sinense 28, t. 18, f. l=Aglaia odorata Lour. (Meliaceae). Camunium japonense 29, t. 18, f. 2 = Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae). Cortex consolidans 30, t. 19=Parameria barbata K. Sch. (Apocynaceae). Pulassarium 32, t. 20 = Alyxia laurina Gaudich. (Apocynaceae). Pulassarlum spurium 33 = ? Apocynaceae indet. (sub Alyxia) . Funis pulassarlus 34, t. 21 = Chilocarpus sp. (Apocynaceae). "'"uba baccifera 35, t. 22=Anamirta cocculus W. & A. (Menispermaceae) . ^uba radicum alba 37, t. 2S=Derris elliptica Benth. (Leguminosae). Tuba radicum nigra 38=? Derris sp. (Leguminosae). «uba flava 38, t. 2Ji.=Arcangelisia flava Merr. (Menispermaceae). Solium lunatum minus 40, U 25, f. 1 =Pericampylus glaucus Merr. (Menis- permaceae) . '"ba slliquosa 41, t. 25, f. 2=Derris trifoliata Lour. (Leguminosae). ^^^armacum magnum vulgare 42, t. 26, f. l=Piper retrofractum Vahl (Piperaceae) , 528 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Pharmacum magnum parvifolium 42, t. 26, f. 2=Piper sp. (Piperaceae), Pharmacum magnum marinum 42=:Piper sp. (Piperaceae). Gum I susu 43 = ? Ficus sp. (Moraceae) . Sirium decumanum 45, t. 27= Piper decumanum Linn. (Piperaceae) . Sirium decumanum album 45= Piper reinwardtianum C. DC. (Piperaceae) . Sirium arborescens tertium 46, t. 28, f. l=Piper arborescens Roxb. (Pipera- ceae). Sirium arborescens tertium alterum i8=Piper sp. (Piperaceae). Piper caninum 49, t. 28, f. 2= Piper caninum Blume (Piperaceae). Sirloides 4:9=Strychnos barbata A. W. Hill (Loganiaceae) . Sirioldes alter 50, t. 29, f. l=Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill (Oka- ceae) . Flos pergulanus 51, t. 29, f. 2 = Vallaris glabra O. Kuntze (Apocynaceae). Flos manore (incl. plenus) 52, t. SO=:Jasminuni sambac Ait. (Oleaceae). Jasminum litoreum 54=? Jasminum sp. (Oleaceae). Flos coeruleus 56, t. Sl = Clitoria ternatea Linn. (Leguminosae) . Abrus frutex 57, t. 32 = Abrus precatorius Linn. (Leguminosae). Viscum ambolnicum album 60, t. 33 = Loranthus rumphii Merr. (Loran- thaceae.) Viscum amboinicum rubrum 61 = Elytranthe amboinensis Merr. (Loran- thaceae) . Viscum amboinicum Ml 62=Loranthus sp. (Loranthaceae) . Funis uncatus latifolius 63, t. SU, f. l = Uncaria longifolia Merr. (Rubia- ceae). Funis uncatus angustifolius 63, t. SJf, /. 2 = Uncaria setiloba Benth. [Ru- biaceae) . Funis uncatus lanosus 65, t. SJf, f. SzrUncaria cordata Merr. (Rubiaceae). Funis muraenarum mas 66, t. 35, f. l=Medinilla crispata Blume (Melas- tomataceae) . Funis muraenarucn femina 67, t. 35, f. 2=Medinilla macrocarpa Blume (Melastomataceae) . Funis muraenarum Ml 67 = Medinilla sp. (Melastomataceae) . Aylaun nya femina 61=Pipturu8 repandus Wedd. (Urticaceae) . Funis muraenarum latifolius 68, t. 36 = Conocephaliis amboinensis Warb. (Mor^aceae) . Funis convolutus 69, t 37, f. l=Derris heptaphylla Merr. (Leguminosae)- Clompanus funicularls 70, t. 37, f. 2 = Connarus sp. (Connaraceae) . Quis qualis 71, t. 38 = Quisqualis indica Linn. (Combretaceae) . SInapister 73, t. 39, f. 1 = 1 Sinaplster minor 74=? Amara lltorea 74, t. 39, f. 2 = Colubrina asiatica Rich. (Rhamnaceae) . 01 us crudum minus 75, t. JfO, f. 2 = Gymnema syringaefolium Boerl. (Ascle- piadaceae) . Olus crudum majus 76, t. kO. j. 1 = 1, Gymnema sp. (Asclepiadaceae) . Funis butonicus major 77, t., M, f. 1 = 1 Funis butonicus minor 77, t. U, f. 2 = Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr. (Dichapetalaceae) . Funis musarius latifolius 78, t. Jf2=Uvaria musaria DC. (Annonaceae) - Funis musarius angustifolius lS=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae). Funis dentarius 79=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae). Funis dentarius niger 19=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae). Rudens silvatlcus latifolius 80, t. ^3, f. l=Ficu8 sp. (Moraceae). SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 529 Rudens silvatlcus parvifolius 80, t. j^S, f. 2=Ficu8 recurva Blume (Mo- raceae) . Rudens silvaticus rugosus 80=Ficws sp. {Moraceae) . Rudens silvaticus IV 81=? Ficus sp. {Moraceae), Funis felieus 82, t. UU, f- l = Tinospora rumphii Boerl. (Menispermaceae) . Serratula amara parvifolia S2 = Compositae indet. Funis quadrangularls 83, t. Uh, /• 2 = Cissus quadrangularis Linn. (Vita- ceae) . Funis pinguis 83=? Crusta arborum minor 84, t. J^5=Ficus punctata Thunb. {Moraceae) . Crusta arborum II alba 84=:Ficws sp. {Moraceae), Crusta arborum Hi odorata 85=Fic2is sp. (Moraceae) . Crusta arborum IV minima 85=? Jasminum litoreum 86, t. U6^Clerodendron commersonii Spreng. (Verben- aceae) . Rubus moluccus parvifolius 88, t. 47, f. l=Rubus fraxinifolius Poir. {Ros- aceae). Rubus moluccus latifolius 88, t. 47, f- 2=Rubu8 moluccanus Linn. (Rub- iaceae.) Frutex globulorum femina 89, t. 48=zCae8alpinia jayabo Maza (Legumi- nosae) . Fputex globulorum majorum 92, L 49, f. l=Caesalpinia crista Linn. (Leg- uminosae) , Nugae silvarum litoreae et terrestres 94, t. 50 = Caesalpinia nuga Ait. (Leguminosae) , Nugae silvarum minimae 95, t. 49, /. 2=Acacia rugata Ham. (Legumin- osae). Palmijuncus calapparius 97, t. 51=Daemonorops calapparius Blume (Palmae). Palmijuncus niger 101, t. 52=Daemonorops niger Blume (Palmae). Palmijuncus albus 102, t. 5S=:Calamus albus Pers. (Palmae). Palmijuncus albus graminosus 10A = Calamus graminosus Blume (Palmae), Palmijuncus verus 105 = Calamus pisicarpus Blume (Palmae). Palmijuncus verus angustifolius 105, t. 54, /. 2 = Calamus rumphii Blume (Palmae). Palmijuncus verus latifolius 106, t. 54, f. l=Calamtis pisicarpus Blume (Palmae). Palmijuncus aracanicus 107=:Calamus sp. (Palmae). Palmijuncus palimbanicus 107 = Daemonorops palembanicus Blume (Pal- mae). f^almijuncus viminalis 108, t. 55, f. 2 = Calamus viminalis Willd. (Palmae). Palmijuncus viminalis e Burone 109 = Calam2is buroensis Mart. (Palmae). Palmijuncus viminalis s. ua huay 109 = Calamus sp. (Palmae). Palmijuncus equestris 110, t. 56 = Calamus equestris Willd. (Palmae). Palmijuncus equestris craslssimus lll = Calamus cawa Blume (Palmae). almijuncus equestris s. rottang cawa 112 =: Calamus cawa Blnme (Palmae). Malacca 113, t. 57, f. 2=Zalacca edulis Reinw. (Palmae). Palmijuncus draco 114, t. 58, f. 1, A-D.=Daemonorops draco Blume (Pal- mae). aimljuncus draco e Bantam IIQ =Daemonorops ruber Blume (Palmae). ^•'Tiijuncus acidus 119, t. 58, f. 2, E = Calamus acidus Becc. (Palmae). oeloe rottang 119=? Dinochloa sp. (Gramineae), 144971 34 530 * RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Paimijuncus laevis 120, t. 59, /. l=.Flagellaria indica Linn. {Flageilar- iaceae). Cantharlfera 121, t. 59, f, 2 —Nepenthes mirabilis Merr. (Nepenthaceae). Cantharlfera alba 122=N epenthes maxima Reinw. (Nepenthaceae). Nugae silvarum silvestris 124:z=Fagara torva Eng*!. (Rutaceae). Musa domestica 125-133, t. 60=Musa paradisiaca Linn. (Musaceae). Musa uranoscopos 137, t. 61, /. 2z=Musa paradisiaca Linn. var. (Musa- ceae). Musa alphurlca 138, t 61, f. S=zMusa paradisiaca Linn., var. (Musaceae). Musa simiarum 138, t. 61, f, l:=Musa acuminata Colla (Musaceae). Musa silvestris 139=Mwsa textilis Nee (Musaceae). Musa silvestris mindanauensis 1S9— Musa textilis Nee (Musaceae). Musa silvestris amboinensis 139=:Mttsa sp. (Musaceae). Folium mensarlum album 140, t. 62, f. 2=Heliconia bihai Linn. (Musa- ceae). Folium mensarlum nigrum 140 — Heliconia bihai Linn. (Musaceae). Folium mensarlum rubrum 141 = Cominsia rubra Val. (Marantaceae) . Folium buccinatum album 142~Phacelophryniu7n robinsonii Val. (Marant- aceae). Folium buccinatum asperum 142, t. 62, f. l = Cominsia gigantea K. Sch. (Marantaceae). Galanga major 143, t. 63—Alpinia galanga Sw. (Zingiberaceae) . Galanga minor 144, t. 63. f. D~1 Alpinia galanga Sw. (Zingiberaceae). Lampujum majus domestlcum 148, t. 6Jf, f. 1— Zingiber zerumbet Sm. (Zingiberaceae). Lampujum zer'umbed silvestre 14S=Zingiber zerumbet Sm. (Zingibera- ceae). Lampujum zerumbed minus 14S=:Zingiber zerumbet Sm., var. amaricans Val. (Zingiberaceae). Lampujum silvestre minus 150, t. 6U, f. 2=:Globba marantina Linn. (Zingi- beraceae). Lampujum silvestre amarum Ihl— Zingiber zerumbet Sm. (Zingiberaceae)- Cardamomum minus 152, t. 65, f. 1—Amomum cardamomum Willd. (Zingi- beraceae). Cardamom um verum l^^=Elettaria cardamomum Maton (Zingiberaceae)' Cardamomum majus 153= Amomwm maximum Roxb. (Zingiberaceae). Bangieum 154, t. 65, f. 2=Zingiber cassumanar Roxb. (Zingiberaceae). Zingiber majus album 156, t. 66, f. l=Zingiber officinale Rose. (Zingi- beraceae). Zingiber majus rubrum 156 = ? Zingiber officinale Rose. (Zingiberaceae) • Zingiber minus 161, t. 66, f. 2=Zingiber officinale Rose, var. minor Val (Zingiberaceae). Curcuma domestica major 162, t. 67— Curcuma longa Linn. (Zingiber- aceae). Curcuma domestica minor 164: = Curcuma longa Koenig (Zingiberaceae) Curcuma agrestis 164t=Curcuma petiolata Roxb. (Zingiberaceae). ^ Zerumbed majus 16S=:Curcuma zedoaria Rose. (Zingiberaceae); t. 68--' Curcuma viridi flora Roxb. Zerumbed album, giring, et frigldum 169=Curcuma spp. (Zingiberaceae)^ Zerumbed nigrum Rumph. 169=Curcuma aeruginosa Roxb. (Zingiberaceae^ Zerumbed manga Rumph. 169=:Curcuma sp. (Zingiberaceae). SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 531 Zerumbed claviculatum 172, t. 69, f. l=Kaempferia pandurata Roxb. (Zingiberaceae) . Soncorus 173, t. 69, f. 2=Kaempferia galanga Linn. (Zingiberaceae), Gandasullum 175, t. 69, f. 3=Hedychium chrysoleucum Hook. f. (Zingiber- aceae) . Galanga malaccensis 176, t. 71, f. l=zAlpinia malaccensis Rose. (Zingi- beraceae). Cannacorus 177, t. 71, f. 2 = Canna indica Linn. (Cannaceae) . Acorum palustre 178, t. 72, f. l=Acorus calamus Linn. (Araceae) . Acorum terrestre 1S0 = Acorus calamus Linn. (Araceae), Schoenanthemum amboinicum 181, t. 72, f. 2=Andropogon citratus DC. (Gramineae) . Schoenanthemum alterum lS2=Andropogon exaltatus R. Br. (Gramineae), Gladiolus odoratus indicus 185, t. 7S—Dianella odorata Blume (Liliaceae). Arundo saccharifera (incl. alba, fusca, nigra, et rottanga) 186, t, 7J^=Sac- charum officinarum Linn. (Gramineae). Ova pisclum 191, t. 75, f. l=Saccharuin officinarum Linn., var. (Grami- neae). Lachryma jobi Indica 193, t. 75 f. 2 — Coix lachryma jobi Linn. (Grami- neae). Sorghum s. Battari 194, t. 75 bis, f. l=Andropogon sorghum Brot. (Gramineae) . Oryza vulgaris 196=:Oryza sativa Linn. (Gramineae). Oryza giutinosa 201=:Oryza sativa Linn. (Gramineae), Panlcum Indlcum 202, t. 75 bis, f. 2=Setaria italica Beauv. (Gramineae), Frumentum Indlcum 202 = Zea mays Linn. (Gramineae). Panlcum gramlneum 203, t. 76, f. 2=Eleusine corocana Gaertn. (Grami- neae). Sesamum indlcum nigrum et album 204, t. 76, f. l=Sesamum orientale Linn. (Pedaliaceae) . Cannabis Indica 208, t. 77=zCannabis sativa Linn. (Ulmaceae). Ganja sativa 212, t. 78, f. lz=zCorchorus capsularis Linn. (Tiliaceae), Ganja agrestis 213, t. 78, f. 2=zCorchorus olitorius Linn. (Tiliaceae), Ramium majus 214, t. 79, f. l=Boehmeria nivea Gaudich. (Urticaceae) . Cnicus Indlcus 215, t. 79, f. 2 = Carthamus tinctorius Linn. (C ompo sitae) . •ndicum 220— Indigo f era tinctoria Linn. (Leguminosae) . 'ndicum 220, quoad t. 80=Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. (Leguminosae). 'ndlcum illvestre 222 = I ndig of era sp. (Leguminosae). 'ndicum sllvestre e Madagascar 22^— Indigo f era sp. (Leguminosae). '"dicum brasHlanum 224.— Indigo f era sp. (Leguminosae). '"dicum spurium 224= I ndig of era sp. (Leguminosae). ^abacus 22b =zNicotiana tabacum Linn. (Solanaceae) . Anassa domestica 227, t. 81= Ananas comosus Merr. (Bromeliaceae) . ^nassa silvestris 2Z0=Pandanus terrestris Warb. (Pandanaceae) . ^litum indlcum domesticum (album et maculosum) 231, t. 82, f. l=Ama- fanthus viridis Linn. (Amaranthaceae) . ^'itunn Indlcum 11 maculosum amboinicum 2^1= Amaranthus viridis Linn (Amaranthaceae) . ^"tum Indicum 111 rubrum 2Z2=z Amaranthus tricolor Linn. (Amarartr thaceae) . 532 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Blitum Indlcum IV terrestre 232, t. 82, /. ^=? Amaranthus gangeticus Linn. (Amarantkaceae) , Blitum peruvianum 2S2 = Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Chenopodiaceae) . Blitum brasiliense 233=? Blitum spinosum 234, t. 83, /. 1 = Amaranthus spinosus Linn. (Amaran- thaceae). Blitum frutescens 235, t. 83, f. 2—Deeringia amaranthoides Merr. (Ama- rantkaceae), Amarantus japonicus 236, t. 84 = Celosia cristata Linn. (Amarantkaceae), Amarantus vulgaris 2B6 = Celosia cristata Linn. (Amarantkaceae). Amarantus caudatus 2Bl = Celosia argentea Linn. (Amarantkaceae). Amarantus versicolor 2^1= Amaranthus tricolor Linn. (Amarantkaceae). Trongum hortense (incl. fuscum et album) 238, t. 85=Solanum melongena Linn. (Solanaceae) , Trongum agreste spinosum 240, t. 86, /. l=Solanum trongum Poir. (Sola- naceae). Trongum agreste album verum 241 =iSolanum, album Lour. (Solanaceae). Trongum agreste rubrum 241, t. 86, /. 2=:Solanum album Lour. (Sola- naceae). Stramonia Indica 242, t. 87, f. l=Datura fastuosa Linn. var. alba C. B. Clarke (Solanaceae). Stramonia indica III rubra 243, t. 87, f. 2 = Datura fastuosa Linn. (Sola- naceae). Capsicum indicum 247, t. 88, f. l-J^^Capsicum frutescens Linn. (Sola- naceae). Mirabllis m ex I can a 253, t. 89=Mirabilis jalapa Linn. (Nyctaginaceae) . Lacca herba 256, t. 90=:Impatiens balsamina Linn. (Balsaminaceae) . Matricaria sinensis 259, t. 91, f. 1 =:Ckrysantkemum indicum Linn. (Com- positae). Artemisia latifolia 261, t. 91, f. 2=Artemisia vulgaris Linn. (Compositae). Artemisia latifolia rubra 261 = ? Artemisia vulgaris Linn. (Compositae). Basilicum indicum hortense 263, t. 92, f. l=Ocimum basilicum Linn. (Labiatae). Ocimum agreste 265, t. 92, f. 2=0cimum. sanctum Linn. (Labiatae). Ozimum citratum indicum 266, t. 93, f. l=Ocimum sp. aff. 0. basilicu^^ Linn. (Labiatae). Mentha crispa 167, t. 93, f. 2=Mentha arvensis Linn. (Labiatae). Portulaca indica I, II 268=:Portulaca oleracea Linn. (Portulacaceae) . Portulaca indica 111, IV 2QS=Portulaca quadrifida Linn. (Portulacaceae). Portulaca indica V, 268=? Critkamum maritimum Linn. (UmhelUferae)- Levisticum indicum 269, t. 93, f. 3=1 Antkeriscus sp. (Umbelli ferae). Carum 270 = Carum copticum Benth. (Umbelliferae) . Amudium 270 = Carum copticum Benth. (Umbelliferae). MussI 271 = Umbelliferae indet. Sempervivum majus indlcum 211= Aloe vera Linn. (Liliaceae). Aloe amerlcana 212= Agave cantala Roxb. (Amaryllidaceae) . Aloe amerlcana parva 273, t. 9^= Agave cantala Roxb. (Amaryllidaceae)- Planta anatis 275, t. 95=Kalanchoe laciniata DC. (Crassulaceae) . Oxys lutea Indica 211 = 0xalis repens Thunb. (Oxalidaceae) . Lapathum hortense 211=Rumex patentia Linn. (Polygonaceae). Crotalaria I major 278, t. 96, f. l = Crotalaria retusa Linn. (Legwminosae Crotalaria 11 minor 21 S = Crotalaria quinquefolia Linn. (Leguminosae) ■ SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 533 Crotalaria Ml agrestis 279 = Crotalaria chinensis Linn. (Leguminosae) . Lagansa alba 280, t. 96, f. 3—Polanisia viscosa DC. (Capparidaceae) . Uagansa rubra 280 t. 96, f. 2 = Gynandropsis pentaphylla DC. (Cappari- daceae) . Sinapi slnense album 2S2=Brassica juncea Coss. (Cruciferae), Sinapi sinense nigrum 2S2=Brassica juncea Coss. (Cruciferae), Sinapi indigenum 2S2 =:Nasturtiu7n indicum DC. (Cruciferae). Gallinaria acutifolla 283, t. 97, f. l = Cassia occidentalis Linn. (Legumi- nosae) . Gallinaria rotundifolia 283, t. 97, f. 2 = Cassia tora Linn. (Leguminosae) . Arnica nocturna 285, t. 98=zPolianthes tuberosa Linn. (Amaryllidaceae) . Flos susannae 286, t. 99=Platanthera susannae Lindl. (Orchidaceae) . Maccabuhay 2^1 — Tinospora sp. (Menispermaceae) quoad nomen=:? Orchid- aceae indet. quoad descr. Flos susannae minor 2S1 = Habenaria rumphii Lindl. (Orchidaceae). Satyria 2S1 z=z Orchidaceae indet. Flor inpius 288, t. 100, f. l=Pentapetes phoenicea Linn. (Sterculiaceae) . Flos globosus 289, t. 100, f. 2 — Gomphrena globosa Linn. (Amaranthaceae) . Majana (incl. alba et rubra) 291, t. lOl—Coleus scutellaroides Benth. (Labiatae) . Melissa lotoria 292, t. 102, f. l=Pogo8temon cablin Benth. (Labiatae). Marrubium album ambolnlcum 294, t. 102, f. 2 — Coleus amboinicus Lour. (Labiatae). Marrubium album semlsilvestre 29Az=iColeus sp. (Labiatae). Majana aurea 296, t. 102, f. S = Coleus blumei Benth. (Labiatae). Sonchus amboinicus 297, t. lOS, f. IzzzEmilia sonchifolia DC. (Compo- sitae). Sonchus volubills 299, t. 103, f. 2=Blumea chinensis DC. (C ompo sitae) . Sonchus volubills javanicus 299, t. lOU, /. l=Pluchea indica Less. (Com- positae) . Herba sentiens 301, L lOA, f. 2—Biophytum sensitivum DC. (Oxalidaceae) . Herba mimosa SOS=Mimosa pudica Linn. (Leguminosae) . Caban cabanan 304^ — Leguminosae indet. sub. Mimosa. Aeschynomene theophrasti SO 4 = Leguminosae indet. Similis planta peruana 304=: Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa. Altera planta peruana etc. S04= Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa. P'na hui huitzli S04 = Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa. Planta sentiens hispanorum S04 = Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa. Arbor pudica SOb=z Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa. Herba viva 305=:indet. sub Mimosa. "'^"•ipa javana 306, t. 105 = Crinum zeylanicum Linn. (Amaryllidaceae). Arum indicum sativum 308, t- 106=Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott (Araceae) , Arum silvestre I latifolium 310=Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott (Araceae) . Arum silvestre II medium 310, t. 107—1 Alocasia longiloba Miq. (Araceae) ^ Arum aquaticum 312, t. 108 = Aglaonema oblongifolium Kunth (Araceae) . ^f'um aegyptlum 313, t. 109 = Colocasia esculenta Schott (Araceae). ^9'adium aquatlle 318, t. 110, /. l=Colocasia esculenta Schott (Araceae), ^f'isarum ambolnlcum 319, t. 110, f. 2 = Typhonium divaricatum Dene. (Araceae). ^f'isarum esculentum 321, t. Ill, /. 1 —Schizmatoglottis calyptrata Z. & M. (Araceae). 534 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Dracunculus amboinicus I niger 322, t. Illy /. 2=Homalomena cordata Schott (Araceae), Dracunculus amboinicus II albus S22 =Homalomena sp. (Araceae), Dracunculus amboinicus ill ruber S2Z=Homalomena sp. (Araceae), Tacca sativa 324, t. 112 = Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae) and Amor- phophallus campanulatus Blume (Araceae). Yucca 32b=Manihot utilissima Pohl (Euphorbiaceae) » Erva de Sta IVIaria 326= Araceae indet. Tacca phallifera 326, t, 113 ^ f, l = Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae). Taccae fungus 326, t. 113 ^ /. 2=Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume (Araceae) , Itelpou Z21=z Araceae indet. Tacca litorea 328, t, llJi.z=:Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae). Tacca montana (incl. minor et major) 329, t. 115=Tacca palmata Blume (Araceae). Piper longum 333, t. 116, f. l=Piper retrofractum Vahl (Piperaceae) . Piper longum americanum SM=:Piper sp. (Piperaceae). Piper e philippinis (sabia) SSi^Piper retrofractum Vahl (Piperaceae) . Piper e philippinis (samo) 335==Piper betle Linn. (Piperaceae). Piper album & nigrum SS5= Piper nigrum Linn. (Piperaceae) . Siril folium 336, t. 116, f. 2 = Piper betle Linn. (Piperaceae) . SIriboa 340, t. 117=:Piper betle var. siriboa C. DC. (Piperaceae). Sirium silvestre 342 t. 118, f. 1, 2=Piper caducibracteum C. DC. (Pipera- ceae) . Sirium terrestre 344, t. 119, f. l=Piper sarmentosum Roxb. (Piperaceae). Sirium frigidum rotundifolium 345, t. 119, f. 2=Piper sp. (Piperaceae). Sirium frigidum latifollum Sib=Piper sp. (Piperaceae). Ubium vulgare 346, t. 120=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae) . Ubium digltatum 350, t. 121=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae). Ubium draconum 351, 1. 122, f. D, E=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae)- Ubium anniversarium 353, t. 123=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae). Ubium pomiferum (incl. silvestre) 354, t. 12U=Dioscorea bulbifera Linn. (Dioscoreaceae) . Inhame St. Thome 355 =:Z>ioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae). Ubium ovale 356, t. 125=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae). Combilium 327, t. 126z=iDioscorea esculenta Burkill (Dioscoreaceae). Ubium quinquefolium 359, t. 127=:Dioscorea pentaphylla Linn. (Diosco- reaceae). Mandiiioca 360=Manihot utilissima Pohl (Euphorbiaceae) . Ubium silvestre 361, t. 128=Dioscorea hispida Dennst. (Dioscoreaceae)- Colot 3Q4=Dio8corea hispida Dennst. (Dioscoreaceae). Ubium polypoldes I album 364, t. 129=:Stemona tuberosa Lour. (Stemon- aceae). Ubium polypoldes II nigrum S6b=Stemona moluccana C. H. Wright (St^' monaceae), Batatta 367, t. 130=Ipomoea tuberosa Poir. (Convolvulaceae) . Batatta mammosa 370, t. 131 = 1 Operculina turpethum S. Manso (Convo- vulaceae) . QIans terrestrls costensis 372, t. 132, f. l=Coleus tuberosus Benth. (^^' biatae), Cacara bulbosa 373, t. 132, f. 2=Pachyrrhizus erosus Urb. (Leguminosae)- SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 535 Lobus quadrangularis 374, t. lS3z=zPsophocarpus tetragonolohus DC. (Leg- uminosae) . Dolichos sinensis 375, t, 13j^ = Vigna sinensis Endl. (Leguminosae) . Lobus machaeroides 376, t, 135^ f. l=Canavalia gladiata DC. (Legumi- nosae). Phaseolus balicus 377, t, 135, f, 2=Cajanus cajan Millsp. (Leguminosae). Cacara 378, t. 136=Dolichos lablab Linn. (Leguminosae). Cacara alba 380, t. 137=:Dolichos lablab Linn. (Leguminosae). Cacara nigra 381, t. 138 — Mucuna aterrima Merr. (Leguminosae) . Phaseolus scriptus 382=? Phaseolus vulgaHs Linn. (Leguminosae). Faba rubra 382=? Phaseolus vulgaris Linn. (Leguminosae). Phaseolus minor 383, t. 139, f. lz=Vigna cylindrica Merr. (Leguminosae). Phaseolus minimus 386, t. 139, f. 2z=.Phaseolus aureus Roxb. (Legumi- nosae). Phaseolus minimus silvestris Z'^l —Pueraria phaseoloides Benth. (Legumi- nosae). Cadelium 388, t. IJfO^i Glycine max Merr. (Leguminosae). Phaseolus cylindraceus S89=Phaseolus calcaratus Roxb. (Leguminosae) . Cacara litorea 390, t. IJfl, f. l = Canavalia microcarpa Merr. (Leguminosae) . Cacara litarea 390, p. ^. — Canavalia lineata DC. (Leguminosae). Phaseolus maritimus 391, t. 1^1, f. 2 — Vigna marina Merr. (Leguminosae) . Cacara pilosa Z'd2=Mucuna aterrima Merr. (Leguminosae). Cacara pruritus 393, t. lJf2=Mucuna pruriens DC. (Leguminosae) . Comolenga 395, t. 1^3=Benincasa hispida Cogn. (Cucurbitaceae) . Cucurbita lagenaria 397, t. 144=Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi- taceae). Cucurbita lagenaria silvestris S9S=Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi- taceae). Cucurbita indica vulgaris 398=? Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi- taceae). Pepo indicus 399, t. 145=:Cucurbita pepo Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). Anguria indica (incl. altera) 400, t. lU^, f. 1—Citrullus vulgaris Schrad. (Cucurbitaceae) . Melo 404 = Cttcwmis melo Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). Cucumis indicus 404 (incl. vulgaris, butonensis, sinensis) =CwcMmis sa- tivus Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). Cucumis indicus IV maximus AOA = Cucumis melo Linn., var. (Cucurbi- taceae). Petola s. Petola Tschina 405, t. lJ!f7=Luffa cylindrica Roem. (Cucurbita- ceae). Petola anguina 407, t. 14.8=Trichosanthes anguina Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). Petola bengalensis 408, t. 11^9— Luff a acutangula Roxb. (Cucurbitaceae). Petola silvestris 409, t. 150=.Luffa cylindrica Roem. (Cucurbitaceae). Amara indica 410, t. 151=zMomordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). ^f^ara sinica All =Momordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbitaceae). ^n^ara silvestris 413, t. 152, f. 1=1 Momordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbi- taceae). ^oppya rotunda 414, t. 153=Momordica cochinchinensis Sprang. (Curcur- ^itaceae) . ^oppya oblonga 414=? Momordica cochinchinensis Spreng. (Cucurbita'^ ceae). 536 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Poppya silvestrls 414, i. 152y f. 2=Trichosanthe8 trifolia Merr. (Cucurbi- taceae) . Pomum amoris 416, t. IBJf, f. l=Ly coper sicum esculentum Mill. {Solaria- ceae). Gandola (incl. alba et rubra) 417, t. 154, /. 2=Basella rubra Linn. {Basel laceae) . Olus vagum (incl. palustre) 419, t. 155, /. l=Ipomoea reptans Poir. {Con- volvulaceae) . Flos cardinalis (incl. albus) 421, t. 155, f. 2 = Quamoclit pennata Boj. (Convolvulaceae) . Seruneum aquatile 423, t. 156, f. l=zWedelia biflora DC. {Compositae) . Chamaebalanus japonica 426, t. 156, /. 2=Arachis hypogaea Linn. {Legn- minosae). Convolvulus iaevis Indicus major 428, t, 157, /. 1, 2==Merremia peltata Merr. (Convolvulaceae). Convolvulus Iaevis indicus rubra 429==Ipomoea rumphii Miq. = ? Stido- cardia campanulata Merr. (Convolvulaceae). Convolvulus Iaevis Indicus nigra A29=Ipomoea rumphii Miq.= ? Sticto- cardia campanulata Merr. (Convolvulaceae) . Convolvulus Iaevis minor (incl. 11 femlna et mas) 431, t. 158—Merremia umbellata Hallier f. (Convolvulaceae). Convolvulus Iaevis HI ampas ampas AZ2=Stephania forsteri A. Gray (Menispermaceae) . Convolvulus coeruleus 4S2=zIpomoea indica Merr. (Convolvulaceae), Convolvulus marl n us major 433, t. 159, f. l=Ipomoea pes-caprae Roth (Convolvulaceae) . Convolvulus marl n us II minor AZZ—Ipomoea pes-caprae Roth {Convol- vulaceae). Convolvulus riparlus 435 t. 159, f. 2=Ipomoea gracilis R. Br. (Coyivol- vulaceae) . Convolvulus foetidus 436, t. 160=:Paederia foetida Linn. (Rubiaceae). Pseudochina amboinensis 437, t. 161=Smilax javensis A. DC. (Liliaceae)- Pseudochina amboinensis M nigra 4Z9~Smilax leucophylla Blume (Lil- taceae). Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph. 438=? Smilax leucophylla var. platij- phylla Merr. (Liliaceae). Radix chinae 441 = ? Smilax china Linn. (Liliaceae). Ubium nummularium 444, t. 162=Dioscorea nummularia Lam. (Diosco- reaceae) . Ubium nummularium floriferum 445, t. 163=1 Dioscorea nummularia Lani. (Dioscoreaceae) . Funis crepitans I major 446, t. 16^, f. l=:Cissus repens Lam. (Vitaceae). Funis crepitans II minor 446, t. 164^, f. 2 = Cissus repens Lam. (Vitaceae)- Funis crepitans lil trifolia 447, t. 165 = Columella geniculata Merr. i}^' taceae) . Funis crepitans IV 447 = Cissws sp. (Vitaceae). Vltis alba Indica 448, t. 166, f. l=Coccinea cordifolia Cogn. {Cucurbit- aceae). Folium causonis 450, t. 166, f. 2z=Columella trifolia Merr. (Vitaceae)- Folium causonis lltoreum AbO = Tetrastigma sp. (Vitaceae). Labrusca molucca 452, t. 167=Ampelocis8U8 ar achnoidea 'Plsmch. {Vitaceae}^ Radix veslcatoria 453, t. 168=Plumhago indica Linn. (Plumb aginaceae) ■ SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 537 Pes equinus 455, t, 169, f. l=Centella asiatica Urb. (Umhelliferae) . Empetrum acetosum I album 457, t. 169, f, 2=:Begonia tuherosa Lam. (Begoniaceae) . Empetrum acetosum II rubrum ^^1— Begonia sp. {Begoniaceae) . Empetrum acetosum III cordatum 4chl— Begonia sp. {Begoniaceae) , Serratula amara 459, t. 170, f. l=:Curanga fel-terrae Merr. {Scrophula- riaceae) . Crusta oilae I major 460, t, 170, /. 2=Ilysanthes antipoda Merr. {Scrophu- lariaceae) . Crusta ollae II minor 461, t. 170, f. 3-=.Lindernia Crustacea F. MuelL {Scro- phulariaceae) . Crusta ollae III angustifolia 461, t. 170, /. 4=Dentella repens Forst. {Rubia- ceae) , Herba timoris 462=? Cucumis murinus ruber 463, t. 171, f. l=Melothria javanica Cogn. {Cucur- oitaceae) . Cucumis murinus viridis 463, t. 171, f. 2=Melothria indica Lour. {Cucur- bitaceae) , Corona ariadnes I punicea 464, t. 172—Hoya sussuela Merr. {Asclepia- daceae) . Corona ariadnes 11 lutea 46b=Hoya lutea Dene. {Asclepiadaceae) . Apocynum 466 = Periploca graeca Linn. {Asclepiadaceae). Sussuela esculenta I mas 467, t. 173, f. l=Cynanchum sp. {Asclepiadaceae) . Sussuela esculenta II femina 467, t. 173, /. 2~Cynanchum ovalifolium Wight {Asclepiadaceae), Olus crepitans I mas 469, t. 17 U, /. 1 — Tylophora sp. {Asclepiadaceae). Olus crepitans II femlna 469, t. 17 U, /• 2=Dischidia sp. {Asclepiadaceae) . Nummularia lactea major I fusca 470, t. 175, f. l=Hoya rumphii Blume {Asclepiadaceae). Nummularia lactea major II alba ilO = Hoya alba KosteL {Asclepiadaceae) . Nummularia lactea major minor 471, t. 175, /. 2=Hoya sp. {Asclepia- daceae). Nummularia lactea major ill albo-purpurea 471=Hoya elegans KosteL {Asclepiadaceae) . Nummularia lactea minor I minima 472, t. 176, f, 1—Dischidia nummu- laria R. Br. {Asclepiadaceae). Nummularia lactea minor II major 473, t. 176, f. 2=Dischidia rumphii Miq. {Asclepiadaceae). Pustula arborum 473, t. 175, f. 3 — Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume {Asclepiadaceae) . P*eponaster major 474:=Aristolochia sp. {Aristolochiaceae) . Radix puloronica s. peponaster minor 476, t. 177=Aristolochia rumphii KosteL {Aristolochiaceae). Oculus astaci 479, t. 178, f. l=Cissus aristata Blume. {Vitaceae). O'us crepitans mas 480, t. 178, f. 2^Finlaysonia obovata Wall. {Asclep- iadaceae). ^unis toaccae 481, t. 179—Fagraea amboinensis Blume {Loganiaceae) . ^'us sanguinis 482, t. 180 — Cardiopterix moluccana Blume {Icacinaceae) . ^dpendix arborum (incL parvifolia et media) 483, t. 181, f. 1, 2=Pothos latif alius Linn. {Araceae). '^^pendix porcellanica 485, t. 182, f. l=Pothos rumphii Schott {Araceae). 538 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Adpendix erecta 487, t. 182, f. 2=Aglaonema oblongifolium Kunth {Ara- ceae). Adpendix cuscuaria I angustifolia 4SS =:Freycinetia sp. (Pandanaceae) . Adpendix cuscuaria II latifolia 489, t. 183, f, l=Scindapsus marantaefolia Miq. (Araceae). Adpendix laciniata 489, t. 183, f. 2 = Epipremnum pinnatum Engl. (Ara- ceae). Adpendix dupio folio 490, t, 18^, f. 1, £ = Pothos longifolius Presl (Araceae). Adpendix III 490, t. 18J^, f. 3=Pothos longifolius Presl (Araceae). Cussuta V. Cussutha indlca 491, t. 18J!i., f. J^=Cassytha filiformis Linn. (Lauraceae) . VOLUME VI Cyperus rotund us 1, t. 1, f. l=Cyperus rotundus Linn. (Cyperaceae) . Cyperus rotundus II floridus, 2, t. i, /. 2=Pycreus odoratus Urb. (Cyp- eraceae). Cyperus rotundus (vars.) 3, A^Cyperaceae indet. Cyperus long us 5, t. 2, /. l=zRemirea maritima Aubl. (Cyperaceae). Cyperus ilttoreus 6, t. 2, f. 2—Spinifex littoreus Merr. (Cyperaceae) . Cyperus dulcis 7, t. 3, f. l=Eleocharis dulcis Trin. (Cyperaceae). Gramen capitatum 8, t. 3, f. 2—Kyllinga monocephala Rottb. (Cyperaceae), Gramen vaccinum femina 9, t. U, /• l=Dactyloctenium aegyptium Richt. (Gramineae) , Gramen vaccinum mas 10, t. U, /• 2=Eleusine indica Gaertn. (Gramineae) . Goddam 10=:Eleusine corocana Gaertn. (Gramineae). Gramen repens minus ll = Cynodon dactylon Pers. Gramen caninum ll=:Digitaria sanguinalis Scop., var. (Gramineae). Gramen fumi 11, t. 4, f. 3=zEragrostis amabilis W. & A. (Gramineae). Champeu ll = Panicu7n stagninum Retz. (Gramineae). Gramen supplex 12=Digitaria sanguinalis Scop. (Gramineae). Gramen roris (incl. litoreum) 12z:zThuarea involuta R. Br. (Gramineae). Gramen anatum 13=Panicum reptans Linn. (Gramineae). Gramen aciculatum 13, t. 5, f. 1—Andropogon aciculatum Retz. (Gram- ineae). Hippogrostis amboinica I major 14, t. 5, f. 2—Ischaemum timorense Kunth ( Gramineae ) . Hippogrostis amboinica II minor 14, t. 5, f. 3 = 0plismenus compositus Beauv. ( Gramineae ) . Gramen arguens 15, t. 6, f. 1 — Themeda frondosa Merr. (Gramineae). CalamagrostIs 16, t. 6, f. 2 = Anthistiria gigantea Hack. (Gramineae). Gramen polytrichum amboinense 17, t. 7, f. l^Fimhristylis setacea Benth. (Cyperaceae). Gramen caricosum 17, t. 7, f. 2=zlmperata cylindrica Beauv. var. koenig^^ (Retz.) Benth. (Gramineae). Gramen vulplnum 18, t. 7, f. 2 B=Setaria flava Kunth (Gramineae). Phoenix amboinica montana 19, t. 7, f. 3=Andropogon amboinicus Merr. (Gramineae) . Carex amboinica I major 20, t. 8, f. 1—Scleria bancana Miq. (Cyperaceae)- Carex amboinica II minor 20z=zScleria lithosperma Sw. (Cyperaceae). Carex amboinica III 20=:Cyperaceae indet. Carex amboinica laevis major 21=Mapania macrocephala K. Sch. (CyP' eraceae) . SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 539 Carex ambolnica laevls minor 21 =Hy poly trum latifolium L. C. Rich. (Cyperaceae) . Carex arborea 21, t. 8^ f. 3=:Freycinetia graminea Blume (Pandanaceae) , Carex culmaris 21=zGahnia rawacensis Steud. (Cyperaceae), Lithospermum amboinicum 22, t. 9, f. l=Coix lachryma johi (Linn.) (Gramineae) . Arundinella I minor 23, t. 9, /. 2 — Commelina nudiflora Linn. (Commeli- naceae) . Arundinella II major 2^ — Commelina benghalensis Linn. {Commelinaceae) . Arundinella III aquatica 24: — Cyanotis moluccana Merr. (Commelinaceae) . Arundinella IV adhaerens 2bz:zAneilema vitiense Seem. var. pctiolata C. B. Clarke ( Commelinaceae ) . Arundinella V albiflora 2b=Floscopa scandens Lour. (Commelinaceae) . Crateogonum amboinicum I minus 25=Hedyotis tenelliflora Blume (Ruhia^ ceae) . Crateogonum amboinicum II majus 25, t. 10=:Hedyotis verticillata Lam. (Rubiaceae) , Rosmarinus varus sinensis 26=Rosmarinus officinalis Linn. (Labiatae) . Auris canina I femina 26, t. ll = Cyathula prostrata Blume (Amaran- thaceae). Auris canina 11 mas 27, t. 12, f. l=Achyranthes aspera Linn. (Amaran- thaceae). Herba memoriae 29, t. 12, /. 2=Pouzolzia zeylanica Benn. (Urticaceae) . Prunella molucca hortensis I latlfolia 30, t. 13, f. 1—Hemigraphis sp. (Acanthaceae) . Prunella molucca hortensis II angustifolia 30, t, 13, /. A. B.=:Hemigr aphis angustifolia Hallier f. (Acanthaceae), Prunella molucca hortensis III Zl=Hemigraphis petola Hallier f. (Acan- thaceae) . Prunella molucca silvestris I alba 31, t. 13, f. 2—Hemigraphis reptans var. glaucescens Hallier f. (Acanthaceae), Prunella molucca silvestris M rubra 32, t. 13, f. 3=He7nigraphis sp. (Acan- thaceae). Prunella molucca silvestris III rotunda ^2—Hemigraphis sp. (Acanthaceae) . Ophiocolla altera ZA—P sender anthemum curtatum Merr. (Acanthaceae), Aylilin 34 = indet. Olus scrofinum I album 34, t, 14, f, l—Adenostemma lavenia 0. Kuntze (C ompo sitae) , Olus scrofinum II rubrum Sb = Ageratum conyzoides Linn. (C ompo sitae) , 01 us scrofinum ill luteum 3b = Crepis japonica Benth. (Compositae) . Senecio amboinicus 36, t, 14, f, 2 = Vernonia cinerea Less. (Compositae). O'us squillarum 37, t. 15, f. l=Alternanthera sessilis R. Br. (Amaran- thaceae). Agrimonia molucca 38, t. 15, f. 2 — Biden8 chinensis Willd. (Compositae) . *^erba admiratlonis S9=Leucas zeylanica R. Br. (Labiatae). *^erba admiratlonis, quoad t. 16, f. l=Leucas lavandulifolia Sm. '^ajana foetida 41, t. 16, f. 2=:Dysophylla auricularia Blume (Labiatae). ^Cfba moeroris alba 41, t. 17, f. lz=zPhyllanthus niruri Linn. (Euphor- biaceae). •^erba moeroris rubra 41, t. 17, f. 2=Phyllanthus urinaria Linn. (Euphor- biaceae). ^cl'ptlca 43, t. 18, f. l=Eclipta alba (Linn.) Hassk. (Compositae) . 540 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Sigalurium I rotundum 44, t. 19=Sida retusa Linn. (Malvaceae) . Sigalurium M longifolium 45, t. 18^ f. 2=Sida acuta Burm. f. {Malvaceae). Sigalurium Ml album 45=5tda sp. {Malvaceae). Urtica decumana (incl. alba et rubra) 47, t. 20, f. l—Laportea decumana (Roxb.) Wedd. {Urticaceae) . Urtica decumana III vulgaris AS=Fleurya interrupta Gaudich. {Urtica- ceae). Urtica mortua 49, t. 20, f. 2=Micrococca mercurialis Benth. {Euphor- biaceae). He»rba vitiliglnum 49, t. 21, f. l=Jussiaea suffruticosa Linn. {Oenothe- raceae). Folium tinctorium (incl. album et rubrum) 51, t. 22, f. l=Peristrophe bivalvis Merr. (Acanthaceae) . Bungum I mas 52, t. 22, f. 2 = Lepidagathis rumphid Merr. (Acanthaceae) . Bungum 11 femina 52, t. 21, f. 2— P sender anthemuTn pulchellum Merr. (Acanthaceae) . Moretiana 53, t. 23, /. l-=^Ruellia repens Linn. (Acanthaceae). Olus caprinum b4^=:Pseuderanthemu7n racemosum Radlk. (Acanthaceae). Esula escuienta 54, t. 23, f. 2z=:Euphorbia hirta Linn. (Euphorbiaceae) . Conyza odorata 55, t. 2U, /. l=Blumea balsamifera DC. ( Compo sitae) . Conyza indlca mas 56=? Blumea appendiculata DC. (Compo sitae). Conyza cadaverum 56=? Blumea appendiculata DC. (Compositae) . Conyza indica minor hQ— Blumea sp. (Compositae) . Adulterina 58, t. 25, /. l=Solanum verbascifolium Linn. (Solanaceae) . Lappago amboinica laclniata 59, t. 25, f. 2—Urena lobata Linn. (Mal- vaceae). Lappago amboinica sllvestris QO = Triumfetta bartramia Linn. (Tiliaceae). Halicacabus indicus I major QO=Physalis angulata Linn. (Solanaceae). Halicacabus indicus II minor 61, t. 26, f. l=:Physalis minima Linn. (Sola- naceae). Halicacabus peregrin us 61, t. 2k ^ f- 2=:Cardio8permum halicacabum Linn. (Sapnndaceae) . Halicacabus baccifer 62, t. 26, f. 2=Solanum nigrum Linn. (Solanaceae). Palmlfillx I nigra 63, t. 27=Cyathea amboinensis (v. A. v. R.) Merr. (Cya- theaceae) . Palmifilix II alba QS = Cyathea runiphiana (v. A. v. R.) Merr. (Cyathe- aceae) . Palmifilix 111 postium QZ=:Cyathea sp. (Cyatheaceae) . Filix canarina 64=Polypodiaceae indet. Fillx aquatica 65, t. 28=Angiopteris amboinensis De Vr. (Marattiaceae)- Filix aquatica II mas 66=Polypodiaceae indet. Filix escuienta 67, t. 29=Athyrium esculentum Copel. (Polypodiaceae) . Filix amboinica mas 69 = Dryopteris ferox O. Kuntze (Polypodiaceae). Filix amboinica urens 69 = Polypodiaceae indet. Filix lanuginosa 69 = Cibotium baranetz J. Sm. vel Dicksonia sorbifolia Sm. Lonchitis amboinica recta I major rubra 70, t. 30, /. l=Blechnum orientak Linn. (Polypodiaceae). Lonchitis amboinica recta I major alba 70, t. SO, /. ^ = ? Polypodhm pallens Blume (Polypodiaceae). Lonchitis amboinica recta 11 minor nigra ll=:Tectaria crenata Cav. (Poly- podiaceae). Lonchitis amboinica recta 11 minor alba 11 =z Polypodiaceae indet SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 541 Lonchitis amboinica III volubilis 71, t. 31—Stenochlaena palustris Bedd. (Polypodiaceae) . Lonchitis saguaria 72= Polypodiaceae indet. Lonchitis amara 72= Polypodiaceae indet. Lonchitis pilosa 72= Polypodiaceae indet. Lonchitis muscosa Q2= Polypodiaceae indet. Dryopteris triplex arborea 73, t. 32, f. l=Davallia elata Spreng. (Polypo- diaceae). Dryopteris triplex silvestris I terrestris 74 = Tapeinidiuni amhoynense C. Chr. (Polypodiaceae). Dryopteris triplex silvestris arborea 7 4:= Polypodiaceae indet. Dryopteris triplex silvestris petraea 74=Adiantu7n or Lindsaya sp. (Poly- podiaceae) . Dryopteris campestris 74, t. 3^, f. 2 = Cheilanthes tenuifolia Sw. (Polypo- diaceae). Adianthum volubile I polype ides 75, t. 33 = Lygodium circinatum Sw. (Schi- zaeaceae). Adianthum volubile M medium 7b=Lygodium circinatum Sw. (Schizae- aceae). Adianthum volubile III minus 75, t. 32, f. 2, 3 = Lygodium scandens Sw. (Schizaeaceae) . Capillus veneris amboinicus 77, t. 3J^, f. l=Adiantum sp. (Polypodiaceae) . Filix florida 78, t. 35, f. l=Stenosemia aurita Presl (Polypodiaceae). Polypodium indicum I pilosum s. majus 78, t. 36=Drynaria sparsisora Moore (Polypodiaceae). Polypodium indicum II minus 80, t. <^5, /. 2=Polypodivmi phymatodes Linn. (Polypodiaceae) . Phyllitis amboinica I arborea 82 (t. 37, f. 1?) =Asplenium nidus Linn. (Polypodiaceae) . Phyllitis amboinica II terrestris S2= Asplenium nidus Linn. (Polypodia- ceae). Simbar majangan ^Z=:Platy cerium coronarium Desv. (Polypodiaceae) . Scolopendria major 84, t. 37, f. 3=Ophioglossum pendulum Linn. (Ophio- glossaceae) . Scolopendria minor 84 = ? Polypodium sinuosum WalL (Polypodiaceae). P'ilix calamaria 85, t. 38 = Gleichenia linearis Clarke (Gleicheniaceae) . Muscus frutescens femina 86, t. 39, f. l=Selaginella plana Hieron. (Selagi- nellaceae) . f^uscus frutescens mas 87, t. 39, f. 2=Selaginella d'urvillei A. Br. (Sela- ginellaceae) . •Vluscus frutescens III muscagineus S7 =Fungi indet. ^'ngulum terrae 87, t. UO, f. l=Lycopodium cernuum Linn. (Lycopodiaceae) . Barba saturni S8=Usnea sp. (Lichenes) . f^uscus capillaris 89, t. J^O, f. 2=Usnea sp. (Lichenes). •^uscus gelatinus japonicum 90, t. J^O, f. 3 = Gelidium amansii Kiitz. (Rhodo- Phyceae). ^^pillus nympharum 90 = Chaetomorp ha javanicum Kiitz. (Chlorophyceae) . '^Iga coralloides sinensium 90=Algae indet. (Rhodophyceae) . •^schintschau javanense 90=Salvia plebeia R. Br. (Labiatae) . ^quisetum amboinicum 91, t. 41, f. l=Lycopodium phlegmaria Linn. (Ly- copodiaceae). 542 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Equisetum amboinicum minor 92=? Lycopodium nummularifolium Blume {Lycopodiaceae) . Equisetum secundum 92=Psilotum triquetrum Sw. (Psilotaceae) . Equisetum silvestre 92=Schizaea dichotoma Sw. (Schizaeaceae) . Folium petolatum i mas 92, t. 41, /. 2="! Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm. (Orchidaceae) . Folium petolatum II femlna 93, t. Jfl, /. 3=Anoectochilus reinwardtii Blume ( Orchidaceae ) . Angraecum scriptum 95, t. J!i.2 — Graptophyllum pictum Blume (Orchidaceae). Angraecum M mangarum 96=^ Orchidaceae indet. Angraecum III cocorum 96 = Orchidaceae indet. Angraecum album majus 99, t. 4^ =Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume (Orchi- daceae), Angraecum album majus flore purpureo 99 =:Phalaenop sis amabilis Blume (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum album majus var. altera 99 =Phalaenop sis amabilis Blume (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum album minus 99, t Mf f- l=Dendrobium ephemerum J. J. Sm. (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum rubrum 101, t. UU, /• 2=Renanthera moluccana Blume (Orchi- daceae), Angraecum quintum 102 z=Vandopsis lissochiloides Pfitz. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum 102 =:Dendrobium rumphianum Teysm. (Orchidaceae), Angraecum flavum septimum 103, t, ^5 (et t. AS, f, 2?) =Dendrobium mirbelianum Gaudich. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum flavum octavum 104, t. 46, f, l=Vanda furva Lindl. (Orchi- daceae). Angraecum flavum nonum 104=? Dendrobium rumphianum T. & B. (Orchi- daceae). Angraecum flavum decimum 104=Lmsm confusa Rchb. f. (Orchidaceae)- Angraecum caninum undecimum 105, t. ^7, /. l=Dendrobium anosmum Lindl. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum nervosum 106, t. 48=:Coelogyne rumphii Lindl. (Orchidaceae)- Angraecum pungens 106 =Sarcanthus subulatus Reichb. f. (Orchidaceae)- Angraecum saxatlle 107, t. 49, f, l = Vanda sp. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum crumenatum t. 47, /. 2=Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum angustis crumenis 107=Eria moluccana Schltr. & J. J- Sni* (Ochidaceae) . Angraecum sediforme 107 = Orchidaceae indet. Angraecum uniflorum 101= Bulb ophy Hum sp. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum gajang 10%=Liparis treubii J. J. Sm. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum jamboe 10S = Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum taeniosum 108= Orchidaceae indet. Angraecum lanuginosum 108=jE'rm sp. (Orchidaceae). Angraecum purpureum et nudum 109, t. 49, f, 2=Dendrobium sp. (Orch'^' daceae). Angraecum purpureum M silvestre 109, t. 50, f. l=Dendrobium purpureum Roxb. (Orchidaceae). Herba supplex I minor 110, t. 50, f. 2=Dendrobium moluccense J. J- ^^" (Orchidaceae), SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 543 Herba supplex major femina s. secunda \\\=Dendrobiu7n acinaciforme Roxb. (Orchidaceae) . Herba supplex major femina s. secunda t. 51, /. 1 =Dendrobium sp. (Orchi- daceae). Herba supplex major secunda 111 = ? Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae). Herba supplex major tertia 111 = ? Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae). Herba supplex major quarta 111= Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae). Herba supplex major quinta 111, t. 51, f. 2=Dendrobium calceolum Roxb. (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum terrestre primum I purpureum 112=: Spatho glottis plicata Blume ( Orchidaceae ) . Angraecum terrestre alterum 113, t. 52, f. l=Phaius amboinensis Blume (Orchidaceae) . Angraecum terrestre primum album 113, t. 50, f. S=Phaius gratus Blume (Orchidaceae). Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre tertlum 114, t. 53=Curculigo capitulata 0. Kuntze (Amaryllidaceae) . Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre alterum llb=:Panicum palmifolium Koenig (Gramineae). Flos triplicatus 115, t. 52, f. 2 = Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. (Orchidaceae) . Orchis ambolnica major I 116=? Eulophia sp. (Orchidaceae). Orchis ambolnica major II 117, t. 5Jf, f. l=Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. (Amaryllidaceae) . Orchis ambolnica minor 118, t. 5^, f. 2=Habenaria rumphii Lindl. (Orchi- daceae). Orchis ambolnica minor altera 118, t. 5Jf, f. 3=Peristylu8 sp. (Orchidaceae). Nidus germlnans formlcarum I nigrarum 119, t. 55, f. l=Hydnophytum amboinense Becc. (Rubiaceae). Nidus germlnans formlcarum M rubrarum 119, t. 55, f. 2=Myrmecodia rumphii Becc. (Rubiaceae). Tuber re glum 120, t. 57, /. U=^Lentinus tuber regium Fries (Hymenomy- cetineae) and Pachyma tuber regium Fries (Fungi, incert.). Hoelen 122=Pachyma hoelen Fries (Fungi, incert.). Tuber sampadarlum 12S= Poly g aster sampadarius Fries (PlectobasidUneae) . Boletus moschocaryanus 124= Agaricus moschocaryanus Fries (Hymenomy- cetineae) . Boletus saguarius 124= Hym^enomy cetineae indet. Boletus Infundlbull forma [figura] 125, t. 56, f. l=Lentinus sajor-caju Fries (Hymenomy cetineae) . Boletus infundibuli forma altera 125=? Lentinus sajor caju Fries (Hyme- nomy cetineae) . Boletus II arboreus 125, t. 56, f. 2, 3=Lentinus djamor Fries (Hymenomy- cetineae) . Boletus III umbracull forma 126= Hymenomy cetineae indet. Boletus IV terrestrls 126= Hymenomy cetineae indet. Boletus V auris murina 126, t. 56, f. j^ = Hirneola auricula judae Berk. (Hymenomycetineae) . '^"ngus arboreus I 127 =Polyporu8 sp. (Hymenomycetineae). '^"ngus arboreus 11 12S=Polyporu8 sp. and Polystictus sanguineus Fries (Hymenomycetineae). '^i^ngus arboreus III 12S=Favolu8 sp. (Hymenomycetineae). 544 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Fungus elatus petasoides 128 = Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.) Pat, (Hymenomycetineae) . Fungus elatus cochlearls 129, t. 57, f. l = Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.) Pat. {Hymenomycetineae). Fungus elatus digitatus 129, t. 57, f. 2, 3z=iGanoderma cochlear (Nees) Merr. {Hymenomycetineae). Fungus igneus 130, t. 56, f. 5 = Hymenomycetineae indet. Fungus arborum tuberosus 130=? Lycoperdon sp. {Ly coper dineae) . Crepitus lupl verus 1^1 — Lycoperdon sp. {Lycoperdineae) . Phallus daemon um 131, t. 56, f. 7=Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. {Phalli- neae). Macuerus femlna 132, t. 58, f. l=Cyrtandra decurrens DeVr. {Gesneria- ceae). Macuerus mas 133, t. 58, f. 2=Pellionia sinuata Boerl. {Urticaceae) . Lomba 133, t. 59, /. l=Piper subpeltatum Willd. {Piperaceae) . Globba longa 134, t. 60, f. 1 A=Amomum rumphii Sm. {Zingiberaceae) . Globba crispa I viridls 137, t. 61, f. 1—Amomnm sp. {Zingiberaceae) . Globba crispa II rubra 137, t, 60, /. B-D; t. 61, f. 2=zAmomum roseum Benth. & Hook. f. {Zingiberaceae). Globba uvlformis 138, t. 59, /. 2=Alpinia uviformis Horan. (vel Plagios- tachys) {Zingiberaceae). Globba hatuana 138=? Amomum aculeatum Roxb. {Zingiberaceae). Globba uviformis 11 Lawassi malacca lS9=^Riedelia lanata K. Sch. {Zingi- beraceae). Globba acris 140= Amomum acre Val. {Zingiberaceae) . Globba silvestris major 140, t. 62, 63=Alpinia nutans Horan. {Zingibe- raceae) . Globba silvestris minor 141= Alpinia gigantea Blume {Zingiberaceae) . Globba silvestris sekala 141=? Amomum sp. {Zingiberaceae). Globba silvestris sulica 141=? Amomum magyiificum Benth. & Hook. f. {Zingiberaceae) . Globba silvestris pada kanka 142=Alpinia sp. {Zingiberaceae). Globba silvestris subterranea 142 = AmoTnum sp. {Zingiberaceae). Herba spiralis I hirsuta 143, t. 64, /. l=Costus speciosus Blume var. hirsutus Blume {Zingiberaceae) . Herba spiralis M laevis 143, t. 64, f- 2 = Costus speciosus Blume {Zingibe- raceae). ABCdaria 145, t. 65=Spilanthes acmella Linn. {C ompo sitae) . Phaseolus montanus I, II 146=Tephrosia sp. {Leguminosae) . Phaseolus montanus ill, IV 146 = Crotalaria linifolia Linn. f. {Legum- inosae). Crotalaria montana V 146=Desmodium gangeticum DC. {Leguminosae) . Crotalaria montana V quoad t. 66=Desmodium ormocarpoides DC. (Legu- minosae). Crotalaria montana VI, VII 146=Desmodium triquetrum DC. {Legum- inosae) . Crotalaria montana VIM Tsjeme-tsjeme 146= Leguminosae indet. Amoena moesta 147, t. 67, f. l = Cassia mimosoides Linn. {Legmninosae) • Pilosella amboinica 14S = Compositae indet. Rhabarbarum sinense 14S=Rheum rhabarbarum Linn. {Polygonaceae)- Phaseolus adhaerens IbO =Pseudarthria viscida W. & A. (Leguminosae)- SEQUENCE OP BUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 545 Terebinthina 150, t, 67, /, 2=:Limnophila aromatica Merr. (Scrophula- riaceae). Menthastrum amboinlcum 151, t. 68, /. l=Livinophila rugosa Merr. (Scro- phulariaceae) , Ophioglossum simplex Indicum 152, t. 68, f. 2 — Ophioglossum peduncu- losum Desv. (Ophioglossaceae) , Ophioglossum lacin latum 153, t. 68, f. 3=Helininthostachys zeylanica Hook. (Ophioglossaceae) . Radix toxicaria I major 155, t, 69z=zCrinum asiaticum Linn. {Amarylli- daceae) . Radix toxicaria II terrestrit 156 = Crmwm rumphii Merr. (Amaryllidaceae) . Cepa silvestris 160, t. 70, f. l==Eurycles amboinensis Herb. (Amarylli- daceae). Lilium indicum 161, t. 70, /. 2 z= Pancratium zeylanicum Linn. {Amarylli- daceae). Lilium Indicum javanlcum 1Q2= Amaryllidaceae indet. Aquifollum Indicum I mas 163, t. 71, f. l=Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl (Acanthaceae) . Aquifolium indicum II femlna 163, t. 71, f. 2=Acanthus volubilis Wall. (Acanthaceae) . Crithamus Indlcus I ruber 165, t. 72, f. l=Sesuvium portulacastrum Linn. (Aizoaceae) . Crithamus (Kaly artlculatum) l^Qz=:Salicornia herbacea Linn. (Chenopod- iaceae ) . Crithamus verus 166, t. 72, f. 2=zCrithamum maritimum Linn. (Umbelli- ferae) . Nymphaea Indlca major 168, t. 73=Nelumbium nelumbo Druce (Nym- phaeaceae) . Nymphaea Indlca minor 172=Nymphaea pubescens Willd. & N. stellata Willd. (Nymphaeaceae) . Nymphaea Indica minor II ceramica 173, t. 72, /. 3 = Limnanthemuin indicum Griseb. (Gentianaceae) . Millefolium aquaticum 176, t. 7Uy /. l = Ceratopteris thalictroides Brongn. (Parkeriaceae) . Plantago aquatica 177, t. 7U, /. 2=Pistia stratiotes Linn. (Araceae) . Olus palustre 178, t. 75, f. l=Monochoria vaginalis Presl (Pontederiaceae) . Olus palustre femlna n8=Monochoria vaginalis Presl, var. (Pontederia- ceae). Lens palustrls nS=Lemna sp. (Lemnaceae). Capjiius nympharum 119 = Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz. (Chlorophyceae) . Alga coralloides 181, t. 7j^, f. 3; t. 76, f. A, B, C=Gracilaria lichenoides Harv. (Rhodop hyceae ) . Acetabulum marlnum 185, t. 76, f. l=Sargas8um polycystum J. Ag. (Phaeo- phyceae). Acetabulum marlnum Infundlbuliforme ISb =zTurbinaria ornata J. Ag. Phaeophyceae) . 'Acetabulum marlnum e Macassar lS6=:Turbinaria sp. (Phaeophyceae). ^garum ii s. bractcatum 1S6 z=Mastocarpus klenzeanus Kiitz. (Phaeo- phyceae). 144971 35 546 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Agarum III funiculare s. follatum lSQ=Sargassum aquifolium Ag. {Phaeo- phyceae) . Agarum IV lactucari um lS6=Rhodophyceae indet. Agarum V corticosum 186=Algae indet. Bodeiha lSl=F'ucus vesiculosus Linn. (Phaeophyceae) . Bodeiha altera ISl =Himanthalia lorea Lyng. (Rhodophyceae) . Sargasso s. Wier 187 —Sargassum flavifolium Kiitz. (Phaeophyceae) . Sargassum peiagium 188, t. 76, f. ^=Sargassum bacciferum Ag. (Phaeo- phyceae). Acorus marinus 191, t. 75, f. 2 — Enhalus acoroides Steud. (Hydrochari- taceae) . Cocus maldivicus 210, t. 81=Lodoicea maldivica Pers. (Palmae).* Compar mangae 217, t. 82, /. l=Palmae indet. Cocus maldivicus minor 218, t. 82, f. 2, 3=Palmae indet. Cocus melindanus verus 219, t. 82, f. 4=Palmae indet. Calapput laut 219 =Palmae indet. VOLUME VII (AUCTUARIUM) Mangostana celebica l-=Garcinia celebica Linn. (Guttiferae). Mirobalanus embilica 1, t. l=:Phyllanthus emblica Linn. (Euphorbiaceae) . Nagassarium 3, t 2^=^Mesua ferrea Linn. (Guttiferae). Boa massy 5, t. 3 = Cubilia cubili Merr. (Sapindaceae) . Radix etter 6, t. ^=indet. Arbor sebi l=Dysoxylum sp. (Meliaceae). Morus Indica 8, t. 5—Morus alba Linn. (Moraceae) . Cortex acrls 9=? Cortex igneus 10," t. 6, f. 1 — 1 Pittosporum sp. (Pittosporaceae) . Caja panu 12, t. 6, /. 2=:Psychotria sp. (Rubiaceae). Cortex foetidus 12, t. 7= Pittosporum moluccanumMiq. (Pittosporaceae). Cortex filarius lZ = Gyrinopsis brachyantha Merr. (Thymelaeaceae) . Camean 14, t. 8, f. 1 = 1 Arbor nussalavica 14, t. 8, f. 2=Dysoxylum sp. (Meliaceae) . Oleander sinicus 15, t. 9, f. l=Nerium odorum Mill. (Apocynaceae) . Pariens muscarum 16, t. 9, f. 2=1 (sub. Symplocos), Arbor vespertilionum 17=Helicia serrata R. Br. (Proteaceae) . Arbor vespertilionum II oppositifolia 17, t. 10 = Schizomeria serrata Hochr. (Cunoniaceae) . Pauw (incl. maxima, minima, media) 18, t. ll=Mangifera rumphii Pierre. (Anacardiaceae) . Xylophyllos ceramica 19, t. 12=Exocarpus epiphyllanthus Merr. (Santa- laceae). Ayassa 20=? (sub. Tetracera, Dillenaceae Is prob. Evodia sp., Rutaceae)- Lignum vinosum 21=? Bangel boaja 22=? Stercus squillarum 22 = ? Hystrix frutex 22, t. lS=Barleria prionitis hinn. (Acanthaceae) . Madorius 24, t. IJf, f. l = Calotropis gigantea Dry. (Asclepiadaceae) . *Book 12, pages 193-256, tt. 77-90, is entitled "De arbusculis agcns marinis & plantis saxosis seu de Lithodendris & Lithophytis.'* The forms described and figured are various alcyonarians, corals, sponges, etc., ^vit the exception of the fruits of certain palnis here listed. SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VII 547 Catsjopiri 26, t. IJ/-, f. 2 = Gardenia augusta Merr. (Rubiaceae), Lussa radja 27, t. 15=Brucea amarissima Merr. (Simarubaceae) . Radix mustelae 29, t. 16=zRauwolfia serpentina Hook. f. (Apocynaceae) , Fructus regis 32, t, 17, f. l=Helicteres isora Linn. (Sterculiaceae) . Cheramela 34, t. 17, f. 2 = Cicca acida Merr. (Euphorbiaceae) . Herpetica 35, t. 18 — Cassia alata Linn. {Leguminosae) . Spina spinarum I mas 36, t. 19, f. 1, 2=Flacourtia indica Merr. (Flacour- tiaceae) . Spina spinarum li femina Sl=Flacourtia indica Merr. (Flacourtiaceae) . Tsjuiiang S8=Aglaia odorata Lour. (Meliaceae) . Oxyacantha javana 39, t. 19, /. 3=.1 Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocyna- ceae) . Spina pectinata 39=? Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocynaceae) . Terminalis rubra silvestris 40, t. 20 = Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae) . Campana rubra 42=? Pandorea sp. (Bignoniaceae) . Radix sinica 42, t. 21, f. 1= Panax ginseng C. A. Mey. (Araliaceae) , Tjutsjau javanicum 50, t. 21, f. 2=Salvia plebeia R. Br. (Labiatae) . Soechas pilosa 51, t, 22, f. 1—Adenosma capitatum Benth. (Scrophula- riaceae). Cassutha cornea b2z=:Marasmius sp. (Hymenomycetineae) . Tubu-tubu 52, t. 22, f. 2 = Tapeinochilus ananassae K. Sch. (Zingiberaceae) . Tingulong 54, t. 23, f. l—Protium javanicum Burm. f. (Burseraceae) , Nanium calapparlum 55, t. 23, f. 2=1 Myrtaceae. Malum aruanum 55, t. 2^, f. i=:? Caju gora aruanum 56, t, 2U, /. ^=? Paiala aruana 56, t, 2Uy f- 3=Horsfieldia sp. (Myristicaceae) , Carandas 57, t. 25:=Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocynaceae). Flos siamicus 58, t 26, f. l = Telosma odoratissima Coville (Asclepiada- ceae). Scrotum cussi 59, t. 26, f. 2=:!, Machllus angustifolia 60, i. 27, f. l=Neolitsea amboinensis Merr. {Laura- ceae). Verbena rubra 60, t. 27, f. 2=Aerva sanguinolenta Blume (Amarantha- ceae). Tsjikin 61, t. 28, f. l=Lagerstroemia indica Linn. (Lythraceae) . Ossifraga lactea 62, t. 29=Euphorbia tirucalli Linn. {Euphorbiaceae). Laurus japan lea 6S = Cinnamomum sp. {Lauraceae) . Cinnamomum zeylanicum 6i = Cinnamomum sp. {Lauraceae). Culit Lawan 6b =: Cinnamomum culilawan Blume {Lauraceae). Arbor camphorifera I vera 65, 6S = Cinnamomum. camphora T. Nees & Eberm. {Lauraceae). Arbor camphorifera II occldentalis 65, 6S = Dry obalanops camphora Colebr. (Dipterocarpaceae) . Smilax sarmentis spinulosis 72, t. SO = *i Smilax china Linn. {Liliaceae). ADDENDA As indicated in the footnote on page 168, the specimens of Orchidaceae collected by Doctor Robinson could not be cited under the species to which they pertain as Doctor Smith's man- uscript and all the specimens were left at Leiden. Doctor Smith did not consider it advisable to take the specimens with him on his return to Buitenzorg on account of the abnormal conditions brought about by the war. Doctor Smith's report on the Orchidaceae of the Herbarium Amboinense was written at Buitenzorg, without access to Robinson's specimens or to his manuscript report on Robinson's collection. A copy of his re- port sent from Leiden was lost in transit, but a second copy was sent later, which reached Buitenzorg about the middle of June, and Manila July 11, 1917. At the time of the receipt of this report in Manila, the present work was in page proof, so that it was impracticable to cite the specimens of Orchidaceae in their proper places. The specimens are cited below. Platanthera susannae (Linn.) Lindl. Amboina, Soja road and Way tommo, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 9, August 1 and 16, 1913, terrestrial, on grassy hiUsides, altitude 20 to 150 meters. Habenaria rumphil (Brongn.) Lindl. Amboina, Soja road, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb. 11, August 1, 1913, ter- restrial, on grassy hillsides, altitude 100 to 300 meters. Anoectochllus reinwardtii Blume. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 19, November 5, 1913, sterile; from a cultivated plant originating in the adjacent hills. Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm. Amboina, Way uri. Reliquiae Robinsonianae 1616, September* 9, 1913, terrestrial, in river bottoms, altitude about 25 meters. Flowers white. Coelogyne rumphii Lindl. Amboina, Soja and Bato merah, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 7, August 24 and 31, 1913, altitude 150 to 300 meters. Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. Amboina, Koeseokoesoe sereh, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 10, August 7 and 23, 1913, altitude 200 meters; terrestrial. Flowers white. Spathoglottis pllcata Blume. Amboina, town of Amboina, Soja road, Batoe gad j ah, and Hitoe messen, Robinson, PL Rumph. Amb. 15, Reliquiae Robinsonianae 1628, July, August, and November, 1913, terrestrial altitude 10 to 150 meters. 549 550 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. Amboina, Wakal, on Sonneratia, Robinson PL Rumph, Amb, 13, November 1913. Dendrobium ephemerum J. J. Sm. Amboina, Hitoe lama, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb, 19, November 5, 1913, Dendrobium moiucoense J. J. Sm. Amboina, Roemah tig-a, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 12, July 20, 1913, epiphytic, usually on Calophyllum inophyllum at sea level. The flowers very dark red. Dendrobium purpureum Roxb. Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 5, November 29, 1913, altitude about 20 meters. Epiphytic, pendant, the flowers lilac, the sepals tipped with green. Grammatophyllum scriptum (Linn.) Blume. Amboina, Paso, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 6, October 29, 1913, epiphytic, altitude 10 meters. The flowers green with purple blotches; native name manumpang. Plialaenopsis amabilis (Linn.) Blume. Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 8, August 30, 1913, epiphytic, altitude 4 to 8 meters. Flowers white, callosities on the lip with yellow margins and lilac spots. Luisia confusa Reichb. f. Amboina, Paso, Reliquiae Robinsonianae 1626, July 20, 1913, epiphytic, altitude 2 meters. Flowers yellowish-green, but the lip lilac-purple except for the yellow margin. Renanthera moluccana Blume. Amboina, Soja, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 20, September 27, 1913. Flowers orange-red, spotted all over with red, the tip of the column white. Native names bung a karang and manumpang karang. u\ au of Science Pubucation No. 9.] /^-., C ,.. E R A M X' V, ;''---/ PAPUA \^ H«fur OR N E W :i \ c f i a fi £: s ■v---- rLo;?fj ^;;~' / "N \. /( V.M GE E L VI NH \ ^\a GUINEA -r- 0 A ".' /) A B .^L>^^, ,„.^ ^,.^ ,/~ A R A F U R A ' K "^ '■:Z^ " j,,^ ^/■^-yB^v 1 /■^ SCALE 1 ' n/"' (AUSTRALIA^ C^-^^ :^^ PLATE L AMBOINA AND THE SURROUNDING ISLANDS. I HI AT^ OF Science Purltcation No. 9.] 30 I ^^ !Z8"30' .Kdilolo 1 . HARQEKOrOR OMA' nt.noefot^wano ) r, v/65oe : ''^^"""n wasaioesarPt ^ BatoeKapa ' f.4irthoet }} o fic-^'^r^'^^'^^Hoetoennoen Pt. Noesa Te NoesaHatala^ ^^^'N^'^^l'^k ^ . : t- vvoie Aterr\ ^ v - \^ ^v ui ^ ^ - ^; >^ ^^>^^f> -^..41.<.-.)f-, , . 0^ ir,i '^f^^'-^^ j^-^°^--^aoer Pt. TomollejoePt ^;i^ii:;^^■>•, il^W V *"' "^ '^ ' NoekmaroeTt. A J^ E3d^->^LatoehaIat Noessniwi Pt. .D A n-'£ r:»-J-'^~: ssrj^i'-iit? as WK«BS3WK5l»S2r*at-'!HKSta^»^«eff-^H3S^S?S^^ > j; 30' 3^ 45' 1^. ':b uO 128^^15' izrsQ' PLATE II. AMBOINA ISLAND. INDEX [Synonyms and incidentally mentioned species are in itaiica,! AaliuB latifolia Rumph., 316. parvifolia Rumph., 314. ABCdaria Rumph., 501. Abelmoschus ficulneua W. & A., 358. haenkeanus Presl, 48. mindanaensis Warb., 358. moschatus Medik., 358. Ahiea dammao'a Poir., 76. Abroma augusta Linn, f., 365. fastuosa Jacq., 365. iastuoaa R. Br., 365. mom DC. 866. > Abrus frutex Rumph., 274. precatorius Linn., 274. Abutilon albescena Miq., 856. avicennae Gaertn., 365. graveolena Wight & Am., 866. hirsutum Rumph., 355. hirtiim (Lam.) Sweet, 355. indicum (Linn.) Sweet, 355. laeve Rumph., 365. litoreum Rumph., 856. montanum Rumph., 357. montanum e Capite bonae apei Rumph., 357. sonneratianum Sweet, 357. Ahutua indica Lour., 77. Acacia concinna DC, 251. holosericea A. Cunn., 251. hooperiana Zipp., var. aubcuneata (Bl.) Miq.. 252. mangium Willd.. 251. rugata (Lam.) Ham.* 251. Acalypha amboynenaia Benth.. 322. amentacea Roxb.. 46, 322. betvXina Retz., 822. bracteata Miq.. 321. denaiflora Blume. 328. fruticoaa Forsk., 322. grandia Benth., 322. hispida Burm., f.. 322. mappa Willd.. 319. spicifhra Burm. f., 322. 823. atipulacea Klotz.. 822. Acanthaceae, 470. ^canthoatemma rumphU Blume. 488. Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl. 474. ilidfoliua Linn., 474. volubilis Wall, 474. Aceratium ganitri Hassk.. 852. oppoaitifoUum DC. 848. Acetabulum marinum Rumph.. 55. wian'num e Macaamr Rumph., 56. maHnum infundibulifotme Rumph.. 66. 4c€to«o fcisiionica. I^IO. Achyranthes amaranthoidea Lam., 211. aspera Linn.. 4^. 214. bidentata Blume var. dongata Hassk.. 215. ' chinenaia Osbeck, 46. fruticoaa Lam.. 215. javanica Moq.. 215. lappacea Linn.. 214. muricata Linn., 211. proatrata Linn.. 214. aanguinolenta Linn.. 214. apictfiora Burm., 46, 8B2. Acorum paluatre et terreatre Rumph.. 126. Acorus calamus Linn., 126. ealamua Linn., var. terreatria Engl.. 126. calamua Lour.. 126. eochinchinenaia Schott.. 126. marintta Rumph.. 84. terreatria Spreng.. 126. Acrocephalua capitatu^ Benth.. 467. Acronychia laurifoUa Blume, 394. aerrata Hochr., 244. Acroatichwrn auritum Sw., 64. dichotomum Linn.. 69. floridum Poir., 64. ailiquoaum Linn.. 68. tenue Retz., 66. thcUictroidea Linn., 68. Actinodaphne angustifoUa Nees, 238. rumphii Blume. 288. moluccana Blume, 238. Actinorhytis calappaxia (Blume) H. Wendl., 121, 123. Actoplanea canniformia K. Schum.. 166. ridleyi K. Schum.. 166. Adamaram Adans.. 890. Adenanthera circinaUa DC. 248. falcata Linn.. 248. falcataria Linn.. B48, 249. pavonina Linn.. 252. Adenosma capitatum Benth.. 467. Adenostemma lavenia (Linn.) O. Kuntzo. 497. viacoaum Forst.. 497. 601. Adianthum volubile Ipolypoidea Rumph.. 69. volubile III minua Rumph.. 70. Adiantum Linn., 67. aethiopicum Thunb.. 67. capillua veneria Linn.. 67. opacum Gopel.. 67. pvlchellum, Blume, 67. variana Poir., 66. Adina fagifolia (Teysm. & Binn.) Valeton, 481. Adpendix arborum Rumph.. 126. cuaeuaria anguatifoUa Rumph., 88. cuacuarkt latifolui Rumph.. 126. duplo foUo Rumph.. 124. 551 552 INDEX Adpendix — Continued. ereeta Rumph., 129. laciniata Rumph., 127. porcellanica Rumph.. 124. Adulterina Rumph., 464. Aechmwndra blitmeana Roem., 491. Aegriceras eomiculatum (Linn.) Blaneo, 413. ferreum Blume, 382; 414. fioridum Roem. & Schultes, 414. majua Gaertn., 413. minus Gaertn., 413. nigricans A. Rich., 414. Aegle marmelos (Linn.) Correa, 293. Aerva sanguinolenta (Linn.) Blume, 214. Aeschynomene arborea Linn., 268. aspera Linn., 287. eannabina Retz., 265. coccinea Linn., 266. grandiflora Linn., 266. indica Linn., 265. indica Linn., var. aspera Hassk., 266. moluccOMa Kostel., 265. roxburghii Spreng., 265. sesban Linn., 265. theophrasti Rumph., 287. Afzelia bijuga A. Gray, 255. rhomboidea F.-VilL, 46. Agallochwm offi,cinaruin Bauh., 381. offbcinarum Lam., 881. secundarium (coinamense et malaicense) Rumph., 381. sive ealambac Rumph., 881. spurium album Rumph., 853. spurium Rumph., 353. spurium, III, 353. Aganosrrm acuminata G. Don, 48. macrocarpa A. DC, 48. velutina A. DC, 48. Agaricus amboinensis Lam., 58. djamor Fries, 57. moschocaryanus Streinz, 60. sajor caju Fries, 56. tuber regium Fries, 57. Agarum cortieosum Rumph., 66. lactucarium Rumph., 56. // 8. bracteatum Rumph., 56. /// funiculare «. foliatum Rumph., 55. Agasta asiatiea Miers, 384. indica Mi^rs, 384. Agathis alba (Lam.) Foxw., 75, 76, 77. b^eearii Warb., 77. borneensiB Warb., 77. eelebica Warb., 77. dammara Rich., 76. loranthifoUa Salisb., 76. macrostachys Warb., 77. Agati eannabina Desv., 265. grandiflora Desv., 266. Agave cantala Roxb., 144. cantula Roxb., 144. rumphii Hassk., 144. vivipara Linn., 144. Ageratum conyzoides Linn., 497. Aglaia ganggo Miq., 311. ganggo Miq., forma amboinensis Miq 311. laxifiora Miq., 311. odorata Lour., 292, 309. odoratissimu Blume, 310. perviridis Hiem, 311. pinnata Druce, 310. silvestris (Roem.) Merr., 310. Aglaonema cuscu4iria Miq., 126, marantifolium Blume, 129. oblongifolium (Roxb.) Kunth, 129. Agrimonia molucca Rumph., 501. Ailanthus integrifolia Lam., 299. moluccana DC, 299. Air a arundinacea Linn., 95. Aizoaceae, 217. Albizzia chinensis Merr., 49. falcata (Linn.) Backer, 249. littoralis T. & B., 250. moluccana Miq., 249. procera (Roxb.) Benth., 250. retusa Benth., 250. saponaria (Lour.) Blume, 249. stipulata Boiv., 49. Aleurites ambinva; Pers., 324. laccifera Willd., 821. moluccana (Linn.) Willd., tOO, 819, 824, SS2. triloba Forst., 324. Alga coralloides t Rumph., 64. coralloides sinensium Rumph., 66. Algae, 63. Alismorchis Thou., 170. Alismorkis Thou., 170. Allaeanthus luzonicus F.-VilL, 46. AUiaria Rumph., 308. AUophylus amboinensis Blume, 836. grossedentatus F.-Vill., 46. ternatus (Forst.) Radlk., 886. timorensis (DC.) Blume, 886 Alocasia indica Schott, 180. longiloba Miq., 180. macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott, 180. montana Schott, ISO. Aloe americaTia Rumph., 144. perfoliata Linn., var. vera Linn., 186. vera Linn., 136. vivipara Linn., 144. Aloexylum agaUochum Lour., 881. Alphonsea a/rborea Merr., 48. phUippinensis Merr., 48. Alpinia colossea K. Schum., 166. eremochlamys K. Sch., 163. eubractea K. Sch., 155. eubractea VaL, 154. galanga (Linn.) Sw., 163. gigantea Blume, 163, 155, 161. gigantea Val., 164. magniflea Rose, 169. malaccensis Rose, 155. meliekroa K. Sbhum., 161. nfwluecana Gugnep., 154. INDEX 553 Alp inia— Continued. nobilis Ridl., 156. nutans (Linn.) Rose, 154. oceanica Burkill, 154. papuana K. Schum., 154. papuana Scheff., 155. pyramidata Blume, 153, 166. rufa Naves, 46. scabra Naves, 46. speciosa (Wendl.) K. Schum., 154. uviformis (Linn.) Horan., 156. Akophila amboinensia v. A. v. R., 68. rumphiana v. A. v. R., 63. A-lstonia hoedti T. & B., 428. scholaris (Linn.) R. Br., 427. spectabilia R. Br., 427. subsessilis Miq., 427. Altera planta peruana Rumph., 252. Alternanthera nodtfiora R. Br., 215. nodi flora R. Br. var. lineari folia Moq., 215. sessilis (Linn.) R. Br., 215. Altingia excelsa Noronha, 245. Alyxia laurina Gaudich., 430. stellata Roem., 480. Amara indica Rumph., 496. litorea Rumph., 341. sUvestris Rumph., 495. ainica Rumph., 495. Amaranthaceae, 211. Amaranthus erangeticus Linn., 218. m'elancholicua Linn., 213. oleraceua Linn., 213. polygamus Linn., 213. spinosus Linn., 218. tricolor Linn., 218. tristia Linn., 212. viridis Linn., 212, ftlS. Anw/rantua caudatua Rumph., 212. japonicua Rumph., 212. veraicolor Rumph., 213. vulgaria Rumph., 212. Amaryllidaceae, 140. Amaryllis lineata Lam., 141. rotundifolia Lam., 142. xeylanica Linn., 141. Arnbliglottia veratrifoUa Blume, 170. Ambroma auguata Linn, f., 865. Ambidia aromatica Lam., 466. Amerimnon P. Br., 270. Amica nocturna Rumph., 143. Ammi copUcum Linn., 411. glaucifolium Blanco, 412. Amoena moeata Rumph., 267. A^niomum acre Val., 158. aculeatum Roxb., 46, 158, 169. carda/rttomum Linn., 157. cardamomum Willd., 157. cardamon K. Sch., 157. echinatutn Baker, 160. echinatum Willd., 160. oraciU Blume, 160. ovmnoewrpum Val., 169. ^tumium Naves, 46, 159. ^ochreutineH VaL, 160. Amomum — Continued hypoteucum Thw., 160. latifolium Lam., 164. magrnificum (Rose.) Benth. & Hook, f., 169. ■ maximum Bl. 159. maximum Roxb., 157. montanum, Koeni^, 152. roseum (Teysm. & Binn.) Benth. & Hook, f., 157, 160. rumphii Smith, 159, 160. truncatum Glignep., 157. vliginoaum Koenig, 158. viUoaum Lour., 157, 160. zedoaria Berg., 164. zerumbeth Koenig, 164. zerumbet Linn., 152. zingiber Linn., 151. Amorphophallus campanulatus ( Roxb. ) Blume, 127, 1B8, US. aativua Blume, 127. variabilia Blume, 133. Ampacua angustifolia Rumph., 290. anguatifoliua Rumph., 28, 336. latifolia Rumph., 289. litor&i {amguatifolia) minor Rumph., 336. litorea prima Rumph., 836. Ampelocissus arachnoidea (Hassk.) Planch., 842. indica Planch., 342. martini Planch., 842. Ampelopsia indica Blume, 342. Amphicarpaea, 275. Amudium Rumph., 412. Amyria oleoaa Lam., 803. protium Linn., 805. zeylanica Retz., 804. Anacardiaceae, 829. Anacardium longifolium Lam., 384. occidentale Linn., 833. Anamirta cocculus (Linn.) Wight. & Am., 221. flaveaeena Miq., 222. lemniacata Miers, 222. Ananas comosus (Linn.) Merr., 46, 183. aativua Schultes, 46, 133. Ananaaaa aativa Lindl., 188. Anasaa domeatica Rumph., 183. aUveatria Rumph., 82. Anaaaer moluccana Lam., 243, 880. Anaaaera moluccana Pers., 248, 880. rumphii Span., 880. Andawaa Rumph., 433. Andropogon adcvlaria Willd, 87. aciculatus Retz., 87. amboinicus (Linn.) Merr., 88. (XLricoaum Linn., 92. caricoaua Linn., 86. eircinnatua Hochst., 89. citratus DC, 88. dulciB Burm. f., 104. exaltatus R. Br., 89. na/rdu8 Linn., 48, 86, 86. achoenanthua Linn., 88. 554 INDEX Androposon — CJontinued. serratvs Thunb., 88. 8erratv>8 Thunb., var. genuinus Hack., 88. serratvs Thunb., subvar. major Hack., 88. sorghum Birot., 87, 88. sorghum Brot., subsp. sativus Hack., 88. sorghum Brot., var. saccharatus (L.) Hack., 87, 88. Aneilema m,onadelphum Kunth, 134. vitiense Seem., var. petiolata C. B. Clarke, 134. Ansiopteris amboinensis DeVr., 71, 7S. Angiwspermae, 79, 179. Angra^cum album rnaovs Rumph., 177. alhuTti minus Rumph., 174. angustis crum^enis Rumph., 174, 176. caninum, s, undecimum Rumph., 175. crum,e7tatum Rumph., 173. decim,um, et angustifolium Rumph., 178. flavum nonum Rumph., 174. flavum septimum Rumph., 174. flavum sextum, moschatum, s. odoratum, Rumph., 174 gajang Rumph., 172. jamboe Rumph., 176. lanuginosum, Rumph., 177. nervosum Rumph., 169. octavum et furvum, Rumph., 178. pungens Rumph., 179. purpureum, et nudum Rumph., 175. purpureum silvestre Rumph., 175. qumtum Rumph., 178. rubrum, Rumph., 179. saxatile Rumph., 178. scriptum Rumph., 177. sediforme Runiph., 179. taeniosum Rumph., 179. terrestre alterum Rumph., 91, 170. terrestre primum aZbum. Rumph., 171. terrestre primum, purpureum, Rumph., 171, 172. terrestre tertium Rumph., 143. unifiorum Rumph., 177. Anguria indica Rumph., 492. indica altera Rumph., 492. Anisaea medium. Choisy, 444. AnisifoKum Rumph., 293. Anisom,eles indica O. Kuntze, 459. ovata U. Br., 459. Anisum. moluccanum Rumph., 289. Annonaceae, 225. Annona mucosa Aubl., 229. reticulata Linn., 229. squamosa Linn., 229. Anoectochilus reinwardtii Blume, 169, 649. Anom>a moringa Lour., 241. morunga Lour., 241. Anona Rumph., 229. sariffa Roxb., 46, 420. tuberosa Rumph., 229. Antheriscus Bernh., 411. cereifoUum Hoffm., 411. Antherura rubra Lour., 892. Anthistiria frondosa R. Br., 89. gigamtea Cav., 89. Anthocephalus indicus Rich., 482. macrophylius (Roxb.) Haviland, i9, 484. morindifolius Korth., 484. Antiaris innoxia BL, 192. toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch., 192, |««. Anticholerica Rumph., 262. Antidesma am^boinense Miq., 316. bunlus (Linn.) Spreng., 316. rumphii Tul., 316. stipulare Blume, 316. Apios, 275. Apium> involucratum Roxb., 411. Apocynaceae, 425. Apocynum, agglom,eratum, Poir., 438. foetidum Burm. f., 489. indicum Lam., 436. odoratissimum Lour., 440. reticulatum Linn., 436. tiliaefoHum Lam., 439. Aporetica ternata Forst., 336. Aporum roxburghii Griff., 178. Aquifolium indicum I mas Rumph., 474. indicum II fem,ina Rumph., 474. Aquilaria agaUocha Roxb., 381. bancana Miq., 353. malaccensis Lam., 381. ovata Cav., 381. secunda/ria DC, 381. secundarium Rumph., 381. Araceae, 124. Arachis asiatica Lour., 267. hypogaea Linn., 267. Arachnis fios aeris Rchb. f., 177. Araliaceae, 406. Aralia chinensis Linn., 346, 347. cochleata Lam., 409. guilfoylei Cogn. & March., 410. longifolia Reinw., 408. maculata Truff., 410. nodosa Blume, 408. palmata Lam., 407. spinosa Linn., 347. umbellifera Lam., 406. um.br aculif era Roxb., 408. Arbor alba major Rumph., 402. alba minor Rumph., 402. aluminosa Rumph., 420. calappoides sinensis Rumph., 75. camphorifera I vera Rumph., 233. eamiphorifera II occidentalis Bumph-. 876. coeli Rumph., 299. conciliorum, Rumph., 195. eusanda Rumph., 198. excoecans Rumph., 327. facum major Rumph., 416. facum minor Rumph., 507. glutinosa Rumph., 447. koHng Rumph., 376. lactaria Rumph., 482. lacta/ria terrestris Rumph., 432. mangifera V minor Rumph., 330. nigra latifolia Rumph., 227. INDEX 555 ^r6or— Continued nigra maculosa Rumph., 227. nigra parijifolia Rumph., 227. noctia Rumph., 482. noctis J/ Rumph., 483. nuda Rumph., 316. nusaalavica Rumph., 309t. ovigera femina Rumph., 239. ovigera mas Rumph., 239. palorum> alba latifolia Rumph., 339. palorum^ alba parvifolia Rumph., 337. palorum, nigra Rumph., 507. pete Rumph., 253. pinguis Rumph., 327. pudica Rumph., 252. raduUfera Rumph., 291. rediviva Rumph., 348, 349. regis Rumph., 326. rubra I Rumph., 399. rubra I angustifoUa Rumph., 399. rubra II Rumph., 398. rubra II saxatilis Rumph., 399. rubra III Rumph., 396. rubra IV Rumph., 399. aebi Rumph., 309. spiculorum angustifoUa Rumph., 238. spicvloruTn aeruginea Rumph., 238. spiculorum latifolia Rumph., 238. toccicaria femina Rumph., 192. toxicaria mas Rumph., 192. tajang Rumph., 111. vernicis Rumph,, 331. versicolor Rumph., 401. vespertilionum Rumph., 205. vespertilionum II oppositifolia Rumph., 244. violaria Rumph., 224. zeylanica Rumph., 304. Arcangelisia flava (Linn.) Merr., 222. inclyta Becc, 222. lemniscata Becc, 222. Ardisia disticha A. DC. 49. Arduina Mill., 425. Areca calapparia Blume, 121. catechu Linn., 123. glandiformis Lam., 128. globulifera Lam., 122. gracilis Giseke, 120. humilis Willd., 121. olivaeformis Giseke, 120. oryzaeformis Gaertn., 122, 123. oryzaeformis Giseke, 122. vanicvlata Scheflf., 121. punicea Blume, 122. saxatilis Burm., 121. spicata Lam., 119. . sylvestris Lour., 122. vaginata Giseke, 120. vestiaria Giseke, 121. Arenga gamuto Merr., 119. Pinnata (Wurmb) Merr., 119. ^(iccharifera Labill., 119. ^^^sarum amboinicum Rumph., 182. escvlentum Rumph., 129. ^ristolochiaceae, 209. Aristolochia gavdichaudii Duch., 210. hastata Jack, 210. indica Linn., 210. moluccana Duchartre, 210. roxburghiana Klotz., 210. rumphii Kostel., 209. tagala Cham., 210. timoriensis Decne., 210. zollingeri Miq., 210. Artabotrys inodorus Zipp., 228. odoratissimus Blume, 227. suaveolens Blume, 227, 228. Artemisia grata Wall., 502. latifolia Rumph., 502. latifolia rubra Rumph , 502. roxburghiana Bess., 502. vulgaris Linn., 502. ' Artocarpus camansi Blanco, 190. champeden (Lour.) Spreng., 190i communis Forst., 190, 191. elastica Reinw., 191. fretisii Teysm. & Binn., ^5, 191. hirsuta Lam., 192. incisa Linn, f., 190. Integra (Thunb.) Merr., 190. integrifolia Linn, f., 190. jaca Lam., 190. lakoocha Roxb., 191. polyphema Pers., 190. reticulata Miq., 191. rima Blanco, 190. Arum aegyptium Rumph., 131. aqujaticum Rumph., 129. arborescens Linn., 130. campanulatum Roxb., 127, 128. colocaaia Linn., 131. divaricatum Linn., 128, 132. esculentum Linn., 131. indicum Lour., 131. indicum Roxb., 131. indicum sativum Rumph., 130. nmcrorrhizon Linn., 130. mucronatum Lam., 130. ovatum Linn., 129. peltatum Lam., 131. peregrinum Linn., 129. rumphii Gaudlich., 127. sagittifoUum Linn., 131. silvestre I latifolium Rumph., 180. silvestre II medium Rumph., 130. trilobatum Linn., 132. trilobum Linn.. 132. Arundarbor alba Rumph., 98. amahussana Rumph., 99. aspera Rumph., 101. cratium Rumph., 102. fera Rumph., 99. fera elegantissima Rumph., 100. fera nigra Rumph., 103. fera silvestris Rumph., 103. fera 8. Arundo japanica Rumph., 103. fera s. bulu tsjatjar Rumph., 103. fera a. cha Rumph., 108. lineata Rumph., 98. maxima Lour.. 100. 556 INDEX Arundarbor—Cknitinued. maxima Rumph., 100. nigra Rumph., 98. prava Rumph., 98. spiculorum Rumph., 102, 103. apinoaa Rumph., 97. tenuis Rumph., 98. tenuis amahuasana^ Rumph., 99. vassaria s. Bulu Java Rumph., 99. Arundastrum. Rumph., 166. Arundinella I minor Rumph., 134. // major Rumph., 134. /// aqvxitica Rumph., 135. IV Rumph., 134. V Rumph., 135. Arundo agrestis Lour., 97. arbor tenuis alba, 98. arbor tenuis nigra, 98. arbor tenuis prava, 98. bambos Lour., 100. farcta I Rumph., 85. farcta U Rumph., 86. fa^ Lour., 102. mitis Lour., 99, 100. multiplex Lour., 99. phragmites Linn., 95. saccharifera Rumph., 86. saccharifera III, 86. tabacaria Lour., 102. vulgaris Lam., 95. Arupa Rumph., 415. Arytera litoralis Blume, 50. montana Blume, 49. Ascarina rubra Poir., 190. Asclepiadaceae, 434. Asclepias gigantea Linn., 485. odoratissima Roxb., 440. sussuela Roxb., 438. Asparagus terminaXis Linn., 137. Aspidium, amboinense Willd., 73. ferox Blume, 64. repandum Willd., 64. Asplenium nidus Linn., 65. Astronia papetaria Blume, 405. AtaZantia longispina Kurz, 295. monophyUa DC, 294. spinosa Hook, f., 295. Atham4intha maeedonica Sprengr., 411. Athyrium esculentum (Retz.) Copel., 65, 476. Atunus Rumph., 247. albus Rumph., 248. litorea Rumph., 365. Aurantium acidum Rumph., 298. acidum II, III, 298. maximum, Burm., 46, 296. pumilum madurense Rumph., 298. sinense Rumph., 298. ainense II Rumph.. 298. verrucosum Rumph., 298. Auris eanina I femina Rumph., 214. canina II mas Rumph., 214. Averrhoa acida Linn., 309, 314. bilimbi Linn., 287. carambola Linn., 287. Avicennia alba Blume, 456. officinalis Linn., 456. Axonopus semialatus Hook, f., 49. Av-assa Rumph., 867, 509. Aylaun nya femina Rumph., 203. Aylilin Rumph., 509. Aza^ola leer it Tejrsm. & Binn., 415. Baccaurea bracteata Muell.-Argr-, 316. nanihua Merr., 315. philippinensis Merr., 316. ramifiora Lour., 316. Baccharis indica Linn., 500. salvia Lour., 498. Baeckea virgata Andr., 402. Baeobotrys tetram,dra Roxb., 412. Basumerta Gaertn., 240. Balanostreblus Uicifolia Kurz, 188. Balsamaria inophyllum Lour., 371. Balsaminaceae, 340. Balsamina fasciculata DC, 341. hortensis Desp., 341. tUo DC, 341. Bambusae, 96. Bambusa agrestis Poir., 98. a/mahussana Lindl., 99. arundinacea Willd., 97. arundinacea Retz., 98, 100. aspera R. & S., 101. atra Lindl., 98. atra Lindl. var. amahussana (Lindl) Merr., 99. balcooa Roxb., 100. bitung Roem. & Sch., 101. blumea/na Schultes f., 97. excelsa Miq., 100. fera Miq., 99. lineata Munro, 98, 99. longinodis Miq., 102. maxima Poir., 100. mitis Poir., 100. multiplex Raeusch, 99. nigra Lodd., 103. nutans Wall., 99. picta Lindl., 98. prava Lindl., 98. rumphiana Kurz, 98, 99. spinosa Blume, 97. spinosa Roxb., 97. striata Lodd., 100. tabacaria Poir., 102. teba Miq., 97. tenuis Munro, 98. vaaaria Munro, 99. verticiUata Willd., 98, 99. vulsraris Schrad., 99. vulgaris Schrad., var. striata (Lodd) Gamble, 100. Bancalus Rumph., 488. nms Rumph., 483. mas s. parvifolius Rumph., 483. media Rumph., 488. Bancudus angustifolia Rumph., 490. latifolia Rumph.. 490. INDEX 557 Bangleum Rumph., 152. Bangle malacca Rumph., 155. Banksia musculiformis Gaertn., 425. specioaa Koenigr, 164. Barba aaturni Rumph., 62. Barleria hystrix Linn.,- 472. prionitis Linn., 472. Bartramia indica Linn., 355. Barringtonia acutangiUa Gaertn., 385. alba Blume, 385. alba Kostel., 385. asiatica (Linn.) Kurz, 384. inclyta Miers, 385. racemosa (Linn.) Blumie, 385. rubra Blume, 385. speciosa Forst., 384. Baryxylwn rufvan Lour., 255. Basellaceae, 218. Basella alba Linn., 218. nigra Lour., 218. rubra Linn., 218. Banlicum agreate Rumph., 461. indicum kortense Rumph., 460. Bassia dubia Gaertn., 418. longifolia Lam., 416. Batatas edvlia Choisy, 443. Batatta Rumph., 443. mammoaa Rumt^h., 442. Bati8 spinoaa Roxb., 189. Bauhinia grlauca Wall., 256. lingrua DC, 256. scandens Linn., 256. Beesha fax R. & S., 102. humilia Kunth, 102. Begoniaceae, 379. Begonia mollis A. DC, 380. obliqua Linn., 379. rubra Blume, 380. tuberosa Lam., 879. Belou Adans., 293. Benincasa cerifera Savi, 498. hispida (Thunb.) Cosrn., 493. 495. Bergera Koenisr. 292. koenigii Linn., 408. Bidwra syringaefolia Decne., 486. tingena Decne., 436. Bidens bipinnata Linn., 501. chinensis WiUd., 501. peduncularis Gaudieh.. 602. piloaa Linn., 501. wallichii DC, 502. Bignoniaceae, 469. Bigmnia longiaaima Lour., 469, tpathacea Linn., f., 469. Bilacua Rumph.. 298. (imboineTiais ailveatria Rttmph.« 294. marmelos O. Kuntze. 298. taurinua Rumph.. 293. ^intangor maritifna Rumph., 371, montana Rumi>h.. 871. ^veatria Rumph.. 871. ailvestiria altera Rumpli.. 871. ftilveatrxB terUa Etimph.. 871. °|ophytum sensitivum (Limi.) DC. 288. «*«tula Rumph., 111. Bixaceae, 376. Bixa orellana Linn., 376. Blackwellia foetida Wall, 378. moluccana Blume, 378. Blatti Adans., 383. Blechnum orientale Linn., 66. Bleekeria aah'Wie Hassk., 431. Blimbingum ay^veatre Rumph., 348. terea Rumph., 287. Blitum bramlianum Rumph., 509. fruteacena Rumph., 211. ifuKcum domeaticwm Rumph., 212. indicum I album, Rumph.. 212. indicum II ma^uloaum Rumph., 212. indicum II maculosum amboinicum Rumph., 212. indicum. Ill rubrum Rumph., 213. indicum IV terreaire Rumph., 213. peruvianum Rumph., 211. apinoaum Rumph., 213. Blumea appendHculata DC, 498. aromatica DC, 498. balsamifera (Linn.) DC, 498. chinensis (Linn.) DC, ^7, 499, SOO. macrophylla DC., 498. Boa maaay Rumph., 338. Bobea waUichiana Kostel., 486. Bocoa edulia Baill., 273. Bodelha Rumph., 56. altera Rumph., 54. Boerlagriodendron palmatum (Lam.) Harms, 407. Boehmeria nivea (Linn.) Gaudich., 202. tenuciaaima Gaudich., 202. Boeloe rottang Rumph., 101. Boletus II arborevs Rumph., 57. II umbraculiforma Rumph.. 60. IV terreatria Rumph., 60. V auria murina Rumph., 60. moachoearyanus Rosenthal, 60. moachoca/ryanus Rumph., 60. primula infundibvJi forma (flffura) Rumph., 56. aanguineua Linn., 59. Bololo maluhi Rumph., 486. Bombacaceae, 361. Bombax acvleatum, Linn., 46, 362. pentandrum Linn.. 862. Bonnaya veronicaefolia Sprengr., 467. Borasrinaceae, 447. Borassus caudata Lour., 121. flabellifer Linn., 112. flabeUiformia Murr., 112. gomutus Lour., 119. ihur Giseke, 112. aonnerati Giseke. 112. aylveatria Giseke. 110. Borreria discolor DC, 60. Boachia Korth., 286. Boawellia balaamifera DC, 801. hirauta DC, 802. Botor tetranonoloba O. Kuntie, 288. Botrychium zeylanicum Willd., 71. Botrymorua paniculaia Miq.« 201. Braaaaia littorea Seem.« 408. 558 INDEX Brassica juncea (Linn.) Coss., 240. pekinensis Skeels, 240. Breweria aMnoides 'F.-Vill., 46. Breynia cernua (Poir.) Muell.-Arg., 814. Briza elegana Osbeck, 46. Bromeliaceae, 133. Bromelia ananas Linn., 133. cowosa Linn., 46, 133. Broussonetia papyrifera Vent., 188. Brucea amarissima ( Lour. ) Merr., 299. sumatrana Roxb., 299. Bruguiera caryophyUoides Blume, 886, 388. conjugata (Linn.) Merr., S86, 888. cylindrica (Linn.) Blume, S86, 388, S89. ertopetala W. & A., 386, 389. gymnorhiza Blume, 389. gymnorhiza Lam., 386, 388. gymnorhiza Lam., var. palun Blume, 388. parviflora W. & A. 886. rheedi Blume, 889. rumphii Blume, 888. sexangula (Lour.) Poir., 386, 389. Bryonia cordifolia Linn., 843, 495. grandis Linn., 495. BryophyUum calycinum Salisb., 243* pinnatum Kurz, 243. Bubon macedonicvs Linn., 411. BuchoMO/nia amboinensia Miq., 506. arborea Blume, 506. Buglossum la/nuginoaum Rumph., 448. litoreum Rumph., 496. Bulbophyllum Thouars, 177. carinatum Naves, 46. grandifiorum Blume, 177. purpureum Naves, 46. Bulbostylia barbata Kunth., 48. Bungum femina Rumph., 475. maa Rumph., 478. Bunivs agreatia Rumiph., 816. aativa domeatiea Rumph., 816. Burneya C. & S., 486. Burseraceae^ 800. Buraera ? nitida F.-Vill., 47. Butoniea Rumph., 884. rubra Miers, 885. rumphiana Miers, 384. terreatria Miers, 885. terreatria alba Rumph, 885. terreatria rubra Rumph., 885. • CctcaZia procumbena Lour., 499. aonchifolia Linn., 508. Cacara Rumph., 286. alba Rumph., 286. bulboaa Rumph., 285. eroaa O. Kuntze, 285. Utorea Rumph., 280, 281. nigra Rumph., 279. piloaa Rumph., 279, 280. pruritus Rumph., 277. Cactaceae, 880. Cadamba no(fttirn4 Ham., 47, 482. Cadelium Rumph., 274. Caesalpinia feondttc Auctt., 260. bonduceUa Flem., 260. crista Linn., 260, 261. glabra Merr., 261. jayabo Maza, 47, 261. jayabo Maza, var. cyanoaperma Maza, 260. nuga (Linn.) Ait., 860, 261. pulcherrima (Linn.) Sw., 260. sappan Linn., 259. Cajan inodorum Medic, 282. Cajanus bicolor DC, 282. cajan (Linn.) Millsp., 282. indicua Spreng., 282. Caju bandaa Rumph., 192. cowan e Ja/va Rumph., 876. djurang Rumph., 198. galedupa Rumph., 254, 271. gora aruana Rumph., 510. jati Rumph., 450. kelann Rumph., 403. lape tape Rumph., 334. lapia Rumph., 368. lapia aoyananaium Rumph., 869. pa/nu Rumph., 488. pinnatum O. .Kuntze, 271. ticoa leytimorenaia Rumph., 250. Cajuputi Adans., 402. Caladium aquatile B.umph., 181. bicolor Vent., 132. eaculentum Vent., 181. eaculentum Vent., var. aqu^tilia Hassk., 131. nymphaeifolium Willd., 131. Calamagroatia Rumph., 89. CaXamibac Rumph., 381. Calamus acidus Becc.j 117. adapersua Blume, 115. albus Pers., 115. amboinensia Miq.; 117. o/ruenais Becc, 116. barbatv^ Blume, 117. buroenaia Mart., 116. caXapparius Mart., 117.^^ cawa Blume, 116. dioicvs Lour., 116. draco Willd., 118. equestris Willd., 116, 117. faaciculatua Roxb., 116. gram,inoaua Blume, 115. hcirungii Becc, 116. javenaia Blume, 117. UitifoUua Roxb., 117. Utoralia Blume, 116. maritimua Blume, 117. niger Willd., 118. oblongua Linii., 117. oblongua Reinw., 116, 117. palustria Griff, 115. petrasua JjOVit., 117. pisicarpus Bliime, ll6. j}2at|/acant^o8 Martv, 116. rotang Lirin., 116, 116^ 117, 118. rudentum honr,, 115, 118. tumphii Blume, 116. aeipionum, 118. INDEX 559 Calamus — Continued. strictus Blume, 116. vertis Lour., 116. viminalis Willd., 116. vimineUia e Burone Rumph., 116. zalaeca Gaertn., 114. Calanthe furcata Batem.. 170. sylvatica Lindl., 170. triplicata Ames, 170. veratrifolia R. Br., 170, 549. Calappa Rumph., 123. Calapput Uiut Rumph., 124. Calla calyptrata Roxb., 129. oblongifolia Roxb., 129. occulta Lour., 128. Callicarpa cana Linn., 449. cuspidata Roxb., 448. lanata Linn., 448. longifolia Lam., 449. pedunculata R. Br., 448. tomentosa Murr., 448. CaUiata Lour., 173. CaHitriche verna Linn., 509. Calodium cochinchinenais Lour., 239. Calodracon terminoXia Planch., 137. Calophyllum acuminatum Lam., 371. bintagor Roxb., 371. calaba Linn., 371. inophyllum Linn., 371. nagaaaarium Burm., f., 370. soulattri Burm., f., 371. apectabile Willd., 371. apurium, Choisy, 418. Calo8temm,a luteum, Sims, 148. Calotropis gisantea (Linn.) Dryand., 434. Calpicarpum, lamarckii Don, 431. Calyptranthea caryophyllifolia Willd., 395. jambolana Willd., 394. Calyptrocalyx spicatus (Lam.) Blume, 119. Camhogia gutta Linn., 373. Camean Rumph., 509. Camirium Rumph., 824. ComoZenflra RumpK4 49?. Campana rubra Rumph., 469. Camunium japonenae Rumph., 292. javanicum Rumph., 292. ainenae Rumph., 309. vulga/re Rumph., 292. Cananga Rumph., 226. odorata Hook, f., 226. aUveatria I trifolia Rumph., 228. sUveatria 11 anguatifolia Rumph., 226. ailveatria lU tatifolia Rumph., 228. Canangium odoratum (Lam.) Bail!., 226. Cana^iopaia hirauta Miq., 802. decumana Miq., 800. glabra MicL., ZOl, - Paucijuga Miq., 805. Canarium acutifolium (DC.) Merr.. 802. album (Lour.) Rausch, 304. balsamiferum Willd., 801. comnfiune Linn.. 47, 301, W4: decumanum Gaertn., 800. decumxmum Rumph., ^00. ' hirsutum Willd., 802. ff-ispidum Blume, 802. Canarium— Continued. indicum Linn., 47, 301. legitimum (Blume) Miq., 800, 802. mehenbethene Gaertn., 301. wtcrpcorpMwi Willd., 303. moluccanum, Blume, 301. nigrum, Roxb., 302. nigrum Engl., 304. odoriferum, hirautum Rumph., 302. odoriferum leve Rumph., 301, 305. oleosum (Lam.) Engl., 303. pimela Konig, 304. roatratum Zipp., 302, 303. aUveatre alterum Rumph., 303. ainenae I Rumph., 304. ainenae II Rumph., 304. ainenae III Rumph., 305. sylvestre Gaertn., 303. vulgare Rumph., 301. zephyrinum Blume, i7, 304. zephyrinum Rumph., 304. zeylanicum (Retz.) Blume, 304. Canavalia cathartica Thouars, 282. enaiformia DC., 282. gladiata (Jacq.) DC, 281. gladiata DC, var. nuichaeroidea DC, 281. lineata (Thunb.) DC, 281. machaeroidea DC, 281. microcarpa (DC) Merr., 280. ohtuaifolia DC, 281. turgida Grab., 280, 281. Ca/ndarum Reichb., 127. Cannaceae, 165. Canna anguatifolia Linn., 165. coccinea Ait., 165. fiatula javanica Rumph., 259. indica Linn., 165. orientalia Rose, 165. paluatria Rumph., 95. patena Rose, 165. Cannabis indica Lam., 199. indica Rumph., 199. indica tertia Rumph., 199. sativa Linn., 199. aativa Linn., var. criapata Hassk., 199. Cannacorua Rumph., 165. Cantharifera Rumph., 242. alba Rumph., 242. Canthium indicum Dietr., 426. Capellania moluccana Teysm. & Binn., 826. CapiUua nympharum Rumph., 58. veneria amboinicua Rumph., 67. Capparidaceae, 240. Capparia carandaa Burm. f., 425. Capraria Rumph., 8d5. cruatacea Linn., 468. gratiaaiina Roxb., 466. Caprificua amboinenata eaculenta a4iguatifO' lia Rumph., 198. amboinenais eaculenta latifolia Rumph., 192. amboinenata eaculenta ailveatria Rumph., 198. amboinenaia eaduhntti k. hAhUol dltera Rumph., 198. 560 INDEX Caprificu8 — Continued. aapera angustifolia Rumph., 193. aspera latifolia Rumph., 193. aspera tertia Rumph., 193. 9ive sycomorua chartaria (amboinenaia) Rumph., 198. aive aycomorua chartxtria ijavanica) Rumph., 198. viridia major Rumph., 195. viridia min'or Rumph., 196. Capriola dactylon O. Ktze., 93. Capsicum frutescens Linn., 462. fruteacena Linn., var. baccatum (Linn.) Irish, 462. indicuTTi Rumph., 462. ailveatre Rumph., 428. Carandaa Rumph., 425 Caranga amara Vahl, 467. Carapa indica Juss., 306. moluccenaia Lam., 306, 807. obovata Blume, 306. rumphii KosteL. 307 Carbonaria altera Rumph., 606. altera litorea Rumph., 606. femina Rumph., 506. maa Rumph., 605. Cardarniinium Moench., 240. Cardamomum minua Rumph., 157. Cardamon majua Rumph., 157. medium aive minua Rumph., 157, verum fructibus minimia trigonia Rumph., 157. Cardiocarpua amarua Reinw., 300. Cardiopteryx moluccana Blume, 335. Cardiospermum halicacabum Linn., 336. halicacabum Linn., var. microcarpum Blume, 336. Carex amboinica Rumph., 83. am^boinica I major Rumph., 108. amboinica II minor Rumph., 107. amboinica III Rumph., 108. arborea Rumph., 83. culmaria Rumph., 106. laevia major Rumph., 107. laevia minor Rumph., 106. tuberoaa Blanco. 104. Caricaceae, 378. Carica papaya Linn., 378. Carissa carandas Linn., 48, 425. apinarum Linn., 425. Carpacanthua herbaceua Kiitz., 55. Carpopogon giganteum Roxb., 227. pruriena Roxb., 277. Carthamus tinctorius Linn., 503. Carum Rumph., 412. copticum (Linn.) Benth., 41. roxburghiana Beiith., 412. Carumbium amboinicum Miq., 327, populneum MuelL-Arg:., 827. Ca/ryophyUaater albua Rumph., 392. litoreua Rumph., 340. ruber Rumph., 392. CaryopkyUum Rumph., 393. regium, Rumph., 398. MiliNBatre Bumplw 398. Caryophyllua aromaticua Linn., 393. ailveatris Teysm., 47, 393. Caryoapermum moluccanum> Blume, 335. Caryota javanica Osbeck, 47. rumphiana Mart., 118. urena Linn., 118, 119. Cassia alata Linn., 257. alata Linn., var. rumphiana DC, 257. angv^tisaima Lam., 257. bacillus Gaertn., 259. chinenaia Lam., 258. fistula Linn., 259. fiatvXa Rumph., 259. fiatula silvestria Rumph., 259, 433. glauca Lam., 258. javanica Linn., 259, 4SS. marginata Roxb., 259. mimosoides Linn., 257. mimoaoidea Linn., var angustissima (Lam.) Walp., 257. nicUtana Linn., 257. nodoaa Ham., 259. obtuaifolia Linn., 257. occidentalis Linn., 258. planisiliqua Burm. f., 258. planiailiqua Linn., 258. procumbena Linn., 257. aophera Linn., 258. tora Linn., 257. Caataiia pubeacena Blume, 219. atellata Blume, 219. Caaautha cornea Rumph., 57. Ca^aumbium apinoaum Ham., 47. Caaauvium Rumph., 333. pomiferum Lam., 333. ailveatre Rumph., 334. ailveatre a. Lau Laaai Rumph., 334. Cassytha corniculata Burm. f., 57. filiformis Linn., 239. Casuarinaceae, 179. Casuarina celebica Rumph., 180. equisetifolia Linn., 180. litorea Rumph., 180. montana Rumph., 179. nodiflora Forst., 180. rumphiana Miq., 179. sumatrana Jungh., 180. Catappa domeatica Rumph., 890. ailveatria altera Rumph., 380. ailveatria litorea Rumph., 390. Cateabaea javanica Usbeck, 47. Cathartocarpua fiatula Pers., 259. Catajopiri Rumph., 485. Catti marua Rumph., 363. Caturua apicifiorua Linn., 322, 323. Cauda felia agreatia alba Rumph., 322. felia agreatia rubra Rumph., 322. felia domeatica Rumph., 323. felia aaxatiUa Rumph., 507. Caulerpa racemoaa f. macrophyaa Weber, Cayraiia carnoaa GtLgnep., 345. geniculata G«#nep., 345. Ceanothua aaiaticua Linn., 341. 56. IN^BX 561 Cedrda fehrifuga Blume, 8^. febrifuga Blume var. imodoru 344. hlumeana Steud., 344. carnoaa Lam., 345. cinerea Lam., 346. cordata Roxb., 343. crenata Vahl, 346. geniculata Blume, 845. glauca Roxb., 344. latifolia Lam., 348. latifolia Vahl, 843. pyrrhodaaya Miq., 844. quadrangularis Linn., 348. repens Lam., 343. rotundifoUa Blume, 844. aicyoidea Linn., 343. trifolia K. Sch., 345. trifoliata Lour., 844. trilobata Lam., 346. GitruUus vulgaris Schrad., 492. Gitrus acida Roxb., 296. amara Hassk., 298. angulata Willd., 294. aurantifolia (Ghristm.) Swingle, 296. aurantium Linn., 296, 298. aurantium Linn., var. grandis Linn., 296. aurantium Linn., var. limonum Risso, 298. aurantium Linn., var. vvXgaria Risso, 298. bergamia Risso, 297. bergamiia Risso, var. unguentaria Roem., 297. bergannia Risso, var. ventricoaa Roem., 298. bigaradia Risso, 298. decumana Linn., 46, 47, 296. decumana Linn., var. racevtoaa Roem., 298. decum^ina Linn., var. verrucosa Mm** 298. fuaca Lour., 298. grandis Hassk., var. ohl(mga Ha^k., 297. grandis Osbe<*, 47, 29€. hyatrix DG., 297, 298. 562 mmx Citrus—Continiied. ' H« imrmia Roxb., 294. japonica Thunb., 294. jwvaniea Blume, 290. lima Lunan, 296. Itmetta Rigso, 298. limetta Risso, var. auraHa Risso, 298. Umonellus Hassk., 296. UmoneUua Hassk., var. oxyeo/rpus Hassk., 296. Hmonia Osbeck, 47. limonium Rlsao, 47; 298. macrtieantha Hassk., 299. madurensia Lour., 294. maxima (Burm.) Merr.« 46» A7, 296. mediea Linn., 297. mediea Risso, 298. nobilis Lour., 298. nobtlia Lour., var. mplanocarpa Hassk., 298. nobilis Lour., var. tnicrocarpa Hassk., 298. notiaaimua Blanco, 296. obversa Hasak., 297. papeda Miq., 298. pompdntus Risso, var. racemoaua Risso, 298. sinenma Osbeck, 47. toroaa Blanco, 297^ Citta niifrica/ns Lour„ 277. Cladoatachya arhoreacens Don, 212. murieata Moq., 212. Claoxylon indieum Hassk., 200, 822. polot (Burm. f.) Merr., 200. Clausena punctata W. & A., 811. Cleidion javanicnm Blume, 522. Bpicillorum (Burm. £.) Merr., 822. Cleiaoatoma subviatum Blume, 179. Clementea Cav., 280. CUome ieoaandra Linn.« 241* pentaphyUa Linn., 241. viacoaa Linn., 240. Clerodendron eommersonii (Poijr.) Spreng., 47, m* 465. faUax Lindl., 456. inerme Auet., 456. infortunatvm Linn., 462, 466, 486. neriifoliwn Wall., 466. panieulatwm Linn., 466. rumphianutn DeVriese & Teysm., 466. speciosissimum Paxt., 466. viacomim Vent., 466. Clitoria ternatea Linn., 274. Ckrnipan'ua fwdeularie Rumph., 248. major Rumph., 864. minor Rumph., 864. molueanua Raf^ 864. • panieulaimg Aubl., 248. tematenaiB femina Rumph., 864. ttrnattnsia mMa Rumph., 864. Clypearia alba Rumph., 248. 249. mariUma Rumph., 260. rnbra Runaph., 248. rvhra «. mf* tt Rtonph., 261. Cfiient ifu^ewa Rumph., 608. Cnidium diffuamn BC., 411. Coccinea eordifolia (Linn.) Cogn., 496. grandia Ro«m., 496. , indica W. & A., 495. Uiureiriana Roem., 496. Coeadua anguatifoliua Hassk., 186. criapua DC, 220. fiaveacena DC, 222. forateri DC, 220. glaucua DC, 219. ineanua Colebr., 219. lacunoam DC, 221. Cocos inKddiviea Gmel.,, 112. nucifera Linn., 123. Cocua mxddivicua Rumph., 112. maXdivicua minor Rumph., 124. mdindanua verua Rumph., 124. Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb., 47, S2S» 326. breviatylum Pax & K. Hoffm., 326. chryaoaUcton anguatifolium, Rumph., 325. chryaoaticton latifoUum, Rumph., 825. ehryaoaticton medium Rumph., 825. ehry^aticton medium rubrum Rumph., 826. ehryaoaticton rubro-maculatum Rumph., 825. erythroaticton parvifolium Rumph., 325. nigrum, medium' Rumph., 825. nigrum minus Rumph., 825. parvifolium, viride Rumph., 825. ailveatre Rumph.,. 325, 326. aimpUx Rumph., 825. taenioaum Rumph., 825. varie^ratum (Linn.) Blume, 276, 325. variesratum (Linn.) Blume, f. taeniosum Muell.-Arg„ 825. Coelogyne nervosa Rich, 169. paittacina Reichb., 169. rumphii Lindl., 169, 549. Cofasaua Rumph., 452. 'oiba Rumph., 452. dtrma Rumph., 427. femina Rumph., 462. maa Rumph., 462. Coix lachryma jobi Linn., 84, 86. Coleus amboinicus Lour., U8, 469. aromaticua Benth., 458, 469. atropurpureua Benth., 468. blumei Benth., 460. parvifiorua Benth., 469. scutellaroides (Linn.) Benth., 460. aupanda Blanco, 469. tuberosus (Blume) Benth., 469. Collyria major Vahl, 487. Coloeasia antiguorum Schott, 181. esculenta (Linn.) Schott, 181, 18t. humilia Hassk., 129. indica Engl., 130. indica Kunth., var. atroviHMs Hassk., 180. indica Kunth., var. paXLida Hassk., 180- vara Ha«8k., 181, Coiot « PhUippinia Rumph.. 148. Ck>lubrina asiatica (Linn.) Bronsn.* 841. Columbia subobovata Hoehr., 864* INDEX m Columella srenieulata (Blume) Merr., 846, trifolia (Linn.) Merr., 846. Columnea chinerutia Osbeck, 47. Comacum Adans., 214. Combilium Rumph., 147. ruhrum Rumph.* 147. tsjampadaha Rumph., 147. Combretaceae, 390. Cominsia gigantea (Scheff.) K. Sch., 161, 167. rubra Val., 168. Commelinaceae, 134. Commelina benghalenaia Linn., 1^4. chinensis Osbeck, 47. communis Linn., 134. molue^na Roxb., 136. nudiflora Linn., 47, 134, ISS. obtusifolia Vahl, 185. rumphii Kostel., 134^ unifiora Hassk., 135. Comm«rsonia bartramia (Linn.) Merr., 49, 855, 862. echinata Forst., 302, S6S. platyphyUa Andr., 49, 363. Compar m,angae Rumph., 124. Compositae, 497. Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume, 437. Condandum Rumph., 832. malaccense Rumph., 332. Connaraceae, 248. Connarua gcmdichaudii Planch., 248. monocarpuB Linn., 254. pentagynua Lam., 299. Conocephalus amboinensis (Zipp.) Warb., 199. Conoph(dlu8 ? sativua Schott, 127. ConvaUaria chinenais Osbeck, 47. fruticosa Linn., 137. Convolvulaeeae, 440. Convolvulua batatas Linn., 443. bifiduB Vahl, 440. bilobatus Roxb., 444. caervXeus Rumph., 446. cymoaus Dear., 440. denticulatua Dear., 446. fiageUiformia Roxb., 446. foetidua Rumph., 489. indicua Burm.. 47, 446. taevia III Rumph., 220. laevia indicua m^jor It rubra Rumph., 446. laevia indicua major (alba) Rumph., 441. laevia indicua major III nigra Rumph., 446. laevia minor I femina, U maa Rumph., 440. marinua major Rumph., 444. marinua minor Rumph., 446. niaritimua Dear,, 444. medium Linn., 444. peltatua Linn., 441. pennatua Dear., 446. pea-eaprae Linn., 444. platypelHa Span., 448. eptana Linn., 444. riparUu Rumph., 446. Coni;o2i;ii2iM— Continued. turpethum Linn.* 442. umbeUatiM Linn., 440. Conyza appendiculata Blume, 498. appendiculata ham., 498. balaamifera Linn., 498. ea^verum Rumph., 498. chinenaia Linn., 497, 499. einerea Linn., 497. hirsuta Linn., 499. indica minor Rumph., 499. ma« Rumph., 498. odora^ta Rumph., 498. prolifera Lam., 600. pubigera Linn., 499, 600. Cookia punctata Retz., 811. Copaifera, 264. Corchorus capsularis Linn., 868. olitorius Linn., 868. Gordia blancoi Vidal, 448. campanulata Roxb., 447. myxa Linn., 447. orientalis R. Br., 447. rum,phii Blume, 447. sebestena Linn., 447. aubcordata Lam., 447. subpubescena Spanoffh., 448. tiliaefolia Warb., 47. Cordylifie jacquinii Kunth, 188. jacquinii Kunth, var. rubens Haaak., 188. rumphii Hook., 187. t&rminalia Kunth, 187. Coriua femina Rumph., 606. m4i8 Rumph., 606. Cornutia corymboaa Burm. f., 460. Corona ariadnea lutea Rumph., 488. ariadnea punicea Rumph., 488. CoroniUa coccinea Willd., 266. grandiflora Willd., 266. aeaban Willd., 266. CoraUaria latifoKa Rumph., 262. parvifolia Rumph., 262. Cortex acria Rumph., 609. caryophyUoidea albua Rumph., 282. conaolidana Rumph., 432. fUariua Rumph., £48, 880. foetidua Rumph., 248, 880. igneua Rumph., 244. oniniua II, 289. oniniua a. maaaoy Rumph., 288. papetariua Rumph., 244. piacatorium Rumph., 187. aaponaHua Rumph., 249. Corypha elata Roxb., 110. grebanffa Blume, 110. licuala Lam., 110. 111. pilearia Lour., 111. rotundifoUa Lam., 111. aa/rOma Lour., 111. aylveatria Mart., 110. umhraeulifera Linn., 111. utan Lam., 110. Coatua ananaaaae Haaak., 47, 166. argyrophyUua Ridl., 166. aerieea Blume, 164. aerieeua Blume, 166. 664 Ilii^[ Costus — Continued. specioBus BluiiMi* 164. speeioaua Blume, var. «r#vrf>3^M{t«t Ridl., 164 apecio9%i9 Mume, wax, ^k^ra K. Sch., 164. specioBUs Blufiie var. MvsutiM Blume, 164. apeeioauB Bii»iie, var. ktaiooalvx K. Sch., 164. Cotyledon ladfUata Linii.» 248. CovdUa hiapidm Miq[.» 198. oonireata Miq., 196 Cracea Linn., 264. Crassnlaceae, 248. Craaauia acuteUmia Btiirm., f., 409^ Crataava marmeloa Linn., 298. reliotoaa Forst., 298. tapia Linn., 298. Crategonutn amboinieum Rumph., 466. ambomieum I minua Rumph., 479. amboinieum II mmjua Ruinpli., 479. Cratoxykm, 384. Crepis japoniea (Linn.) Bentli., 603. Crepitua lupi verua Enmph., 60. Crinum asiaticum Linn.» 140. nervoaum L'H^rit., 142. proeerum Carey, 141. rumphii Merr., 141. toxtcarium Roxb., 140. zeyfanictnn Linn., 141. Criata pavonia Rumph., 260. Crithmum maritimnm Linn., 412. Crithmua indicua I ruber Rumph., 217. indicua II albua Rumph., 217. indiewB III kaiy orticukttum Rumph., 211, 21f. indicua IV port'^ea arenoaa Rumph., 217. verua Rumph., 412. Crotalaria / major Rumph., 268. II minor Rumph., 268. /// agreatia Rtmiph., 263. chinensis Linn., 268. form^ama Mats., 263. linifolia Linn, f., 268. montana V Rumph., 269. montana VIII tajeme tajefne Rumph., 287. quinquefolia Linn., 263. retusa Linn., 268. atenophyUa Vog., 268. verrwsomt Linn., 268. Croton wromatiGua Linn., 818. orwndifoUua Blanco, 29, 820. laccif&rum Linn., 821. mauritianum Lam., 822. moluccamum. *Lam., 824. molueeanua Linn., 818. multiffkmduloaua Rdnw., 818. polot Burm. f., 200. tifflium Linn., 817. tUiifoliua Lam., var. atomMieua Lam., 818. voHegmtMm yair. eriapum Mv^.-Arg»» 826. variegatua Linn., 825. Crueiferae, 240. Gruatm mrikorwm It oC6a RumiJli., IH. arborum III odorata Rumph., 19i. arborwn tV mdmvma Rumph., 196. OA'borum, itttn^r Rumph., 194. oUae III angtiatifolia Rumph., 478. oUcie m4ijor Rumi^., 467. oUae minor Rumph., 4^. Cryptanthua chinenaia 0»b«5k, 47. Cryptocarya R. Brown, 288. Cubilia blaiico! Blume, 888. rumphii Blume, 388. Cucumis acutangvlua Linn., 491. dnguinuM Linn., 494. conomon Thunb., 493. indicua I vvlgwria Rumph., 492. indicua II boetonenaia Rumph., 498. indicua III ainenaia Rumph., 492. indicua IV. masoimvs Rumph., 498. melo Linn., 498. murinua ruber Rumph., 491. THurJntM viridia Rumph., 490. rumphii Hassk., 47, 492. sativus Linn., ^7, 491, 492, 49i. trigonua Roxb., 498. turbinatua Roxb., 493. Cucurbitaceae, 490. Cucurbita cantalupensia Hab., 4fl. citrvJUua Linn., 492. hiapida Thunb., 498. indica vulgaria Rumph., 494. lagermrin Linn., 498. -i Uigenaria Rumph., 498. leucantha Duch., 498. melapepo Linn., 494. pepo Linn., ^9, 498, 494. Cudrania javanensis Tr€e., 189. rumphiilihvT., 189. apinoaa, Hochr., 189. Cudranua amboinensia Miq., 189. amboinenais sylvestria Rumph., 189, 2iT. amboinicua Rumph., 189. bimanua Rumph., 189. apinoaua O. Kuntze, 189. CujavUlua Rumph., 891. Cujavua agreatia Rumph., 891. domeatica Rumph., 391. aUveatria Rumph., 891. Culitlawan Rumph., 282. ex Papuania et Mvlueeia inmdia Rumph.i 233. Cunoniaceae, 244. Cupania fusceacena Miq., 884. Curanera am^a/ra Juss., 467. fel-terrae (Lour.) Merr., 467. Curania amara R. A S., 467. Curculigo capitulata (Lour.) O. Kuntze, 142. US. latifolia I>ry., 148. orchoides Gaertn., $f, 142. recurvata Dryander, 148. rumphiana Schultes, 47, 142. aumatrana Rox^., 148. Curcuma aerufirinosa Roxfo., 164. agreatia Rumph., 168. aromatica Salisb.; 1€8. 11^^^ Curciiini^--Continued. caeaia Roxb., 164. domeatiea minor Ituiapli., 168. longa KoenifiT, 168. longa hiMkn., 47» 168. petiolata Roxb., 168. radice longa Herm., 163. rotunda Linn., 168. viridiflora iU>xb., 168. zedoaria (Ber^.) Rose., 164. CMeuaria, ma^antifoUa Schott, 126. rumphii Schott, 126. Cuscuta chinensis Lam., 62. Cusmmbium Ri^nph., 387. apinosum Ham., 387. Cuasutha Rumph., 289. Cyanotis moluccana (Roxb.) Merr., 185. Cyatheaeeae, 68. Cyathea amboinei^is Mevr., 68. arbor ea 8m.., 68. ruMphiana Men-., 68. Cyathula genicuUita Lour., 214. prostrata (Linn.) Blume, 214. Cycadaceae, 74. Cycas celebiea Mlq., 7§. circinalis Linn., 74, 75. inertnis Lour., 74. pectinata Ham., 47, 76. revoluta Thunb., 76. rum^Mii MIq., 74. thouarsii R. Br., 74, 76. Cyclea peltata Hook. f. A Tfc.. 226. waUichii Diels, 226. Cycloateoia atr<^Mfera^ Benth., 4&8. Cylindrica rubra Lour., 84«. Cylizoma Neek., 272. Cymbidium amabUe Roxb,, 177. furvum Willd., 178. ovatum Willd., 174. aeripium Sw., 177. wtilMchU Lindl., 177. Cymbopogon citratua Stapf, 81. Cyniinoama odorata DC, 89&. reainoaa Don, 246. Cynanchum mawnUamwm Lam., 488^ 446. odoratiaaimum Lour., 440% ovalifoli^n Wight, 486. Cynodon dactylon (Linn.,) Pers., 93. Cynometra eauliflora Linn., 268. ramiflora- Linn., 254. ramiflora Linn., var. gamiina Pridn, 264. ramiflora Linn., var. haterophyUa Thw., 264. Cynoworittw Rumph., 258- ailveatre Rumph., 264. Cymsmrm tm^tim Linn., 94, eorocanua Linn., 94. indiem Linn., 94. Cyperaceae, 108. Cyperua i^M»r ]^s»i>h., 108. dvleia Rumph., 104. fioHdua U maa Btmiph., 104. gramen bufonum Rumph., 108. humUior Rumph., 108. inodorua Rumph., %m. Cyperus — Continued. kyUingioidea Yahl„ IM. Uitoraua Ruanph.,, 9ft. longua Rumph., 104. odoraiti* Linn., 104. polyataehyua Rottik, 160. rotundus Linn., 104, im rotundua bvXboatts «iv# laff^imana Rvniph., 104. cyprua Rumph., 882. Gyrtandra decurrens DeYciitts^ 4n^ nemoroaa Blume, 470i. Cyrtoeerma rmUUfiora Heynh., 48#. Cyrtoptera enaiformia LindL, 172. Cytiaua cajan Linn.^ 282. pifvnatua Linn., 271. paeudo-cajan Jaeq., 282. D Dabanua Rumph., 889. Dactyloctenium aesorptium (Linn.) Richt., 94. asgyptiacuin Willd., 96. Daemonorops accedana Blume, 118. barbatua Mart., 117. calapparius Blume, 117. draco (Willd.) Blume» 118. elongatua Blume, 116. longipm Griff., 116. meUmochaeteat Blum^ 118. niger (Willd.) Blume, 118. ^palembanicufr Bluooe, 118. ruber Blume, 118. rumphii Mart., 115. Dalbergia arbwrem Willd., 271. hei6arophylla WiM„ 272. parvifiora Roxb., 270. parviflora Roxb., 270. zolUngeriana Miq., 270. Dammara alba Lam., 76. alba Rumph., 76. alba femimt Rimiph., 77. alba Lam., var. ceM>iea Haesk., 77. celebiea Rumph., 77. leomdaena Rumph., 876. nigra Hassk., 466. nigra Rumph.» 465^ rumphii Pr^l» 76. aalanica Rumph., 876. aelanica femina Rumph., 876. Damnacanthua indicua Qaertn., 877, 42^. Dartua parlariMa Lour., 412. Datiscaceae, 878. Daucua aniaodorua Blanco, 412. Daun paramos Rumph., 607. Dauncontu Adans., 489. Davallia amboynenaia Hook., 66. dentiadaia Meit., 66. elata Spreng., 64. patena Sm.^ 65. Dawan batu Uumph,^ 889. mora Rumph., 809. puti Wamph., 889. 'Dawaa Rumph., 488. 566 INDIX Datura alba Nees, 465. fastuosa Linn., 466. fastuosa Linn., var. alba C. B. Clarke. 466. faatuoaa Linn., var. rubra Dunal., 465. hummatu Bernh., 466. fnetel Linn., 465. nigra Hassk., 465. Decadia aluminoaa Lour., 421. Decaspermum fruticosum Forst., 392. parUcvXatum Kurz, 48, 392. rubrum BailL, 392. Deeringria amaranthoides (Lam.) Merr., 211. baccata Moq., 211. celoBioidea R. Br., 211. Deguelia Aubl., 272. Dehaasia borneenaia F.-Vill., 47. media Blume, 234. Delima hebecarpa DC, 865. Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb., 173. anosmum Lindl., 175. atropurpureum 3. J. Sm., 175. atropurpureum Miq., 176. bifarium Lindl., 176. buraigerwnfh Lindl., 174. calceolum Roxb., 173. concinnum Miq., 175. confuaum Schltr., 175. crumenatum Sw., 173. ephemerum J. J. Sm., 174, 650. Uucorhodum Schltr., 175. ma^ranthum Hook., 175. macrophyUum Lindl., 176. minax Rchb. f., 174. mirbelianum Gaudich., 174. moluccense J. J. Sm., 176, 650. papilioniferum J. J. Sm., 173, 174* 176, 650. papilioniferum J. J. Sm., var. ephemerum J, J. Sm., 174. prionochilum, KranzL, 174. pruinoaum T. & B., 176. purpureum Roxb., 175, 560. roaenbergii T. & B., 174. roxburghii Lindl. 178. rumphianum T. & B., 174. aealpeUiforme T. & B., 173. acortechinii Hook, f., 176. auperbum Rchb. f., 176. Buperbum Rchb. f., var. anoamum Rchb. f., 176. viridiroaeum Rchb. f., 176. Dendrocalamua flagettifer Munro, 101. Dendrohbium cephalotea Benth., 268. cumvngiMnum Benth., 47. umbeUatum W. & A., 268. DendrophthoS incarnata Miq., 206. indiea Miq., 206. Dentella repens (Linn.) Forst., 478. Derris diadelpha Merr., 278. elliptica (Roxb.) Benth.. 273. forateniana Blume, 264, 272. heptaphylla Merr., 262- heptaphylla (Linn.) Merr., 278. montawi Benth., 278. Derris — Continued. ainuata Benth., 262, 273. trifoliata Lour., 272. Deamochaete proatrata R. & S., 214. Desmodium cumingianum F.-Vill., 47. dependena Blume, 267. gangeticum DC, 267, 501. gangeticum (Linn.) DC. 269. ormocarpoides DC, 267, 269. tyrmocarpoidea Desv., 267. atipulaeeum DC, var. aparine (Hassk.) Miq., 269. tim,orien8e DC, 269. triquetrum (Linn.) DC, 268. umbeUatum (Linn.) DC, 268. viacidum DC, 269. zonatum Miq., 268. Deamoa chinenaia Lour., 228. Dialum indum Linn., H4» 257. javanicum Burm. f., 244. Dianella nemoroaa Lam., 136. enaifolia DC, 136. odorata Blume, 136. DiccUyx aluminoaua Blume, 421. cochinchinenaia Lour., 350. joA^anicua Blume, 420. salaccensis Blume, 420. Dicer oa Lour., 466. Dichapetalaceae, 312. Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr., 812. papuanum Engl., 313. tim,orienae Engl., 313. Diekaonia aorbifolia Sm., 74. Didiiptera bivalvia Juss., 477. Dicotyledons, 179. Dictyophora phalloidea Desv., 61. apecioaa Klotzsch., 61. Digera arvenaia Forsk., 211. muricata Mart., 211. Digitaria sanguinalis (Linn.) Sbop., 90. Dilivaria ebracteata Pers., 474. acandena Nees, 474. volubilia Nees, 474. Dilleniaceae, 365. Dillenia elliptica Thunb., 367. indiea Linn., 368. ochreata Teysm. & Binn., 368. serrata Thunb., 368. Dinochloa acandena O. Ktze., 101. tjankiyrreh Biise, 101. Dioclea reliexa Hook, f., 280. Dioscoreaceae, 146. Dioscorea acideata Linn., 147. alata Linn., 146. bulbifera Linn., 146. bulbifera Linn., var. aativa Prain & Bur- kill, 146. bulbifera Linn., var. auavior Prain * BurkiU, 146. bulbifera Linn., var. vera Prain & Bur- kiU, 146. diffortiana Lam., 886. eombilium Ham., 147. daemona Roxb., 148. deltoidea WaU., 836. INDEX 567 Dioscorea— Continued. esculenta (Lour.) Burkill, 147. fasciculata Roxb., 147. glabra Koord., 148. hirsuta Roth, 148. hispida Dennst., 148. nummularia Lam., 49, 1S9, 148. nummtUarifolia Henschel, 148. oppoaitifolia Linn., 146. pentaphylla Linn., 147, U8, pentaphylla Linn., var. malaica Prain & Burkill, 147. sativa Linn., 335. spiculata Blume, 146. tiliaefolia Kunth, 147. triphylla Auctt., 148. triphylla Linn., 148. wallichii Hook, f., 147. Diospyros decandra Lour., 420. ebena^ster Retz., 419. ebenum Koen., 419. kaki Linn, f., 46, 420. maritima Blume, 419. Diphaca cochinchinen&ia Lour., 266. Diplazium esctdentum Sw., 65. malabaricum Sprengf., 65. Diploclinium tuberosum Miq., 379. Dipteracanthus lanceolatuB Nees, 472. patulua Nees, 475. ventrico8ua Nees, 476. Dipterocarpaceae, 376. Dipterocarpus Gaertn., 376. Dischidia coUyria Wall., 437. gaudichaudii Decne., 437. imbricata Steud., 437. major (Vahl) Merr., 437. nummularia R. Br., 436. rumphii Miq., 437. Dittelaama rarak Hook, f., 337. Dodonaea anguatifolia Blanco, 340. burmanniana DC, 340. dioica Roxb., 340. triquetra Andr., 840. viscosa (Linn.) Jacq., 340. viscoaa Jacq., var. vulgaris Benth., forma repanda Radlk., 340. Dolichandrone rheedii Seem., 469. spathacea (Linn, f.) K. Schum., 469. Dolichos albus Lour., 286. altissimua Lour., 286. bulbosus Linn., 285. catjang Linn., 284. daaycarpua Miq., 279. ensiformia Linn., 282. erosua Linn., 285. giganteua Willd., 277. gladiatus Jacq., 281. lablab Linn., UO, 286. Ugnosua Linn., 286. Uneatua Thunb., 281. luteua Sw., 285. obtuaifoUua Lam., 281. Phaseoloidea Roxb., 282. pruriens Linn., 277. rotundifoUua Vahl, 281. Dolichos — Continued. sinensis Linn., 284. sinensis Rumph., 284. soja Linn., 274. tetragonolobua Linn., 286. unguiculatua Linn., 279. Donacodea elongata T. & B., 160. incarnata T. & B., 159, 160. roaea Teysm. & Binn., 157. Donax arundaatrum Lour., 166. canniformis (Forst.) K. Schum., 47, 166. Dracaena anguatifolia Roxb., 137. enaifolia Linn., 136. reflexa Lam., 137. terminalia Rich., 137. Dracontium cordatuTn Houtt., 128. polyphyUumljiTin., 127. Dracontomelum mangriferum Blume, 838. sylvestre Blume, 833. Dracuneulua amboinicua II albua Rumph., 128. amboinicua III ruber Rumph., 128. amboinicua niger Rumph., 128. Drymophloeus appendiculatus Becc, 120. jacuXatoriua Mart., 120. olivaeformis (Giseke) Mart., 120. rumphianua Mart., 122. Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm., 68. sparsisora (Desv.) Moore, 68. Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn., 876. camphora Colebr., 376. Dryopteris campeatria Rumph., 66. ferox O. Kuntze. 64. paraaitica O. Kuntze, 73. ailveatria II arborea Rumph., 73. ailvestris III petraea Rumph., 67. triplex Rumph., 70. triplex arborea Rumph., 64. triplex ailveatria I terreatria Rumph., 66. Dulcam,ara nigra Rumph., 802. Dupinia Scop., 869. Durio Rumph., 861. zibethinus Murr., 861. Dutra alba Rumph., 466. nigra Rumph., 466. rubra Rumph., 465. Dyaolobium doliehoidea Prain, 279. Dysophylla auricularia (Linn.) Blume, 458. Dysoxylum aUiaceuvt Blume, 808. euphlebium Merr., 308. forsteri C. DC, 309. hamiltonii Hiern, 309. Ebenaceae, 419. Ebenoxylum verum Lour., 419. Ebenus Rumph.. 419. alba Rumph., 420. e Madagascar. Rumph., 419. molucca Rumph., 419. Ecdysanthera ba/rbata Miq., 432. Echinus trisulcus Lour., 481. Echitea hircosa Roxb., 484. scholaris Linn., 427. spinosa Burm. f., 426. 56g INH^ Ecliptiea Rumph., 600. Eelipta alba (Linn.) Hassk., &0O. (Uba Hassk.* var. ereeta Hassk., 600. ereeta Linn., 600. proatrata Linn., 500. Elaeagnvs, 209. £Iaeocarpaceae» 348. Elaeocarpus, 605. amboinensis Merr., 860. angustifoliua Blume, 352. doUch&p€t^U8 Merr., 351. edulis T. ^ B., 348. excavatus Reinw., 848. fruticosus Roxb., 848. gcmitrua Roxb., 352. integrifoUus L«n., 352. macrophyUua Blume,^ 862. -moJuecamtui Seheff., MS. oblongus Gaertn., 362. oVPositifoUtis il>C*y MIq*, 348. rumphii Merr., 349. serrmttta Linn., 35 L BphaeriemB K. Scb., 852. tffeubii Heclur., 348. Elatostema macrophyUum Brongn., 202. ainumtum Hassk., 202. Eleocharis dulcis (Burm. f.) Trin., 47, 104. plantaginea R. Br., 106. piantaginoidea W. F. Wight, 10&. tuh^ma Sehultes, 105. Elettaria cardamiomvan. Maton, 167. minor Blume, 159. muaacea Horan., 169, 160. Eleusine corocana (Linn.) Gaertn., 94. indica (Linn.) Gaertn., 94. Ellobocarpua aleraceua Kaulf., 69 Elodea, 334. Elytranthe anaboinensis Merr., 206. Emeritm pergvktria Roem. & sehultes, 434. Emerua aeahan O. Kuntze, 266. Emilia sonchifolia (Linn.) DC, 503. Empetrum acetoaum I cUbum Rumph., 379,. aeetoaum II rubrum Rumph., 379. acetoaum III cordUttum Rumph., 380. Endospermum moluccanum (Teysm. & Binn.) Becc, 326. Englehardtia acerifolia Blums, 376. •ffZamtea Blume, 376. apicata Blume, 375. Enhalus acoroides (Linn, f.) Rich., 50, 84. koenigii Rich., 84. Entada phaseoloides (Linn.) Merr., 253. rumphii Scheff., 263. aeandena Benth., 258. Epicharia, 809. Epidendrum amabile Linn., 177. carinatum Linn.^ 46. furvum Linn., 178. nervoaum Lam., 169. apathvlatum Linn., 174. acriptum Linn., 177. tenuifoUum Linn., 60. terreatre Linn., 171. tuberoaum Linn., 171. Epipremnum pinnatum (Linn.) EngL, 127. Equiaetum amboinieum II minor Rumph., 72. amboinieum a. arb€Mreum aquamatum Rumph., 72. aecundum Rumph., 73. aiiveatre III Rumph., 69. Eragrostis amabilis (Linn.) W. & A., 95. amboinenma Trin., 88. elegantula Steud., 46. plumoaa Link, 95. teneUa R. & S., 96. uniolo4dea Nees, 96. Eranthemum bicolor Schrank, 476. curtatum C. B. Clarke, 475. mulaccense C. B. Clarke, 475. ptdchellum Hort., 475. racemoaum> Roxb., 476. Eria moluccana Schltr. & J. J. Sm., 174, 176. Erinua bilabiatua Roxb., 467. Eriocaulon setdcewm Linn., 105. Eriochloa ramoaa O. Kuntze, 48. Eriodendron cunfractuoatmi DC, 862. Eriophorua javana Rumph., 362. Erithalia polygama Forst., 486. tim,on Sprang., 486. Erndlia aubperaoTUita Giseke, 47. Eroteum, lanigerum, Blanco, 47. Erva de Stcb. Ma/ria Rumph., 133. Erythrina eoraUodendron Linn., var. orientaHt Linn., 276. fusca Lour., 276. indica Lam., 60, 266. lithoaperma Blume, 276. orientalia Murr., 276. , ovalifolia Roxb., 275. picta Linn., 276. variegata Linn., 276. variegata Linn., var. orientalis (Linn) Merr., 276. Erythroxylum, monogynum Roxb., 504. Eacheweileria paXmata Zipp., 407. Eaula eaculenta Rumph., 828. Eucalyptus binacag Elm., 401. deglupta Blume, S99, 401. moluccana Roxb., 401. multiflora Rich, 401. TvaudiniOina F. Muell., 401. aaraaaa Blume, 401. veraicolor Blume, 401. Eucheuma apinoaum Ag., 54. Eugenia acutangida Gaertn., 886. alba Roxb., 397. aquea Burm. f., 393. aromatica Berg., 393. binacag Elm., 401. caryophyllata Thunb., 47, 898. celebica (Blume) Merr., 397. colubcob C B. Rob., 896. cumini (Linn.) Merr., 894. cym^oaa Lam., 396. jambolana Lam., 394. jambos Linn., 397. javanica Lam., 898, 896. laeta Ham., 897. longiflora F.-Vill., 48. maerophylla DC. 898. inhex 569 Eugenia — C5ontinued. malaccensis Lioa., 898» melastomifolia ina Rumph., 407. priTUiipi^sae angustifolium. Rumph., 484. principissae latifolium Rumph., 484. tinctorium Rumph., 476. urens angustifolium Rumph., 200. urens latifolium Rumph., 200. urens rubrum, Rumph., 200. Fomes amboinensis Fries, 58. Fortunella japonica , (Thunb.) Swingle, 294. Fragarius niger Rumph., 403. ruber Rumph., 408. ruber grandifolius Rumph., 404. Freycinetia funicularis (Savigny) Merr., 83. graminea Blume, 88. strobilacea Blume, 88. Fructvs boba^ Rumph., 885. museuliformis Rumph., 425. regis Rumph., 363. Frumentum indicum s. turcicum s. aarace- nieum Rumph., 84. Frutex aquosus femina Rumph., 846. aquosua mas Rumph., 347. carbonarius asper Rumph., 508. carbonarius I albus Rumph., 508. carbonarius latifolius Rumph., 508. carbonarius II ruber Rumph., 508. ceramieus Rumph., 449. cerasiformis Rumph., 508. excoecans Rumph., 327. globulorum femina Rumph., 261. globulorum, majorum Rumph., 260. lintearius Rumph., 188. muraenarum femina Rumph., 405. Fucus bracteatus Ag., 56. edulis Gmel., 64. granulatus Linn., 66. natans Linn., 55. vesiculosus Linn., 66. Fulha alacra Rumph., 177. Fungi, 66. Fungus arboreus I. Rumph., 59. arboreus II ialbua) Rumph., 59. arboreus II (ruber) Rumph., 69. arboreus lit Rumph., 69. arborum, tuberosus Rumph., 61. ekbtua eochlearis Rumph., 68. .^tum digitatua Rumph., 58. status petasoides Rimaph., 58.' INDEX 571 funi7tt«--Continued. elatua primus Rumph., 58. igneu3 Rumph., 60. Funis butonicus major Rumph., 508. butonicus rtnnor Rumph., 312. convolutua Rumph., 199, S7S. cratiutn Rumph., 484. cralium litorea Riimph., 434. crepitans I major Rumph., 343- crepitans II minor Rumph., 344. crepitans III trifolia Rumph., 345. crepitans IV Rumph., 844. dentarius Rumph., 225. felleus Rumph., 220, 343. gnemoniiormis Rumph., 78. muraenarum Rumph., i!03. muraenarum III Rumph., 405. muraenarum latifolia Rumph., 199. muraenarum mas Rumph., 404. musarius angustifolius Rumph., 225. musarius latifolius Rumph., 225. papius latifolius Rumph., 440. papius parvifoliua Rumph., 433. papius rugosior Rumph., 433. pinguis Rumph., 509. pulassarius Rumph., 426. quadrangularis Rumph., 843. quadrifidtis Rumph., 453. toaccae Rumph., 424. uncatus angustifolius Rumph., 480. uncatua lanoaus Rumph., 480. uncatus latifolius Rumph., 480. urens aapera Rumph., 365. urens glabra Rumph., 366. viminalis Rumph., 342. Furcraea cantala Haworth, 144. Gahertia acripta Gaudich., 177. Gahnia aapera Spreng., 106. javanica Z. & M., 106. rawacensis (Kunth) Steud., 106. tristia Nees, 106. Oajanus Rumph., 278. edulia O. Kuntz, 273. Gajatus luteus Rumph., 265. niger Rumph., 265. Galanga major Rumph., 153. malaccensia Rumph., 155. minor Rumph., 153. Galedupa elUptiea Roxb.. 273. indica Lam., 264, 271. pinnata Taub., 271. Galeola, 57. Gallinaria acutifoUa Rumph., 258. rotundifolia Rumph., 267. ^ndasulium Rumph., 161. Gehidi M«rr., 77, W* latifolium Mlmme, 77. ovaUfolium Poir., 77. rumphtaimm Beoe., 78. aetmdena Roxb., 78. ttia 'Bronfim., 78. verrncoaum Karst., 78. Goddam Rumph., 94. Gomutua rumphii Corr., 119. aaecharifer Sprenar., 119. Goiiii^rena firk>boBa Linn., 215. aeaaUia Linn., 216. Goniothalamtis Hook. f. & Th,^ 228. Gonoeitrua angulatua Kursi, 295. Gonystylaceae, 363. Gonystylus aMnia RacUk., 858. bancanus Baili, 868. bomeenaia Gil0.« 853v eahphyUm Gi^[>» 868. miqueUanua T. & B., 858. pluricortda RacLUc., 858. Gonua amc^iaaimm Louj?., 299. Goodeniacea^ 496. Gordonia excalaa Blam«» 369. rumphii Merr., 868. G&aaampinua alba Hasn., 862« rumphU Schott* 8i62. G&aaypium Ru^aph., 8it. arboreuBi Linn.* 860, Mi. bf»M]iens« Mitel., 860^ daemonm Rumpb^, 866. fioHbua fnaefMri^ntibma "Rwmphur 9M.. hm'baeeum Linn., 86L Gro««yp»«»i--Continued. tapideum Tussac, 860. latifolium Rumph., 360. majua Mvamph., 861. . m^inua Rumph., 8.61. flanking Meyen, 861. nanking Meyen var. nadiam M^Att.» 861. nigrum Ham., 861. purpurascens Poir., 361. vitifolium Lam., 860, Govantasia mahtlucban Llanos, 48. Gracilaria lichenoides Harv., 64. Gramen actculatum Rumph., 87. cmatum Rumph., 90. arguena Rumph., 89. caninum Rumph., 90. capitatum Rumph., 103. carieoaum Rumph., 85. earicoatmi vulpiwum Rum^pk., 92. tmni Rumph., 95. polytriehum Rumph., 106. repena minua Rumph., 98. roria ilitore'mn) Rumph., 92. auppleas Rumph., 90. vaceinum> Rumph.» 94. vaccinum femina Rumph., 94. vvipinum Rump^., 91. Gramineae, 84. Grammatophyllum guHdmi li Kriasl., 177. leopiardinum Rchb. f., 177. rumphianum Miq., 177. scriptum (Linn.) Blume, 177, 560. apedoaum Lindl., 177. Grammiea apkyUa LouF.t 62; Granatum litoreum I idtifoimm Runph., 30fi. 807. litoreum II parvifoUum Rumph., 806. litoreum III latiaaimum Rumph., 307. Granum moluccanum Rumph., 817. moachatum Rumpjb., 85S. moachatum agraate Rumph., 858. ; Graptophyllum hortenae Ne«8, 474. pictum (Linn.) Giriff., t76, 474. Graptorchia Thou., 172. Graptorkia Thou., 172. Gratiola amara Roxb., 467. aromatica P«rs., 466. lueida Willd., 46S. veronicaefolfysk Retx;, 467. Grewia inaequoMa Blumti 449. Groaaularia domeatica Rumph., 196, 198. domeatica tongifoUa ^wm.pk.^ 198. domeatica parvif^^ Rumpk* 198. ailveatria Rumph., 198* GvAn^ allia/rya Ham., 808. Guatteria rwmphdi MwBo», 48, 22t« . Guettarda speciosa Xiiiin.r 486. Gviacum abih BlaiKNi, 806. Guilandina bon^ue Liaa^^ 260. hondue Linn., var. moitt* HC, 261. bondue Lina., vac fiiiiiiM B€.« 260. b DC, 241. Gyfiopogon Forst., 480. atdtatum Forst., 480. Gynura sarmentoaa DC, 499. Gyrinopdls braeliyantlia Merr., 880. eumingiana Dene., 880. Emsia, 287. 6orneen«t« Meisn., 47. media Nees, 284. Habenaria eordata Nairet, 48. diphytta Dalz., 48. gigctntea Don, 169. rumphii (Brongm.) Lindl., 169, 649. susunnae R. Br., 169. HdecM litorea Rumph., 818; tugoaa Rumph., 320. • terreetriB olba Rumph., 821. terreatria wlgaria Rumph., 821. Haiicacabua baceifer Rumph., 464. indieua t maSor Rumph., 461. i-ndicua tt minor Rumph., 462. peregrinua Rumph., 886. ffofopei^ta K. Schumann, 167. Hamamelidaceae, 245. Hapaloeeraa arupa Hassk., 48, 416. leerii Hassk., 416. HaplochUua a/mboinense J. J. Sm., 169. Harina caryotoidea Ham., 120. rumphii Mart., 120. HarpuUia, 244. arborea Radlk., 506. arborea (Blanco) Radlk., 840, ^^nighaea forateri Juss., 809. Sasakarlia globoaa WiOp., 80. Hehenaater Rumph., 419. arnalyenaia Rumph., 420. ^edem amboimnma DC. 406. nodoaa Bagsk.. 408. umbeUifem DC, 4i0«. <'r9. 479. ^edrayoatykts eornimOatua Hawsk.. 828. glaberrimua Hassk., 821. fiedychium chrysoleucum Ho<»k. f., l«l. coronarium Kmt^im 161. ianatum Seheff., 166. Hedyotis angmati^Ua Mi«., erataogonum Spre&s., hiapida Retz., 479. tenelliflora Blume, 47t. verticillata (Linn.) Lam., 479. Hedyaarum adfutarer^a Poir., 267. gcmgetieum Linn., 3^7, 269, fOl. triquetrum Linn., ^8. vmbellatum Linn., 268. viaeidum Linn., 26$. Helicia, •enmta (R. Br.) Bhtaie, 206, ts^. Heliconia hihai lAnu,, 160, im. buccinata Roxb., 159. Heliconiopaia cmiboinemMa Mlq., 160. Helicteres iitora Linn., 868. ovata Lam., 868. HeUenia, 168. rufa Presl, 46. acabra Blume, 46. Helminl^ostachys dtUem EjmhUI., fl. zeylanica (Linn.) Mi&6k„ 71. Heloapora Ja(±, 486. H^veUa mitra Linn.« 59. Hemigraphis altemaia T. And., 471. angustifolia Hiaiip f., 470. colorata HaEier f., 471. petola Hallier f ., 470. reptans K. Schum., imr. slauootoflM Hal- lier f., 471. eaadenta Retz., 66. Herba admirationia Rumph., 467. crinalium domeaidca Rumph., 869. crinalium «iZt;eetrtt Rumph., 9&^. memoriae Rumph., 202. munoaa Rumph., 262. moeroria I alba Rumph., 818. m4}eroria II rubra Rumph., 818. aentiena Rumph., 262, 288. apiralia I hirauta Rum|>h., 164. «pvralt8 It laevia Rumph., 164. aupplex femina Rumph., 178. aupplex femina a. aecunda, 176. aupplex minor Rumph., 178, 176. aupplex quinta Rumph., 178. aupplex major prima Rumph., 178. aupplex major aecunda Rumph., 176. aupplex major tertia Rumph., 170. aupplex major quanta Rumph., 17B. timoria Rumph., 609. vitHaginum Rumph., 406. viva Rumph., 262. Heritiera littoralis Dryand.« 366. minor Roxb., 866. Hemandiaceae, 289. Hemandia ovisrera Linn^ 239. peltata Meisn., 289. aonora Linn., 826. Herpetica Rumph., 267. alata Raf., 267. Herpeatia amara Benth,, 468. rugoaa Roth., 466. Heaperethuaa addiaaima Ro«ai., 298. Hetero§patk0 dttOa S^eff., 122. Hexasonia, 69. 574 INDEX Hibiscus ahelmoschv^ Linn., 358. convolvulaceus Hassk., 48, 359. haenkeanus F.-VilL, 48. mutabilis Linn., 359. populneus Linn., 360. rosa-sinensis Linn., 359. surattensis Linn., 48, 359. tiliaceus Linn., 358. zeylanicvs Linn., 365. Hiinanthalia lorea Lyngb., 54. Hippogrostis amboinica I major Rumph., 87. amboinica II minor Rumph., 91. Hippuris indica Lour., 104. Himeola auricula judae Berk., 60. Hoelen Rumph., 61. Hoferia Scop., 369. Holcus lanatus Linn., 88. saccharatus Linn., 87. sorghum, Linn., 87. Homalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax, 327. Homalium aranga Vidal, 48. foetidum Benth., 340, 505. foetidum (Roxb.) Benth., 378. grifflthianum Kurz, 378. luzonicum F.-Vill., 48. Homalomena alba Hassk., 128. aromatica Schott, 128. calyptrata Kunth, 129. cor data (Houtt.) Schott, 128. rubescens Kunth, 128. rubra Kunth, 128. Hondbessen Adans., 489. Hopea selanica W. & A., 375. Horsfieldia aruensis Warb., 231. canariformis (Blume) Merr., 230. nesophylla Warb., 231. novo-guineensis Warb., 231. roxburghii Warb., 230. sylvestris (Houtt.) Warb., 230. Hornstedtia elongata K. Schum., 159. imperialis Ridl., 159. minor (Blume) K. Sch., 159. Hoya alba Kostel., 439. ariadna Decne., 438. corona ariadnes Blume, 438. diversifolia Blume, 439. elegans Kostel., 439. latifolia Don, 436. lutea Decne., 438. lutea Kostel., 438. multiflora Blume, 439. rumphii Blume, 438. spedosa Decne., 438. sussuela (Roxb.) Merr., 438. Huttum Adans., 884. Hydnocarpus, 510. Hydnophytum amboinense Becc, 488. form,icarium Jack, 488. gaudichaudii Becc, 489. montanum Blume, 488. Hydrocharitaceae, 84. Hydrocotyle asiatica Linn., 411. Hydropiton Gaertn., 466. HymenophaUus daemonum Sprengr., 61. indusiatus Vent., 61. Hyperanthera moringa Vahl, 241. Hypnea divaricata J. Ag., 56. Hypcestes cumingiana F.-Vill., 48. purpurea R. Br., 474. Hypolytrum latifolium Rich., 106. macrocephalum, Gaudich., 107. Hyptis capitata Jacq., 49. Hysteria veratrifolia Reinw., 174. Hystrix frutex Rumph., 472. Icacinaceae, 335. Ichnocarpus R. Br., 433. acuminatus F.-Vill., 48. macrocarpus F.-Vill., 48. velutinus F.-Vill., 48. Ichthyoctonos litorea Rumph., 328. litorea silvestris latifolia Rumph., 870. montana Rumph., 369. Iguanura, 120. Illecebrum sanguinolentum, Linn., 214. sessile lArm,, 215. Ilysanthes antipoda (Linn.) Merr., 467. veronicae folia Urban, 467. Impatiens balsamina Linn., 340. coccinea Sims, 341. Imperata cylindrica Beauv., 85. cylindrica (Linn.) Beauv., var. koenigii (Retz.) Benth., 85. Indicum, Rumph., 264. brasilianum, Rumph., 264. silvestre Rumph., 264. silvestre e Madagascar Rumph., 264. Indigofera anil Linn., 264. anil Lir^., var. orthocarpa DC, 264. linifolia Retz., var. angustissima Miq., 264. suffruticosa Mill., 264. tinctoria Linn., 264. tinctoria Linn., var. brachycarpa DC, 264. tinctoria Linn., var. macrocarpa DC, 264. Inga clypearia Jack, 248. saponaria Willd., 249. Inhame St. Thome Rumph., 146. Inocarpus edulis Forst., 273. Intsia amboinensis DC, 255, bijuga (Colebr.) O. Kuntze, 48, 255. Involucaria palmata Roem., 496. trifoliata Roem., 494. Involucrum Rumph., 143. cusci Rumph., 392. Ipo toxicaria Pers., 192. Ipomoea aqu/itica Forsk., 444. batatas Poir., 442. batatas (Linn.) Poir., 443. beladamboe R. & S., 445. bifida Roth, 440. campanulata Linn., 443. choisyana W. F. Wight, 445. congesta R. Br., 47, 445. cymosa R. & S., 440. denticulata Choisy, 444. indica Merr., 47. indica (Burm.) Merr., 445. gracilis R. Br., 445. INDEX 575 Ipomoea — Continued. littoralis Blume, 445. mammosa Choisy, 443. nil Roth., 445. peltata Choisy, 441. peltata Choisy, var. nigricans Hassk., pes-caprae (Linn.) Roth, 444. qvximoclit Linn., 446. reptans (Linn.) Poir., 4'*4. rugosa Choisy, 445. rumphii Miq., 442, 446. Irina glabra Blume, 339. Ischaemum involutum Forst., 92. timorense Kunth, 87 91. Isora corylifolia Schott & Endl., 363. Itelpou Rumph., 133. Ixora chinensis Lam., 487. coccinea Linn., 487. incarnata Roxb., 487. julgens Roxb., 487. lanceolata Lam., 487. longiflora Sm., 488. macrothyrsa Teysm. & Binn., 488. stricta Roxb., 487. Jacquemontia panicidata Hallier f., 46. Jagera serrata (Roxb.) Radlk., 339. speciosa Blume, 339. Jambolana Rumph., 394. Jamholifera odorata Lour., 399. pedunculata Linn., 394. resinosa Lour., 245. Jambosa alba Blume, 397. aquea DC, 393, 398. aquea Rumph., 393. aquea altera Rumph., 393. bifaria Wight, 399. celebica Blume, 397. ceramica Rumph,, 394. domeatica Blume, 398. domestica Rumph., 398. domestica calapparia Rumph., 398. domestica rosacea Rumph., 398. domestica II minor Rumph., 398. linearis Korth., 397. Utorea Rumph., 395. malaccensis DC, 398. melastomifolia Blume, 398. nigra Rumph., 398. vurpurascens DC, 398. rosacea Rumph., 397. silvestris alba Rumph., 397, 400. silvestris ayer utan Humph., 397. silvestris s. biawas Rumph., 397. silvestris parvifolia Rumph., 395. vulgaris DC, 397. J^rntsja Rumph., 505. •^asminum bifarium Wall., 422. litoreum Rumph., 422, 455. sambac (Linn.) Ait., 422. •^atropha curcas Linn., 324. ^mnihot Linn., 324. moluccana Linn., 200, 324. '''^^us Rumph., 450. 446. Juglans camirium Lour., 324. catappa Lour., 390. Jussiaea purpurea Linn., 476. angustifolia Lam., 406. erecta Linn., 406. suffruticosa Linn., 406. Justicia bivalvis Linn., 474, 476. ecbolium Linn., 475. genda/russa Burm. f., 478. gendarussa Linn, f., 478. moretiana Burm. f., 472, nasuta Linn., 477. picta Linn., 474. purpurea Linn., 474, 476. roxburghiana R. & S., 477. tinctoria Roxb., 476. K Kaempferia galanga Linn., 161. pandurata Roxb., 162. rotunda Linn., 162. Kaju sarassa Rumph., 401. Kalanchoe laciniata (Linn.) DC, 243. KaZy articulatum Rumph., 211. Kamilia caryophylloides Blume, 388. Karivia javanica Miq., 491. Keratophorus leerii Hassk., 416, Khi Rumph., 420. Kleinhovia hospita Linn,, 363. Knema angustifolia Warb., 232. cinerea Warb., 231. glauca Warb., 232. globularia Warb,, 232. missionis Warb,, 232, tomentella Warb., 232. Korthalsia, 117. Kowackil Rumph., 507, Kraunhia, 275. Kyllinga brevifolia Rottb,, 103, monocephala Rottb,, 103. Labiatae, 456. Lablab cultratus DC, 287. microcarpus DC, 280. perennans DC, 286. vulgaris Savi, 281, 286. Labrusca molucca Rumph., 342. Lacca herba Rumph,, 340. lignum Rumph,, 270. lignum e Java Rumph., 270. lignum femina Rumph., 270. lignum ruffutn Rumph., 270. Lachryma jobi indica Rumph., 84. Lactaria salubris Rumph., 431. salubris Rafin., 431. Lagansa alba Rumph., 240. rubra Rumph., 241, Lagenaria hispida Ser., 495. leucantha (Duch.) Rusby, 493. vulgaris Ser., 493. Lagerstroemia chinensis Lam., 382. chinensis Linn., 48, 381. indica Linn., U, 381. 576 INDEX Lagondium litoreum Rumph., 458. nigrum Rumph., 453. vulgare Rumph., 453. Lagurua paniculatus Linn., 48, 86. Laharua Rumph., 481. femina Rumph., 482. lapidetia Rumph., 482. mixta Rumph., 482. Lamprocarya rawacenais Kunth, 106. La/mpujum, majua domeaticum Rumph., 152. minua Rumph., 152. ailveatre minua Rumph., 152, 162. Laniu^ Rumph., 299. Lanaium, Rumph., 309. domes ticum Correa, 48, 309. montanum Rumph., 311. ailveatre Roem., 310. ailveatre Rumph., 310. Lapathum hortenae Rumph., 210. Laportea amplissima (Blume) Miq., 200. crenulata Gaudich., 200. decumana (Roxb.) Wedd., 201. atimulana Miq., 201. Lappago amboinica Rumph., 354, 357. amboinica aylveatria Rumph., 354. laciniata Rumph., 464. Lasianthua Adans., 368. Lau laaai Rumph., 334, Lauraceae, 232. Lauraater amboinenaia maxim^a Rumph., 238. Laurua camphora Linn., 233. culilaban Linn., 232. culitlawan Linn., 232. • indica Linn., 234. japanica Rumph., 233. malahathrum Burm. f., 233. aoncaurium. Ham., 233. Lawsonia alba Lam., 382. ' falcata Lour., 464. inermis Linn., 382, 477. apinoaa Linn., 382. Lecythidaceae, 384. Leea aculeata Blume, 347. aculeata Blume, var. moluccana Miq., 847. aequata Linn., 346. aambucina Willd., 346. aerrulata Miq., 347. apinoaa Spreng., 347. Legnotia lanceolata Blanco, 48. Legruminosae, 248. Leleba alba Rumph., 98. amiahuaaana Rumph., 98. lineata Rumph., 98. nigra Rumph., 98. prava Rumph., 98. rumphiana Kurz, 98. Lemnaceae, 133. Lemna minor Linn., 133. Lena paluatria Rumph., 133. phaaeoloidea Linn., 253. Lentinus djamor Fries, 57. sajor caju Fries, 56. tuber regium Fries, 57. Leontopetaloidea Boehm., 144. Leonurua indicua Linn., 457. Lepidasrathis javanica Blume, 473. m,ucronata Nees, 473. par vi flora Blume, 473. rumphii Merr., 473. Lepiniopsis ternatensis Valet., 426, 507. philippinenaia Elm., 427. Lepironia macrocephala Miq., 107. Lepisanthes Blume, 337. pallena Radlk., 337. Leptospermum amboinenae Blume, 402. flavescens Smith, 402. porophyllum Cav., 402. thea Willd., 402. virgatum, Forst., 402. Leucas lavandulifolia Sm., 457. linifolia Spreng., 457. zeylanica (Linn.) R. Br., 457. Leucojuni capitulatum Lour., 142. Leviaticum indicum- Rumph., 411. Lichenes, 62. Lichen capillaria Burm. f., 62. rocella Lour., 54. uanea Linn., 62. Licuala arbor Rumph., 110. biaaula Miq., 111. pilea/ria Blume, 111. rumphii Blume, 110, 111. rotundi folia Blume, 111. apinoaa Wurmb., 110. Lignum, aquatile Rumph., 204. clavorum Rumph., 418. colubrinum timorenae Rumph., 423, corneum Rumph., 374. emanum Rumph., 75. equinum Rumph., 469. eurinum, Rumph., 417. leve alterum Rumph., 234. leve anguatifolium Rumph., 235. leve latifolium Rumph., 235. monnentaneum Rumph., 348, 352. moachatum Rumph., 504. murinuTtt majua Rumph., 250. murinum minua Rumph., 250. murinum parvifolium Rumph., 250. muacoaum parvifolium' Rumph., 369. m.usco8um a. Caju lapia Rumph., 368. papuanum Rumph., 245. papuanum III Rumph., 208. aalia minua Rumph., 506. aappan Rumph., 259. acholare Rumph., 427. tajidji Rumph., 504. vinosum Rumph., 510. Ligvlaria lactea Rumph., 328. lactea e Java, 329. minor Rumph., 328. Liguaticutn acutUobum, S. & Z., 411. ajoivan Roxb., 411. atriatum Roxb., 411. Liliaceae, 136. Lilium indicum Rumph., 143. Limatodea grata Miq., 171. Limnanthemum indicum (Linn.) Griseb, 424. Limo agrestia Rumph., 297. decumanua Rumph., 296. INDEX 577 Limo — Continued. ferus Rumph., 297. taurinus Rumph., 297. tuherosus Rumph., 297. ungiientariu8 Rumph., 297. ventrico8U8 Rumph., 298. Limodorum ventricosum Steud., 170. veratrifolium Willd., 170. Limonellus Rumph., 296. angvlosvLS Rumph., 295. aurarius Rumph., 298. funtctUaris montanus Rumph., 216, 217. litoreua Rumph., 508. madurenais Rumph., 294. Limonia acidissima Houtt., 296. acidissima Linn., 293, 504. angulosa W. & A., 295. aurantifolia Christm., 296. spinosa Spreng., 294. Limnophila aromatica (Lam.) Merr., 466. balsamea Benth., 466. chinenais Merr., 47. conferta Benth., 466. hirsuta Benth., 47. punctata Blume, 466. roxburghit G. Don, 466. rugrosa (Roth) Merr., 466. Lindsay a, 67. Lindernia Crustacea (Linn.) F.-Muell., 468. Lingoum album Rumph., 270. rubrum Rumph., 270. aaxatile Rumph., 270. Linkeng Rumph., 338. Liparis amboinenaia J. J. Sm., 172. confusa J. J. Sm., var. amtboineitaia J. J. Sm., 172. treubii J. J. Sm., 172. Liquidamber altingia Bl., 245. Lire kitsjil Rumph., 471. pa/pua Rumph., 471. Liriodendron lUiifera Linn., 224. Livistona bissula Mart., 111. cochinchinensis Blume, 111. rotundifolia (Lam.) Mart., 111. Lithospermum amboinicum Rumph., 84. Litsea ambigua Nees, 236. cassia^folia Blume, 237. chinenais Lam., 235. forstenii Boerl., 235. fulva F.-Vill., 235. glabraria Pers., 235. glutinosa C. B. Rob., 235. luzonica F.-Vill., 235. nmiphii (Blume) F.-Vill., 234. 8ebt7era Pers., 235. stickmanii Merr., 235. teraa Merr., 235. triplinervia Blume, 237. lobelia fruteacena Mill., 496. plumieri Linn., 496. taccada Gaertn., 496. ^o6tM litoralia Rumph., 277. machaeroidea Rumph., 281. Quadrangukuria Rumph., 286. ^ea^ndi Adans., 299. 144971 87 Lodoicea ealUpyge Comm., 112. maldivica (Gmel.) Pers., 112. aeychellarum Labill., 112. Losraniaceae, 428. *Lomaria acandena Willd., 66. Lomba Rumph., 184. Lonchitia amara Rimiph., 73. amboinica Rumph., 66. amtboinica recta Rumph., 64. amboinica recta I major alba Rumph., 73. amboinica recta I major rubra Rumph., 66. aanboinica recta II minor Rumph., 73. amboinica volubilia Rumph., 66. muacosa Rumph., 78. piloaa Rumph., 73. aaguaria Rumph., 73. Lonta/ro simile lignum Rumph., 234. LontaTua domestica Gaertn., 112. domeatica Rumph., 112. ailvestria Rumph., 110. aUveatria altera a. ihur Rumph., 112. ailveatria a. cabang Rumph., 110. ailvestria s. yhur e Philippin. Rumph., 110. Loranthaceae, 205. Loranthus eveniua Blume, 207. indicua Desr., 206. macrophyllua Korth., 206. rumphii Merr., 205. Lvdia foetida Roxb., 378. Luffa acutangrula (Linn.) Roxb., 491. cylindrica (Linn.) Roem,, 491. pentandra Roxb., 492. petola Ser., 491. aylveatris Miq., 491. Luisia confusa Rchb. f., 178, 550. teretifolia Blume, 178. teretifolia Gaudich., 178. Luaaa radja RumiJh., 299. Lycoperdon Toumefort, 60. glomeratum. Lour., 61. Lycopersicum esculentum Mill., 465. Lycopodiaceae, 71. Lycopodioidea Boehm., 72. Lycopodium canaliculatum Linn., 71. caudatum Desv., 72. cernuum Linn., 71. dichotomum Sw., 72. fruticuloaum Blume, 72. nummularifolium Blume, 72. phlegmaria Linn., 72. phlegmarioidea Spring., 72. planum Desv., 72. Lygodium circinnatum (Burm. f.) Sw., 69. microphyllum R. Br., 70. scandens (Linn.) Sw., 70. Lythraceae, 381. Ly thrum pemphia Linn, f., 382. M Maba buxifolia (Rottb.) Pers. ebenua Spreng., 419. elliptica Forst., 419. madagaacariensia A. DC., 419. Macanea arborea Blanco, 48. 419. 578 INDEX Macaranga glabra Pax & Hofftti., 8X1. grandifolia Merr., 29, 320. hispida (Blume) Muell.-Arg., 320. involucrata (Roxb.) Baill., 321. mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg., S9, 319. porteana Andre, 29, 320. tanarius (Linn.) Muell.-Arg., 320. Maccahvhay Rumph., 179, 221. Machilus Nees, 234. / tnas Rumph., 236. // femina Rumph., 236. /// media Rimiph., 234. IV minima Rumph., 234. angustifolia Rumph., 237. odoratissim^a Nees, 234. pedunctdaris Nees, 234. Macklottia amhoinensis Korth., 402. Maclura am^boinensia Blume, 189. Macodes petola Lindl., 160. Macrolobium, a/mboinense Teysm., 48, 255. bijugum Colebr., 255. Macropiper reinwardtianum Miq., 182. MacTopteris, 262. Macrosolen evenius Miq., 207. ma^rophyllua Miq., 206. Macuerua femina Rumph., 470. ma^ Rumph., 202. Madorius Rumph., 435. // albifloris Rumph., 435. Maesa amboinensis Scheflf., 412. tetrandra (Roxb.) A. DC, 412. Magnoliaceae, 223. Magnolia inodora DC, 224. pumila Andr., 224. Majana alba et rubra Rumph., 460. aured Rumph*, 460. foetida Rumph., 458. Malaparius Rumph., 271. jlavus Miq., 272. e Nusaanive Rumph., 271, Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Argr., 818. tiliifolius (Blume) Muell.-Arsr., 818. MaZopoenna Adans., 234. Malum aruanum, Rumph., 610. citrium Rumph., 297. gra/natum, Rumph., 384. indicum Rumph., 341. Malvaceae, 355. Malvastrum coromandeliamum, Garcke, 867. tricuapidatum A. Gray, 357. Mama/nira Rumph., 449. alba Rumph., 448. Mamvmea asiatica Linn., 384. Mandihocca Rumph., 324. Manga domeatica Rumph., 330. domeatica minor Rumph., 331. foetida Rumph., 329. foetida II Rumph., 330. ailveatris Rumph., 330. aimiarum Rumph., 331. Mangifera altiaaima Blanco, 330. caesia Jack, 330. foetida Lour., 329. indica Linn., 380. ' kemanga Blume, 830. Mangifera — Continued. laurina Blume, 331. laxiflora Desr., 506. longipea Griff., 331. membrarvacea Blume, 330. min^yr Blume, 330. moiiandra Merr., 330. odorata Griff., 330. pinnata Linn, f., 332. rumphii Pierre, 331. ailveatria altera Rumph., 331. taipan Ham., 331. utana Ham., ^8, 330. Mangium album, Rumph., 456. candelarium Rumph., 387. caa^yophyUoidea Rumph., 388. caryophyUoidea II, 387. co/ryophylloidea II parvifolium Rumph., 386. caryophyUoidea III Rumph., 387. caaeola/re album, Rumph., 383. caaeolare rubrum Rumph., 383. celaum, Rumph., 388. digitatum Rumph., 889. ferreum femina Rumph., 382. ferreum mas Rumph., 382, 414. floridum Rumph., 414. fruticana I cornicvlattlm, Rumph., 418. fruticama II parvifolium, Rumph., 414. minua Rumph., 387, 388. montanum, Rumph., 251. porcellanicum Rumph., 382. ailveatre Rumph., 506. Mangoatana Rumph., 374. cambogia Gaertn., 873. celebica Rumph., 373. Manihot utilissima Pohl, 324. Maoutia ambigua Wedd., 204. Mapania macrocephala (Gaudich.) K. Sch., 107. Mappa hiapidet Blume, 820. moluccana Spreng., 819. tamariua Blume, 320. Marantaceae, 166. Maranta arundinacea Linn., 166. dichotoma Wall., 166. galamga Linn., 153. grandia Miq., 166. m,alaccen8i3 Burm. f., 165. tonckat Aubl., 166. Marasmius Fries, 57. Marattiaceae, 71. MarcoreUa Neck., 841. Marignda acutifolia DC, 802. nitida Turcz., 47. Ma/rquatia globoaa Hassk., 80. Ma/rrubium, album, amboinenae Rumph., 460. album amboinicum, Rumph., 459. album, aemiailveatre Rumph., 460. Maradenia anguatifolia Wight, 436. ayringa^e folia Decne., 435. Martahul Rumph., 307. Marumia, 508. Massoia aromatica Becc, 288. Maaaoy Rumph., 288. INDEX 579 Maatocarpus klenzeanus Ktitz., 66. Matricaria sinensis Rumph., 502. Medinilla crassinervia Blume, 405. crispata (Linn.) Blume, 404. lagunae Vidal, 48. macrocarpa Blume, 405. Meibomia gangetica O. Kuntze, 269. triquetra O. Kuntze, 268. umbellata O. Kuntze, 268. Melaleuca co-iuputi Roxb., 402. leucadendra Linn., 48, 402. minor Sm., 402. saligna Blume, 402. thea Wendl., 402. trinervis Ham., 48, 402. virgata Linn, f., 402. viridiflora Blume, 402. viridiflora Blume, var. angustifolia Blume, 402. Melanolepis calcosa Miq., 318. moluccana Pax & K. Hoflfm., 318. multiglandulosa (Reinw.) Reichb., 318. Melanthesa cernura Decne., 314. Melastomataceae, 403, 508. Melastoma asperum Linn., 403. crispatum Linn., 404. cyanoides Sm., 403. lanaense Merr., 404. malabathricum Linn., 403^ moluccanum Blume, 403. octandrum Linn., 199» 404. polyanthum Blume, 403. septemnerve Lour., 404. Meliaceae, 305. Melia koetjape Burm. f., 308. parasitica Osbeck, 48. Melicope luzonensis Engl., 28. triphyUa Merr., 290. Melissa lotoria Rumph., 458. Melo Rumph., 493. Melocanna excelsa Roep., 100. humUia Roep., 102. Melochia indica A. Gray, 48. umbeUata Stapf, 48. Melodorum latifolium (Dunal) Hook. f. & Th., 228. Melothria indica Lour., 490. javanica (Miq.) Cogm., 491. margvnata Cogn., 491. Menispermaceae, 219. Memspermum carolinum Linn., 220. cocctUus Linn., 221. crispum Linn., 220, 343. flavescens Lam., 222. flavum Linn., 222. glaucum, Lam., 219. lacunosum Lam., 221. tuberculatum Lam., 221. Mentha arvensis Linn., 458. auricularia Linn., 458. cablin Blanco, 458. crispa Rumph., 458. foetida Burm. f., 458. "^^nthastrum amboinicum Rumph., 466. ^enyanthea indica Linn., 424. Merope angulata (Willd.) Swingle, 294. spinosa M. Roem., 296. Merremia ca^spitosa Hallier f., 444. mammosa Hallier f., 443. nymphaeifolia Hallier f., 441. peltata (Limi.) Merr., 441. umbellata (Linn.) Hallier f.^ 440. umbeUata Hall, f., var. orientalis Hallier f.. 441. Mertensia dichotomy Willd., 69. Meapilus sylvestris Burm., 48, 377, 426. Mesua ferrea Linn., 370. Meteorus coccinev^ Lour., 386. Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph., 266. ma^assarensis Rumph., 418. malucca femina Rumph., 505. molucca fungosa Rumph., 340, 605. molucca mas Rumph., 378, 506. spuria I mas Rumph., 191. spuria II femina Rumph., 191. vera Roxb., 400. vera latifolia Rumph., 400. vera parvifolia Rumph., 400. Metroxylon elatum Mart., 114. filare Mart., 114. hermaphraditum Hassk., 114. inerme Mart., 114. laeve Mart., 114. longispinum Mart., 113. micracanthum Mart., 118. rumphii Mart., 113. sagu Rottb., 112, 114. sagus Koenig, 112. sagus Rottb., 114. sylvestre Mart., 114. Michelia alba DC, 223. blumei Steud., 223. caervlea DC, 223. champaca Blume, 223. champaca Linn., 223. euonymoides Burm. f., 224. longifolia Blume, 223. montama Blume, 224. parviflora DC, 223. sericea Pers., 224. suaveolens Pers., 223. tsiampacca Linn., 224. Micrococca mercurialis (Linn.) Benth., 317. Microglossa volubUia DC, 600. Milium zonatum Llanos, 48. Millefolium aquaticum Rumph., 68. Millettia sericea W. & A., 273. Milnea montana Jack, 311. Mimosa casta Linn., 252. chinensis Osbeck, 49. concinna Willd., 261. dormiens HBK., 252. entada Linn., 253. humOis HBK., 252. mangium Forst. f., 251. procera Roxb., 250. pudibunda Willd., 252. pudica Linn., 262. rugata Lam., 251. aaponaria Lour., 249. 580 INDEX Mimosa — Continued. acandens Linn., 253. aimplicifolia Linn., var. mangium Poir., 251. trapezifolia Roxb., 248. Mimusops elengi Linn., 417. kauki Linn., 418. manilkara Don, 418. obtusifolia Lam., 418. parvifolia R. Br., 417. Mirabilis Rumph., 215. dichotoma Linn., 216. jalapa Linn., 215. MirobaXanus embilica Rumph., 814. Miscanthus floridulus Warb., 86. japonicus (Thunb.) Anders., 86, 95. sinensis Anders., 85. Mischocarpus fuscescens Blume, W-4, 339. Mischophloeus paniculata (Miq.) Scheff., 121, 122. vestiaria (Giseke) Merr., 121. Mitragyna parvifolia Korth., 482. Momordica charantia Linn., ^9, 495. cochinchinensis (Lour.) Sprengr., 496. cylindrica Linn., 491. indica Linn., 49, 495. luffa Linn., 491. monadelpha Roxb., 495. trifolia Linn., 494. trifoliata Linn., 494. Moncurda chinensis Osbeck, 49. Monimia, 505. Monochoria haatata Presl, 135. sagittata Kunth, 135, vasrinalis (Burm. f.) Presl, 135. vaginalis Presl, var. plantaginea Solms, 135. Monocotyledons, 79. Monosoifna littorata Griflf., 306. Moraceae, 188. MoreUa rubra Lour., 190. Moretiana Rumph., 472. MorfaUa Rumph., 505. Morinda angustifolia Roth., 490. bracteata Roxb., 490. bracteata Roxb., var. celebica Miq., 490. citrifolia Linn., 490. latifolia Rumph., 490. umbellata Linn., 490. Moringaceae, 241. Morinsra domestica Ham., 49, 241. oleifera Lam., 49y 241. polygona DC, 241. pterygosperma Gaertn., 241. zeylanica Willd., 241. Morunga Rumph., 241. femina Rumph., 241. Moms alba Linn., 188. indica Linn., 188. indica Rumph., 188. pa^nieulata Roxb., 203. Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr., 279. bennettii F.-Muell., 278. eapitata DC, 279. ffigrantea (Willd.) DC, 277. Mucuna—Continued. kraetkei Warb., 278. miniata Merr., 278. novo-guineensia Scheff., 278. pruriens (Linn.) DC, 49, 277. utilia Wall., 280. velutina Hassk., 280. Mundo Rumph., 372. Muntingia bartramia Linn., 49, 362. Muricia cochinchinenaia Lour., 496. Murraya exotica Linn., 292. paniculata (Linn.) Jack, 49, 292. acandena Hassk., 49, 292. aumatrana Roxb., 292. Musaceae, 149. Musa acuminata Colla, 150. alphurica Rumph., 149. a/mboinenaia Miq., 150. bihai Linn., 150. diacolor Horan., 150. domeatica Rumph,, 149. paradisiaca Linn., 149. paradiaiaca Linn., subsp. aaptentutn (Linn.) O. Kuntze, 149. rumphiana Kurz, 150. ailveatria amboinenaia Rumph., 150. ailveatria mindcunauenaia Rumph., 150. aimiarum Miq., 150. aimiarum Rumph., 150. textilis Nee, 150. textilis Nee, var. amboinensis Warb., 150. troglodytarum Linn,, 149. uranoacopoa Rumph., 149. Muacua capillaria Rumph,, 62. frutiaceacena femina Rumph., 72. fruticeacena m,a8 Rumph., 72. fruteacena muacagineua Rumph., 62. gelatinua japonnenaia Rumph., 54. Mussaenda daayphylla Miq., 484. forsteniana Miq., 484. frondoaa Linn., 485. glabra Vahl, 485. reinwardtiana Miq., 484. Muaai Rumph., 412, Myrica nagai Thunb., 190. Myristicaceae, 229. Myristica aromatica Lam., 229. aruana Blume, 231. canariformia Blume, 230. corticoaa Hook, f., 232. fatua Houtt., 230. fragrans Houtt., 229. globularia Lam,, 232. macrophylla Roxb., 230. malabarica Lam., 230. microcarpa Willd., 231. moachata Thunb,, 229, officiv^ilia Gaertn., 230. officinalia Linn., 229. philippenais Lam., 230. pinnaeformia Miq., 230. radja Miq., 230. aalicifolia Willd., 230. apadicea Blume, 230. apecioaa Warb., 230. eylveatria Houtt., 280. INDEX 581 Myristica — Continued. tingens Blume, 231. tomentosa Thunb., 230. uviformis Lam., 231. zippeliana Miq., 232. Myrmecodia cumboinensis Becc, 489. inermis Gaudich., 489. rumphii Becc, 489. tuberosa Jack, 489. Myrsinaceae, 412. Myrtaceae, 391, m, 608. Myrtus amboinenais Rumph., 402« communis Linn., 402. cumini Linn., 394. leucadendra Linn., 402. malaccenais Spreng., 898. saligna Burm. f., 402. Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill, 422. N l^agassarium, Rumph., 370. Nageia Labill., 76. Nanarium, m,inimum s. oleoaum, Rumph., 3 Nani Adans., 400. Nanihua Rumph., 316. Nania vera Miq., 400. Nanium calapparium> Rumph., 610. Nasturtium indicum (Linn.) DC, 240. Nauclea Auct., 481. Nauclea Linn., 482. elegana Teysm. & Binn., 49, 484. fagifolia Teysm. & Binn., 481. la/noaa Poir., 480. longiftorh, Poir., 480. macrophylla Roxb., 484. mitragyna (Miq.,) Merr., 483. moluccana Miq., 481. orientcUis Linn., 482. parvifoUa Roxb., 482. Vurpuralabarica Linn., 466. Nephelium longana Gambess., 338. Neriam pulli Rheede, 343. Nerium eoronarium Jacq., 429. divaricatum, Linn., 429. indicum Mill., 433. odorum. Soland., 433. oleander Linn., 433. Nesaatus Rumph., 482. Neuburgia musculiformis (Lam.) Miq., 425. tuberculata Blume, 425. tubiflora Blume, 425. Nicolaia hemiaphaerica Horan., 159. imperialia Horan., 159. magnifica K. Schum., 159. apecioaa Horan., 159 Nicotiana tabacum Linn., 466. Nidus gerTninana form^icarium, niger Rumph., 488. germinana formicarium. ruber Rumph., 489. Nipa fruticans Wurmb, 124. fruticans Thunb., 124. Nothoholcus, 88. Nothopanax aniaum Miq., 289. coehleatum Miq., 409. fruticosum (Linn.) Miq., 410. pinnatum (Lam.) Miq., 409. scutellarium (Burm. f.) Merr., 409. tricochleatum Miq., 49, 409. Novella Rumph., 358. cinerea Rumph., 191. litorea Rumph., 360. nigra Rumph., 447. repena Rumph., 358. rubra Rumph., 358. Nugae ailvarum litoreae et terreatrea Rumph., 261. ailvarum, minimae Rumph., 251. ailvarum, ailveatria Rumph., 288. Nummularia lactea major I fuaca Rumph., 438. lactea major II alba Rumph., 489. lactea major III iaZbo-purpurea) Rumph., 439. Uictea minor Rumph., 439. lactea minor I minima Rumph., 486. lactea minor II major., Rumph., 437. Nux juglana moluccana bifida Burm., 819. myristica Rumph., 229. myristica maa Rumph , 230. Nyctaginaceae, 215. Nyctanthea acuminata Burm. f., 429. aambac Linn., 422. Nymphaeaceae, 218. Nymphaea indica II ceramica Rumph., 219. indica major Rumph., 218. indica minor 1 vvlgaria Rumph., 219. indica minor II ceramica Rumph., 424. indica minor III buronica Rumph., 219. lotua Linn., 219. nelumbo Linn., 218. pubescens Willd., 219. stellata Willd., 219. Nypa Rumph., 124. 582 INDEX Oheronia anceps LindL, 49. ancipita Naves, 49. Ochrosia borbonica Gmel., 481. elliptica Labill., 431. oppositifolia (Lam.) K. Schum., 431, salubris Blume, 431. Ocimum africanum Lour., 461. basilicum Linn., 460. basUicum Linn., var. piloaum Benth., 460. frutescens Linn., 460. oratissimum Linn., 460. menthoides Linn., 458. minimum Linn., 461. sanctum Linn., 461. scutellaroides Linn., 460. tenuiflorum Linn., 461, Octomeles moluccana Teysm. & Binn., 49, 378. moluccana Warb., 378. sumatrana Miq., 49, 378. OctUus astaci Rumph., 344. Oenotheraceae, 406. Olacaceae, 209. Oldenlandia repens Linn,, 478. verticiUata Linn., 479. Oleaceae, 422. Oleander ainicua Rumph., 433. sinicus II minor, 433. Olvs Rumph., 421. Parietaria indica Linn., 202, 479. zeylanica Linn., 202. Parinarium curranii Merr., 247. ellipticum T. & B., 247. glaberrimum Hassk., 247. laurinum A. Gray, 247. macrophyllum T. & B., 247- mindanaense Perk., 247. ra^emosum Merr., 247. scabrum Hassk., 247. Paritium tUiaceum A. St. Hil., 358. Parkerlaceae, 68. Parkia speciosa Hassk., 253. Parkinsonia orientcUis Sprengr-, 266. Parrana miniata Rumph., 278. rubra Rumph., 280. Parsonsia barbata Blume, 432. Pauw Rumph., 331. Pavetta amboinica Blume, 488. indica Linn., 487. longiflora Sm., 488. stricta Blume, 487. Payena leerii (Teysm. & Binn.) Kurz, 48, 415, U6. Pedaliaceae, 469. Pedicella/ria Schrank, 241. Pellionia sinuata (Blume) Boerl., 202. Peltophorum, 255. Pemphis acidula Forst., 382, 4i4. Pentapetes phoenicea I^inn., 362. Peperidia subpeltata Kostel., 185. Peperomia subpeltata Dietr., 185. Pepo indicus Burm., 49, 494. indicus Rumph., 494. Peponaster major Rximph., 210. minor Rumph., 209. Pergvlaria angustifolid Dietr., 436. glabra Linn., 434. odoratissima Sm., 440. Pcricampylus grlaucus (Lam.) Merr., 219. incanus Miers, 219. Periploca mauritiana Poir.. 440. mauritianum, Poir., 433. Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., 47^, 476. tinctoria Nees, 476. tinctoria Nees, var. concolor Hassk., 477. tinctoria Nees, var. rubrinervis Hassk., 477. Peristylus Blume, 169. gracilis Blume, 49. Perlariv^ I Rumph., 203. / latifolius Rumph., 204. // Rumph., 412. in silvestris Rumph., 413. Perotis latifoUa Ait., 85. Perrottetia moluccana (Blume) Loesen., 385. 607. Persea peduncularis Nees, 234. Pertica/rta ferrea lati folia Rumph., 400. ferrea parvifolia Rumph., 400. tertia Rumph., 354. tertia latifolia Rumph., 354. Pes equinus Rumph., 411. Petasites agrestis Rumph., 455. amboinensis Rumph., 456. Petesia nitida Bartl., 50. ternifolia Bartl., 50. Petola anguina Rumph., 494. bengalensis Rumph., 491. silvestris Rumph., 491. tschina Rumph., 491. Petraeovitex multiflora (Sm.) Merr., 453. riedelii Oliver, 453. Petrea multiflora Sm., 453. Peziza auricula Lour., 60. Phacelophrynium interruptum K. Schum., 167. robinsonii Val., 151, 166. Phaeomeria magnifica Lindl., 159. Phaeophyceae, 55. Phajus amboinensis Blume, 170, 172. gratus Blume, 171. rumphii Blume, 171. zoUingeri Rchb., 170. Phalaenopsis amabilis (Linn.) Blume, 177. 178, 550. grandiflora Lindl., 177. violacea T. & B., 178. Phallus daemonum Fries, 61. daemonum Rumph., 61. impudicus Linn., 61. Phanera coccinea Lour., 256. lingua Miq., 256. Pharmacum limonicum Rumph., 375. magnum marinum Rumph., 185. magnutn par vi folium Rumph., 185. magnum vulga/re Rumph., 183. papeta/rium Rumph., 405. sagueri legitimum Rumph., 374. Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph., 269. antilUmus Urban, 285. aureus Roxb., 282, 283. balicus Rumph,, 282. calcaratus Roxb., 283. cylimdraceus Rumph., 283. cylindricus Linn., 49, t84. marinuA Burm., 285. maHtimus Rumph., 285. max Linn., 274, 283. INDEX 585 Phaseolus— Continued. minimtLs Rumph., 282, 28S. minimus sUvestris Rumph., 282. mirwr Rumph., 284. montanus Rumph., 267. montanus alter Rumph., 265. montanus /Rumph., 264. montanus III Rumph., 263. montanus IV Rumph., 263. montanus VI, VII Rumph., 268. wontanus VIII Rumph., 269. mungo Auctt., 283. mungo Linn., 283. pilosus Klein, 280. radiatus Auctt., 283. radiatus Linn., 275. scriptus Rumph., 283. sublobatus Roxb., 283. unguicvlatus Auctt., 284. vulgaris Linn., 283. Phlomis zeylanica Ltinn., 457. Phoberos chinensis Lour., 426. Phoebe, 234. Phoenix amiboinica montana Rumph., 88. Pholidocarpus ihur (Giseke) Blume, J^, 112. rumphU Meisn., 49, 112. Phra^mites karka Trin., 95. vulgaris (Lam.) Trin., 95. Phr'ynium ca/pitatum Willd., 143. dichotomum Roxb., 166. giganteum Scheff., 167. Phyllamphora ndrabUis Lour., 242. Phyllanthus acidissimus Muell.-Arg., 314. acidus Skeels, 314. ceramicus Pars., 208- cernuus Poir., 314. cherannela Roxb., 314. cicca Muell.-Arg., 314. distichus Muell.-Arg., 314. emblica Linn., 314. epiphyUanthvs Linn., 208. niruri Linn., 318. urinaria Linn., 313. PhyUaurea Lour., 325. Phyllitis a/mboinica I arborea Rumph., 65. a/mboinica II terrestris Rumph., 65. amboinica III Rumph., 66. Phyllodes placentaria Lour., 143. Phyllorchis Thou., 177. Phyllorkis Thou., 177. Physalis alkekengi Linn., 462. angulata Linn., 461. indica Lam., 462. minima Linn., 462. pubescens Linn., 462. Phytolacca ? javanica Osbeck, 49. Picria feUerrae Lour., 467. Pigafettia elata (Reinw.) H. Wendl., 114. /liana Becc, 114. filifera (Giseke) Merr., 114. Pigmentaria Rumph., 376. Pilosella ambmnica Rumph., 504. Pimela, acutifolia Blume, 302. olba Lour., 304. caryophyllacea Blume, 305. Ptmefa— Continued. decumana Blume, 300. glabra Blume, 301. hirsuta Blume, 302. legitima Blume, 300. nigra Lour., 303, 304. oleosa Lour., 303. paucijuga Blume, 305. Pimelandra disticha F.-VilL, 49. Pimeleodendron amboinicum Hassk., 827. Pina hui huitzli Rumph., 252. Pinalia Buch.-Ham., 176. Pinanga Rumph., 123. alba Rumph., 123. calapparia Rumph., 121, 123. globulifera Lam., 122. kuhlii Blume, 122. nigra Rumph., 123. punicea (Blume) Merr., 122. silvestris e Buro Rumph., 121. sUvestris glandiformis II Rumph., 122, 123. silvestris globosa Rumph., 119. silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph., 122. silvestris saxatilis Rumph., 121. tematensis Scheff., 122. Pinaceae, 76. Pinus abies Lour., 76. dannmara Lamb., 76. Piperaceae, 180. Piper album Vahl., 182, 185. album et nigrum Rumph., 184. amalago Linn., 183. amboinense (Miq.) C. DC, 182. arborescens Roxb., 180. a/rcuatum Blume, 185. argyrophyllum Miq., 185. betle Linn., 182. betle I alba Rumph., 182. betle II combing Rumph., 182. betle III fragrant Rumph., 182. betle Linn., var. siriboa (Linn.) C. DC, 182. cubeba Roxb., 181. caducibracteum C DC, 183. ca/ninum, Rumph., 181. caninum Blume, var. glabribracteum C. DC, 181. chaba Hunter, 183. decumanum Linn., 180, 181. diffusum Vahl, 185. forstenii C DC, 180, 181. longum Rumph., 183. longum e Philippinis Rumph., 188. longum Linn., 182. m^ajusculum Blume, 181. malamiris Linn., 181, 182, 184, 186. methysticum Forst., 181. miniatum Blume, 180. nigrum Linn., 184. offidnarum C. DC, 183. peltatum Linn., 184. plantagineum Lam., 183. reinwardtianum Miq., 128. retrofractum Vahl, 183. 586 INDEX Piper — Continued. sarmentosum Roxb., 185. siriboa Linn., 182. eirium C. DC, 184. Bubpeltatum Willd., 184. aylveatre Lour., 181. umbellatum Linn., 185. Pipturus argrenteus (Forst.) Wedd., 203, tOh incamts Wedd., 203. paniculatus Miq., 203. repandus (Blume) Wedd., 203. velutinus Wedd., 203. Pisonia aculeata Linn., 216. alba Spanoghe, 216. btixifolia Rottb., 419. catdi flora Scheff., 216. grandis R. Br., 216. limonella Blume, 217. morindae folia R. Br., 216. sylvestria Teysm. & Binn., 216. Pistacia oleosa Lour., 337, 338. Piatacio-vitex Linn., 310. Pistia minor Blume, 132. stratiotes Linn., 132. Pithecolobium clypearia (Jack) Benth., 248. Pittosporaceae, 243. Pittosporum ferrugineum Ait., var. jUarium DC. 243. moluccanum (Lam.) MIq., 243. rumphii Putterl., 243. Placus Lour., 498. ^ Plagiostachys, 156. Planta anatis Rumph., 243. sentiens hiapanorum Rumph., 252. Plantago aquatica Rumph., 132. aqtiatica 11 minor Rumph., 132. Platanthera gigantea Lindl., 169. horafieldii Naves, 49. rumphii Brongn., 169. susannae (Linn.) Lindl., 168, 549. Platea, 335. Platycerium biforme Bl., 68. coronarium (Koenig) Desv., 68. Plecoapermum apinoaum Tree, 190. PlectranthtLs acutellaroidea Roxb., 460. Pleione rumphii O. Kuntze, 169. Plectocomia, 117. Plectranthua arom,aticu^ Roxb., 459. tuberoaua Blume., 459. Pleomele angustifolia (Roxb.) N. E. Br., lS7. refiexa N. E. Br., 137. Pluchea balaamifera Less., 498. indica (Linn.) Less., 500. Plukenetia comiculata Sm., 823. volubilia Linn., 323. Plumbaginaceae, 414. Plumbago coccinea Salisb., 414. indica Linn., 49, 414. roaea Linn., ^9, 414. zeylanica Linn., 414. Plumiera acuminata Ait., 427. acutifolia Poir., 427. alba Linn., 427. Poa amabilia Linn., 95. amboinenaie Murr., 88. a/mboinica Linn., 88. Poa — Continued. plumoaa Retz., 95. teneUa Linn., 95. Podocarpus blumei Endl., 76. lati folia Blume, 75. neriifoliua Don, 75. rumphii Blume, 75. Pogostemon cabliri (Blanco) Benth., 458. patchouli Hook., 458. patchotdy Pellet., 458. suavia Ten., 458. PoikUospermum amboinense Zipp., 199. Poinciana bijuga Linn., 260. pvlcherrima Linn., 260. Polanisia viscosa (Linn.) DC, 240. Polianthea tuberosa Linn., 143, 144. PolyaJ^thia lateriflqra King, 227. zamboangenaia Merr., 227. Polygaster sampadarius Fries, 61. Polygonaceae, 210. Polyphema champeden Lour., 190. jaca Lour., 190. Polyphragm,on minua Rich., 486. aericeum, Desf., 486. Polypodiaceae, 64. Polypodium albena Blume, 73. dichotomum, Thunb., 69. diaaimile Linn., 67. excavatum, Roxb., 67. indicum, I piloaum a. majua Rumph., 68 indicum, II minua Rumph., 67. lineare Burm. f., 69. palvatre Burm. f., 66. phymatodes Linn., 67. quercifolium Linn., 68* aimplex Burm. f., 66. sinuosum Wall., 67. aparaiaoruv% Desv., 68. Polyporua amiboinenaia Fries, 58. cochlear Nees, 58. lucidua Fries, 59. piaachapanni Nees, 59. Polyscias cumingiana F.-Vill., 49. nodosa (Blume) Seem., 408, i09. pinnata Forst, 410. rumphiana Harms, 409. Polystictus sanguineus Nees, 59. Pometia pinnata Forst., SS7, 339. Pomum, amtoria Rumph., 465. draconum Rumph., 833. drticonum ailveatre Rumph., 333. Pongamia coraUaria Miq., 262. glabra Vent., 254, 271. glabra Vent., var. xerocarpa Prain, 272. mitia Merr., 271. pinnata (Linn.) Merr., 254, 271. ainuata Wall., 273. uliginoaa DC, 272. xerocarpa Hassk., 272. Pongelion Adans., 299. Pontederiaceae, 135. Pontederia vaginaUa Burm. f., 135. Poppya oblonga Rumph., 496. rotunda Rumph., 496. aylveatria Rumph., 494. PopiUua deglubata Reinw., 401. INDEX 587 porocarpus Gaertn., 486. Portulacaceae, 217. Portulaca indica Rumph., 217. indica I major sativa Rumph., 217. indica II rubra Rumph,, 217. indica III minima Rumph., 218. oleracea Linn., 217. portulacastrmn Linn., 217. quadrifida Linn., 217, 218. Potemorphe subpeltata Miq., 185. Pothos barberianus Schott, 125. cuscuaria Aubl., 126. cuscuaria Gmel., 126. gracilis Roxb., 126. latifolius Linn., 125. longifolius Presl, 124. loureirii Hook. & Arn., I2l5. pinnata Linn., 127. roxburghii DeVriese, 125. rumphii Schott, 124. gcandens Linn., 124. tener Schott, 125. Poupartia mangifera Blume, 333. Pouzolzia indica Gaudich., 202. tuber osa Wight, 203. zeylanica (Linn.) Benn., 202. Prageluria N. E. Br., 440. Prasoxylum aUiaceum Roem., 309. Premna cordifolia Roxb., 451. corymbosa Rottl. & Willd., 451. cyclophyUa Miq., 450. foetida Reinw., 451. gaudichaudii Schauer, 451. integrifolia Linn., 451. integrifolia Auct., 450. laevigata Miq., 450. nitida K. Sch., 451. obtusifolia R. Br., 450. aerratifolia Linn., 451. spinosa Roxb., 451. subglabra Merr., 451. tomentosa Willd., 451. Prenamthes japonica Linn., 503. Prionitis hyatrix Miq., 472. Procris nivea uaudich., 202. 8inuata Blume, 202. Proteaceae, 205. Protium javanicum Burm., 305. PrunelUi molucca hortensis anguatifolia Rumph., 470. molucca hortensis latifolia Rumph., 471. molucca hortensis III lire petola Rumph., 470. molucca silvestris II rubra Rumph., 471. molucca silvestris III rotunda Rumph., 471. sUvestris alba Rumph., 471. Prunum stellatum Rumph., 287. Pseudarthria viscida (Linn.) W. & A. 269. Pseuderanthemum bicolor Radlk., 475. curtatum (C. B. Clarke) Merr., 476, 509. pulchellum (Hort.) Merr., 475. racemosum (Roxb.) Radlk., 476. Pseuderia foliosa Schltr., 176. f'^eudochina aJha latifolia Rumph., 139. <^boinen8ia Rumph., 189. nigra Rumph., 139. Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense Rumph., 406, 605. buroense Rumph., 505. Psidium angustifolium Lam., 391. cujavillus Burm., f., 391. cujavus Linn., 391. decaspermum Linn, f., 392. guajava Linn., 391. pomiferwni Linn., 391. pumilum Vahl, 391. pyriferum Linn,, 391. Psilotaceae, 73. Psilotum complanatum Sw., 73. triquetrum Sw,, 73. Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (Linn.) DC., 286. Psychotria Linn., 488. antherura R, & S., 392, lejdothyrsa Miq., 488. rubra Poir., 392. Ptelea arborea Blanco, 340. viscosa Linn., 340, Pteridophyta, 63. Pteris longipes Don, 73. thalictroides Willd., 69. vittata Linn., 66. Pterocarpus blancoi Merr., 271, diadelphvJB Blanco, 273. flavus Lour., 271. indicus Willd., 270. obtusatUrS Miq., 271. papuanus F. Muell., 270. santalinus Linn, f., 271. Pterocavlon redolens F-Vill., 49. Pterococcus glaberrimus Haask., 323. Pteroloma triquetrum Benth., 268. Pterophylla fraxinea D. Don, 244, Pterostigma capitatum Benth., 467. Punicaceae, 384. Punica granatum Linn., 384. Ptychosperma appendiculata Blume, 120. calappa/ria Miq., 121. paniculata Miq., 121, punicea Miq,, 122. rumphii Blume, 120. saxatilis Blume, 121. vestiaria Miq., 121, 122. Ptychotis ajowan DC, 412. roxburghiana jyC, 412. Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth., 282. Pvlassarius Rumph., 426. arbor Rumph., 426, 507. Pvla^sarium spurium Rumph., 430. verum Rumph., 430. Pu^tvla arborum Rumph., 437. Pycnanthemum decurrens Blanco, 49. Pycreus odoratus (Linn.) Urb., 104, loe. polystachyus Beauv., 104. Q Quamoclit pennata (Desr.) Bojer, 446. vulgaris Choisy, 446. Quercus molucca Linn., 186. molucca Rumph., 186. Quina/ria lansium Lour., 811. Quirivelia Poir., 438. 588 INDEX Quisqualis Rumph., 390. glabra Burm. f., 391. indica Linn., 390. pubescens Burm. f., 890. Quret Adans., 229. R Radermachia incisa Thunb., 190. integra Thunb., 190. Radix chinae Rumph., 140. deiparae Rumph., 454. deiparae spuria Rumph., 395, 454. etter Rumph., 509. mtLstelae 1 alba Rumph., 430. mnstelae II rubra Rumph., 430. puluronica Rumph., 209. sinica Rumph., 410. toxicaria I major Rimiph., 140. toxicaria II terrestris Rumph., 141. vesicatoria Rumph., 414. Ramium m