het s.-.*.. eee See twhde aber cseiel mieaepei-wetn tein) LUPE mee eee Ks Decrapsbebiposedebetenttenebeseten et bein eeu ee , aa . e z > or etenecmpesiony 5 ait sratetaratentw RRR myotn re bebcbtinael bab -dietibanae 2 rte -o\aiteimhege: eee jet . ¥ e° Ce ele + 20ers os 0-0) 0) eh abete ee 2 ied. plip te ere 8 @ Oe 8 © ‘ pete rew @ tee Pere (eve) - and ovary, and between the ovary-wall and ovule, ne Gi fruit-wall and seed, in black: x 2. Gardens Bulletin, SS. 67 inflorescences with stouter stalks and larger stamens. Malays to whom I showed the fresh wild fruits in Singapore, after much deliberation, declared them to be a new idea the ““Nangka-Chempedak’”’, so impressed were they by their shape and absence of smell, as well as by the hairlessness of the twigs. Botanically however, such resemblances with the Jack are trifling, and perhaps insignificant, when ~ STEext-Fic. 4. . Chempedak: as Text Fig. 3, x 2. Vol. X. (1938). -f : 7 68 weighed against the exact similarity with the ee in structure of leaf-blade, fruit and seed. The main specific differences between the Tage and Chempedak (now in its widest sense of the cultivated and wild forms) concern— 1. the shape of the base of the lamina; 2. the colour of the fresh leaf; 3. the size of the male inflorescence; 4. the presence or absence of the annulus at the base of the flower-head ; 5. the size of the male-flower; 6. the shape of the style-apex; 7. the adherence of the wall and core of the ripe syncarp; 8. the texture and shape of the fruiting perianth; 9. the structure of the fruiting pericarp; 10. the size and attachment of the style in the fruit; 11. the attachment and shape of the seed; 12. the structure of the testa; 13. the dissimilarity of the cotyledons; 14. the position of the radicle. Between the Jack and Cultivated Chempedak one may also add the hairiness and the shape and smell of the ripe fruit, perhaps also its surface markings, but all these points are annulled by the Wild Chempedak. A_ strigose shoot therefore indicates the Chempedak, but a glabrous shoot may be either Jack or Chempedak. PART IT, SYSTEMATY The Identification of Artocarpus integer (Thunbg.) Merrill 1. The basinym of A. integer is Rademachia integra Thunbg., the original description of which is in Swedish and Latin. The following copy has been sent to me by Professor Svedelius, the Swedish being translated into English :— “Description of a new genus, called ,RADEMACHIA, which has already been depicted and described although incompletely by Rumphius; but now carefully investigated after the new sexual method. oe by C. P. THUNBERG, M.D. Act of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, vol. XX XVII, 1776;.p. 254, 2. sp. R. integra: foliis indivisis. It is called in Malay ‘Tjampeda’ and the fruit is called Nanca. Saccus arboreus major s. Nanca or Soorzak-boom; Rumph. Herb. Amboin. tom. I. p. 104. tab. 30. Saccus arboreus minor s. Tsjampadaha, Rumph. Herbar. Amb. tom. I. p. 107. tab. 31. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 69 It grows in Java, around Batavia, in Amboina and other places. The root, the stem, the branches and the flowers in this species just as in the foregoing one (= R. incisa). Folia alterna, petiolata, ovato-oblonga, obtusa cum acumine obtuso, integerrima, indivisa, nervosa; supra lete viridia, levissima; subtus pallidiora, pilis rigidis hirsuta, patentia, spithamaea. Petiolus subtriqueter, glaber pollicaris. Ramuli pilis longis rigidis hirsuti, uti etiam pedunculli. Stipulae, ut in priori. (= R. incisa). Batavia, d. 15 Junii 1775.” The important points to note in the description are BONA... care hyre <3 Supra laete Viridia. 2. ...:.. subtus pilis rigidis hirsuta, patentia, spithamaea” and “Ramuli pilis longis rigidis hirsuti, uti etiam pedunculi’, also the localities Java and Amboina. From the description one may deduce a, that Thunberg collected specimens of Chempedak on his expedition to Java; b, that he drew up his description from these specimens in Batavia, most probably from living specimens; c, that his description is in no way a copy of the Rumphian, because Gioia TEXT-FIG. 5. Three stages in the development of the Jack-fruit, the youngest at anthesis, the oldest with the embryo-sac (stippled) containing the young embryo and supplied by a stout vascular bundle (speckled). left a mature seed of the Wild Chempedak (Sing. F. No. 32988) all x 2. Vol. XS (1988). 70 he limits it to the vegetative characters noted by himself; d, that he mistook the fruit of the Jack (nanca) for that of the Chempedak and, therefore, e, he quoted both Soccus arboreus major and minor of Rumphius as synonyms of the Javanese Chempedak; f, Amboina was given as the Rumphian locality. The description indicates the Chempedak, not the Jack, and this interpretation is born out by Thunberg’s type- specimen. 2. The Type-Specimen.—The following extract from Professor Svedelius’ letter, together with the two photo- graphs of the type-specimen sent by him and reproduced in Plates 1 and 2, will speak for itself. The decurrent leaf-base of the Jack, the pointed blade of the Chempedak, the hairiness of the latter and the annulus on the male inflorescence of the former can be seen in the photographs. “If we now examine the type-specimen of Thunberg’s Rademachia integra in herb. Thunberg, it will soon be obvious that on the herbarium-sheet both your species have been fixed together [viz. Chempedak and Jack]. I send you a photographic copy of the whole sheet. From this it is clear that a and b exactly correspond with Thunberg’s description of Rademachia integra. They are the type of &. integra. It is quite evident that both a and b (the male receptacle) have the long stiff yellow hairs so characteristic for the Chempedak, further the peduncle (male) is not dilated [7.e. without an annulus]. The leaf of a corresponds also very well with the leaves of the Chempedak which you have sent us. ¢-e on the other hand must belong to the jack-fruit. Especially d and e show that the male receptacles are quite different from a and b. Also their leaves correspond with those of the jack-fruit. Thus these two plants have been fixed together on the same herbarium sheet. in former times botanists were not so careful regarding labels and especially not regarding collecting localities. Thunberg apparently collected R. integra in Java and Amboina (Cfr Thunberg 1781 p. 412). In his collections he had also the jack-fruit from Ceylon, but in his first description of R. integra (1776) he does not quote Ceylon as a locality. Later, many years after Thunberg came home, he had all his collections from South Africa, Ceylon, Netherlands Indies and Japan mounted for the herbarium and probably a mistake was then made and a piece of the Chempedak from Batavia was fixed together with the jack-fruit from Ceylon on the same paper. Thunberg had namely made a note on the back of the herbarium-sheet “e Ceylona Thunberg”’. There, probably, Chempedak does not occur. The type-specimen a and 6b clearly correspond with Thunberg’s description of ™Rademachia integra (Sitodium macrocarpon) “pilis longis hirsuti” and Thunberg quotes the Malay name Tsjampedaha! Thus you are quite right if you say that the Chempedak must be named Artocarpus integra (Thunb.).” The Ceylon-specimens of the Jack cannot be considered as part of the type of R. integra because Ceylon was not mentioned as a locality in the original description, and Gardens Bulletin, SS. GARDENS BULLETIN, S.S. VOL. X. PLATE 1 WPA nertin Thunberg’s specimens of Chempedak and Jack a, b, Radermachia integra Thunb. [=Artocarpus integrifolia (Thunb.) Linn f.], the Chempedak: c, d, e, Artocarpus integra auctt. (=A. heterophyllus Lam.), the Jack. (from Thunberg’s herbarium, by courtesy of Professor N. E. Svedelius, Botanical Institute, Uppsala). GARDENS BULLETIN S.S. VoL. X. PLATE 2 er eR ORAS eee OD ti : 5 | nf] 4 i rg 3 mt 2 i | 1 EN sab) wi Part of Plate 1, enlarged: the type of the Chempedak. 71 Thunberg would not have made this omission if he had already collected specimens there himself. It was not until his later paper on Sitodium 1779 (vide infra) that he added Ceylon and thoroughly confused both species. 3. Conclusion.—I agree with the following extract from Professor Svedelius’ letter :— “That the herbarium-sheet with the two species together cannot force us to give the name ‘integra’ or ‘integrifolia’ to the jack-fruit clearly appears from the very clear description of Thunberg and also Linné fil. The diagnosis speaks for the Chempedak and when also the original of Thunberg’s Rademachia integra shows the same it seems to me that you are quite right when you give a name to the jack-fruit and reserve the old species name ‘integra’ for the Chempedak.”’ In other words the correct name for the Chempedak is A. wmteger (Thunb.). The combination has already been made by Merrill in the belief that he was dealing with the Jack. The full botanical title of the Chempedak must therefore be:— Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merrill non sensu Merrill, Interpr. Rumph. Herb. Amboin. 1917, p. 190. Synonyms of the Chempedak Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f., Suppl. 1781, p. 412. Sitodium macrocarpon Thunb., Phil. Tr. Roy. Soc. LXIX, 7779); pt. 2, pp. 467-4738. Sitodium caulifiorum Gaertner, Fruct. Sem. Plant. i Fea WO.t p. 540; Vol:-5, 1. TI, ‘72. Artocarpus Jaca Lam., Ene. Meth. Bot. III, 1789, PlG2Z09, te 745. (Soccus arborcus minor Rumph., Herb. Amboin., tom. 1, p. 107, 4. 3D Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. Ba _ The description is merely an abbreviation of Thunberg’s for R. integra, which name is cited as a synonym. Accord- ing to the International Botanical Rules of Nomenclature 1935 Art. 60 (1) as emended at the 6th International Botanical Congress in 1935, A. integrifolia is a superfluous, and therefore illegitimate, name. The following extract from Prof. Svedelius’ letter confirms this opinion :— “The type-specimen of Artocarpus integrifolia L. fil. described by the younger Linnzus -(filius) 1781, probably does not exist if it is not the specimen in herb. Thunberg. If it belonged to the Linnean herbarium it ought to: be in the Linnean Herbarium in London. Dr. B. D. Jackson however in his Index to the Linnean Herbarium (London 1912) mentions only one species of Artocarpus viz. A. lobatus L.f. (1087) but no Rademachia and no Sitodium....... Note that Linneus fil. here [i.e. in his description of A. integrifolia] only mentions Java and Amboina as home!” Vol. X. (1938). 72 It is clear therefore that Thunberg’s Ceylon-specimen of the Jack did not enter even into A. integrifolia, which is solely the Chempedak except for the reference to the Rumphian Soccus arboreus major: not even the name ‘nanca’ is mentioned. Sitodium macrocarpen Thunb. In this year Thunberg altered Rademachia (now spelt Radermachia) to Sitodium, evidently on the instance of Banks, as Rademachia was pre-occupied. Under S. macro- carpon Thunberg gave R. integra as a synonym; therefore, S. macrocarpon is also a superfluous name (Intern. Bot. Rules 1935 Art. 60, 1). The description is extended and muddled by the attribution of the fruit of the Jack to the foliage of the Chempedak. Ceylon and India were given as localities. ‘Jacca’ and ‘Nanca’ were given as vernacular names and Rheede’s Tsjakamaram (Hort. Mal. 111, p. 17), which is unquestionably the Jack, was given as a synonym. The ‘Observationes’, on pp. 471-473, show how thoroughly Thunberg had now confused the species. As Professor Svedelius remarks, it must have been after this date the Ceylon-specimens of the Jack were fixed to the same sheet as the specimens of Chempedak from Batavia. Sitodium cauliflorum Gaertner. This synonym provides an instance of the awkward retrospective action of the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. As a synonym of S. caulifiorum, Gaertner gave “Artocarpus foliis integris Linn. Syst. Veg. 838”: the number 838 refers to the page in J. A. Murray’s edition (1784) of Linnaeus’ work. From the remarks at the foot of page 345, Gaertner intended A. integrifolia L.f. as a synonym. S. cauliflorum therefore covers the type of A. integrifolia L.f., which has R. integra as its basinym. S. cauliflorwm must therefore be treated as another superfluous name for the Chempedak and so, nomenclaturally, illegitimate. Though his description and figure represent only the Jack, Gaertner did not dis- tinguish it from the Chempedak, c.f. his Rumphian citations, and he was evidently no better informed in this respect than his contemporaries. Artocarpus jaca Lam. According to the same Article of the Rules and in spite of the fact that Lamarck was the first of the post-Linnean authors to discern some difference between the Chempedak and the Jack, A. jaca must also be treated as a superfluous name for the Chempedak though intended primarily for the Jack. Lamarck realised that Soccus arboreus minor. R. integra and A. integrifolia differed from the Jack in being hairy and accordingly made them “La variété B” Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Sa SS 13 of A. jaca. He thereby instated an invalid pre-Linnean epithet (from Iridaps Jaca Commerson) for that of the valid R. integra. According to the Rules in retrospect, Lamarck should have made the glabrous Jack a variety of the hairy R. integra and should have made the new combination A. integra (Thunb.) with a variety jaca. If one considers that the Rules deal hardly with Lamarck in this case, it cannot be denied that he profits undeservingly by them with his contemporary name A. heterophyllus which, devised in ignorance, becomes the legitimate name for the Jack. Polyphema Champeden Polyphema Champeden Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. 1790, p. 547. = Artocarpus Champeden (Lour.) Spreng., Syst. 3, 1826, p. 804. A. Polyphema Pers., Syn. 1807, II, 531. This species has always been interpreted as the Malayan Chempedak, the most recent affirmation being Merrill’s (Comm. Lour. Fl. Cochinch., Tr. Am. Phil. Soc. XXIV, 1935, pt. 2, 185). It seems to me, however, that its identity has by no means been solved and that Merrill’s interpretation lacks proof. My own opinion is that P. Champeden is a ‘mixtum—eompositum’ for the following reasons :— 1. The description embraces plants from three sources :— a, Cochinchina:—‘‘Habitat in altis sylvis Cochin- chinae’”’: Loureiro lived in Cochinchina: his book is a Flora of Cochinchina: he quotes a Cochin- chinese vernacular name. b, Malacca:—‘‘cirea fretum Malaccense baat tibus”’, c, Amboina:—in quoting Soccus arboreus minor of Rumphius. 2. Nevertheless, Merrill says that “‘Loureiro’s descrip- tion was based on plants observed by him near Malacca ieee ah ” and that there is a specimen of Loureiro’s at the British Museum. Such a specimen was not mentioned by Spencer Moore in his investigation of Loureiro’s types (Journ. Bot. 1925, p. 245.). Mr. Taylor tells me that he has been unable to find the specimen and that there is no mark against the species in the British Museum’s copy of Loureiro’s Flora to show that it was received. Merrill’s contention thus appears groundless; and the interpretation of P. Champeden from a Malaccan species is out of the Vol. X.. (1938). 74 question. To me it is obvious that Loureiro identified plants that were familiar to him as ‘cay mit nai’ in Cochinchina with Soccus arboreus minor of Rumphius and, perhaps, with trees of Chempedak that he had seen or had heard of in Malacca, and that, in deference to the priority of Rumphius, which was then acknowledged, he mistakenly applied the name ‘Champeden’ to the Cochinchinese species. Manifestly Loureiro described his species from Cochin- chinese plants. 3. If one interprets Loureiro’s species as the Malayan Chempedak, then according to Gagnepain (FI. Gen. Indoch. v, 1928, 734) it does not grow in Indochina where Loureiro said it did. 4. If Loureiro’s species is the Malayan Chempedak, it should have been characteristically hairy but all that Loureiro said was “foliis ........ pilosis, rugosis, sparsis”’ and, whatever such words may mean, they were obviously borrowed from Rumphius (see 6, below). The hairiness of the petiole, peduncle, twigs and buds would not have escaped so acute an observer as Loureiro. This discrepancy convinces me that at the time of: writing his description of P. Champeden, Loureiro had only specimens of a Cochin- chinese species which he wrongly identified with the Chempedak, that he borrowed from the description of Soccus arboreus minor, and that in his misapplication he overlooked the most obvious character of the cultivated Malayan Chempedak. Moreover, in his ‘Observatio’ under the preceding species, P. jaca, Loureiro said that both P. jaca and P. Champeden had not “‘pedunculi pilis longis hirsuti’’, which are the words used by Linnaeus fil. (and Thunberg) in ore the type-specimen of Chempedak as A. integri- olia. 5. Loureiro wrote of the inflorescence-heads of P. Champeden “‘Amenta oblongo-ovata” and in the ‘Observatio’ under the preceding species, P. jaca, remarked that he had never seen the ‘“amentum cylindricum” described for Artocarpus integrifolia, quoting this as one of his reasons for doubting the identity of Artocarpus and Polyphema. Now the Chempedak has ‘amentum cyclindricum’, as Thunberg’s specimen displays. ‘How then can it be P. Champeden? . 6. Parts of Loureiro’s description are copied from Rumphius’ description of Soccus arboreus minor. A genuine description would have had the freedom of Thunberg’s. Thus :— GNIS) reece ae rugosa, pilosa, superius obscuro-viridia, subtus flavescentia”’’: (— “folia’ ---.2 he: superius obscure virentia, inferius flava ........ rugosa et pilosa” Rumphius). Gardens Bulletin, SS. ——————— 75 “baccze vix pedem longe, 4 pollius late, flavo-virides (= “fructus ..:..«.- pede nempe “modo longus, quatuor vel quinque crassus digitos ........ Exterior flavo-viridis ...... Rumphius). Thus far Loureiro undoubtedly described the Malayan Chempedak as copied from Rumphius. Paragraphs 4 and 5, above, show that he also meant some other plant. 7. I conclude that P. Champeden is an unidentified species ‘“‘amento oblongo-ovato” from Cochinchina, and that the application of the name to any species of Artocarpus should be withheld until it can be proved to be a Cochin- chinese species. The vernacular name ‘cay mit nai’ is still in use for several species in Indochina (Gagnepain). I have gone into this matter in some detail in order to show how necessary it is to support with botanical proof identifications, name-changes and reductions, if it is intended that they should be accepted by botanists. There has been as much confusion over P. Champeden as over A. mnteger because systematists have been content to copy and cite authority in both cases without botanical verification. The Wild Chempedak From its barrel-shaped, inodorous syncarps, the almost tasteless pulp round the seeds, the lack of rich autumn-tints in its withering leaves and its natural habitat in the high forest, I consider that the Wild Chempedak should be distinguished as a variety of A. integer and I propose for it the name silvestris. I have seen sufficient number of trees in different parts of the country to feel assured of the constancy of these characters. May be the shape and large size of the male inflorescence and the larger stamens are distinctive but observations from other trees will be needed to establish these points. In the hairiness of the leaf and twig, and the prominence of the spines on the Synearp there are evidently individual differences among the trees suggesting forms or varieties. One would expect, also, some differences in the taste of the pulp tending toward that of the cultivated Chempedak, of which the wild variety is undoubtedly the ancestor. The Wild Chempedak has been found only in Malaya. It appears to be not uncommon in the forest from sea-level to moderate altitudes (4,000 ft.) and it is abundant enough in the Tahan Game Reserve in the middle of Pahang, where the wild forms of many of our local fruit-trees are to be found, at least according to the Pahang Malays. The Wild Chempedak begins to fruit when a small tree 30 or AO ft. high, when it is cauliflorous: old trees, reaching 130 ft., seem to become completely ramiflorous. In general Vol. X. (1938). 76 appearance and from dried specimens of leaf and fruit, it is indistinguishable from the cultivated Chempedak. A. integer var. silvestris var. nov. Bangkong, Chempedak Utan, Baroh (Johore), Wild Chempedak. ~ Y , aoe Arbor silvestris, incultus: syncarpiis ellipsoideis vel oblongo-ellipsoideis, inodoris: pulpa seminis subacida, insipida: foliis senescentibus vix lutescentibus. Collections :— Wray 1356 (Tapah, cha aas scarcely hairy; Kunstler 1636 (Penang), hairy; ? cultivated; Strugnell 14627 (Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, ca. 1200 m.), subglabrous; Ridley s.n. (Tahan River, Pahang), hairy; Ridley s.n. (Simpang Mines, Selangor), subglabrous; Ahmad 4586 (Weld Hill, Selangor), subglabrous; M. Nur 11254 (Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, ca. 1500 m.), subglabrous; Kiah s.n. (S. Kayu, Johore), subglabrous; Corner 32988 (Johore), glabrous (Type); Corner 33205 (Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, ca. 1200 m.) hairy; Corner 33688 (K. Teku, Pahang, ca. 300 m.) hairy; Corner s.n. (S. Tahan, Pahang, 8.9.37) hairy; Corner s.n. (Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, 14.8.37) hairy. The Botanical Names for the Jack Biers i heterophylius Lam., Encycl. Meth. Bot. vol. IU], 1789, 9.1209. | Syn. ns philippensis Lam., ibid. 210; Willd. sp. Pl. 4. 1805, p. 189. Polyphema Jaca Lour., Flor. Cochinch. 1790, p. 546. haud A. jaca Lam. (1789). A. maxima Blanco, Fl. Filip. 1837, p. 669. (Tsjakamaram, Rheede, Hort. Malab., ER Fe 26-28). . (Soceus arboreus major Rumph., Herb. Amboin., tom. i. 104,40. 50). I have not seen the type of A. heterophyllus but the species has been universally admitted as a synonym of the dack and Lamarck’s description and reference to Soccus arboreus major cf Rumphius permit no doubt. Lamarck described the annulus at the base of the male inflorescence, which seems not to cecur in any other Artocarpus though probably it is morphologically comparable with the bracts of Parartocarpus. A. heterophyllus is the first undoubted description of the Jack which does not include R. integra Thunbg., and therefore it must be its legitimate botanical! name. Lamarck intended his species for the ‘‘Nanca’” of Rumphius and supposed that the Jack of India was different. The type of the Jack must therefore be Commerson’s specimen in Lamarck’s Herbarium in Paris, Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 77 consisting of the precocious male inflorescences and the sapling leaves of a seedling raised “au Jardin du Roi, a Isle de France’. Such are the histories of Tropical Botany. In reducing A. philippensis to the Jack, I follow Elmer (Leaflets, I], 1909, p. 612) and Merrill (Enum. Phil. Pl. Il, 1923, p. 41) though I cannot find that these authors have given any reasons or that anyone has investigated the type. Lamarck distinguished A. philippensis by its blunt, retuse obovate leaves, but such leaves are occasionally met with in the Jack, especially if the bud has been damaged. I find commonly that the very blunt, retuse shape of the leaves of many tropical trees is by no means as characteristic as a few specimens might lead one to suppose, but in most cases has been caused by some abnormality in leaf-growth. Lamarck described also a narrow involucral annulus at the base of the male inflorescence of A. philippensis, which feature should clinch its identity with the Jack. The type must be Sonnerat’s specimen from the Philippines in Lamarck’s herbarium at Paris. A. heterophyllus Lam. and A. philippensis Lam. were published simultaneously. In choosing A. heterophyllus for the Jack, I have selected the less inappropriate name. Though there seems to be some difference between sapling and adult foliage in nearly all species of Artocarpus, the epithet philippensis would be very misleading. It is true that Willdenow reduced A. heterophyllus to A. integrifolia, in the belief that A. integrifolia was the Jack, and that he retained A. philippensis, but it cannot be said that he in any way made a choice between A. hetero- phyllus and A. philippensis as synonyms of the Jack. His reduction of A.- heterophyllus was erroneous. Indeed Wiuldenow was thoroughly confused because he gave the name A. integrifoiia to Lamarck’s A. jaca and also dis- tinguished Lamarck’s variety B which was based on A. integrifoha. If Willdenow had made a selection between A. heterophyllus and A. philippensis it should have been as varietal names for his A. integrifolia variety y. P. Jaca Lour. and A. maxima Blanco are generally interpreted as the Jack. The names are unfortunately antedated. There is an original specimen of P. Jaca at the British Museum, which Mr. Taylor informs me is the Jack in cultivation in Indochina. | Varieties of the Jack In Malaya the Jack is remarkably uniform and conforms exactly with the description in Ochse’s two works. In Ceylon and, especially India, I understand that there are Vol, X(1938). 78 many varieties, but precisely how they are to be dis- tinguished seems not to have been stated. It would be well if some Indian botanist were to describe them bearing in view the points of distinction between the Jack and Chempedak which I have enumerated. Thus the two varieties known in Burma as Talaing and Kala seem to differ from the Malayan Jack in having longer, more crowded and blunt spines and the taste of all three is distinctly different.* I wish, however, to draw especial attention to two varieties. In the first place, there is said to be a variety which bears fruits on the roots. The fruits develop underground and as they swell they raise small mounds which they eventually burst, and thus they disclose themselves. This variety is said by Malays to occur in Malaya, but very rarely, and it was noted also by Thunberg in his observations on Sitodium muacrocarpon (Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. vol. LXIX, pt. 11, 1779, at the top of p. 472). The fruits are said to be exceptionally large and most delicate of flavour—‘“a duobus servis portari debeant singuli, hique fructus maxime delicati aestimantur”. It appears that no botanist has ever seen this variety. The fruits must be developed on adventi- tious root-suckers. In the second place, there is said to occur in Ceylon a variety called “Vela” which is “characterised by its softer pulp, through which the finger may be thrust when approaching ripeness” (H. F. Macmillan, Tropical Planting and Gardening, 1935, p. 250). It seems that the plant described by da Costa in India as ‘“Gerissal”’ is also the same as can be judged from the following quotation :— “970—The Jack-fruit has also many varieties, the principal and easily noticeable ones being the BARICA (Borcoi or Capo) and GERISSAL (Ponosso or Rossal). The Barica-fruit is firm and hard, and its pods (pips) are easily detached entire and can be cut into small pieces. The Gerissal is soft, and its pips are so soft (branda) and juicy that they cannot be cut into pieces and hence they are put entire into the mouth. It might be doubted whether these two kinds of plants are really two species or two varieties of the same species, so great are the noticeable external differences: but if the common opinion is true that the Barica-seed, when sown, gives Gerissal- plants and vice-versa—an opinion also affirmed in the ARTE PALMARICA 44, but which I have not verified—then it is clear that these two kinds of plants are varieties and not TWO \SDECIES,. .y. Gis Koike wk ee eee 971—Under each of these two varieties there are many subvarieties which differ in taste, colour, fibrousness and * IT am indebted to J. W. Grant, M.A., B.Sc., I.A.S., Rice Research Officer, Burma, for kindly sending me fresh specimens of both varieties. (Dept. Agric., Burma, Bulletin No. 30, 1936, p. 57, J. W. Grant and A. N. P. Williams). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 79 sweetness of their pips. However, unlike the subvarieties of Mangoes, none of these subvarieties has received any particular name, a fact which might be attributable to the lack of demand, ability or knowledge on the part of the farmer to perpetuate the varieties by artificial propagation”. (Manual Practico do Agricultor Indiano, vol. 2, 1874, p. 148). The “Vela” and “Gerissal” suggest a variety of the Chempedak which is glabrous, like some forms of the Wild Chempedak in Malaya, but possessed of better -flavour. So far as I can ascertain, there is no record of the Chempedak from India or Ceylon, but if the hairy Malayan Chempedak has been confused with the Jack, how much more may not a glabrous variety be? Mr. Furtado informs me that he remembers in the neighbourhood of Goa two varieties of Jack, one with the firm fruit, firm pulp and crinkly seed of the Jack proper and the other with the soft baggy fruit, the soft pulp and almost testa-less seed of the Chempedak, but that both kinds were glabrous: in fact he did not associate hairiness with the character of the Chempedak until he met with it in Malaya. I would ask, therefore, the botanists in Southern India to investigate the cultivated Jack to see whether some varieties may not really belong to the Chempedak. My request for specimens of “Vela” from the Department of Agriculture in Ceylon met, unfortunately, with no response. Specimens of ‘Koolai’ and ‘Varika’, sent by Mr. Broadfoot from Coimbatore, have proved to be varieties of Jack. So also have the ‘Talaing’ and ‘Kala’ of Burma but the Burmese ‘Sone-ka-dat’ from Moulmein is the cultivated Chempedak. For the discovery of this fact, which becomes the first record of the Chempedak north of the Malay Peninsula, I am indebted to Mr. Grant who suggested the possibility to me in a letter. The Confusion of Jack and Chempedak _ The specificity of each was fully grasped by Rumphius in whose excellent descriptions of Soccus arboreus major and S. a. minor, written in the 17th century, the main dis- tinctions were clearly stated. It is doubtful if Thunberg realised that he was dealing with two species, although his first attempt with Rademachia integra was fortunately precise. His second attempt, with Sitodium macrocarpon, was confused. Gaertner, evidently, knew only the Jack. Lamarck perceived some discrepancy between Soccus arboreus minor and R. integra, on the one hand, and the Jack on the other hand, but he believed that the ‘“Nanka”’ or Soccus arboreus major of Rumphius was yet another Vol. Xs (1988). 80 species. Loureiro distinguished a second species from the Jack, ascribing to it the Rumphian Soccus arboreus minor and the Malayan Chempedak as well as a Cochinchinese species, but what this latter was has not been ascertained. Because Loureiro gave the name Champeden to his species, botanists subsequently identified the Malayan Chempedak as Artocarpus Champeden (Lour.) Spreng. without enquiring into its exact nature and this error has been copied to the present day. The very accurate figure and description of the Jack, as Artocarpus integrifolia, by W. J. Hooker (in Curtis’ Bot. Mag. vol. LV. 1828, t. 2833, 2834), written in ignorance of the Chempedak, contributed probably to the greatest extent in perpetuating the error. Sprengel, Persoon and Willdenow were merely copyists. But if King had not omitted, for some unaccountable reason, the Jack from his monograph of ‘‘Artocarpus in British India” (Ann. R. Bot. Gard. Calc. II, 1889), these nomen- clatorial researches of mine would undoubtediy have been unnecessary. A. integer as a nomen specificum conservandum I find that it has been proposed by Indian foresters to conserve the name A. integer, or A. integrifolia, for the Jack of India. Hitherto the conservation of specific names has been discountenanced at Botanical Congresses, and the present instance shows what a dangerous precedent it may create. The confusion between Jack and Chempedak can be ascribed only to the incompetence of systematists and their lack of acquaintance with the plants which they have tried to classify. Nor have any practical men, so far as I can ascertain, endeavoured to assist systematists in this actual instance. The conservation of specific names can be accepted only if botanists agree to forego entirely their principles of priority and typification, in other words to throw over their system of nomenclature, and to adopt arbitrary names for every species. And supposing such, what is A. integer of India, the Chempedak or the Jack, because both species evidently grow there and have been mistaken for each other? Let us rather acknowledge the ignorance that still prevails concerning the systematy of tropical plants and direct our efforts to overcome ‘this. 1 find that confusion in botanica! names is always accom- panied by a confusion in practice, for it is not merely wrong identification that is at the bottom cf the grievance but an acute lack of knowledge. It is time, surely, that tropical systematy was removed from the ‘“hortus siccus” to its rightful place in the Botanic Gardens of the tropics. Gardens Bulletin, S.S- 81 Summary By reference to the original description and type- specimen of Rademachia integra Thunbg., I have shown that the combination Artocarpus integer (Thunbg.) Merrill, published in 1917, as the legitimate botanical name for the Jack, is really another species called the Chempedak. The Jack must, therefore, be called by its earliest legitimate synonym which is Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamarck (1789). The type-specimen of A. integer is in Thunberg’s herbarium at Uppsala. The type of A. heterophyllus is in Lamarck’s herbarium in Paris. I have contrasted in detail the macroscopic characters of the Jack and the Chempedak in both its cultivated and wild states. The species differ in some two dozen features, the most important of which concern the base of the leaf-blade, the base of the inflorescence-head and the structure of the syncarp, true-fruit and seed. The two species were much confused by the early botanists and it seems that they still are confused in Southern India. The Sone-ka-dat of Burma is the Chem- pedak. It is much to be desired that the status of the Indian Jack in all its varieties should be thoroughly examined. The Wild Chempedak of Malaya is distinguished as A. integer var. silvestris var. nov., chiefly on account of its broad inodorous fruits, the insipid pulp round its seeds and its wild habitat. The synonymy of the two species I have discussed with the conclusion that Artocarpus Champeden (Lour.) Spreng. must be a Cochinchinese species different from the Chem- pedak and one that has not been recognised again. It seems to have been as much misinterpreted as A. integer. The objection to nomina specifica conservanda is discussed. Vol. Xs (1938). 82 A REVISION OF FICUS, SUBGENUS SYNCCIA By E. J. H. CORNER, M.A., Botanic Gardens, Singapore When King’s monograph of Ficus appeared fifty years ~ ago, there were six species of Syneecia. Eleven others have since been described, one from Formosa, eight from the Philippines and two from Borneo. That from Formosa, F. terasoensis, has already been identified with the Philippine F. megacarpa. I now find that F. megacarpa is a leaf-variety of the widespread F. callicarpa and that five more of the Philippine novelties have been misplaced in Syneecia: four belong to Eusyce, and one has already been transferred to Urostigma. Of these eleven, there remain, as proved species, only two from the Philippines, namely F. Bordenu and F. cataupi, and one from Borneo, F. tawaensis: concerning F. Simiae, of Borneo, I am uncertain (p. 145). In 1932 and 1933, the. late Mr:--C. E. Care, Fis. collected for seven months on Mt. Kinabalu in British North Borneo. At my request he made a special study of wild figs, taking careful field-notes on the colours of the receptacles and preserving material in spirit as well as dried. He collected five species of Syneecia, four of which I describe as new in this paper, namely F. barba-jovis, F. Carri, F. dens-echini and F. tulipifera. The importance of this magnificent collection was at once evident from my own studies on the Malayan species; and it has led me to revise the subgenus. A fifth new species, F. grandiflora, I describe from a collection of Mr. and Mrs. J. Clemens, also from Kinabalu. I am obliged also to make four new varieties of F’. callicarpa. When thus pruned and extended, the subgenus contains 13 good species, two doubtful species (Ff. Simiae and F. singalana) and four varieties. To the descriptions, them- selves, I have added several critical diagnostic characters, particularly of the flowers and leaves, that have been overlooked but without which the affinity of the species cannot be ascertained. Indeed, previous descriptions of the species convey little idea of their decisive character. I have arranged the species in what seems to be their natural order (p. 95), but our knowledge of the subgenus is very imperfect. That the number of species could have been doubled in the last ten years and that all these novelties should have come from one part of British North Borneo Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 83 reflect sadly on our ignorance of the flora of large areas of the Malay Archipelago. Because they are big climbers, the species have doubtless escaped the attention of field- botanists, for no other sort of plant is more difficult to collect. The uncertain specificity of F. callicarpa and F. punctata shows, too, the need of many more collections of these common plants from such countries as Sumatra, Borneo and Celebes, Palawan, Timor, Flores and the Moluccas. There is undoubtedly a variation afoot which suggests the persistent evolution of the species. In spite of its expansion Synecia, as understood by King, remains a most natural subgenus. Its area of distribution must also indicate the natural limit of the greater part of the Malaysian flora (p. 91). When the distribution of the species is better known it will provide some critical evidence for the history of the Archipelago. _ For the completion of this revision I was permitted to borrow the rich collections in the Herbaria at Buitenzorg, Manila and Calcutta, and I express my thanks to the Directors of these institutions, to Dr. D. F. van Slooten of Buitenzorg, Dr. E. Quisumbing of Manila and to Mr. J. D. Srinivasan of Calcutta, for their unstinted assistance. I have to thank also Mr. C. E. C. Fischer, of Kew Herbarium for kindly examining the type-specimen of F. Scratchleyana at the British Museum, and Dr. T. Sata of Taihoku Imperial University, Formosa, for a specimen of F. terasoensis. In the citation of collections under each species only the collections that I have examined are mentioned. Habit | All the species are root-climbers with tufts of short adventitious roots like ivy plants (Hedera). The main stems develop into stout trunks with greyish white bark: they are adpressed to the trunk of the supporting tree, though old stems may break loose and hang like the descend- ing roots of a Urostigma: they are commonly rather flattened and elliptic in section, even strap-shaped, and may reach 10-15 cm. in their long diameter. It appears that the plants always start from seeds on the ground—no doubt because animals do not eat the fruits: they first develop thin creeping stems that trail over rocks, earth and fallen trunks and branches until they reach a living tree up which they ascend to heights of 50 metres and more. In manner of branching and dimorphic foliage, the Species present two conditions, which I consider important because they indicate the state of evolution of the species. I have used this distinction in the key on p. 95, though it must be admitted there is no information of the condition in several species because such can be learnt only from Vol. X. (1938). 84 living plants. F. apiocarpa, which seems the least specialised member of the subgenus, has long branching leafy sprays that loop and trail over the limbs of the support, and there is no other difference than one of size between leaves on its aerial branches and those that creep on the ground. I presume that F. Bordeni and F. Scrat- chleyana also have this habit. But in F. punctata and F. callicarpa the hanging leafy sprays in the upper part of the plant are short and sparingly branched, not entangling the crown of their support, and they bear leaves of a different shape, as well as of a much larger size, from the branches that creep on the ground and over the trunk of the support. One may conveniently use the terms bathyphyll and acrophyll for these kinds of leaf, in the sense in which they have been employed by Holttum for the climbing ferns Teratophyllum and Lomagramma (2,3). The leaves which are born on the lower, creeping shoots and are themselves flattened to the trunk or substratum which the stem is creeping over, are the bathyphylls: they may be juvenile leaves of young plants or the early formed leaves on side shoots of old stems. The leaves that are born on the free- hanging sprays in the upper part of the plant are the acrophylls and they are the normal adult leaves. Transitions between the two kinds of leaf always occur. I think that all other species of Syneecia, except perhaps F’, dens-echini, possess bathyphylls and are thus clearly in a higher state of vegetative, or scandent, evolution than F'. apiocarpa, c.f. species of Willughbeia, Scindapsus, Terato- phyllum. The attention of botanists shouid be drawn to the necessity of collecting both bathyphylls and acrophylis, or of recording the presence or absence of bathyphylls, in living plants because the distinction seems naturally to divide the subgenus into two groups. In the following descriptions, the word ‘leaf’, unquali- fied, indicates the acrophylls, the bathyphylls being denoted only where necessary. All the Malayan species are evergreen and I imagine this habit holds throughout the subgenus. Leaves Beside the distinction between bathyphylls and acrophylls, the leaves of certain species possess another important character which has been overlooked. The leaves of F. apiocarpa, F. Borden, F. Scratchleyana and F. tawaensis are simply tesselate on the underside, with flat areole between the reticulate veins. In all other species, these areole are pocked with white hairy pits in which the stomata are confined and thus, these species which have bathyphylls, again show a higher degree of vegetative Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 85 development. Indeed, I am convinced that the microscopic structure of the leaves will have an important place in the future classification of Ficus, though I have given the problem little more than the most superficial attention. Commonly the bathyphylis have no stomatal pits, but they may be found on the larger ones as well as on the transition leaves. F. tawaensis, so far as known, presents the inter- mediate state of a species with bathyphylls but without stomatal pits: it is just possible, however, that the acrophylls have not been collected. The stomatal pits are sub-epidermal in origin. Between the species there are considerable differences in the size and shape of the leaves, but a few with different figs and flowers have very similar leaves, e.g., F. apiocarpa and F. Scratchleyana, F. Bordeniu and F. dens-echini, F. callicarpa multinervia and F. grandiflora, F. cataupi and Ficus tulipijera; while in F. callicarpa there is much variation in the leaf and remarkable constancy in the receptacles. I consider that where the receptacles and flowers have exactly the same structure, leaf-differences must be varietal, and that where the receptacles and flowers are different, a similarity of leaf cannot outweigh the specific distinction. [I am inclined therefore to unite F’. geocarpa and F. Beccaru, described in my former paper on Covellia (1).] But the status of F. nn and » ft: callicarpa is most unsatisfactory. The asymmetry of the leaf-base is most marked in species with bathyphylls and stomatal pits and is practically absent from those without these features. The asymmetry is another mark of specialisation in the leafy sprays of the climber. Receptacles The figs of Syneecia, which are among the largest and certainly the most beautiful in the whole genus, are very similar in structure and differ only in details of shape, colour, hairiness and position. These details nevertheless are characteristic and deserve some scrutiny. In F’. apiocarpa and F.. callicarpa, many living specimens of which I have been able to examine, the general shape of the receptacle is so variable that I am led to doubt the value of this feature in any species until it has been proved from many collections. In contrast, the structure of the orifice, as seen in longitudinal sections, seems to offer reliable features and, as such can scarcely be conveyed by words, I have made drawings to scale from as many species as I had suitable material. The structure can be determined satisfactorily only in fresh specimens or those preserved in liquid, because the fleshy wall of the receptacle contracts strongly in drying and distorts the orifice. Vol. X. (1988). 86 A very short peduncle, a long neck and a little puckered mouth seem characteristic of F. apiocarpa, a perforate orifice of F. barba-jovis, large umbonate apical bracts of F’. dens-echini, an umbonate apex of F. punctata, a rounded apex of F’.. callicarpa. The colour of the ripening receptacle is characteristic, just as I found in Covellia and Neomorphe, but on this point there is too little information. Collectors should be urged to record the colours of fruits more carefully. I find, for example, that the marbling of the fig with pale spots is typical of F. callicarpa, F. apiocarpa and a few others, in contrast with F. punctata and those with very hairy figs. It seems that in all cases the fully ripe receptacles are deep purple or black and have a pleasant fruity smell. It is the colour that they turn before ripening that is distinctive and which renders them so vivid in the forest. In F. callicarpa, F.. apiocarpa and, indeed, most species the figs change from light green through yellow and orange to brilliant red. In F. punctata and F. tawaensis they turn pink, orange-pink and pinkish red rather than orange-red. In F. Bordeni and F. dens-echim they are brown. In F. Carri they are olive brown to brownish purple. I have emphasized the import- ance of the colour in the key, on p. 95, because one is apt to be content with imperfect description. In F. apiocarpa, F. Scratchleyana, F. dens-echini, F. cataupi and F. trachycoma the receptacles are axillary on the free-hanging leafy sprays, perhaps also in F. Bordenii but about this species there is no information. In the other species they are borne on the creeping stems on small woody knobs or leafless twigs that may elongate to a length of 10 cm., but the receptacles are never in big bunches as in Covellia. The axillary position is undoubtedly antecedent. Among the specimens of F’. callicarpa there are a few which have unusually small, solitary axillary receptacles: I am inclined to regard them as the precocious fruit of young plants, but I have not found such living specimens myself. The axillary position in F’. trachycoma and F. cataupi may also be found abnormal when these species are better known. The largest figs are possessed by F’. tawaensis, in which the body is said to have measured 12 cm. wide, and in F. eallicarpa angustifolia of which I have seen a living specimen with the body (without neck) 14 X 10 cm. The smallest, apart from the little precocious axillary recep- tacles, are those of F. tulipifera, with the body 3 X 3.5 cm., and F.. cataupi with the body 5 X 3 cm. In F. callicarpa angustifolia the gall-figs are nearly twice as large as the seed-figs and they have a dingy colouring. Such a dimorphism in size occurs to some extent, I believe, in all species of Synecia and is, doubtless, to be Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 87 related to the much greater enlargement of the gall- and male flowers after the entry of the wasps into the receptacie than of the female and neuter flowers. If different species of wasps can live in the same species of Synecia, their specificity too may affect the size of the mature receptacle. Concerning the biology of the fruits, one may remark that all animals seem to scorn these delightful objects. The gall-figs are naturally distasteful, being rather dry, when ripe, and full of insects, like those of Covellia and Neomorphe, but why should the seed-figs that are juicy and fragrant lie rotting on the ground? Malays always answer that neither birds, squirrels, monkeys nor bats will eat the fruits. Indeed, they commonly call the species of Syncecia “Tangisong Burong’” with such ether plants as have bright inedible fruits over which the birds shed tears of disappoint- ment. The seeds must be dispersed, therefore, very gradually by rains, fortuitously by floods or, as in the case of the riparian F.. apiocarpa, by river-flow. The wasps emerging from the ripe figs carry a fair quantity of pollen. It seems, however, that little can remain on their shiny bodies after their struggle through the orifice and down the long array of internal bracts, and it is difficult to understand how many hundreds, even thousands, of seeds can be set in one receptacle by ordinary pollination. I believe that figs are parthenogenetic, though the wasps must in some way stimulate the development of the ovule. The entomology of Syncecia is unknown. The figs harbour many inquilines as well as true fig-wasps and of these latter there must be several species, perhaps as many as there are species of Synecia, if one can judge from the size and structure of the gall-flowers. Whether the develop- ment of the gall-ovary can be altered by the species of wasp or inquiline that inhabits it is not known but it seems probable when one considers the variations in size of the flowers in F. callicarpa and F. punctata. Flowers The large size of the flowers and, particularly, the long stalks of the male and neuter flowers, are characteristic of Synecia. In my descriptions I have wherever possible taken the size of the flowers from mature receptacles because only such will give reliable and comparable figures. At their receptive stage in the half-grown figs, the gall- and female flowers, for instance, are minute and they enlarge in pedicel, perianth and ovary, though not in style, until the receptacle is nearly mature. The male flowers, also, are not full grown with expanded stamen until the wasps begin to fly out. At the receptive stage of the figs, the styles of the Vol. X. (1938). 88 gall and female flowers overtop their respective male and neuter flowers (Text Fig. 6) but subsequently the pedicels of these flowers elongate and they overtop the gall- and female flowers in mature receptacles. Thus, in their final size, the male flowers vary from 7-25 mm. overall, in the different species: F. grandiflora has the largest male flowers (20-25 mm. long) and the largest gall-flowers (up to 17 mm. long) though it is run very close by F. callicarpa angusti- fola: F. cataupi, F. Scratchleyana and some forms of F. calicarpa and F. punctata have the smallest male flowers (7-9 mm. long). F. dens-echini has the largest female flowers (16 mm. long). In giving the size of the flowers it is important, also, to state the limits, especially of the gall- and female flowers, because short, tall and intermediate gall- and female flowers will be found, fully developed, in every receptacle, the difference in size depending on the relative development of pedicel and ovary-stalk. Concerning these two features, the distinction must be born in mind that the pedicel is proximal to the attachment of the perianth, the ovary-stalk distal. Thus, in Ff. apiocarpa and several others, the gall- and female flowers are more or less sessile but have commonly a long ovary-stalk, while in F. dens-echini they have a sessile ovary and a pedicel of greater or less length. In general structure, there is remarkable uniformity except the anomalous case of F. apiocarpa which lacks neuter flowers and has an almost colourless, membran- ous, denticulate perianth. In the other species, the perianth segments are wine-red, entire and more less thickly gelatinous. . In the male flowers the perianth generally has 5 more or less gamophyllous, imbricate segments, but in F. apiocarpa there are 4 segments and in F. Scratchleyana, perhaps also in F. dens-echini, they are free. In the gall- and female flowers there are generally 3—4 perianth segments, free or slightly gamophyllous at the base, but in F. grandiflora and F. dens-echini there are commonly 5-6 and in F. punctata 0-3. In F. apiocarpa, F. Scratchleyana and, to some extent, F’. dens-echini the perianth segments are relatively large, equalling or exceeding the combined length of ovary and style: in the other species they are generally much shorter. In F. tulipifera and F. grandiflora the segments are stout and often rather strongly gamophyl- lous. In all but F. callicarpa, the perianth-segments are simply attached by the whole base, like a multiseriate trichome, but in this one species the base of each segment is rounded and has a minute stalk placed a very short distance up the segment so as to form a tiny peltate attachment (Text Fig. 11). I consider this feature to represent an Gardens Bulletin, S.S- 89 advanced state, as I have not observed it in any other Ficus. F. punctata and F. callicarpa are very variable in size of flower and number of perianth-segments. The opening of the male flowers is delayed, as usual in Ficus, until the wasps hatch. The anther is then exserted from the perianth in most, if not all species, but I find some uncertainty on account of the lack of fully mature recept- acles. It happens very occasionally, that there are two stamens in a male flower (Text Figs. 3, 27, 29). In F. callicarpa angustifolia I found a few male flowers without stamens but containing a stalked, empty gall-ovary. The mature male flowers are always longer than the gall-flowers in the same receptacle. The neuter flowers are like sterile male flowers. The perianth never opens but looks like a wine-red Crocus-flower in miniature. Sometimes it contains a sterile rod which resembles in shape an abortive pistil rather than a staminode. The neuter flowers generally overtop the female flowers in the same receptacle but in F. Carri they are of variable length. In F. dens-echini, perhaps also in F. Scratchleyana, the perianth segments are free. Seeds The seeds, too, are uniform and characteristic, with the single exception, so far as it is known, of F. Carri which has ovoid seeds without a flange: but these seeds may be abnormal. In size, they vary little from 1.6-2 mm. long in F, punctata to 2.2-3 mm. long in F. apiocarpa and F. calicarpa parvifolia. The mature female flowers of F. Bordeniti, F. catauy, F. tawaensis, F. tulipifera, F. grandiflora and F’. barba-jovis are not known. It must be remarked how seldom collectors manage to gather both male and female specimens of dicecious plants. Evolution of Synecia The evolution of long-stalked unistaminate male flowers, distributed thickly over the whole interior of the receptacle, of corresponding neuter flowers in the seed-figs and, as a consequence no doubt, the large size of the receptacle distinguishes Syneecia from other climbing figs. The origin of the subgenus is surely to be found in Eusyce in the affinity of F’. disticha and F. areolata. Such species bear a distinct resemblance to the less specialised members of Synecia, as F. apiocarpa, in having a similar creeping habit, tesselate leaves, stalked receptacles with male and neuter flowers distributed all over the interior and more or less flattened and flanged seeds, though they differ in their more or less sessile bistaminate male flowers and small Vol. X. (19388). 90 receptacles like the precocious axillary ones of F. callicarpa. Some recent collections of the late Mr. C. E. Carr suggest that in New Guinea there are species of Eusyce of even greater affinity with Synecia, but I have not yet been able to classify them. F. pumila (Eusyce) looks, at first sight, like Synecia but the restriction of the male flowers to a ring round the orifice and the structure of the perianth seem to forbid a close connection. The species of Synecia, like F. callicarpa and F. punctata, occupy one of the highest states of evolution in Ficus. They are climbers with specialised vegetative system and elaborate cauliflorous receptacles constructed on the principle of the two-phase development which gives the peduncle, collar and bractless body. In F. apiocarpa, F. Scratchleyana and F. Bordenii one finds the ordinary type of root-climber with unspecialised vegetative system and axillary receptacles. I have no hesitation in placing these species nearest to the stock from which Synecia has sprung, and this conclusion is supported by the fact that F. aptocarpa and F. Scratchleyana have large sepals that are not, or scarcely, gamophyllous. F. apiocarpa I consider the most primitive in its membranous and almost colourless perianth, perhaps also in its lack of neuter flowers but it is impossible to decide whether this may not be a secondary feature through reduction or loss. F. callicarpa and F. punctata occupy the other end of the scale in having distinct bathyphylls and acrophylls borne on shoots of limited growth, stomatal pits, asymmetric blades, cauliflorous receptacles and small thickly gelatinous perianth segments. F. tawaensis, F. dens-echini and, perhaps also, F. trachy- coma and F. cataupi occupy intermediate positions. F. tawaensis evidently combines bathyphylls and caulifiorous receptacles with symmetric leaves without stomatal pits whereas F’. dens-echini combines symmetric leaves, axillary receptacles, rather large and thin perianth segments and, apparently, a lack of bathyphylls with the presence of stomatal pits, minute though they be. F. trachycoma and F. cataupi combine almost symmetric leaves and, apparently, axillary receptacles with stomatal pits and, probably, bathyphylls. It is not a little remarkable that the species should fall into such a graded series. Within the subgenus evolution has been mainly vegetative. ) Distribution Synecia must have evolved in the centre of the Malaysian region, taking this term in its widest sense, and it may be said to have exceeded its limits only in Formosa. Lower Burma, Siam, (Indo-China), Formosa, New Guinea, Gardens Bulletin, S.S. oA eouIny) MONT IOUIL, D++ SBOON[OP ooulog °¢ | D+4+++++4+ s+4++ aioe D++ ett D++ oe —_ fl ° ieee ve a ,punjoburs * GODUUS pioyipunwb * paafidyny * SULOL-DQLDG * AL) vuryaa-suap ° sisUannn} “* puphiayyonig * vee adnnyno * wuaplog * pdwno0rdn : puoohyony * pypjound ° DIUsAUINUL DIULIUISSD.1L9 nyofysnbup pyofriasod jeotdA4 ndunorwjna * Faxy Fey Fay Racy Fey ey Fey Fey Fey ey Fey Ry yy eAeley BIyZeUING sourddyryg UrBIg UILIOSSBVUI J, ooulog “N Sang; Opul BIDUAG JO satvedg oy} Jo uOTNQIAYsSIG BSOULIO Vol. X. (1938). 92 Timor and Sumatra mark the boundaries of the species, so far as they are known. None has been found in Peninsular or Himalayan India, Ceylon, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, S. China, Queensland or the Pacific Islands. Such confinement is remarkable, unlike any other subgenus or natural group of Ficus, and I am inclined to think that it is caused primarily by the lack of seed-dispersal by animals (p. 87) and secondarily by the late evolution of the species, for why else, should F. variegata range unaltered from Assam to the Philippines and Hongkong to Java, while F. calliicarpa, which commonly grows on F.. variegata in Malaya and is equally at home in cultivation, is split up over the same area into a number of restricted varieties? Still more remarkable is the distribution of the individual species. It must be realised, however, that more intensive collecting will add greatly to our knowledge of the distribution of species, for instance in Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, Timor and Flores, but one cannot wholly ignore the evidence of the last hundred years and I would lay stress on the recent work of Mr. Carr in Borneo and New Guinea. Mr. Carr had exceptional ability as a collector as I know from our joint expeditions in Malaya and Sumatra. In the neighbourhood of Mt. Kinabalu in Borneo for 7 months, and of Port Moresby and Mt. Victoria in Papua for 18 months, Mr. Carr searched specially for the wild figs and obtained very rich collections as his 4 new species of Synecia from Kinabalu will testify. In Papua, moreover, he purposely had trees felled or climbed every day while he was in the forest so that he could obtain a representative collection of high trees, big climbers and epiphytes which others had been unable to reach. When, therefore, common species are not repre- sented in his collections, one may reasonably conclude that they are absent from the area in which he collected and not that he had overlooked them, especially too, when Synecias fruit at most times of the year and Mr. Carr spent several months on his collecting trips. By far the richest development of Synecia is in Borneo, where 9 species and 3 varieties have been found out of the total of 18 species and 4 varieties. (I have excluded F. Simiae and F. singalana from this discussion because they are doubtful). Six of these species appear endemic on or in the neighbourhood of Mt. Kinabalu, namely F. tawaensis, F. Carri, F. dens-echini, F. barba-jovis, F. tulipifera and F. grandiflora, but our knowledge of the Bornean flora is clearly too meagre for a definite statement and it is likely that more novelties will be discovered. It will be seen from the Table that, so far as is known, the Northern part of Borneo contains different species from the Southern. F. apiocarpa, F. callicarpa (typica and crassinervia) and F. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 93 punctata were absent from both Mr. Carr’s and the Clemens’s collection from Kinabalu as well as from Elmer's in the neighbourhood of Sandakan. Of the species that occur in S. Borneo, F. callicarpa crassinervia and F. apiocarpa occur in Malaya and Sumatra, while F. callicarpa typica and F. punctata are found in Java as well, but none of these reach to the islands north and east of Borneo so that one suspects that they have been distributed over the southern part of the Sunda-shelf. In contrast, F. callicarpa parvifolia and F. callicarpa angusti- folia suggest a northerly distribution. One may say that F. callicarpa typica occupies the inner, southerly and westerly part of the Sunda-shelf and F.. callicarpa parvifolia the outer northerly and easterly part without, apparently ou overlap, unless it is to be discovered in N. Borneo and iam. After Borneo, come next in importance the Philippines with three species, F. Bordeniu, F. cataupi and F. Scratch- - leyana and two varieties of F. callicarpa. The first two Species are apparently endemic, the third is flung out to New Guinea presumably with some unknown connection in Ceram or the Moluccas, if not in Borneo and Celebes. (I am inclined to regard F. Scratchleyana as the eastern counterpart of F. apiocarpa). One finds, that is, the endemism of North Borneo in the adjacent Philippines. The only other endemic Syneecia is F’. trachycoma of Java. After the Philippines come Sumatra and Malaya with a very similar content, as one would expect from their proximity. Malaya has some connection with the Philip- pines and N. Borneo in F. callicarpa angustifolia but Sumatra has none. The affinity of the two countries is mainly with S. Borneo and Java. In Java there are three species, F. callicarpa, F. punctata and F.. trachycoma, the distribution of which lies strictly on the Sunda-shelf. It is strange that F. apiocarpa should be absent, though one cannot doubt the fact because it could not have been overlooked by the early botanists who collected before the lowland forest had disappeared. The remaining countries Formosa, Tennasserim, Siam,. Celebes, Moluccas, Timor and New Guinea contain but one species each, the distribution of which is a natural extension of its range from the centre of Malaysia. Whether a Synecia occurs in Indo-China, I am uncertain because Gagnepain’s description of F. punctata (Fl. Gen. de Indochine, V) suggests something quite different, perhaps Eusyce. The only record of a Synecia from New Guinea is the type of I’. Scratchleyana, presumably from Mount. Scratchley. There can be no doubt that New Guinea, like Vol. X. (1938). 94 Burma, Formosa and Timor, lies at the very limit of distribution of the subgenus. The big collections which have been made this century in Dutch New Guinea have revealed no species nor has the big collection of Mr. C. E. Carr in Papua, through the Ficus-material of which I have purposely looked. As for its altitudinal range, Syneecia belongs pre- eminently to the plains and lower mountain slopes. F’. apiocarpa seems to be the one true lowland species, the others ranging from sea level to 1700 m. One must conclude that Syneecia has evolved in Borneo. Three species which I consider primitive occur there, namely F. apiocarpa, F.. tawaensis and F.. dens-echini while the two others, F’. Bordenu and F. Scratchleyana, occur so near that I expect they will also be found in North Borneo. Indeed, it may well be that every species occurs in Borneo, outside of which Synecia may have no endemism. The most wide spread species is F’. callicarpa which, in apparent contradic- tion to the theory of Age and Area, I hold to be, with F. punctata, the most highly developed, and neither the typical state nor any variety of F. callicarpa shows a distribution covering the whole range of the species. Evidently the parent species has disappeared and there remain only the widening ‘wheels’ of the varieties that it has ‘dropped’. In greater detail one may not argue until more collections come to hand. In climatic respect, it seems that all species belong to the rain-forest rather than the monsoon-forest, though F. callicarpa parvifolia may be a climatic variety in the more seasonal parts of Malaysia. The Identity of F. falcata Thunb. and F. punctata Thunb. When I had discovered the variation of F. callicarpa and the ease with which its bathyphylls might be mistaken for F. punctata, I determined to find out the exact identity of F. falcata and F. punctata. Both species were described from Java where, according to recent collections, both F. punctata and F. callicarpa occur. The solution of the problem is at once evident from the photographs of the type of each species, (Plates 3, 4), because they clearly represent the bathyphylls and the leaves intermediate between the bathyphylls and the acrophylls of the Javanese species which has always been identified as F. punctata. F. falcata represents the bathyphylls and, as it has always been reduced to F. punctata, the name may rest forgotten in synonymy. For these photographs I am greatly indebted to Prof. N. E. Svedelius as well as for his confirmation of the identity of Thunberg’s two species by comparison with specimens typical of F. punctata, F. callicarpa and its Gardens Bulletin, SS. GARDENS BULLETIN, S.S. VOL. X. PLATE 3 Type-specimen of Ficus punctata Thunb., ex herb. Thunb., Uppsala: (photogr. by C. G. Alm, 1937: by courtesy of Prof. N. E. Svedelius, Uppsala). GARDENS BULLETIN, 8.S. VOL. X. PLATE 4 ees nasentne cancer on see ethesntpacnennoommnemernniemnanecmnceounnptenne emis | | Pe ee aE sea ea A gt HHH TEE Type-specimen of Ficus falcata Thunb., ex herb. Thunb., Uppsala: (photogr. by C. G. Alm, 1937, by courtesy of Prof. N. E. Svedelius, Uppsala). 95 varieties, which I sent for the purpose. Prof. Svedelius writes that both Thunberg’s specimens are sterile so that the possibility of Thunberg’s species being my F’.. callicarpa var. angustifolia can be excluded only on the grounds of plant-geography: in the numerous collections of Syncecia from Java this variety of F. callicarpa is not represented. Subgenus SYNCECIA Dioecious root-climbers, commonly with bathyphylls. Leaves rather thick and leathery, tesselate beneath, in many species with hairy stomatal pits. Receptacles large to gigantic, seldom less than 3 cm. wide, with a peduncle, a collar of three basal bracts and no lateral bracts, ripening vivid yellow, pink, orange or red and finally purple-black, in a few species brownish, commonly marbled with paler spots, containing either male and gall- flowers or female and neuter flowers (no neuters in F. apiocarpa). Flowers generally large and long-stalked: perianth of 3-6 separate or more or less gamophyllous, thickly gelatin- ous, wine-red pieces, rarely absent (Ff. punctata-forms) or colourless and membranous (fF. apiocarpa): all kinds of flower distributed throughout the receptacle. Male flowers with a very long white stalk, a gamo- phyllous perianth and a single stamen, overtopping the gall-flowers in the ripe receptacle. Female flowers with a long style, bifid at the apex with a long and short arm. Neuter flowers like sterile male-flowers, overtopping the female flowers in the ripe receptacle (except in F. Carri). Seeds typically ellipsoid, flattened, with a narrow flange all round the body (? except F. Carri) : embryo straight. Burma, Formosa, ? Indo-China, Malay Peninsula and Archipelago. NATURAL CLASSIFICATION OF SYNQCIA | Division 1 Leaves without stomatal pits, scarcely or not asymmetric: bathyphylls absent (except F. tawaensis): receptacles axillary (except F. tawaensis) Group 1 Pathyphyils absent: leaf-blade large, gla- brous: petioles stout: receptacles glabrous, or sparsely hairy, marbled with pale spots, axillary (? in F. Bordenit) A—Lateral veins 3-5 pairs: internal bristles absent or sparse: perianth of thin, irregularly denticulate, not, gela- tinous, white or pale ae segments: neuter flowers absent .. FF. apiocarpa Vol. X. (1938). 96 AA—Lateral veins 6-9 pairs: internal bristles present: perianth of wine-red, entire, rather thick, gelatinous seg- ments: neuter flowers present (? in F. Bordenit) B—Leaf-base shallowly cordate: petiole 1-2 cm. long; male flower 12-17 mm. long, with gamophyllous perianth oe ne ag: BB—Leaf-base not cordate: petiole 2-6 cm. long: male flowers smaller: the perianth of male and neuter flowers with 3 separate pieces Group 2 Bathyphylls present: leaf-blade small (up to 6 < 3 em.), persistently hairy beneath, the base deeply cordate: petiole small: recepta- cles cauliflorous, persistently villous, not marbled + a Division 2 Leaves with stomatal pits, large, symmetric, the base equally cordate: bathyphylls ?: receptacles axillary, glabrous, marbled, broadly umbonate: internal bristles absent: female flowers very large, up to 16 mm. long; female ovary sessile: perianth of neuter-flowers with free or only slightly joined segments Division 3 _ Leaves with stomatal pits, more or less distinctly asymmetric: bathyphylls present: receptacles in most species cauliflorous: internal bristles present: female flowers not above 11 mm. long: perianth of neuter flowers gamophyllous Group 1 Receptacles more or less’ glabrous at maturity, marbled with paler spots or pimples, generally not umbonate in the fresh state (often so when dried) A—Leaf-blade more or less scabrid, with acute or acuminate apex, often almost symmetric: receptacles axillary B—Blade broadly elliptic, up to 6.5 cm. wide: lateral veins 7-10 prs. very slightly raised on the underside of the blade ae 2 BB—Blade narrowly elliptic, up to 3.6 cm. wide: lateral veins 5-7 prs., strongly raised on the underside of the blade ar ae an: AA—Leaves not scabrid: receptacles cauliflorous B—Male and gall-flowers with stout pedicels 1-2 mm. thick: gall-flowers with long pedicels and _ sessile ovaries wholly embraced by the 4—6 stout, often joined, perianth- segments: leaf shortly acuminate, nearly or quite symmetrical BB-—Pedicels of male flowers slender, less than .5 mm. wide: gall-flowers F. Bordenii F. Scratchleyana F. tawaensis F.. dens-echini F. trachycoma F. cataupi F. grandiflora Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 97 sessile or with short pedicels and a more or less stalked ovary, not or scarcely embraced by the perianth- segments C—Perianth-segments of gall- flowers narrowly gamophyllous at the base: leaf-blade small, elliptic-lanceolate with acute apex: lateral veins 8-11 pairs, prominent beneath F. tulipifera CC—Perianth-segments of gall- flowers free: blade very variable, with blunt or subacute apex and _ generally fewer lateral veins 5% .. F. callicarpa Group 2 Receptacles persistently and densely villous, generally umbonate in the fresh state, not marbled A—Leaves very large and coriaceous, the blade about 17 * 7 cm., strongly acuminate, slightly inequilateral: lateral veins 7-10 pairs, very prominent beneath: petiole large, 3-4 cm. long: orifice of the receptacle deeply sunken: flowers very large: neuter flowers variable in length F. Carri AA—Leaves much smaller, the blade less than. 10° > em:\long, not acuminate, distinctly inequilateral: petiole small, less. than-. 1. em. .long:— orifice of receptacle not or scarcely sunken: flowers not so large: neuter flowers of fairly constant length B—Leaf-blade scabrid, strongly asymmetric with acute apex and very unequal base, cordate-auricled on one side, with glabrous stomatal pits: lateral veins 6-9 pairs, prominent and_ broad beneath: orifice of receptacle incompletely closed by the apical scales . F. barba-jovis BB—Blade smooth, not so strongly asymmetric, blunt, not auricled, with hairy stomatal pits: lateral veins 38-5 pairs, scarcely prominent fine: orifice of receptacles slightly sunken, effectively closed by the apical scales .. F’. punctata KEY TO THE SPECIES OF SYNCECIA Leaves simply tesselate beneath, without stomatal pits Blade rather small, up to 6 «K 3 cm., per- sistently hairy beneath, deeply cordate: petiole short, slender . F. tawaensis Not so: blade medium to large, glabrous: petiole stout Blade with 3-5 pairs of lateral veins, the lateral basal veins reaching 4-3 the length of the blade Hs .. FF, apiocarpa Vol Xi-(1938 ) D 98 Blade with 6-9 pairs of lateral veins Leaf-base shallowly cordate: petiole 1-2 cm. long Leaf-base not cordate: petiole 2-6 em. long Leaves tesselate on the underside with stomatal pits Leaf-base more or less cordate, symmetric: ‘stomatal pits very minute: petiole 4-10 cm. long: blade not scabrid Leaf-base cuneate or very asymmetrically cordate: petiole .5—4.5 cm. Blade distinctly scabrid on the upperside: apex acute Petiole .5-1.5 em. long: blade almost symmetrical, ovate-elliptic: lateral veins rather faint on the underside Petiole .3-1 cm. long: blade more or less asymmetric: lateral veins strong on the underside Base of blade strongly asym- metric, one side cordate-auricled Base of blade slightly asymmetric Blade not scabrid on the upperside Blade acute Petiole 2.5-4.5 cm. long: blade stiffly coriaceous with ceeaiyas veins, 10-20 cm. long ge Petiole less than 2.5 em. long Petiole less than 1 cm. oa blade 1-3 cm. wide Petiole 1-2.5 cm. long: blade 4-7 cm. wide Dried blade with the veins de- pressed.on the upperside Veins slightly raised on the upperside Blade blunt, generally minute retuse, inclining to obovate Blade 6-12 * 47.5 cm., scarcely asymmetric: petiole .5-2 cm. Blade up to 6 * 4 cm., more or less asymmetric and falcate: petiole up to 1 cm. long Veins thick and prominent be- neath, depressed on the upperside a Veins very fine, scarcely pro- minent beneath, not sunk above Blade 1—4 cm. wide, elhptic to obovate; base on ae asymmetric Blade 1-2 cm. wide, narrowly oblong elliptic, base distinctly asym- metric Gardens Bulletin, S.S. F. Bordenii F.. Scratchleyana F. dens-echini F. trachycoma . barba-jovis . cataupi > F. Carri F. tulipifera F. callicarpa multinervia F. grandiflora F. callicarpa F.. callicarpa crassinervia F. callicarpa parvifolia 99 Receptacles glabrous and marbled .. FF. callicarpa angustifolia Receptacles villous, not marbled .. EF. punctata Text-Fig. 1 F. apiocarpa: section through the orifice of the gall-receptacle, « 114. -F. apiocarpa Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. I. 1860-62, p. 440. Text Figs 1-4, 8, 37. A big climber with a rather thin stem (up to 5 cm. thick), reaching 20-40 m. long; the low creeping stems rooting in the ground, without bathyphylls. Stipules, young petioles and receptacles, and the under- side of the main veins of the leaf varying sparsely hairy with short, pale brown, rather stiff, more or less adpressed hairs to softly downy with fairly close, short, white, spreading hairs: mature parts glabrous: in some cases the young parts also glabrous. Leaves laxly spiral or apparently alternate on the hanging shoots: blade 10-34 x 4-13.5 cm., large, ellintic, oblong or ovate, the base varying cuneate to distinctly though shallowly cordate, the apex more or less acuminate with a blunt or subacute tip 5-20 mm. long, nearly or quite symmetric, coriaceous-chartaceous, rather thick, smooth, shining dark green, the underside pale green with a dark green reticulum of venules, drying yellowish to greyish green on the upperside and brown or greyish on the underside: edge entire or slightly sinuate, incurled in dried specimens: primary lateral veins 3-5 (-6) pairs, distinctly inarching near the margin, making an angle of 40-—60° with the midrib, prominent beneath: secondary lateral veins scarcely prominent, irregularly transverse: tertiary veins distinct, not raised, commonly minutely tuberculate and enclosing more or less rectangular brown meshes (in dried specimens): stomatal pits none: basal veins 3(-5) the outer two reaching 4/,-*', the length of the blade and making an angle of 30—40° with the midrib: petiole 1.5— Vol. X: (1938)... 100 7.3 X .3-.4 cm., long, stout, brown, flaky in dried specimens: stipules 6-20 mm. long: leaves on shoots creeping on the ground smaller and more pointed but in no way specialised. Receptacles axillary on the leafy twigs, singly or in pairs, hanging, generally with a very short peduncle, a long neck and an ellipsoid body, with more or less umbonate apex, glabrous or sparsely adpressedly hairy on the peduncle, and round the orifice: apple green becoming orange-scarlet and then purple-black, marbled with small, .5-1.5 mm. wide, innate pale spots, the surface dull and slightly roughened with numerous lenticels, without papille: peduncle 1.5-13 mm. long, 4-5 mm. thick: basal bracts 1-2 mm. long, puberulous: neck 5-80 * 4 mm.: body 44-58 « 29-49 mm: orifice slightly depressed, small: internal bristles absent or scarce and minute. Male flowers 9-17 mm. high, pedicel 5-9 mm. or less, glabrous, white: perianth 3-5 mm. long, composed of four, rarely three, linear, irregularly and finely denticulate, glabrous, membranous segments white or very pale vink with deeper pink edges, joined to form a cup for 14-4 of their length, in some cases becoming irregularly dentate- ramified and anastomosing to form a reticulum with the adjacent flowers: stamens, rarely two, with a slender filament 2.5-5 mm. long and a large anther 2-3 mm. wide. Gall-flowers 3.5-6 mm. high, sessile: perianth composed of four, rarely three or five, linear, flat, glabrous, irregularly and finely denticulate, membranous segments 3.5—6 mm. long, free or slightly joined at the base, coloured as in the male flower and in some cases dentate-anastomosing in the same way, simply attached: ovary 1.5-1.8 mm. wide, sessile or with a short stalk up to 2 mm. long, rather humped: style .5-1 mm. long. Female flowers 4.5-6.5 mm. high, sessile: perianth as in the gall-flowers, the segments 3—4.5 mm. long: ovary sessile to long-stalked: style up to 4 mm. long, shortly bifid, glabrous: seed 2.2-2.8 mm. long, yellowish, as in F. punctata. Neuter flowers absent. Habitat: in lowland swampy forest and by streams and rivers to moderate altitudes. Distribution: Malaya (common), Sumatra, - Borneo (south). Collections :— MALAYA :— PENANG: Curtis 3508. PERAK: Kunstler 4313, 5149, 6592, 10416, Scortechini s.n., Wray 1957, 2102. MaLaccaA: Alvins 199, s.n. Malacca. JONORE: Corner 21186, 31463, Kiah 31957, Lake and Kelsall s.n. 1892, Ridley 1710. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 101 Vol. X. (19388). 102 This species is anomalous in several respects. Whether its features are primitive or have been derived by loss from the typical condition of the subgenus, it is impossible to decide but I am inclined to place it as the most primitive member on account of the lack of bathyphylls and stomatal pits to the leaves, of neuter flowers and of specialised, deeply coloured, gelatinous segments to the perianth as well as the axillary position of the receptacles. The large glabrous leaves with strongly ascending basal veins, the axillary figs with short peduncle and the almost colourless perianth are characteristic. With leaves only, care is needed to distinguish the species from F’. Scratchleyana. It seems not to have been collected in recent years outside Malaya. In some specimens perianth segments remain free but in others they become strongly anastomosed (Text Fig. 2). In these cases, when the flowers are full grown, the teeth of the perianth segments enlarge and apparently engage with those of adjacent segments, becoming stuck together so firmly that the flowers are embedded in a spongy mass ane can be dissected only with the greatest difficulty, if at all. F.. apiocarpa has the same distribution as F’.. callicarpa crassinervia. The absence of both from Java is, I think, certain. F. barba-jovis nov. spec. Text-Figs. 5, 6, 35. F. punctatae affinis: lamina 2-8.5 X 1-8.5 cm., elliptica vel elliptico-lanceolata, valde inaequalis, falcata, basi unilateraliter cordato-auriculata, apice acuta, sub- coriacea, scabrida, subtus plus minus pilosa, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 6-9, subtus valde prominentibus, basalibus 4—5, areolis foveolis glabris profundis praeditis: petiolus 2-4 mm. longus. Receptaculum cauliflorum, ellipsoideum, 4.9 cm. latum, pilis longis (2-3 mm.) brevibusque (.5 mm.) dense et moile albo-villosum, ostiolo profunde perforato. Distr. British North Borneo, ad Koung, pr. Mt. Kinabalu, alt. 500 m. Typus:!—S.F's No: (27305; leo.) C. oi. Carr. -la. ae “scrambling up a rock-cliff’’: spec. typ. in Herb. Sing. Root-climber as F’.. punctata: stem up to 1 cm. thick: twigs slender. Young twigs, petioles and leaf-blades rather sparsely hairy with lax white spreading hairs, 1-1.5 mm. long, the mature parts more or less glabrescent especially the upper- sides of the leaves, the undersides generally rather persistently hairy: stipules finely adpressedly pubescent. Gardens Bulletin, SS. 104 Text-Fig. 4 F. apiocarpa: mature gall- and male flowers dissected, < 10. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 105 Leaves alternate: lamina 2-8.5 1-3.5 em., elliptic or elliptic lanceolate, strongly asymmetric, falcate, tayered gradually to the narrow, sharp apex (not acuminate nor retuse), subcoriaceous, scabrid especially on the upperside from the persistent and swollen bases of the hairs, drying greyish greenish or pale greyish brownish on the upperside, light fawn-brown on the underside, the midrib and main veins very faint on the upperside, in some cases slightly raised, in others shghtly depressed: edge slightly incurved or plane in dried leaves, minutely denticulate especially towards the apex: primary lateral veins 6-9 pairs, arising at a wide angle of 70-—80° from the midrib, inarching to form a conspicuous marginal vein 1-1.5 mm. from the edge, drying light brown and distinctly raised on the underside: secondary and tertiary veins scarcely raised, distinct, reticulate, with deep, glabrous pits in the meshes: base very unequal, strongly cordate-auricled on one side, the auricle as long as or longer than the petiole and often slightly - overlapping the stem, cuneate or narrowly subcordate on the other side, with 4—5 basal veins: petiole 2-4 mm. long, 1 mm. wide, short, slender, becoming brown-scurfy in dried specimens: stipules 4-10 mm. long, lanceolate. Receptacles solitary on short, woody bracteate tubercles on the stem, greyish green when young becoming bright rose-pink (? colour when ripe), wholly villous: peduncle 5 mm. long and wide, thick, densely hairy as the body: basal bracts 3, 5-6 mm. long, lanceolate triangular, acute, shortly and closely adpressedly hairy on the outside, closely adpressed to the body: body up to 7.2 * 4.9 em., ellipsoid, rather narrowly barrel-shaped, slightly contracted near the apex but not truly umbonate, sessile on the peduncle without any neck, wholly thickly and softly white hairy with long, looser hairs (2-3 mm. long) arising from a dense pile of short hairs ca. .5 mm. long: orifice 3 mm. wide, flush with the surface, with three shortly villous marginal apical scales and incompletely closed by the internal scales leaving a small central hole: internal bristles not numerous, ca. .5 mm. long. Male flowers with a wine-red subgelatinous perianth, gamophyllous for 4-2 its length, with three hooded lobes: stamen 1. Gall-flowers sessile: perianth of 3—4 free, simple, entire, firmly gelatinous, wine-red segments, simply attached: stigma discoid, serrate. I describe this species from dried twigs with small receptacles and from one large receptacle in spirit. In this specimen the flowers are still minute, though the gall-flowers are at their receptive stage. The structure of the flowers can readily be made out but I have not considered it worth Vol. X. (1938). 106 while to give any measurements. To what size the recep- tacles may reach, I do not know nor can I decide whether the leaves are bathyphylls or acrophylls. Nevertheless there can be no hesitation in naming such a striking species. It is distinguished by the large, thickly and softly villous, or lanuginous, receptacles with deeply perforate orifice and the small very asymmetric, scabrid leaves with semi-auricled base and very prominent main veins on the underside. The basal bracts of the receptacle also are longer than in any other species. The stomatal pits are not hairy but that may be because the leaves may be bathyphylls. The absence of a neck to the receptacle is, perhaps, specific but this feature is very variable in other species and the material is insufficient to decide. The two kinds of hair, long and short, on the receptacle also seem distinctive. ak ty ~~ Z Gy NERY LE Gp Xp ~ & \ N zi iG eo, RS S! 2. es = S Z 7 —S RS Ge Ze S ey Gre = Sy ‘he, e = Y ‘G, 4 a: Z a Text-Fig. 5 F. barba-jovis: section through a young gall-receptacle, < 2, the orifice < 3. ART 2 x 2h sce, > Cy Text-Fig. 6 F. barba-jovis: young gall-flowers (at the receptive stage) and immature male flowers in situ: perianth-segmients of gall-flowers in black: KR FO: Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 107 The species is undoubtedly near F’. punctata. Its leaves, however, are extraordinarily like those of F. cataupi. F. Bordenii Merrill Govt. Lab. Publ. Philip. 29, 1905, p. 11. Text-Figs. 7, 36. A root-climber like F. apiocarpa with rather thick twigs drying light brown. Stipules, young twigs, petioles and undersides of the leaves finely adpressedly hairy, becoming more or less glabrous: the underside of the midrib and main-veins with a few longer bristle-like hairs: upperside of the leaves subscabrid with small stiff hairs or their persistent bases, weathering smooth. Leaf-blade 7.5-14 * 3-6 cm., narrowly ovate, sym- metrical, tapered gradually to the shortly subacuminate, subacute apex, not retuse, the base distinctly but shallowly cordate, in some cases simply rounded, symmetrical sub- coriaceous, dark green on the upperside, tesselate beneath, the edge entire or slightly uneven, drying light greyish greenish on the upperside with the veins showing as fine slightly raised lines, rather silvery brownish on the lowerside with small brown spots in the reticulations: primary lateral veins 6-9 pairs, arising at a rather acute angle, ca. 50°, inarching near the margin but without a distinct marginal vein, narrow and distinctly raised on the underside in dried leaves;: secondary veins subparallel but reticulate along the mid-line between the primary laterals, very slightly raised as fine lines on the underside of the dried leaf: tertiary veins reticulate, distinct but not raised, without stomatal pits in the areole though with brown spots: basal veins five: petiole 1-2 cm. X 2 mm., becoming brown scurfy or flaky: stipules 5-15 mm. long, lanceolate. Receptacles (? position) finely and rather sparsely adpressedly puberulous, brown: peduncle 1-1.5 * .25 em., adpressedly puberulous: basal bracts 3, 3-5 mm. long, lanceolate, rather spreading in the dried specimen, slightly puberulous: body apparently globose, 5—6 cm. wide without a neck: orifice 4 mm. wide, slightly projecting in the dried specimen and with numerous internal bracts projecting ca. 5 mm.: internal bristles abundant but short and inconspi- cuous. Male flowers 12-17 mm. long overall, often with a linear wine-red bracteole (like a perianth-segment of the gall-flower) attached near the base of the stalk or half-way up: perianth 1.5-1.8 mm. long, wine-red, gamophyllous with three, occasionally two, apical lobes: stamen 4—5 mm. long overall: anther 1.5 mm. long. Vol. X. (1938). 108 Gall-flowers 3.5-9 mm. long overall, sessile or with a short stalk up to 1 mm. long: perianth of 3—4 linear-!anceo- late, entire, subgelatinous, wine-red segments 2-3.7 mm. long, occasionally two segments joined at the base, generally simply attached, in some cases peltate: ovary sessile or with a stalk up to 5.5 mm. long, the ovary itself 1.5-1.8 mm. wide: style .7-1 mm. long with a serrulate stigma. Female and neuter flowers and seeds unknown. Distr. Philippines. Collections :—Philipp. For. Bur. 1211, leg. T.E. Borden, Lamao R., Luzon, ca. 650 m., June 1904, hiil-forests (Type). This species is known only from the type-collection. It is close to F. dens-echini which has larger, acuminate leaves with fewer veins rising at a much wider angle, stomatal pits and longer petioles. The receptacles seem also to differ in shape and structure of the orifice. —e aly Text-Fig. 7 F. Bordenii: mature gall- and male flowers from the type-collection: X 10. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 109 F. Bordenti is one of the simpler members of the subgenus. F. callicarpa Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. III, 1867, p. 268, 289, t. 10 Ang. A, B. Text. Figs. 8-11, 30, 31. Young shoots hairy with rather long white hairs, especially on the twigs and petioles and these with rather stiff adpressed hairs: the undersides of the leaves sparsely hairy: the uppersides nearly glabrous from the first: all parts soon glabrescent, except the persistently hairy peduncle, and edges of stipules and bracts. Leaves alternate: blade 4.5-12 * 3-7.6 cm., generally large, elliptic to subobovate, gradually narrowed to apex and base, broadest about the middle, or above or below, slightly inaequilateral, inclining to subrhomboidal, coria- ceous, glabrous, often slightly scabrid beneath, when fresh ~ rather yellowish green above and shiny, white-tesselate beneath, with minute hairy pits, drying greyish or yellowish green above and greyish brownish beneath: edges entire, distinctly incurved in dried specimens: apex obtuse or subacute, rarely subacuminate, often minutely retuse; primary lateral veins 3-6 pairs, slightly raised on both sides cf the dried leaf: secondary lateral veins faint, irregularly reticulate, the areolae on the underside containing white hairy pits: base rather strongly narrowed, rounded cuneate or minutely and narrowly cordate, equal or slightly cordate on one side, with three basal veins. Petiole 5-20 X 1.5-2 mm, becoming brown flaky. Stipules 5-13 mm. long, lanceolate acute, soon glabrous except for the ciliolate edges, generally caducous. Bathyphylls: blade 1.5-5 X .2-1.2 cm, as the foliage leaves but narrower, more asymmetric, and _ thinner, generally strongly inaequilateral with the narrow side of the blade disposed acropetally, more or less falcate, the base often slightly cordate-auricled on one side: primary lateral veins 4-7 prs.: petiole 2-6 mm. long. Receptacles borne as in F’. punctata on woody tubercles up to 10 X 1 cm.; massive, short or long stalked, obpyriform, ellipsoid or pyriform, smooth, not umbonate or warted; puberulous round the orifice and very minutely scurfy with brown dots, in some cases finely and sparsely puberulous, becoming glabrous, ripening brilliant orange to carrot-red and finally black, always marbled with paler elliptic trans- verse spots, some large 1-3 mm. long, and many smaller ones between the larger: peduncle .2-2 cm. long X .3—4 cm. at the base and 4—7 mm. at the apex, slightly thickened Vol. X. (1938). 110 distally, usually with a small tumid band at the collar, for a long time puberulous with minute white adpressed bristly hairs, eventually dull orange: basal bracts 3-5 mm. long This variety is remarkable because it connects F’. calicarpa with F’. punctata and indeed it might well be made a glabrous variety of F. punctata because it differs from this species solely in its glabrous figs. It has small oblong subfaleate leaves with asymmetric base which are typical of F’. punctata, though they are often a little larger and in the surface-structure of the fig it seems to be closer to F. Vol. X. (1938). 122 punctata than F. callicarpa despite the lack of hairs. It might even be made a new species on account of the very large, glabrous, papillate gall-figs. with their deeply sunken orifice and sombre colouring, but the seed-figs have the normal size, bright colour and pale innate or scarcely prominent spots typical of F. callicarpa. Moreover, the Trengganu-coliection 8.F. No. 33489, with leaves typical of F. callicarpa, has gall-figs similar in size and colour to those of F. callicarpa angustifolia. It is such cross-connection which makes the classification of the species into subdivi- sions so difficult, if not impossible, with our present imperfect knowledge. The variety angustifolia may well be a self-perpetuating hybrid between F’.. callicarpa parvifolia and F’. punctata. Between the gall- and seed-figs of this variety there is a distinct dimorphism both in size and colour, the gall-figs being much larger and more sombre, being equalled in size, in fact, only by those of F. tawaensis. I was able recently ) ‘| \ . \ \\\i Mi fe Text-Fig. 13 F. callicarpa var angustifolia: gall- and male flowers, < 10. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 123 to satisfy myself about this point at Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, by means of my collecting monkey Merah (Muacacus nemestrina). The variety is common in the hill-forest about 4,000 ft. and my monkey enjoyed itself by throwing down abundant figs from fourteen plants which we found fertile, five being gall-plants and the rest seed-plants. As I have remarked in the introduction, I believe such dimorphism is general in Synecia though in few other cases so pronounced. A, Carri nov. spec. Text-Figs. 14, 15, 16, 36. Lamina 10.5-21 X 4.8-9 em., elliptica, elliptico-lanceo- lata vel ovato-lanceolata, sepe paullum inequilateralis et subfalcata, coriacissima, margine valde incurvata, apice acuminato triangulo .8-1.6 cm. longo, basi plus minus attenuata, costa subtus valde prominenti, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 6-10, subtus valde prominentibus, basalibus 3-6, —areolis piloso-foveolatis: petiolus 2.5-4.5 cm. longus. Receptaculum cauliflorum, vel axillare, ellipsoideum, 4—5 cm. crassum, albo-villosum pilis subrigidis .5-1.5 mm. longis, ostiolo immerso: flores magni, masculi 18-22 mm. longi, cecidiophori usque 13 mm. longi, feminei usque 11.5 mm. longi, neutri variabiles 4.2-9 mm. longi, cecidiophori et feminei sessiles sed ovario stipitato: flores feminei stigmatibus indivisis vel 2-3 fissis, variabiles. rege British North Borneo, Mt. Kinabalu, 1200-1700 m. alt. Typus: Sing. F. No. 27839, leg. C. E. Carr, Bundu Tuhan, 1500 m., 21.7.33, (gall): spec. typ. in Herb. Sing. Paratypus: §S.F. No. 26699, Menetendok-Kinataki divide, 1200 m., leg. C.E.Carr, 22.3.383 (female): J. and M. S. Clemens 29666, Tenompok, 1700 m., 10.5.32 (gall), quoad spec. in Herb. Sing. Large root-climber with greyish white woody stems up to 2 cm. thick, with small slightly transverse pustulate lenticels: leafy twigs rather lax, stout. Mature vegetative shoots mostly glabrous: stipules and twigs finely adpressedly puberulous, the twigs soon glabrous: the underside of the lamina sparsely hairy with lax flexuous erect white hairs 1-2 mm. long: the petiole and upperside of the leaf glabrous: peduncles and receptacles thickly velvety with rather stiff white hairs .5-1.5 mm. long. Leaves alternate: lamina 10.5-21 x 4.8-9 cm., large, narrowly elliptic to elliptic lanceolate or ovate lanceolate, generally slightly inequilateral and curved, thick, very coriaceous, in the living state dark olive green above, pale green beneath with darker reticulation, drying fawn-brown or brownish buff on both sides with the veins darker brown Vol, X.-(1938). 124 beneath, the veins strongly raised beneath, sunk in fine grooves on the upperside: edge strongly incurved (in dried leaves), generally minutely denticulate towards the apex or faintly serrulate, in some cases almost entire: apex generally rather suddenly contracted and acuminate with a subacute, stout, triangular tip .8-1.6 cm. long, not retuse: base of lamina gradually or rather suddenly narrowed, in a few cases equal and cuneate, generally distinctly but slightly inequilateral and narrowly subcordate on one side, not auricled (in one leaf broadly truncate-subcordate and slightly inequilateral) : midrib very stout and strong right to the tip on the underside: primary lateral veins 6-10 pairs, arising at an angle of 65-80° from the midrib, incurving near the margin and connected by a strong arching marginal vein looping at 1.5-2 mm. from the edge, on the underside finely longitudinally rugulose as the midrib: secondary veins as fine grooves on the upperside, distinctly raised on the lowerside, reticulate: tertiary veins mostly as fine grooves on the upperside, scarcely raised on the underside, rather broad, reticulate with rather large hairy pits in the meshes, in many cases the reticulations finely brown-dotted: basal veins 3-6, variable: petiole 2.5-4.8 cm. long, .25—.35 cm. wide, stout, finely brown-scurfy flaky then glabrous, finely rugulose, blackish brown (dried): stipules 8-15 mm. long, lanceolate. Bathyphylls? Receptacles on short woody bracteate tubercles or in the axils of the leaves, singly or in pairs: peduncle 2-3 mm. long, 5.5 mm. wide, short stout, hairy as the body: basal bracts 3, 3-4 mm. long, triangular, subacute with broad slightly overlapping bases, finely adpressedly pubescent, spreading in the dried specimens but evidently adpressed in the living (i.e. ale. spec.): body up to 7.5 X 5 cm., ellipsoid, barrel-shaped, not umbonate, with a distinct neck 10-14 * 5 mm., wholly white villous with very crowded rather stiff white hairs up to 1.5 mm. long, green turning olive-brown then brownish purple and white hatry: orifice 2-3 mm. wide, deeply sunken to 4 mm. at the bottom of a narrow pit opening by 5 grooves at the surface, apical bracts invisible from above: internal bristles rather scarce, up to 1 mm. long. Male flowers 18-22 mm. long (when straightened), very long: pedicel flexuous, often much curved, white: perianth 1.6-2 mm. long, wine-red, subgelatinous, gamophyl- lous for a half to two thirds of its length, with subacute lobes: stamen 1, 5-6 mm. long, the anther 1.5 mm. long. Gall-flowers 3.5-13 mm. long, sessile: perianth of 3-5 segments, mostly 3-4, wine-red, subgelatinous, entire, free or generally 2-3 joined at the base, occasionally joined for Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 125 some distance so as to appear as a single 2—8-fid segment, not forming a gamophyllous cup: ovary sessile or with a stalk up to 9.5 mm. long, glabrous: style 1 mm. long with a serrulate stigma. Female flowers 6-11.5 mm. long, sessile: perianth of 3-4 segments, 1.5-2.3 mm. long, as in the gall-flowers but free, simply attached: ovary with a short or long stalk, 1-7 mm. long,: style 2.5-3.8 mm. long, generally with 2 arms, one long up to 1.2 mm. long, the other shorter, mostly much shorter and in many cases reduced to a tooth or even absent especially from the shorter flowers, in some cases the arms subequal, in a few cases with a short third arm. Neuter flowers 4.2-9 mm. long, stalked, abundant, scattered among the female flowers, very variable in height: perianth 2 mm. long, as in the male flowers. Seeds 2 mm. long, 1.2-1.4 mm. wide, pale brownish, smooth, ovoid slightly flattened, without a flange (but ? if normal: all the seeds empty though apparently normally — developed). N Ss ? Text-Fig. 14 F. Carri: section through a seed-recep- tacle;. x 2. _ The large stiff leaves with prominent veins and the white-hairy figs render this one of the most striking species of Syneecia that has been discovered. It is easily distin- guished by the large acuminate leaves drying fawn-brown, the coarse venation, the wholly villous receptacle with sunken orifice, the very long male and gall-flowers, the neuter flowers of variable length (some much shorter than the female, others nearly as long) and the variability of the female stigma. If the seeds are without flanges, as I have described, they are also distinctive but I am not certain that they may not have been abnormal because all were empty. Strangely, too, all the gall-flowers were empty, though the stamens were clearly full-grown and both seed- and gall-figs were mature with softened wall. It seems that the Vol. X.(1938). 126 receptacles develop fully even though unvisited by the wasps. The leaves of F. callicarpa multinervia approach those of F. Carri but are neither so large nor so coarsely veined. \ Wh YN Ki i Text-Fig. 15 F. Carri: mature gall- and male flowers from the type-collection, x 10. Gardens Bulletin, S'S. 127 | Text-Fig. 16 F. Carri: mature female and neuter flowers, with variously shaped stigmata, x 10. Ficus cataupi Elmer Leaflets Philip. Botany IV, 1911, p. 1251. Text. Figs. 17, 35. A lofty climber (evidently with the habit of F. punctata) : branches ashy grey, mottled, crookedly branch- ing and form a more or less interlaced mass along the upperside of large limbs of the support: twigs rather slender. Stipules, young twigs, petioles and leaves finely adpressedly pubescent, becoming glabrous, the mature leaves often slightly hairy on the underside of the veins and the tesselate pits bordered with a sparse fringe of hairs. Leaves alternate: blade 3.7-8 xX 1.5-3.6 cm, rather narrowly elliptic to elliptic lanceolate, equilateral or slightly Vol. X. (1938). 128 asymmetric and then generally slightly curved basiscopi- cally, broadest at the middle, gradually tapered to the subacute, occasionally subacuminate, not retuse, apex recurved in the living state, rigidly chartaceous, drying coriaceous and brittle, slightly scabrid on the upperside, pale or yellowish green, tesselately marked beneath with small deep, sparsely hairy pits the mouths fringed with short sparse stiff white hairs, drying dull greyish greenish or pale greyish brownish with the midrib and main veins as fine, slightly sunken lines, the venules often showing as a fine sunken reticulum, on the underside drying greyish greenish or brownish, finely brown-dotted, with the midrib and main veins prominent and raised: edge of blade entire, distinctly incurved: primary lateral veins 5-7 prs. arising at angle of 60—70° from midrib, inarching near the margin with conspicuous loops, strongly raised on the underside of dried leaves: secondary lateral veins, from midrib, in some cases nearly as strong as the primaries: secondary and tertiary veins faint, reticulate, not raised beneath, enclosing the pits: base equal and cuneate (though the extreme base minutely cordate) or slightly asymmetric with a rounded subcordate, basiscopic side not auricled and not conspicuous, with 3 basal veins: petioles 3-9 mm. X 1 mm., becoming brown scurfy—flaky: stipules 4-8 mm. long, lanceolate. Receptacles (copied from Elmer), singly in the leaf axils, puberulous when young, becoming glabrous: peduncles very short, thick; basal bracts short, rigid, ( ?caducous) : body up to 5 X 3 cm. ellipsoid, smooth, blotched with brown, apparently purplish when ripe: “umbilicus nipple-shaped, the opening small and circular” (Elmer): internal bristles minute, sparse. Male flowers 7-9 mm. high overall: perianth 1.5-1.8 mm. long, gamophyllous to the middle, with 3, rarely 2, subacute segments, wine red, subgelatinous: stamen one, 3.5-4 mm. overall: anther (dehisced) 1.5 mm. long. Gall flowers 3-6 mm. long overall, sessile or with a very short stalk: perianth of 3-4 linear entire, wine-red, subgelatinous firm pieces simply attached or subpeltate, 1.5-2.5 mm. long: ovary sessile or with a stalk up to 3 mm. long: ovary ca. 2 mm. wide: style .5-.9 mm. long: stigma denticulate. Collections :— Elmer 11822: Todayo (Mt. Apo), Davao, Mindanao, P.I. Sept. 1909: 4,500 ft.: in dense humid rigid forest, (Type Collection) . Elmer 14211: Cabadbaran (Mt. Urdaneta), Agusan, Mindanao Oct. 1912. (Duplicates in Herb. Bot. Bog. also examined, at the same time). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 129 Female and neuter flowers of this species are not known and it seems that there is much to be learnt still about the receptacles, whether for instance they are always in the leaf-axils. i ‘ Text-Fig. 17 F. cataupi: mature gall- and male flowers, with two immature gall-flowers, from the type-collection: x 10. EN ES } RSS “yy, ~ Text-Fig. 18 F. dens-echini: section through the orifice of a seed-receptacle of the type-collection, x 2: the orifice < 3. Vol. X. (1938). E 130 I do not agree with Elmer’s description of the flowers: the male fiowers are not subtended by bracts; the gall- flowers have the typical Synecia-perianth; and there is no tube encircling the stalk of the gall-flower. Nor can I agree with that author that the species is allied to F. apiocarpa, except remotely. It has slender twigs, the habit of F. callicarpa, small leaves with stomatal pits, short petioles and a different perianth so that it is clearly related to F. callicarpa and I expect that it has bathyphylls and marbled receptacles. F’. catauwpi is, indeed, so close to F. callicarpa crassinervia that the only distinguishing features that I can find in the former are the tapered acute, not retuse, apex of the leaf, the slightly more numerous side-veins, the slightly scabrid upperside of the blade, the hairiness of the stomatal pits and, perhaps, the axillary position of the receptacles, and the attachment of the sepals. None of these are points of great moment. A long series of specimens is needed before the position of such a species can be estimated. | F. barba-jovis has similar but much more asymmetric, acuminate leaves and different receptacles. Compare also FE. tulipifera and F. trachycoma. F. dens-echini nov. sp. Text-Figs. 18, 19, 36. F. apiocarpae similis: lamina 12-18 X< 7.3-10.5 cm., ovata, medio vel basim versus latissima, equalis, subcoriacea, apice acuminata (5-13 mm. longa), basi late cordata haud profunde, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 4—8 subtus prominen- tibus, costis basalibus 3-5, areolis minute piloso-foveolata: petiolus 4-10 cm. longus. Receptaculum acillare, ellipsoideum, 6 cm. latum, valde umbonatum, glabrum, bractis apicalibus 5 crassis nitidis umbonatis praeditum: setis internis deficientibus: flores feminei usque 16 mm. alti, longe pedicellati, ovario sessili, perianthu segmentis 4—5, raro 6—7, vix incrassatis, pur- pureis: flores neutri perianthii segmentis 4 plus minus hiberis. — Distr. B. N. Borneo, Mt. Kinabalu. Typus:—S.F. No. 26807 (C. E. Carr, 29.3.33). Collections :— Carr 26807, Kinataki R., ca. 1200 m., 29.3.33: seed- figs. Clemens 27199, Dallas, ca. 1000 m., 30.11.31 (leaves only). Clemens 29352, Tenompok, ca, 1600 m., 20.4.32: seed- figs. A large root-climber: stem reaching at least 1 cm. thick: twigs hollow. Gardens Bulletin, SS. 131 Text-Fig. 19 F. dens-echini: mature female and neuter flowers with seeds from the type-collection : kU. Vol. X. (1938). 132 The young parts minutely and sparsely puberulous: mature parts glabrous except the stomatal pits. Leaf-blade 12-18 7.3-10.5 cm., ovate, broadest at or below the middle, symmetrical, shortly and rather abruptly acuminate, with a subacute tip 5-13 mm. long, the base shallowly and broadly cordate, symmetrical, edge entire and somewhat incurved, ‘fleshy’ (Carr’s field-note), drying pale fawn or greyish on the upperside deeper fawn brown beneath with the main veins showing as fine slightly raised lines on the upper surface: primary lateral veins 4-8 pairs, arising at an angle of 70-90° from the midrib, distinctly arching at the margin, prominent beneath in the dried leaf, faint above: secondary veins reticulate: tertiary veins enclosing square or oblong areolae tesselate with minute hairy stomatal pits, finely tuberculate along the veinlets in the dried leaf: basal veins 3-5, the main lateral ones making an angle of 60—70° with the median: petiole 4-10 cm. long, 2.5-4 mm. wide, becoming brown scurfy: stipules 15-45 mm. long, broadly lanceolate. Bathyphylls? Receptacles axillary or on rudimentary leafless twigs on the old stems, singly or in pairs, ripening dark brown with paler speckling: peduncles 2-5 mm. long, 7-11 mm. wide, very short and thick: basal bracts 3, 3-4 mm. long, broad, obtuse, membranous, glabrous: neck 2.5-3.5 X .6—-.8 cm. pronounced: body 7 X 6 ecm., ellipsoid, not pyriform, with a broad apical umbo 2.5 cm. wide and .6 cm. high: orifice 6-7 mm. wide, scarcely prominent, not sunken, entirely closed by 5 large, thick, shining, umbonate, apical bracts: internal bristles absent. Female flowers 6.5-16 mm. long overall, tall, sessile or stalked: pedicel slender, glabrous, up to 9 mm. long: perianth of 4—5, rarely 6 or 7, lanceolate, subacute or acute, thin, flat or slightly fleshy, entire, wine-red segments 2—4 mm. long, free or occasionally 2-3 joined near the base or to the middle, simply attached: ovary sessile or subsessile: style 3-3.5 mm. long. Seed 2.3-2.8 mm. long, < 1.3-1.6 mm. wide, 1 mm. thick. Neuter flowers 8-16 mm. high: pedicel slender: perianth 2.5 mm. long with 4, rarely 3, entire, wine-red, slightly hooded segments free or narrowly joined at the base: a few with an abortive rudimentary pistil: mostly empty. Gall- and male flowers unknown. Unless one examines this species carefully it will be mistaken for F. apiocarpa, F. Bordeni, or F. Scratchleyana. From all it differs in possessing minute stomatal pits, Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 133 distinctly and broadly cordate leaves with long stalks, a sessile ovary in the very large female flowers and five big umbonate bracts round the orifice of the fig. From this feature, which suggests ‘‘Aristotle’s Lantern” in oral view, I give the specific epithet. The leaves resemble in an extraordinary degree those of some climbing species of Eusyce collected by Mr. Carr in Papua. The brown colour of the ripe figs recalls F. Borden. At maturity the pedicels and ovary-walls become glued together so that the flowers are difficult or impossible to separate, but the perianth- segments remain free and entire; they are never reticulate- dentate as in F’. apiocarpa. The receptacle which Mr. Carr preserved in spirit has an uneven and strongly rugose surface but whether naturally so when fresh or because it was partly dried or has shrunk in spirit, I do not know. The sheet of Clemens 27199 in the Singapore Herbarium has the leaves of F. dens-echini and a part of a receptacle which probably belongs to F’. callicarpa parvifolia. ‘F. grandiflora nov. sp. Text-Figs. 20, 21. F. callicarpae affinis: lamina 10-16.5 X< 4.2-7 cm., elliptica, saepe anguste, utrinque attenuata, apice acuta, subcoriacea, aequalis vel vix falcata, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 6-9, vix prominentibus, basalibus 3, areolis piloso-foveolatis: petiolus 12-20 mm. longus. Receptaculum ut in F’. callicarpa, 6—7 cm. latum: flores magni, pedicellis crassis: flores masculi 20-25 mm. longi, pedicello 1 mm. crasso: flores cecidiophori 6-17 mm. longi, pedicello 1-2 mm. crasso, perianthiit segmentis 4—6, pierum- que 5, simpliciter adnexis, crassis, gelatinosis, purpureis liberis vel plerumque 2-3 connexis vel omnino breviter connexis ovario sessili amplectantibus. Distr. Brit. N. Borneo, Mt. Kinabalu. Typus. Clemens 30290, Dallas, ca. 1000 m., 2.12.31 (specimen in Herb. Hort. Sing.). Paratypus. Clemens 27139, ibid., 1.11.81 (leaves only: receptacles of another species). Apparently with the habit of F. callicarpa. Wholly glabrous except for the hairy stomatal pits on the underside of the leaf and the internal bristles of the receptacle. Bathyphylls? Leaf-blade 10-16.5 < 4.2—7 em., elliptic, often narrowly, tapered gradually to each end, equilateral or slightly curved and asymmetric, the apex subacuminate, the base narrowly cuneate, edges entire but incurled when dried, thinly coriacous, densely and rather coarsely foveolate on the Vol. X. (1938). 134 underside with hairy stomatal pits, drying greenish brownish to fawn-brown on both sides, not scabrid; primary lateral veins 6-9 pairs, making an angle of ca. 65° with the midrib, inarching near the margin, as fine raised lines on the upperside of the dried leaf, more distinctly raised beneath but not prominent: secondary and tertiary veins distinct but not raised: basal veins 3: petiole 12-20 * 1.5-2 mm., becoming brown flaky: stipules 10-17 mm. long. Receptacles evidently as in F. callicarpa, large glabrous, red and marbled, arising from the creeping main stems, 6—7 mm. wide. Male flowers 20-25 mm. long overall, very numerous, with very stout flexuous white stalks 1 mm. thick: perianth o—4 mm. long, wine-red, with 3-4, rarely 2, lanceolate lobes united for 1/3—-14 their length: stamen 3.5-4.5 mm. long overall, the anther 2.5 mm. long, not exsert (but ? full-grown). Gall-flowers 6-17 mm. long overall, crowded among the male flowers, many undeveloped, with very stout, flexuous, white stalks 2-3 mm. long, 1-2 mm. thick: perianth composed of 4—6, mostly 5, lanceolate, thick, stout, gelatin- ous, wine-red segments 2-4 mm. long, free or commonly 2-3 united for 14-2/3 their length, or all united for 14 their length into a shallow gamophyllous cup: ovary sessile, 2-2.5 mm. wide, clasped by the coarse sepals, the style tiny, .6—.8 mm. long. This species is distinguished from all others in the subgenus by its very large, stoutly stalked flowers, its coarse perianth-segments that are rather more numerous than usual and by the sessile ovary of the gall-flower. The other species of Syneecia have filamentous pedicels .2—.6 mm. wide (1-2 mm. wide in F. grandiflora) and the ovary in their gall-flowers is commonly stalked so as to raise it above the level of attachment of the perianth. The flowers of F.. grandiflora must be well-nigh the biggest in the genus. F.. dens-echini approaches F. grandiflora in the sessile ovary of its female flowers and I think that the two may be allied. F. tulipifera also has rather coarse sepals and clumsy flowers but it has much smaller figs, flowers and leaves and its gall-flowers are sessile with a stalked ovary. In leaf F. grandiflora resembles F. callicarpa multi- nervia but the veins are not impressed above nor are they so strong beneath. The collection Clemens 27139 is mixed, at least the sheet in the Singapore herbarium, for it bears the leafy twig of F. grandiflora and both a gall- and a seed-fig (!) of what is probably F. callicarpa parvifolia. Hence my limitation of the type-collection to the specimen which I have seen at Singapore. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 135 Text-Fig. 20 F. grandiflora: mature male flowers and (bottom left) 2 undeveloped gall-flowers with a perianth cut-open, from the type-collection: < 10. Vol, X. (1938). 156 ; I A Text-Fig. 21 F. grandiflora: mature gall-fiowers from the type-collection: xX 10. MA it A Gardens Bulletin, SS. 137 Ficus punctata Thunb. Text Figs. 8, 22—25, 33. Stipules, twigs and petioles finely adpressedly hairy, the twigs and petioles slowly glabrescent: occasionally with the hairs rather spreading, receptacles closely velvety-hairy. Bamina 1.54.7: ©... Male flowers re mm. overall (evidently mature, havi ing dehisced anthers) : pedicel 3-5 mm. long: perianth 2.5-3.5 mm. long, composed of 3 rather broad, separate, wine-red segments with down-curved, hooded tips in the bud, occasionally 2 segments joined to the middle: stamen 3-3.5 mm. long: anther scarcely exsert. Gall-flowers 3-6 mm. high overall, sessile or very shortly stalked.: perianth of 3-4 segments, 3—7 mm. long, free, rare! y 2 joined, linear, entire, subgelatinous, simply attached, wine-red: ovary sessile or with a stalk up to 2 mm. long: style .5-.8 mm. long, with denticulate stigma. [Fertile female flowers pedicellate; the perianth of 4 linear pieces; ovary ovoid-elliptic; the style lateral: stigma large, bicrural when young, truncate when adult from the absorption of the arms. Neuter flowers mixed with cud females all over the receptacle, pedicellate; the cee of 4 lanceolate pieces. (ex King).| . Vol. X. (1938). 144 Distr. Philippines, New Guinea. Collections :— PHILIPPINES :— Elmer 7445 (Lucban, Luzon): 10232 (Island of Negros) : 16116 (Sorsogon, Luzon) : 22156 (Mt. Pinatubo, Luzon). Ramos 22200 (Mt. Iriga, Camarines): 23331 (Sorsogon, Luzon). Mabesa 28055 (Batangas, Luzon). Villamil 21382 (Mt. Maquiling, Luzon). NEW GUINEA: H. O. Forbes 900 (Type, not seen). Text-Fig. 26 F. Scratchleyana: mature gall- and male flowers (Philippine specimens): X 10. The Philippine collections on which I have based this description (with the exception of the female and neuter flowers which have been taken from King) have been referred to F. apiocarpa. There is yet no _ evidence, however, that F. apiocarpa occurs in the Philippines, Elmer had, indeed, proposed the manuscript name F’. peninsula for these specimens. My reasons for identifying them with F. Scratchleyana are as follows. The type of F. Scratchleyana (Forbes, New Guinea) is in the British Museum. (It is doubtful if any duplicate exists, for there is none at Kew nor at Calcutta). Mr. C. E. C. Fischer kindly examined the type for me and reported that there were no hairy stomatal pits on the underside of the leaves. Reconsidering King’s description in the light of this fact, I find that it corresponds very closely to these Philippine collections and to F.. Bordenit. That it is not F. Bordeni I am certain from King’s Gardens Bulletin, S.S- 145 description of the petiole as 1-1.5” long (14-34” in F. Bordenti) and the leaf-blade as tapered to the base with 3 basal veins in F’. Scratchleyana. Moreover, King’s descrip- tion and figure apply excellently to the Philippine “F. apiocarpa’. Elmer 16116 might have been the object of King’s figure except that the leaf-tip in the figure is rather short. This, indeed, is the sole discrepancy and I do not see how one can maintain two species on such a triviality. I have purposely based my description of F. Scratch- leyana entirely on the Philippine specimens so that, should they turn out to be another species, I shall have created no confusion except in identity. Seed-figs have not yet been collected in the Philippines. There is no doubt that F. Scratchleyana is closely related to F. apiocarpa but it differs markedly in the venation and the perianth. It seems to be the only species of Syneecia that has reached New Guinea. F. Simiz Winkler Enel, Bot. Jahrb..49, 19173, p. 362. A big climber: stem 6-8 cm. thick. Bathyphylls? Leaf-blade 26 « 13 cm. large, oval, rounded obtuse at base and apex, (symmetrical), coriaceous, glabrous: primary lateral veins 9-10 pairs, prominent on the under- side, scarcely visible above, the basal nerves 3 the areole white-spotted (? with stomatal pits). Receptacles cauliflorous on woody branches 6-10 cm. long: peduncle 2 cm. long (? including the neck) : body ca. 10 X 8 em. with the wall 12-15 mm. thick, yellow or red (? marbled with paler spots), glabrous: orifice slightly sunken: internal bristles present. Male flowers with pedicels 9-10 mm. long and dilated below the tubular, 3—partite perianth (1 mm. long) : stamen with the filament 3—4 mm. long, the anther exsert. Gall flowers ‘sessile or stalked (? ovary stalk), always. shorter than the male; perianth of 2—3—4 free, linear or subulate segments, sometimes 1-2 lobed, ‘“‘fuscous with hyaline margin’. Distr. S.E. Borneo, Hayup. Type. Winkler 2515. This description is taken from Winkler’s. I have little doubt that F. Simiae is another Bornean speciality of Syneecia but it is unwise to regard it as a scientific fact until it has been discovered again. It was described from a stem with receptacles and one fallen leaf, the connection of which with the rest of the plant was not ascertained but merely surmised from its white tesselate lower surface and — from the absence of other species of Ficus in the vicinity. Vol. X. (1938 ). 146 It seems to be a variety of F. callicarpa with big leaves and thus to suggest that the big-leafed ancestor of F. callicarpa also evolved in Borneo, whence the species has spread. Ficus singalana King. Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard. Calc. 2, 1888, p. 70. I think this is my F. callicarpa multinervia. I have seen no specimen of F. singalana, but from King’s descrip- tion-and figure I do not see how to distinguish it specifically from F. callicarpa. King was not aware of the extra- ordinary variability of F. callicarpa and the-manner in which its leaves grade into those of F. punctata:. F. tawensis Merrill Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 15. 1929, p. 48. Text-Figs. 27, 35. A tall, strong root-climber, the main stem up to 15 cm. wide, dull brown (dried), coarsely lenticellate. Twigs, petioles and stipules closely pilose with rather short, subferruginous (dried) hairs, adpressed on the stipules, villous on the other parts, the twigs ultimately glabrous: leaf-blade when young densely villous with whitish hairs, becoming subglabrous on the upperside but scabrid from the persistent, papillate hair-bases, on the lower side persistently hairy especially along the veins. Leaf-blade 2.5-7 X 1.4~-3.3 em., elliptic or narrowly ovate-elliptic, symmetrical with the base broadly cordate and with a rather deep sinus between the lobes, the apex rounded or subacute, not retuse or acuminate, subcoriaceous, the edge entire, dark green above, much paler beneath, drying dull grey or greyish brown on the upperside with the main veins distinct but not raised or sunken and the reticulate veins as very slightly raised, fine lines, on the underside paler greenish grey with the midrib and main veins prominent and raised: primary lateral veins 3-5 pairs, making an angle of ca. 50° with the midrib, inarching near the margin but without a distinct marginal vein, slightly raised beneath in dried leaves: secondary and tertwry veins reticulate, not or scarcely raised, fine but distinct, with pale brown spots in the reticulations, without stomatal pits: basal veins 5-7: petiole 3-7 * 1.5 mm., short: stipules 3-6 mm. long. Receptacles cauline on short, stout, woody twigs up to 5 cm. long, hanging, subglobose, up to 12 cm. diameter, with a peduncle 2-3.5 cm. long, closely and shortly villous, (evidently slightly papillate but not mottled), peach-red on the exposed side, peach=yellow on the shaded side: internal bristles up to 1.5 mm. long, forming a chaffy layer round the bases of the flowers. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 147 Male flowers: (immature) 8-9 mm. long overall: pervanth 1-1.5 mm. long, gamophyllous to the middle with 3, rarely 2, lobes: stamen 2-2.5 mm. long (immature), rarely 2: anther 1 mm. long, exsert. Gall-flowers: (immature) 3.5-7.5 mm. long overall, sessile or with a very short stalk up to .5 mm. long: perianth of 1-3, generally 3, linear entire, subgelatinous, free, wine- red segments, simply attached, 2-3 mm. long: ovary subsessile or with a stalk up to 4 mm. long: style 1.3-1.4 mm. long with denticulate stigma. Female and neuter flowers and seeds unknown. Distr. Brit. N. Borneo. Collections :— Elmer 20531, pr. Tawao (type). i at | , ee ae My We Text-Fig. 27 F. tawaensis: gall- and male flowers (immature), from the type-collection: « 19. J This species is known only from the type-collection, of which I have seen the specimens in Manila, Buitenzorg and Singapore. It is a true Syneecia with receptacles like F. punctata but the leaves are very unlike Syneecia-leaves in being regularly and deeply cordate, persistently villous on Vor x. (1938): 148 the underside and without stomatal pits: they suggest, in fact, a Eusyce as F. pumila. The woody fruiting tubercles which Merrill remarked as distinctive and like those of Covellia are no different from those of old, massive plants of F.. punctata or F. callicapra. The receptacles, if really 12 cm. wide and subglobose, must be the largest figs that have yet been found in the genus. The receptacles, however, are imperfectly known, the preserved specimens being too fragmentary to discover any details. The flowers are in no way distinctive. I believe that F. tawaensis has the habit of F’. punctata and that it has bathyphylls. The type-sheet in Manila consists of acrophylls but the duplicate at Buitenzorg seems to be entirely bathyphyll-shoots except for one detached acrophyll. These bathyphyll-shoots are lax with long internodes and are rooted at the nodes like the typical bathyphyll-shoots of F. callicarpa: the leaves are smaller than the acrophylls of the type-sheet, more oblong and with an almost rounded-hastate base suggesting a ‘Convolvulus- leaf’: they are symmetric and it is possible that they are the leaves intermediate between bathyphylls and acrophylls. Koorders 23780 (Tangkil, Pasercan, Java), determined as F. punctata var., is a sterile collection of bathyphylls remarkably like those of F.. tawaensis but I hesitate to identify it without further evidence. It may be the young stage of a climbing Eusyce. F. trachycoma Maiq. Fl. Ind. Bat. I. pt. II, 1859, p. 304. ?= F. aurantiaca Griff. Notule pt. 4, 1854, p. 394. Icon. t. 555 fig. IT. Text Fig. 32. Blade 4-10.5 = 2.5-6.5 cm., ovate elliptic, slightly or distinctly inequilateral, stiffly coriaceous, narrowed gradu- ally to the ‘subacute or acute tip, in some cases apiculate, the upperside more or less harshly scabrid with short, white stiff forward pointing hairs with swollen bases, or scabrid only in the distal half or weathering smooth, underside similarly wholly scabrid and with minute hairy stomatal pits in the areolae: edge entire or very minutely toothed, often slightly incurved: primary lateral veins 7-10 pairs, arising at a wide angle of 65-70° from the midrib, inarching at a distance of 2-3 mm. from the edge, hardly visible on the upperside of dried leaves, very slightly raised below, fine: secondary veins faint, irregular: base rather broadly rounded, subcordate, slightly but distinctly or scarcely asymmetric, with 3 nerves: petioles .5-1.5 < .2 em, short, thick glabrous: stipules 8-15 mm. lanceolate, finely hairy to glabrescent. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 149 Receptacles rather large, axillary on the leafy twigs, scabrous, umbonate when young, ripening orange-red (apparently with ovoid cylindric body, rather long neck and very short peduncle). Flowers? Distrib. Java, (Tjibodas, Mt. Salak). Collections :——Herb.. Horb., Bot. Bog. 7220, cult. Buitenzorg. v. Steenis 2698, G. Tjibodas + 275 m. This is a rare species, evidently allied closely with F. callicarpa, and one of which there are no recent collections with receptacles. Its distinguishing characters are the rather broad, pointed, scabrid leaves with rounded base and many pairs of side-veins and the scabrid axillary receptacles. Neither the flowers, nor the bathyphylls nor any details of the receptacles are known. It may well be a variety of F. callicarpa. From F. cataupi, which also has scabrid leaves, it differs in the broader blade with more numerous, fine lateral veins. I have avoided reference to King’s description of F. aurantiaca Griffith because I believe that it is a mixture. I have not seen Griffith’s specimen but his description and figure suggest the young stage of F.. callicarpa, which may have axillary receptacles. Griffith’s habitat is ‘‘on trees, Malacca’. I have collected in Malacca several times in the last few years and found only F. callicarpa typica, F. callicarpa crassinervia and F. apiocarpa as species of Syneecia, the first being very common on coconuts and durians in all the villages, so that Griffith could hardly have missed it. On the other hand, specimens agreeing with the Javanese F’. trachycoma have never been seen in Malaya in the last eighty years. I think that King mistakenly identified Griffith’s plant with the Javanese and thus gave a mixed description with floral characters taken from Griffith’s plate. The leaves drawn by Griffith are just like those of F. callicarpa which are transitional between bathyphylls and acrophylls and shoots bearing such leaves may develop precocious, axillary receptacles. The under- sides of the leaves of F. callicarpa, moreover, are “tactu aspera verruculis plurimis albis’, as Griffith described, because of the slightly raised margins of the stomatal pits. Burkill’s record of F. aurantiaca (S.F. No. 6429) is F. callicarpa. If F. aurantiaca Griffith is F. callicarpa Miq. it is an earlier name but it is also a later homonym of F.. aurantiaca Noronha (4) and F. aurantiaca Hort. Berol. (4). (Griffith spelt the name F. aurantiaceus). Hence I conclude that Griffith’s name disappears from taxonomy and in its place stands F.. callicarpa Mig. and F. trachycoma Miq. which may be a variety of the former. Vol. X. (1938). 150 The collection, v. Steenis 2698, identified as “F. punctata” has smaller, more asymmetric leaves than Herb. Hort. Bot. Bog. 7220, which seems to be typical F. trachycoma, and I suspect they are bathyphylls, or inter- mediate between such and acrophylls. Both kinds are jSmown in Text-Fig. 32. F. tulipifera nov. sp. Text-Figs. 28, 29, 35. F. callicarpae similis: lamina 3.4-6.8 * 1.2-3 em., elliptico-lanceolata, medio latissima, utrinque attenuata, paullum inequalis, vel curvata, subcoriacea, apice acuta, haud retusa, basi interdum minute cordata vel inzqualis, margine apicem versus minute denticulata, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 8-11, subtus prominentibus, costis basalibus 3, areolis profunde piloso-foveolata: petiolus 2-9 mm. longus. Receptaculum cauliflorum, parvum, depresso-globosum, 3.0 cm. latum, sparse pilosum, maculis pallidis marmo- ratum: flores cecidiophori perianthii segmentis saepe 2-3 connexis vel omnino breviter connexis, haud peltato-affixis. Distr. Brit. N. Borneo. Typus. Sing. F. No. 27763, leg C. E. Carr, Mit. Kinabalu. A climber like F. callicarpa, the stems slender 5 mm. thick, (? full-grown): bathyphylls? The young twigs, petioles and edges and undersides of the leaves rather closely hairy with lax white spreading hairs up to 1.5 mm. Jong, the mature parts, especially the undersides of the leaves, glabrescent: uppersides of the leaves and stipules glabrous. Leaf-blade 3.4-6.8 * 1.2-3 cm., elliptic lanceolate, broadest at the middle, tapered gradually to each end, generally slightly asymmetric and falcate, the apex acute, narrow but not acuminate, not retuse, the base attenuate, very narrowly cordate, often slightly asymmetric but never auricled, the edge very finely denticulate, especially towards the apex, subcoriaceous, not scabrid, bright dark green above, pale green with dark green reticulations beneath, drying rather undulate with the midrib and main veins sunk on the upperside, pale greyish brownish or greyish yellowish above and pale brownish beneath and minutely brown- dotted: primary lateral veins 8-11 pairs, arising at a very wide angle from the midrib and passing almost straight out to the margin, connected by a conspicuous arching marginal vein ca. 1 mm. from the edge, drying conspicuous, thick and pale brown: secondary veins arising from the midrib between the primaries and often almost as conspi- cuous: tertiary veins reticulate, very faint, enclosing conspicuous deep hairy stomatal pits: basal veins 3, the Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 151 lateral veins continued as the conspicuous marginal veins: petiole 2-9 X 1 mm., brown, becoming scurfy-flaky: st¢pules 4-14 mm. long, conical, fairly persistent, glabrous even when young. Receptacles on short, woody, bracteate tubercles on the main creeping stem, solitary: body 3 cm. long, 3.5 cm. wide, depressed globose, the distal end flattened, not umbonate, pimply with small lenticels, sparsely pilose with erect, hispid, white hairs up to 1 mm. long, olive green with paler, cream mottling (unripe): neck 8 X 4 mm., distinct: peduncle 0: basal bracts 3, triangular, acute, scarcely spreading, glabrous, 2-3 mm. long: orifice 2 mm. wide, circular, slightly depressed and surrounded by a faint, narrow, raised rim, closed by 3 apical bracts slightly raised into a low cone: internal bristles scarce, very inconspicuous, up to 1 mm. long. Male flowers 9-13 mm. long overall; stalk white, much curved: perianth 2 mm. long, wine-red, gamophyllous to the middle, with 3, in some cases 4, rarely 5, blunt lobes: stamens rarely 2, immature, the anther 1.5 mm. long and half-exsert. Gall-flowers 3-5.5 mm. long overall, sessile: perianth of 3—4, occasionally 5, lanceolate, entire, subgelatinous, wine-red segments 2—2.8 mm. long, strongly thickened at the base, 2-3 often shortly gamophyllous at the base, in some cases appearing as if there were 1-2 free segments and one deeply 2—3-fid segment, with simple transverse linear attachment: ovary with a short or rather long stalk: style ca. 1 mm. long. I describe this species from dried twigs and an apparently full-grown but immature receptacle attached to a leafy twig in spirit. The emergence of the stamen shows that the fig, which is unusually small for Synecia, must be almost or quite full-grown. The specific epithet refers to the appearance of the male perianth. _ The species comes very close to F. callicarpa but the perianth of the gall-flower, the acute apex of the leaf, its denticulate edge and the many primary lateral veins prevent one from making it a variety of that species. It is also close to F. catawpi which has fewer primary lateral veins and scabrid leaves as well as the perianth of F. callicarpa. (But see the remarks under F. callicarpa). oO wns mAL Woe, Text-Fig. 28 FF. tulipifera: section through the orifice of a gall- receptacle of the type-collection: x 2. Vol. X. (1938). 152 Text-Fig. 29 F. tulipifera: mature gall-flowers and their perianths, and 2 mature male-flowers with 2 cut-open perianths (upper middle and left) from the type-collection: x 10. Summary Thirteen species and four varieties are described, the following as new :—F. barba-jovis, F. Carri, F. dens-echini, F. grandiflora, F. tulipifera, F. callicarpa var. parvifolia, var. crassinervia, var. angustifolia, var. multinervia. F. megacarpa is reduced to F. callicarpa as var. parvifolia. F. trachycoma is raised to specific rank. F. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 153 aurantiaca, F. Simiae and F. singalana are doubtful species. The Philippine specimens referred to F. apiocarpa are F. Scratchleyana. F. antoniana, F. areolata, F. brunnea, F. Warburgu, referred to Syneecia, are Eusyce. F. Johnsoni, referred to Synecia, is Urostigma. F’. callicarpa is hardly to be distinguished specifically from F. punctata. Synecia is a natural subgenus of closely allied root- climbers, the more advanced species being anong the most highly specialised developments of Ficus. It is important to recognise a. the distinction between bathyphylls (leaves on creeping stems) and acrophylls (leaves on the free-hanging, suberial stems). 6. the presence or absence of stomatal pits on the underside of the leaves. c. the position, the colour and the structure of the orifice of the receptacles. A natural and artificial classification of the species is given. Syneecia is limited to Malaysia with Burma, ? Indo- China, Formosa, New Guinea, Timor, Java, and Sumatra as its limits. Its greatest development is in Borneo whence it seems to have spread. The five new species were all found in N. Borneo. It seems that animals do not eat the large, brightly coloured receptacles, so that species of Syneecia are without special means of dispersal. Drawings are given of the flowers and leaves of all species and, in many cases, of the orifice of the receptacle. References 1. Corner, E. J. H. A revision of the Malayan Species of Ficus; Covellia and Neomorphe. Mal. Br. Roy. As. Soc. XI, 1933, 1. 2. Holttum, R. E. On Stenochlena, Lomariopsis, and Teratophyllum in the Malayan Region. Gard. Bull. S.S. V.,1932,. 246. . Further notes on Stenochlena, etc. ibid. IX, 1927,. 139. 4. King, G. The Species of Ficus. Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard. Cale. II. 1888, and Appendix. 5. Sata, T. Systematic Status of the genus Ficus. Journ. Jap. Bot. R. 1934, 343. eo Vol. X. (1938). 154 Text-Fig. 30 F. callicarpa typical: bathyphylis and acrophylls: nat. size. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Text-Fig. 32 F. callicarpa parvifolia (above), bathy- phylls and acrophylls: F. trachycoma (below), acrophylls: nat. size. Gardens Bulletin, SS. 157 Text-Fig. 33 F. callicarpa angustifolia (above) acrophylls: F. callicarpa crassinervia (middle), bathyphylls and acrophylls: F. punctata (below) bathyphylls and acrophylls: nat. size. Vol. X. (1938). 158 Gardens Bulletin, SS. Text-Fig. 34 F. callicarpa multinervia, acrophylls: nat. size. : 159 Text-Fig. 35 F. cataupi, a, 2 leaves: F. barba-jovis, b, 3 leaves: F. tawaensis, ¢, 2 leaves: F. tulipifera, d, 2 leaves: nat size. Vol. X. (1938). 160 F. dens-echini, b: F. Bordenti, ec: F. Carri, d, 2 leaves: 14 nat. size. a, (Philippine) : Text-Fig. 36 F. Scratchleyana, Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 161 i * q ® 4 Text-Fig. 37 F. apiocarpa, % nat. size. Vol. X. (1938). F K 162 VALIDATING BOTANICAL NAMES BY REFERRING TO INVALID LITERATURE i he. S FURTADO, P , - Botanic Gardens, Singapore Page 1. INTRODUCTION a +. 162 2. THE CASE OF Epipogium i Bs. 162 3. THE CASE OF Pterocarpus a 163 4. OBJECTIONS STATED... mA ; 163 5. EXAMPLES, te : ed 166 6. CONCLUSIONS S \ 4 170 7. APPENDIX ay k 25 172 1. Introduction Two recent papers, one on Eypipogium by Dr. T. A. SPRAGUE and Miss M. L. GREEN (Kew Bull. 1937, pp. 475-476) and the other on Pterocarpus by Mr. H. K. AIRY-SHAW ( Kew Bull. 1937 pp. 477-479), have created what seems to me to be an undesirable precedent for validating botanical names by reference to pre-1755 literature. This procedure, at one time considered legi- timate, was later rejected in order that the Linnean genera might retain the sense given to them in Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753)—often an impossibility if reference by LINNAEUS to pre-1753 literature were admitted as valid. That to revert to this procedure now vvould violate the provision of the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (ed. 5, 1935) and lead to many difficulties is clearly demonstrated by a consideration of the two above-mentioned cases. 2. The Case of Epipogium In the remarks following the description of the new genus Gastrodia, published in Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae (1810 p. 330) ROBERT BROWN, the author of the work, observes as follows :— “Affinitatem haud levem habet cum Epipogio (quod Limodorum Epipogium Sw.,) przesertim Anthera decidua Again, on p. 331 of the same work and under the new genus, Dipodium, the same author makes the following statement :-— : ° i Paces Cote mee ; de Epipogio GMEL. iam dictum est.” Now Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN (Kew Bull. 1937 pp. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. a 163 475-476) regard these two statements of R. BROWN as constituting, when joined together, “the first valid publication” of the genus Epipogium. They argue as follows :— “There [in R. BROWN’s Prod. pp. 330 and 331] it is unaccompanied by a description, but Epipogium is attributed by R. Brown, on p. 331, to GMELIN, who gave the generic description under the spelling Hpipogium (FI. Sibir. I, 11: 1747). The citation of GMELIN by ROBERT BROWN is an implicit reference to GMELIN’S previously and_ effectively published description, and accordingly validates the name Epipogium R.Br. under the International Rules, Art. 37 “The case of Epipogium illustrates the point that, under the International Rules, the citation of a previously and effectively published description of a genus need not include a precise reference to its place of publication, so long as there is no reasonable doubt as to the work intended.” 3. The Case of Pterocarpus In Kew Bulletin (1937 pp. 477-479) Mr. AIRY-SHAW discusses the genus Pterocarpus published by JACQUIN (Sel. Stirp. Amer. Hist. 1768, p. 283). According to Mr. AIRY-SHAW, JACQUIN gave neither description nor generic citation, but referred under the specific name P. officinalis to “Linn. mat. med. 522” (1.c. LINNAEUS’S Materia Medica, 1749 p. 522 where the name Pterocarpus occurs). In this work there is no generic description of Pterocarpus, but there are references to previous literature. Mr. AIRY-SHAW concludes therefore :— “JACQUIN’S reference to LINN. Mat. Med. constitutes an indirect citation, since LINNAEUS there refers back to his Fl. Zeyl. where a description of Pterocarpus was ‘previously and effectively published’ .” Mr. AIRY-SHAW then explains how Pterocarpus of Flora Zeylanica is a mixture of Daemonorops (palm), Derris and Pterocarpus, so that it is a nomen confusum. He therefore proposes that it should be listed in Appendia V which is being prepared under the provisionsfof Art. 64 of the Nomenclature Rules. = 4. Objections Stated The objections a-b apply to the case of E'pipogium only, while objections c-e apply to both the cases. (a) It is unreasonable to oblige a reader to look to the observations made under two different genera (Gast- rodia and Dipodium) in order to find out whether or not a third genus (Hpipogium) has been validly published. For if this were to be regarded as permissible procedure, Vol. X. (1938). 164 then it would mean that a genus could be validly described piecemeal in several places, though each part by itself would be invalid.* (b) The second objection seems to violate the new legislation concerning Provisional Names, adopted at the Amsterdam Congress (1935) which ordains as follows:— “A name proposed provisionally (nomen provisorium) in -anticipation of ihe grotip, o.oo... os. te as , or merely mentioned incidentally is not validly published.” 1 submit that both the references made by ROBERT BROWN to E'pipogium, whether taken individually or together, ought to be included under the clause italicized. If the clause does not apply to such cases, its wording is ambiguous and its meaning should be more precisely defined. (The only definite reference made under Epipogium by ROBERT BROWN is to Limodorum Epipogium Sw. but that reference, according to Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN’S treatment of the case, did not validate the genus E'‘pipogium). (c) Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN invoke Art. 37 in support of their contention that the references given by them constitute “the first valid publication” of the genus Epipogium. But Art. 42 deals expressly with the validity of generic names: it reads as follows :— “A name of a genus is not validly published unless it is accompanied (1) by a description, or (2) by the citation of a previously and effectively published description of the genus under another name; or (3?) by a reference to previously and effectively published description of the genus as a subgenus, section or other subdivision of a genus.” Now neither Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN, nor Mr. AIRyY- SHAW, have claimed validation for either of the genera (E'pipogium and Pterocarpus) under Art. 42 (1) or Art. 42 (3). Mr. AIRY-SHAW claims validation of the genus Pterocarpus [L] Jacq. (1763) under Art. 42 (2), but neither he nor Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN have shown that the descriptions referred to under either Epipogium or Pterocarpus were published “under another name.” *JT do not know why Dr. SpraAGuE and Miss GREEN selected references made to Epipogium on pp. 330 & 331 (in R.BrR., Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holl.) and omitted to consider the one on p. 310 which reads as follows:— “Hine quatuor Swartzianis sectionibus quintam adjecimus, adhucdum parvulam, ad quam, preter Gastrodiam, pertinet Epipogium GMEL., perperam Limodoris asociatum.” In the copy I consulted all the three pages are indicated in the general Index of the work under Epipogium. The case, considered on this reference alone, would have been less weak, for the objection (a) would not have been applicable to it. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 165 (d) Epipogiuwm and Pterocarpus are said to have been validated by a reference to pre-1753 literature; but Art. 20 invalidates this literature. If references to such invalid literature are permitted, what is the significance of the clauses in Arts. 20 and 42 which fix, for vascular plants, 1753-1754 as the starting- point of botanical nomenclature and the names of genera. These clauses run. thus :— “It is agreed to associate generic names which appear in LINNAEUS’S Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) and ed. 2 (1762- 63) with the first subsequent descriptions given under those names in LINNAEUS’S Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) and ed. 6 (1764).” (Art. 20). “An exception is made for the generic names published by LINNAEUS in Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1758) and ed. 2 (1762- 63) which are treated as having been validly published on those dates.” (Art. 42).* In the case of the old generic names (e.g. Pterocarpus) - adopted in either of the two editions of LINNAEUS’S Species Plantarum these clauses would not only be superfluous but they would also be misleading, especially in regard to the words “first subsequent descriptions” in Art. 20; for all these old names would be valid by reference given by LINNAEUS to the literature invalidated under Art. 20. Thus to accept as valid references to invalid literature, we would be violating the very principles which in 1995 obliged botanists to prohibit the Linnean genera adopted in Species Plantarum ed. 1 from being interpreted on the references to literature invalidated under Art. 20 though previously, it seems, such interpretations had been advocated by A. DE. CANDOLLE, J. BRIQUET, O. F. Cook, OTTO KUNTZE and others. In fact, it is said that the startling changes advocated by KUNTZE in his Revisio (1891) were the principal! cause bringing about volte face in the views widely held previously. J. BRIQUET (formerly a supporter of the other procedure) advised the Vienna Congress (1905) to choose 1753-54 instead of LINNAEUS’S Genera Plantarum ed. 1 (1737) or TOURNEFORT’S Institutiones (1700) (advocated previously by many botanists) as the starting- point of the genera under the binary system, a ruling altered at the Cambridge Congress (1930) in order to * Here I may draw the attention of botanists to the fact that in splitting Art. 38 of 1910—Rules into Arts. 41 & 42 of the 1935—Rules, the clause containing the exemption to the generic names published in LINNAEUS’S Species Plantarum was placed under Art. 42, but its more appropriate place seems to be in Art. 41. In fact in the 1910 Rules this clause was placed immediately after the sentence which formed the basis, not of Art. 42, but of Art. 41, of the New Rules. I think this misplacement is one of the reasons why the significance of the ' exemption as well as of Arts. 20 and 41 is not fully appreciated. Vol. X. (1938). G 166 include the genera in LINNAEUS’S Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762-63), and embodied in the above transcribed clauses of Arts. 20 and 42.* ~ (e) If a genus can be established nomenclaturally by such slender means as that of Epipogium and Pterocarpus as suggested by Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN, and by Mr. AIRY-SHAW, then botanists may ask what is the purpose of the whole structure of nomenclature built up by the Rules. For references to such invalid literature, if per- mitted, would render the Rules ineffective and of no account for preventing procedures condemned under the Rules, and the mere registration in nomenclators like Index Kewensis of invalid genera, species, etc., published in utter disregard of the provisions regulating the description of botanical names, would have to be considered as constituting valid publication by reference. 5. Examples (1) In Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753, p. 443); LINNAEUS published several species under Rhizophora but did not give a generic description. The name Rhizophora was published by LINNAEUS seven years earlier in his Flora Zeylanica (1747, p. 181), where it was apparently used both as a “‘generic” and a “‘specific’ name. (I have not been able to consult this work; my information is indirect). The species described in Flora Zeylanica was named Rhizophora conjugata in Species Plantarum, a reference being given to Flora Zeylanica. No other species described in Species Plantarum had previously been referred to Rhizophora. Hence, if references to lterature invalidated under Art. 20 were ‘permitted under the Rules, then the genus Rhizophora would be valid, not because of the exceptional privileges accorded to the Linnean genera in Arts. 20 and 42, * The following statement of Mrs. VERA HIGGINS in her book “The Naming of Plants” London (1937) is erroneous as far as the starting-point of genera is concerned: “........ his [LINNAEUS’S] two books ‘Genera Plantarum’ (1737) and ‘Species Plantarum’ (1753) have been taken as the starting-point of modern nomenclature” (p. 46). In the reviews I have seen of this book, this error has not been pointed out. A few pages later Mrs. HIGGINS makes a statement which, though not conveying the full force of the legislation on the point, comes very much nearer the truth: Se ELGe Oe at the International Botanical Congress at Vienna in 1905 it was finally agreed that only names published in LINNAEUS’S ‘Species, Plantarum’ or subsequently should count; thus 1753, the date of publication, was made the artificial starting-point for modern nomenclature, and though earlier names might be consulted if necessary, they were not considered valid if they differed from those given by LINNAEUS”. (p. 48). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 167 but because of the explicit reference to Flora Zeylanica given by LINNAEUS under R. conjugata, and the genus would therefore have to be interpreted by reference to R. conjugata, the only species described in Flora Zeylanica. This would mean that the lectotype (R. mangle L) selected in Supplementum II of the Rules would have to be rejected as untenable, that Rhizophora would become synonymous with Bruguiera LAM. (1796), the type of the latter being R. conjugata L., and that what now passes as Rhizophora L. would require a new name. It might be argued that, according to species lecto- typicae of the Linnean generic names (International Rules ed. 3 pp. 139-143), the genus Rhizophora must be interpreted with reference to R. mangle L. the standard or lectotype species indicated for the genus as used in Species Plantarum (1753). But the answer would be that, according to the resolution made at the Amsterdam Congress, 1935 (Proceedings I, 1936 p. 366), those lectotype species need not be adopted by botanists if “there is clear reason for rejecting any species in favour of another”. Thus those who maintain that references to invalid litera- ture are permitted under the Rules, would be able to offer, as one very clear reason for rejecting R. mangle L. in favour of R. conjugata L., the fact that the taxonomic group indicated by the latter is the only one included under Rhizophora of LINNAEUS’S Flora Zeylanica (l.c.), so that no other species could be selected as the type of a genus validated by a reference to Rhizophora L. of Flora Zeylanica. On the other hand, if my contention is admitted and references to invalid literature are rejected for the purpose of validating a name, then R. mangle L. can be accepted as the lectotype species of Rhizophora L. as published in 1753. (2) Assuming that the references to pre-1753 literature were valid, Mr. AIRY-SHAW showed that Pterocarpus [L.] JACQ. (1763) was a nomen confusum to be rejected under Art. 64. But, notwithstanding this rejection, Pterocarpus L. (Sp. Pl. ed. 2: 1763) would become a later homonym of Pteroearpus JACQ., and therefore, according to Art. 61, a non-legitimable name. If Pterocarpus L. (1763) was conserved against Pterocarpus JACQ., then the former would again be found to be a nomen confusum, because in Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1763) LINNAEUS quoted, besides LINN. Mat. Med. and JACQUIN’S description of Pterocarpus officinalis, also Lingoum RUMPH., Amboin. II (p. 205 t. 70) and Draco Arbor LOEFL. it. (266: 273 n. 147: 168). If these references were held to have validated the genus, one could not go to LINNAEUS’S Genera Plantarum ed. 2 (1764) to interpret the genus already validated a year Vol. X. (1938). 168 earlier in Species Planturum ed. 2. (1763) by the same or similar references used by JACQUIN, and one would have to discard also Pterocarpus L. (1763) as a nomen confusum. But if reference to Flora Zeylanica was permissible, then one could claim that the genus Pterocarpus [L.] was validated by BURMANN in his Index to RUMPHIUS’S Herbarium Amboinense published in 1755 (p. 11) by reference to Lingoum RUMPH. (on one side) and Flora Zeylanica (on the other). This would render the rejection of Pterocarpus JACQ. in order to conserve Pterocarpus L. (1763) unnecessary, because both of these names would be later homonyms of Pterocarpus L. ex BURMANN (1755). With equally good reason it could be claimed that Lingoum RUMPH. ex BuRM. (Index, 1755) and not Ptero- carpus L. ex BURM. was the legitimate name for the genus, and that it included three distinct species: L. rubrum RuMPH., L. molle RUMPH., and L. sazxatile RUMPH., all validated through explicit or implicit references by BURMANN in the aforementioned Index. It would follow that these binomials would have priority both over P. officinalis and P. Draco, and that ADANSON (Fam. II, 1763, p. 319) would have been right in adopting Lingowm as the legitimate name for the genus. (3) An incursion into pre-1753 history of the use of Lobelia, a name adopted by LINNAEUS as a generic name in his Species Plantarum (1753) would also yield similar results. The earliest use of the name Lobelia prior to 1753 is by PLUMIER (Gen., 1703 p. 21, t. 31). Now if one were to interpret Lebelia L. (1753) with reference to Lobelia PLUM. (1703) to which LINNAEUS referred under L. Plumiert L. (1753), Lobelia L. would become synonymous with Scaevola LL. (GOODENIACEAE); consequently the lectotype-species indicated in the Rules for the genus as a member of LOBELIACEAE would become useless for the genus aS a member of GOODENIACEAE. Should this be granted, then under Art. 66 the family name LOBELIACEAE quoad genus typicum would be a synonym of GOODENIACEAE, and LOBELIACEAE ex altera parte would require a new name. According to my contention the history of Lobelia as a valid genus started in 1753; and the types of descriptions and names published prior to 1753 are really “prehistoric” as far as the valid plant-nomenclature is concerned: It is a mis- nomer to label a specimen, described in literature condemned by the Rules, as a “historic type’ of a valid genus merely because, when the genus was being validated. an implicit or explicit reference was made to a previous invalid description or name. Much confusion has been created both by calling such types “historic” and by focussing on Gardens Bulletin, SS. 169 them an undue attention. When recommending lectotype- species for the Linnean genera, neither the late Dr. A. S. HITCHCOCK, nor Miss GREEN attached any importance to the “historic” types; in fact, in typifying Lobelia, Miss GREEN rejected the “historic type’ and recommended L. cardinalis L. (1753) as the lectotype-species for the genus (International Rules 1935). Had they followed Mr. Atry- SHAW’S procedure, they would have found that a great number of Linnean genera would have to be proposed as nomina confusa. The procedure of ignoring the “historic type’, though opposed to the contention of Dr. SPRAGUE, Miss GREEN and of Mr. AIRY-SHAW, is entirely in accord with my interpretation of Art. 20, and with my contention concerning the value, in nomenclature, of references to invalid literature. Such a result was no doubt foreseen by the legislators who met at the Vienna Congress in 1905 and invalidated the botanical literature published previous to the year 1755, fixing 1753-1754 as the starting-points for the genera of vascular plants, even for those genera which LINNAEUS had published before 1753 and adopted in his Species Plantarum ed. 1753.* The reference back, if admitted, may take us not only to LINNAEUS’S own works published before the year 1753, but also to others including PLINY, THEO- PHRASTUS and MOSES; and the whole force of the ruling of Art. 20 would be lost. The above instances clearly demonstrate “some curious anomalies and complexities” (to quote the phrase of Mr. AIRY-SHAW) which will have to be faced if references to literature invalidated under Art. 20 are even admitted. * That LINNAEUS in preparing his Species Plantarum (1753) changed the interpretation of many old names or relegated them to synonymy in order to make room for the new ones, was well known even to his contemporaries: “I have had pleasure’, wrote PETER COLLINSON in a letter dated 20th April 1754 and addressed to LINNAEUS, “of reading your Species Plantarum, a very useful and laborious work. But, my dear friend, we that admire you are much concerned that you should perplex the delightful science of botany with changing names that have been well received, and adding new names quite unknown to us. Thus botany, which was a pleasant study and attainable by most men, is now become, by alterations and new names, the study of a man’s life, and none now but real professors can pretend to attain it. As I love you I tell you our sentiments.” And again writing after the appearance of the 5th edition of LINNAEUS’S Genera Plantarum (1754), in a letter dated 10th April 1755, COLLINSON said: ‘You have begun by your Species Plantarum; but if you will forever be making new names, and altering good and old ones, for such hard names that convey no idea of the plant, it will be impossible to attain to a perfect knowledge in the science of botany.” Vol. X. (1938). 170 6. Conclusions Applying the terms valid and invalid as precised by me in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. IX Part. 3 (1937) to jiterature and references in order to indicate whether or not they are counted botanically, and from the foregoing discussions we may deduce the following :— i. LITERATURE is valid only if it is counted _botanically. Otherwise it is invalid. ii. LITERATURE in order to be valid must not only be effective under Art. 36 but also satisfy other conditions explicitly or implicitly laid down as essential in the Rules. } iii. LITERATURE which botanists have to disregard because of the special ruling in Art. 20 should be invalid. -—iv. No Botanical Name can be admitted as valid unless: (17) it satisfies the conditions. laid down as essential for the word or words constituting the name itself, and (2) it is accompanied by either (a) a valid description, or (b) a valid reference (see below v). (In certain circumstances a plate with analyses is accepted as equivalent to a valid description. cf. Arts. 43 and 44). v. A REFERENCE is valid when it refers to a description published both in valid literature, and in accordance with the rules laid down as essential for the words constituting the description. vi. Consequently ALL REFERENCES TO INVALID LITERATURE, even. when they include plates, should be inadmissible under the Rules. vii. 'SEVERAL NAMES (formerly ignored but recently resurrected and made the bases of many nomenclatural changes) whose sole claim for validity is that they were referred to a plate or description in invalid literature should be invalid: e.g. (7) In O. STICKMAN’S Dissertation on RUMPHIUS’S Herbarium Amboinense eds. 1754 and 1759, accepted as valid by Dr. E. D. MERRILL (Interpr. RUMPH. Herb. Amboin. 1917). (2) In BURMANN’S Index to RUMPHIUS’S Herbarium Amboinense eds. 1755 and 1769, accepted as valid by Dr. MERRILL (cf. op. cit.).- (3) In ROXBURGH’S Hortus Bengalensis (1814), accepted as valid by the late Dr. C. B. ROBINSON (Philipp. Journ. Sct. VII, 1912, pp. 411-419) because ROXBURGH had referred under the names to plates in RUMPHIUS’S Herb. Amb. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 171 (4) In MOoN’s Catalogue of Indigenous and Exotic are oF Ceylon (1824) accepted as valid by Mr. A. G. ALSTON (Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard. Poidiin XI, 1929 pp. 208-205) because they contain references to the plates or descriptions either in RHEEDE’S Hortus Malabaricus or in RUMPHIUS’S Herbarium Amboinense. (5) Several generic and specific names listed in nomenclators and Index Kewensis. with references to invalid descriptions, whether or not published in valid publications. viii. THE NAMES IN PRE-1753 LITERATURE (and in fact in all invalid literature) must be given the same status and treatment as the names in scheda. No one who adopts the name of a manuscript species need consider the types studied by the author of the manu- script name (chironym). The botanist who validates the name is free to choose his own types, even to the extent of ignoring entirely the specimen on which the manuscript name was noticed. The mere fact that the author of the manuscript name and the herbarium wherein the name was found have been quoted, must not be taken as the sure indication that the types of the manuscript name are to be included in typifying the name as published by the second botanist. This principle is likewise applicable to references to invalid literature. In using an invalid name the older botanists frequently quoted the invalid reference, not because they adopted any of the types of invalid name, but because they wanted to indicate the persons responsible for coining or using the name previous to its actual valid publication; the citation of the invalid literature did not necessarily mean that the original sense was retained in the name as newly instated. Hence the value of the legislation which, besides invalidating pre-1753 names, fixed 1753-1754 as the starting point of nomenclature not only of species but also of genera, of vascular plants (cf. Arts. 20 and 42). ix. Pterocarpus JACQ. (1763), Pterocarpus BURMANN (1755) and Epipogium R. BR. (1810) are consequently invalid names. x. Pterocarpus officinalis JACQ. (1763) which is accepted by Mr. AIRY-SHAW (Kew Bull. 1937 p. 63) both as valid and as legitimate is invalid because the specific epithet was published under an_ invalid generic name, and, therefore, cannot be included in considerations of priority. Vol. X. (1938). 172 xi. Pterocarpus L. (1763) is a valid generic name because of the exceptional privileges conceded under Arts. 20 and 42 to the generic names used in Species Plantarum eds. 1 and 2. xii. Pterocarpus Draco L. (1763) rejected by Mr. AIRY-SHAW (Kew Bull. 1937 p. 63) as a super- fluous name of P. officinalis JACQ. (1763) is both a valid and a legitimate name for the lectotype of the genus Pterocarpus L. (1763). 7. Appendix From the quotation by Dr. SPRAGUE and Miss GREEN of the bibliography and synonymy of Epipogium, and from the bibliography of the species as given in Index Kewensis, it seems that the rejection of Epipogium GMEL. ex. R. BR. (1810) as invalid would entail no changes, other than orthographical, in the names of the genus and of the species retained under it. However, if the general rejection of references to invalid literature should require changes in the long accepted nomenclature of many genera comprising several species, then such changes could be prevented by placing the genera in nomina generica conservanda; but no such decision should be made before the actual need for such a conservation has been fully demonstrated. Gardens Bulletin, S.S- THE TYPIFICATION OF BOMBAX, GOSSAMPINUS AND SALMALIA By C. X. FURTADO, Botanic Gardens, Singapore Page 1. INTRODUCTION fe aks 173 2. THE LECTOTYPE OF Bombax AS 174 _8. CONSERVATION OF Bombax IS UN NECESSARY hs 176 4. THE INTERPRETATION OF Bombax SENSU STRICTO 177 5. Gossampinus VERSUS Salmalia .. ’ 178 6. CONCLUSIONS 1% a 180 7. APPENDIX .. . we St 180 iL Ga In Species Plantarwm (1753) under the generic name Bombax, LINNAEUS described three species: B. Ceiba, B. pentandrum and B. religiosum. The last two were soon transferred to two different genera, Ceiba and Cochlosper- mum, yielding the new combinations Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. and Cochlospermum religiosum (L) ALSTON respectively. No one has disputed these transferences; consequently the genus must be typified on B. Ceiba L., the only original species now remaining in it. But this view concerning the typification has been contested as illicit, and moreover it goes against the lectotype-species recommended in the Rules. Now this lectotype-species, B. malabaricum DC., was published in 1824, many years after the genus and its original three species; and if it is accepted as the nectolype for the genus, botanists will have to reject Bombax (17538) sensu strictissimo with B. Ceiba L (1753) ci stricto as the lectotype, and to accept Bombax L. (1753) sensu Inter- national Rules (1935) with B. malabaricum DC (1824) as the standard species. A claim has also been made that, though Salmalia ScHoTT et ENDLICHER (1832) and Gossampinus HAM. (1827) are rival names to Bombax L. (1753) sensu International Rules (1935), there are no such rival names for Bombax L. (1753) sensu strictissimo with Bombax Ceiba L. as the lectotype, except Evriotheca SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) and Bombacopsis PITT. (1916), which generic names, apart from their being little used and younger than Bombaxz, cannot be considered as_ being absolute synonyms of Bombaz L. sensu strictissimo. Since any change in the lectotype-species of Bombax affects the nomenclature of some species and genera of Malayan importance, I have enquired into the typification of the genera Bombaz, Gossampinus and Salmalia. Vol. X. (1938). 174 The results show :— (1) that the typification of Bombax made by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (Metel. 1832), and later by Dr. BAKHUIZEN (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. V1, 1924, pp. 161-240), is the correct one; (2) that the typification recommended in the Rules cannot be accepted; (3) that, unless the evidence produced below is wrong, the name Gossampinus cannot be maintained except as a synonym of Ceiba; and (4) that Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) is the legitimate name for Gossampinus HAM. sensu BAKHUIZEN (1924). The reasons for these conclusions are set forth below. 2. The Lectotype Species of Bombax In the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature ed. 3 (1935 p. 189) there is incorporated a proposal which advises botanists to make Bombax malabaricum DC. (= B. Ceiba L. partim) as the lectotype of the genus. But as, according to resolution passed at the last Botanical Congress, Amster- dam (1935), all the lectotype-species indicated in the Rules must “‘be adopted by botanists unless there is clear reason for rejecting any species in favour of another,” I propose first to deal with the principal reasons which show why B. malabaricum DC. cannot be accepted as the lectotype for | Bombax L. (1753). In order that the reader may follow my arguments better, I transcribe here the proposal as made originally by Miss M. L. GREEN in Proposals by | sheng Botanists (1929 p. 160) to which book the Rules : refer :— “580 Bombax L. Sp. Pl. 511; Gen. Pl. ed. 5: 227. : “B. malabaricum DC. (B. Ceiba L. partim), the only : element of Bombax I. (1753) still retained in the genus. Bombax Ceiba L. sensu stricto and B. pentandrum L. are : synonyms of Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. and B. religiosum L. is Cochlospermum Gossj ypium Do : Now when Art. 51 says that “when a genus is divided into two or more genera, the generic name must be retained for one of them,” it has generally been taken to mean that, in typifying a genus, at least one of the original species has to be retained under it and that the name or the epithet of the species has also to be retained unless there is an intrinsic defect in the name or the epithet itself, which makes the name or its epithet either invalid, or non- legitimable. This interpretation of the Article is re-inforced by the ruling in Art. 18 which ordains that a genus must be typified on one of the original species (= constituent elements) and that the name of a taxonomic group must be changed if the type of that name is changed. Gardens Bulletin, SS. 175 The striking novelty in Miss GREEN’S_ proposal, therefore, is that it obliges botanists to consider, in typifying Bombax L (1753), not any one of the three original species published in Species Plantarum (1753), but a _ species (B. malabaricum DC., 1824), published several years after the validation of the genus. The only relation of the suggested lectotype-species with the original genus is that the lectotype-species included as one of its syntypes a drawing quoted by LINNAEUS under the original species B. Ceiba, though the drawing is now excluded from the typification of B. Ceiba. If this novel procedure is admitted as licit, then it would mean that one could transfer the holotype or lectotype of one species to another and yet retain the specific name for the residual paratype or syntype which clearly did not form the basis of the species. Such a procedure, if admitted, would render Arts. 18, 51 and 52 utterly valueless or would give them only the force of recommendations, Miss GREEN’S proposal, therefore, violates the very fundamentals of the type-concept, which, together with the priority-concept, are regarded as the very essence of the new Rules as adopted at the Cambridge Congress (1930) and later confirmed at the Amsterdam Congress (1935) ; consequently the lectotype-species indicated in the Rules for the interpretation of the genus Bombax cannot be accepted. However if great nomenclatural changes would result by typifying Bombax on B. Ceiba L. sensu stricto, then the changes could be prevented not by selecting a lectotype- Species in violation of the very fundamental principles of the Rules, but either by selecting another one of the original species, or if, as is in this case, that is impossible, by taking advantage of the provision in Art. 21 thereby rejecting Bombazx L. (1753) and conserving Bombax DC. (1824) with B. malabaricum DC. as the lectotype. A third alternative would be the rejection of the present typification of B. Ceiba L. and the typification of it in a way that would bring about the least possible disturbance in the accepted nomenclature ; but in my opinion it would be a bad precedent to reject, by legislation, a long accepted typification. of. a species in order to interpret it anew. It may be observed here that the case of Bombaz is, to a certain extent, comparable with that of Ixia L. typified by the late Dr. A. S. HitcHcock (British Proposals 1929 p. 118). While discussing “standard-species” Dr. T. A. SPRAGUE (Kew Bull. 1926 pp. 96-100) had proposed that, in certain exceptional cases like that of Ixia L. (1753), it should be possible to transfer to another genus or other Vol. X. (1938). 176 genera all the original species, and to select, as the standard for the genus thus denuded, a species published subsequently to the genus and to the original species. But this exception, if admitted, would have violated the very fundamentals concerning the lectotype species, a notion thus enunciated by Dr. SPRAGUE :— “Obviously the generic name should not be transferred to a genus containing none of the original species” (op. cit. p. 96) “Rule 1—The standard species should be one which was included in the genus when the latter was first effectively published” (op. cit. p. 98). Presumably in order to preserve this principle intact in the Rules, the late Dr. HITCHCOCK did not accept Ixia L. Sp. Pl. (1753) 36 et Gen. Pl. (1754) as typified by Dr. SPRAGUE (op. cit. p. 100), and proposed (1) first the rejection of Jamia L. (1753-54), and then (2) the conserva- tion of Ixia L. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 51 with I. polystachya L. (1762) as the standard-species. Both the proposal of the late Dr. HITCHCOCK and the fundamental notions enunciated about standard-species by Dr. SPRAGUE in these excerpts accord fully with the notion concerning nomenclature types in Art. 18. And the strict adherence to these fundamentals would also prevent haphazard proposals being made concerning the lectotype species. 3. Conservation of Bombax is unnecessary However, the conservation of Bombax sensu Miss GREEN is not only unnecessary, but it will, if thus conserved, be followed by many undesirable nomenclatural changes. Miss GREEN. says-that Bombax Ceiba L. sensu stricto and B. pentandrum L. are synonymous with Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. But all the authors so far consulted by me are unanimous in maintaining that B. Ceiba L. sensu stricto and Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. (= B. pentandrum L) are two distinct species belonging to two different genera. [cf. DC. Prodr. 1824; ScHoTT et ENDL. Metel. 1832; ENDL. Gen. Plant. 1832; K. SCHUMANN in ENGL. PRANTL. Pflanzenf. III, 6 (1895) p. 62; Index Kewensis; BAKHUIZEN, Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. VI, 1924]. Also FAWCETT and RENDLE (Flora of Jamaica V, 1926 p. 150) are careful to indicate that the binomial Bombax Ceiba cited under Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. is not B. Ceiba L., thus :— “B. Ceiba Lun. Hort. Jam. I, 248 (1814) (non L)”. The two species (B. Ceiba L. and B. pentandrum L.) being different and not congeneric—none of the modern mono- graphers having so far disputed this conclusion—there is no reason why Bombax L. should be rejected by legislation and Bombax DC should be placed among nomina generica conservanda. Nor is there reason to disregard the typi- Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Ti fication of Bombax L. (1753) by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (1832) who reserved the name for the American element of B. Ceiba L. = B. Ceiba L. sensu stricto, and created a new generic name Salmala for the Asiatic element of B. Ceiba L. [= B. malabaricum DC. (1824) = Salmalia malabarica (DC) ScHoTT et ENDL. (1832) ]. 4. The Interpretation of Bombax sensu stricto As said above, the interpretation given to the genus Bombax L (1753) by ScHoTrT and ENDLICHER (1832) and later by Dr. BAKHUIZEN (1924) is the correct one. It is also the one to be followed if botanists are to stabilize the names on any definite principles. The reasons given by Dr. BAKHUIZEN, though incomplete, are worthy of con- sideration. After pointing out that LINNAEUS had com- plicated the identity of Bombax Ceiba L. both by citing in its synonymy Moul-elavou of RHEEDE and by supposing that the species occurred both in the West and in the East Indies, Dr. BAKHUIZEN stated his case thus :— “By this error and his poor descriptions, nobody is able to make out what he meant, but after all he actually must have had in mind an American plant. Not only in the generic descriptions (Gen. Plant. 6th ed. 1764), he speaks of “calyx persistens” and moreover calls the species after an American name, B. Ceiba, but in the 2nd ed. of the Spec. Plant. it appears much more clearly, that he must have in mind, the American plant, for he refers to JACQUIN’S description.” SLOT e The first correction has been made by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER, who restricted the generic name Bombawx L. to the species of American origin, and gave the name Salmalia ScHoTT et ENDL. to the Asiatic plants. To my opinion, they were quite right; only they failed in pointing out the principal differences between these two genera. “But the generic name Gossampinus HAm., which is older has priority, since Gossampinus alba HAM., one of the two species described under it, was removed as a synonym to Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. so that only Gossampinus rubra HAM. remains in the genus.” (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. VI, 1924, pp. 187-188). Apparently Dr. BAKHUIZEN had not had an opportunity of consulting LINNAEUS’S Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) ; for the words “‘calyx persistens”’ also occur in that edition. Besides, if the interpretation of Bomba is based entirely on the generic description given in Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754), it becomes impossible to take RHEEDE’S picture of Moul-elavou. The name Bombaz is followed by a sign (cross or dagger) which, according to the explanation given in the introduction of the work, means that the description was derived from a dried plant (and therefore not from a living plant or from a figure). Further from the observation following the: description it appears that LINNAEUS had examined more than one kind of flower Vol. X. (1938). 178 representing more than one species. This sign is, however, omitted in the Genera Plantarum ed. 6 (1764), whether or not by error it is not known. But apart from these considerations, it must be remembered that SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (1832), after removing from the genus Bombax L (1753) B. pentandrum and B. religiosum, and so leaving only B. Ceiba, were the first persons to recognize the mixed nature of this species and they typified it as the American plant by transferring the Asiatic element of LINNAEUS to Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832). In further elucidation of the principles here involved I might be allowed to transcribe here some remarks I made on the subject in Gardens’ Bulletin Straits Settlements 1X (1937) : “If a mixtum compositum (positive) covers two or more species or elements of a rank higher than that of species, then follow the earliest interpretation that takes into account all the characters of greater importance [explained in the paper], even if this interpretation does not agree with the characters of lesser .JMPOTtaNbe. oc uh sa nee (p. 248). “Where there are equally good botanical reasons in favour of more than one specimen being chosen as the Lectotype, systematists must, in the interest of stability of nomenclature, accept as the standard of the me te species the first published choice of lectotype” (p. Fortunately in the case of Be boe L (1753) it appears that the lectotype agrees with the generic description of lesser importance also, so that there is no need to go to Bombax malabaricum DC (1824) in order to typify it. But now, following the recommendation by Miss GREEN, if one considers Bombax L. sensu strictissimo as syno- nymous with Gossampinus HAM. sensu BAKHUIZEN (1924), then one will be obliged to use another name for the genus called Bombax by ENDLICHER and SCHOTT (1832) and accepted as such by Dr. BAKHUIZEN (1924). Further, if the distinction made by botanists between Bombax, Evrio- theca, and Bombacopsis is admitted, then the taxonomic group called Bombax by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (1832), having. B. Ceiba L. sensu stricto for its lectotype, will be without any name; and this denudation of the Linnean genus must be carried out if the generic name Bombaz is reserved for B. malabaricum DC (1824). This. species, however, will presently be shown to have already a very good generic name, even when it is made the type of a special genus and defined in a very restricted sense. 5. Gossampinus versus Salmalia Both Index Kewensis and Dr. BAKHUIZEN give Gossam- pinus as having been first published by HAMILTON in Transactions of Linnean Society, London, XV, 1827 pp. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 179 126-128. But this is an error, for no generic name is definitely published there and HAMILTON himself refers in the Transactions to his previous Commentary on RUMPHIUS’S Herbarium Amboinense, where, he says, he gave reasons “for adopting the name affixed to it in the collection presented to the India House (Cat. No. 1526)’. In the Transactions he gives therefore the synonyms which belong to the species Gossampinus alba which was. apparently the name affixed to the specimens presented to the India House. I have not had an opportunity to consult HAMILTON’S Commentary on Herbarium Amboinense (1826); but it seems obvious that the generic name referred to in that Commentary is Gossampinus (a name quoted also by RUMPHIUS in a note) with G. alba as the binomial com- bination under it. From the synonymy given under G. alba it is evident that the generic name as published in 1826 (if it is valid) has either to be typified by the Rumphian figure of Hriophoros javana or perhaps RHEEDE’S figure of Panja or Panjala, or to be regarded as a mixtum compositum. In the Commentary on RHEEDE’S Hortus Malabaricus (Trans. Linn. Soc. London. XV, 1827, p. 128) HAMILTON added a new binomial, G. rubra, which was based chiefly on Moul-Elavou of RHEEDE. Now the first persons to recognize the mixed nature of Gossampinus (assuming it to be valid) were again SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (Metel. Bot. 1832, p. 35), who excluded the later species G. rubra HAM. from the genus in order to transfer G. rubra to another newly created genus Salmala SCHOTT et ENDL. (vide also ENDL., Gen. Plant. 1840, nos. 5300-5303). Consequently Gossampinus as typified on G. alba became synonymous with Ceiba GAERTN. (a result which would follow also were the genus Gossampinus HAM. published in 1826 monotypic). This means that SCHOTT and ENDLICHER were the first to restrict correctly the use of Gossampinus to G. alba HAM., that is, the plant described by RUMPHIUS under Eriophoros javana and by RHEEDE under Panja or Panjala. In the interest of the stability of nomenclature, therefore, botanists must accept this decision given by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER unless definite reasons are forth- coming to show that G. alba should not be taken as the holotype or lectotype of Gossampinus HAM. (1826). Until then Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) must be accepted as the correct name for the genus called Gossampinus by Dr. BAKHUIZEN and its type must be Salmalia malabarica (DC) ScHoTT et ENDL. (= Bombax malabaricum DC). According to the Rules the specific epithet in B. hepta- phyllum Houtt. (1774) cannot be legitimized under Vol. X. (1928). 180 Salmalia because the name was either a misapplication, or if not, a later homonym, of B. heptaphyllum L (1762). The acceptance of this decision given by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER concerning Salmalia and Gossampinus will) involve changes in the nomenclature of all the species listed by Dr. BAKHUIZEN under Gossampinus; but all these binomials were newly published in 1924, through the mistaken rejection of Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. and S. malabarica (DC) ScHOTT et ENDL. But if these changes really must be prevented (and they cannot be prevented by making B. malabaricum DC. (1824) the lectotype of the genus Bombax L.), then Gossampinus HAM. (if validly published) must be rejected and Gossampinus BAKH. (1924) must be conserved against Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) and for no other reason than botanical misunderstanding. 6. Conclusions (i) The lectotype species (Bombax malabaricum DC) recommended in the Rules for the genus Bombax L (1753) is unacceptable; it violates the very fundamentals of the tvpe-concept embodied in the Rules. (ii) The genus must be typified on the American Bombax Ceiba L (1753) sensu stricto, the only species left in the genus out of the original three. (iii) If Bombax L. is typified on the Asiatic B. malabaricum DC (1824) great nomenclatural changes will follow: the American plants now referred to Bombax L sensu strictissimo (with B. Ceiba L. sensu stricto as the lectotype) will be without a generic name. (iv) Gossampinus HAM. as restricted by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (1832) is merely Ceiba GAERTN. This sense must be accepted. (v) Gossampinus HAM. quoad alteram partem is Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) which is the legitimate generic name having as its type Salmalia malabarica (DC) SCHOTT et ENDL. = B. malabaricum DC (1824). 7. Appendix Unless it be to protect a use of a name current for a hundred years or more, it is inadvisable, I think, to add new names to the list of nomina generica conservanda of 1905-1910, without first establishing definite principles by which to appreciate the proposals for the conservation of names. The principle that transferred applications could be conserved has been accepted by botanists in general, but when one examines many rejections of generic names (é.g. Oreodoxa, Conocephalus Bl., and Ucriana SPRENG.) one notes that this principle is not consistently applied. Even Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 181 Dr. SPRAGUE, who otherwise strongly upholds in principle the conservation of transferred applications in order to prevent unnecessary changes (Kew Bull. 1926 pp. 96-100; Brit. Prop. 1929 pp. 47-49), rejected a proposal to conserve Marica in a sense used for more than 50 years previously both in revisions of that genus and in BENTH. et Hook. f., Gen. Plant. (1883), ENGL. et PRANTL., Pflanzenfam. (1888) and DALLA TORRE et HARMS. Gen. Siphon. (1900), because there was an earlier Marica SCHREB. (1789), a superfluous name for Cipura AUBL. (1775) and apparently never used in that sense since Marica was invested with a new sense, and also because “that was an unjustifiable transference of the name of one genus to another that had been confused with it” (Kew Bull. 1928 pp. 278-281); and yet the last sentence in inverted commas could equally be applied to the case of /xia as discussed by Dr. SPRAGUE (Kew Bull. 1926) or Bombax as discussed by Miss GREEN. Dr. SPRAGUE created a new name Neomarica SPRAGUE (1928) followed by fifteen new combinations under it, all of which had valid and legitimable names under Marica. If Marica HEBERT (1840) were conserved and Marica SCHREB. (1789) were rejected, no changes would be required in the nomenclature adopted for over three quarters of a century in revisions and many important books. The absence of a guiding principle has hitherto been a source of very erratic and disturbing proposals, one instance of which is the case of Bombax discussed above. Ad hoc decision by votes is not a satisfactory procedure in science, as it introduces an element of resentful diversity. Besides, voting on such matters may be swayed by the personalities of either the proposers and the seconders or the opposers, a thing not so easy to happen if there are some principles by which to appreciate such proposals. If the proposals for the con- servation and rejection of names were put for the approval of specialists in each family or genus. the case might be different, for they would be in the position of appreciating the proposals in their correct perspective; but since that is not possible, I still believe that in such matters as the recognition of nomina generica conservanda aut rejicienda, “general laws are much better for the guidance of botanists than obligations to call now and then upon the Executive Committee to give its arbitrary decisions.” (Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. IX, 1987 p. 253). NotTe.—Since writing the above I have discovered that LINNAEUS himself was the first person to exclude RHEEDE’S Moul-elavou from B. Ceiba; see LINN., Syst. Nat. ed. XII (1767) 457. VOL. Xe CL9SS8). 182 A NEW MAPANIA (CYPERACEAE) FROM THE MALAY PENINSULA By H. UITTIEN Mapania tumida Uitt. nov. spec. E subgenere Pandanosciryi, Mapaniae enodi (Midq.) Clarke proxima, sed foliis caudatis, scapis apice tumidis, primo visu diversa. Rhizoma crassum, 1 cm. diametro. Folia coriacea glaucescentia 1.35 m. longa vel ultra, 2.5 cm. lata, tertia parte basali complicata, ceterum flaccida, margine remote et grosse dentata vel leevia, subtus preesertim basi reticulato- nodulosa et pallidiora, apice subito in caudam triquetram asperrimam contracta. Scapi efoliati, 14-22 cm. longi, basi squamis nonnullis ovatis vel oblongis obtusis papyraceis, spatio fere 4 cm. longo, absconditi, basi 1-2 mm., apice 3 mm. crassi, leves. Spicula fructifera conica, 2 cm. longa, 1.5 cm. lata. Flores ignoti. Nuces ut in M. enode (Miq.) Clarke (M. longa Ridl.), 5 mm. longe, depresse globose, manifere apiculate, rugose, basi constricte et in stipitem 2-3 mm. latum, angulosum dilatate. Peninsula malaica, in ditione Johore, Sungai Kayu, 8. Sedili, in silva paludosa. Legit E. J. H. CORNER, d.d. 3 Aug. 1935, S. F. nr. 29736. . Typus in herbario bogoriense (Buitenzorg); Typi duplum in herb. Singapore. BOTANICAL MUSEUM & HERBARIUM, STATE UNIVERSITY, UTRECHT (HOLLAND). Gardens Bulletin, SS. rd ¥ mt PUBLICATIONS OF THE BOTANIC GARDENS, Bea SI ribbons << st ae 1. The Agricultural Bulletin of the Malay Peninsula’ [01d Series] nos. 1-9, 1891-1900 (out of print). ~~ @ 2. The Agricultural Bulletin of the Straits and PMS | [Second Series, monthly issues] Vols. 1-10, 19€ 1911. Most numbers are available, price 50 cents each or $5 per volume. 3. The Gardens Bulletin, Straits Settlements. - | iS 3 Vol. 1 nos. 1-5, January to May 1912 (as Aaa ub tural Bulletin of the Straits and F.M.S., Than Series). nos. 6-12, December 1913—Mar. 1917 (as The Gardens Bulletin, S.S.). " Vol. 2 nos. 1-12, July 1918—August 1921. Vol. 3 nos. 1-12, August 19283—March 1925. Vol. 4 nos, 1-12, June 1926—January 1929. — Vol 5 nos: 1-12, August 1929—June 1932. = Vol. 6 nos. 1-15, (issued as parts 1-3) ‘Decemb er 1929—October 1930. ag Vol. 7 parts 1-3, September 1932—June 1934.” - # Vol. 8 parts 1-4, October 1934—October 1935. | Vol. 9 parts 1-4, December 1935—March 1938. a The above former issues of the Gardens Bulletin 7 y ’ be purchased from the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, at § per volume or 50 cents per number for vols. 1-5 (Vol. 6, of 15 numbers, $7.50); in some Cases two or more numbers 3 were published together. Vols. 7 and 8 are published at ¢ per volume; the prices of parts vary according to their siz a The parts are published at irregular matiate ces: as materia is available. $2307—400—1/1988. - e “24h August, 1939 Part 2 ec Whe tl Mie eee aE et A RE ak MR ed NSS eae a A ATEN SSS Porat tage : | i RDE : . "STRAITS: ‘SETTLEMENTS x : : , ek Pace | r 6 Mbeki il: Moves - some jee eee ; H ne _Homalomena saa by C. x y Euatade . 183 | ie vores 1H, ace E J. = Corner 7 (seth mnie | Ke eaten Bh a Bees, ha : 239 i 3 Se ay nis of Shaina bo C. X. Furtado’ - 330 i son Malayan Dipterocarpacene V, by Cc. F. ae i eee | Cae gas 11-27) Be ; 336. | ae at a i ii j " ac 4 ‘ Sete 385 | ‘st NGAPORE: : } rage 2 ; e et 5 _ Pane. Ar. THE eer een PrintinG Ofrice, Sincapore; 2 i BY, ay tet OS +h tia Seon ACTING. GOVERNMENT PRINTER. i ‘ + aun ARBOp a oReCEIvED yee: BIO SEALE BA GE ER BT SS a RY we aE a K Fs < ~ we ee : ' Pee Pe a THE GARDENS’ BULLETIN STRAITS SETTLEMENTS Vol. X 24th August, 1939 Part 2 ARACEAE MALESICAE II.—Notes on some Indo-Malaysian Homalomena Species By C. X. FURTADO, Botanic Gardens, Singapore Page I. Introduction and General Conclusions $53 X9BS II. Sections of the Genus ... Pe Gel Ge III. Key to the Sections ay “% wo! 286 IV. Systematic Notes on Species: A. Section CHAMAECLADON pf ain 186 B. Section EU-HOMALOMENA ofc va { Bio C. Section CyRTOCLADON my, th ek V. Summary of the Systematic Notes .. ate 74!) VI. Index to the Numbers Cited se i) eee VII. Index to the Botanical Names % a Boe I. Introduction and General Conclusions HOMALOMENA plants in general, but more especially those native of Malaya (Malay Peninsula) and the Sunda Islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo and small islands within the area), vary a great deal in all their vegetative characters, and to a certain extent in their reproductive characters also, the variations depending not only on the age of the plant but also on such environmental conditions as soil, exposure, flooding and humidity. The greatest variability is noticed in species which grow on stream sides and on rocks near waterfalls and in streams, where they are subject to a graded intensity and frequency of flood, spray and to a certain extent, of insolation. This ecologic diversity within the plants of the same species or variety makes an analysis of the genus into its constituent species and varieties an extremely difficult problem. A key that would cover all these variations would become too bulky to be of any practical use. The task of analysing the genus into its species would be much simplified if specimens of as many Homalomena species as possible 183 184 were collected again to show the range of variation, and if their spathes with flowers and fruits were preserved in spirit. While naming and arranging Malayan species of this genus, I noticed that some systematists have not taken due cognizance of their range of variability, so that, in some cases, either one and the same name has been used for different species because their specimens agree in colour (e.g. H. purpurascens) or many names have been bestowed on the same species because the specimens studied showed marked differences among themselves concerning colour, size and shape of leaves (e.g. H. obliqua, H. Griffithu, H. Kingii, etc.). Evidence is not lacking to show that some species are purely “‘geographical’’, that is, one and the same species is made to pass under different names according to the country of origin of the specimens to be named, (H. paludosa and H. propinqua; H. coerulescens, H. rubra, etc.). In order to clear the nomenclatural tangles of the Malayan species, therefore, I was obliged to study many non-Malayan species, but not so many as to consider this study of mine as a monographic revision of the Indo- Malaysian Homalomena. I am much indebted to the Directors of the Herbaria at Kew, Leiden, and Buitenzorg for their co-operation either by sending on loan some of the authentic specimens in their herbaria, or by supplying either information concerning the types or copies of such original descriptions as were not available in Singapore. In citing the exsiccatz, I have omitted all reference to the herbarium when the specimens cited are conserved in the Singapore herbarium, but have inserted appropriate abbreviations to indicate the other herbaria, the initials “HB” having been adopted for the Buitenzorg Herbarium (Herbarium Bogoriense). For the nomenclature adopted in this paper for types, see Gard. Bull. Straits Settlements IX part 3, 1937 pp. 285-309. II. Sections of the Genus So far only six species of Homalomena are known from America, all belonging to the section CURMERIA (LIND. et ANDRE) ENGL., the remaining being confined to Indomalay- sia. The latter are at present divided into two sections: CHAMACLADON and EU-HOMALOMENA; but in order to bring out the affinities existing between the different groups of species, it seems desirable to divide them into three sections, namely, CHAMASCLADON, EU-HOMALOMENA sexsu stricto, and CRYTOCLADON, as defined below. The new section is the most distinct of the three, having the spathes Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 185 always contracted above the female inflorescence, often without staminodes among the female flowers, and a space or zone (either vacant or sparsely or thickly covered with neutral flowers) frequently intervening between the male and the female inflorescence. A. Sectio Chamecladon (MIQ.) ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. fo OD. a footn@ipiZ) p83. Chamaecladon MIq. in Bot. Zeit. (1856) 564 et FI. pubes, bat: til: (18567). 212: SCHOTT, Gen. Ar. (1858) t. 60 et Prodr. (1860) 312; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 348, et in ENGL. et Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf. II, 3 (1887) 130: sub titulo generis. Spathae ellipsoideze in medio non constricte, 0.5—3 cm. longe, rarissime longiores. Staminodia pistillis duplo breviora. Caudiculus erectiusculus vel reptans, epigeus. Folia rarissime sagittata vel profundo cordata, plerumque minus quam 15 cm. lata. HABITAT: Malesia usque Novam Guineam. In India Birmaniaque non legitur. Forme numerosissime in Malaya, Sumatra et alteris insulis Sundaicis reperiuntur; ad orientem versus species hujus sectionis perpauce. B. Sectio Eu-Homalomena ENGL. in DC, Mon. Phan. II (1879) 833 et in Pflanzenreich tom. cit p. 51. p. parte. Homalomena SCHOTT pro parte typica. Spathae oblonge, supra inflorescentiam femineam haud contracte. Staminodia pistillum equantia, raro deficientia (?). Caudex epigeus. Folia profundo cordata, spe saggitata vel fere, plerumque quam 15 cm. mults latiora. HABITAT: In India, Malesia usque Novam Guineam. Forme numerosissime in Malaya, Sumatra et alteris insulis Sundaicis leguntur. C. Sectio Cyrtocladon FURTADO sect. nov. ? Cyrtocladon GRIFF., Notul. III (1851) 147 sub titulo generis. Spathae supra inflorescentiam femineam contracte, rostrate. Staminodia pistillis equilonga, interdum deficien- tia. Spadix inter inflorescentiam femineam et masculam zona floribus neutris perpaucis vel numerosis obsessis interdum posita. Caudex epigeus. Folia lanceolata, vel ovato lanceolata, basi cuneata, vel profundo cordata, sagittata vel non. | This section may be identical with the genus Cyrtocladon GRIFF. whose spathes, however, are described as shedding the apical portions in the manner of the species of Piptospatha and Schismatoglottis. I have not seen the type; but from the general description the specimen described under Cyrtocladon appears to be identical with Homalomena rostrata GRIFF., a species also simultaneously described. Vol. X. (1939). =. 186 HABITAT: In Insulis Sundaicis usque ad Peninsulam Malaianam sed forme numerosissime in Borneo reperiun- tur. In alteris regionibus Indomalesianis aut ad orientem aut ad septemtrionem vergentibus species hujus sectionis non reperte sunt. III. Key to the Sections la. Spatha 4 cm. vel magis longa, plus quam 1.5 cm. crassa, in medio constricta vel non. Staminodia pistillis equilonga vel WWII oie on (2). 1.b. Spatha ad 4 cm. usque longa, plerumque minor, rarissime longior, ad 1.5 cm. crassa, haud medio constricta. Staminodia pistillis breviora....,. Chamaecladon (M1Q.) ENGL. 2.a. Spatha oblonga, haud in medio contracta. Eu-Homalomena ENGL. emend FURTADO. 2.b. Spatha supra inflorescentiam femineam contracta, rostrata. Cyrtocladon FURTADO sect. nov. IV. Systematic Notes on Species A. SECTION: CHAMA\CLADON 1. Homalomena argentea RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 35, Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 27; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23 Da [55] (1912) 31; RIDL., FI. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 107. Chamaecladon Griffith var. argenteum RIDL. in Trans. Linn. Soc., London, III (1898) 394 pro parte. Syn. nov. H. Grifithiu (ScHotTT) Hook. f. sensu RIDL., FI. cit. (1925) 106 p. p. The species was described from living specimens grown in the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, where they were sent by DrErRRY from Malacca. There is no specimen in the Singapore herbarium (the plant in the Gardens being no longer extant) which agrees in all respects with the descrip- tion given by RIDLEY; nor is there any specimen which has been definitely labelled by RIDLEY as H. argentea. Subsequent to the publication of the species; ENGLER visited Singapore and in his monograph (l.c.) stated that he had seen the plant cultivated in the Singapore Gardens. But the plants then growing in Singapore must have been poor and too few to enable ENGLER to make herbarium specimens of the species, or to add substantially to the brief description given by RIDLEY. It is true that ENGLER placed the species in the Clavis Specierum among those species that produce a few primary nerves to the leaves; but in the text of the description itself, RIDLEY’s indefinite phrase “nervis pluribus” has been paraphrased by ENGLER as “‘nervis lateralibus pluribus, angulo acuto adscedentibus”’. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. ~ el 187 ENGLER’S description may, therefore, be said to be substan- tially the same as that given by RIDLEY, there being only a slight disagreement in the dimensions of the leaves. There is, however, in the Singapore herbarium a specimen which is recorded to have been collected at Bukit Sadanen in Malacca by DERRY in September 1890. The sheet on which it is mounted is numbered “10” by RIDLEY himself and the field notes, also in RIDLEY’S hand, run thus: ““Almost stemless. Sheath of leaves very broadly spread. Petiole grooved, strongly ribbed. Leaf silvery above.” The specimen was first named as Chamaecladon Griffithu var. argentea, but later the specific epithet was cancelled by RIDLEY so that the name reads thus: “Chamaecladon var. argentea’. Now since in the original description RIDLEY stated that H. argentea was a species closely allied to Homalomena (sect. Chamaecladon) Griffithti, and that “it was first collected alive by Mr. DERRY” in Malacca, and since number “10” corresponds to the number of H. argentea in RIDLEY’S Materials (III, 1907)—RIDLEY having frequently used such notations to indicate the species described in the Materials— it seems reasonable to conclude that this specimen of DERRY’S represents a plant from the type-collection that supplied the material that was grown in Singapore and later described by RIDLEY. The specimen itself consists of one leaf and of some spadices enclosed in their spathes. Two of the spathes are cut open and expose in each a sessile spadix having its male inflorescence about three times as long as the female, characters that agree entirely with those given by RIDLEY. But though the peduncles are 12-15 mm. long and the spathes 14-16 mm., the spathes are cuspidate, while both RIDLEY and ENGER describe them as being non-cuspidate. Further the following discrepancies in the descriptions and the specimen are noticed: RIDLEY’S E\NGLER’S DERRY’S description| description specimen Lamina length: 3 poll. 1.1-1.3 dm. | 1.3 dm. (= 5 ins.) width: 1% poll. 3-4 cm. 4.5 cm. (nearly ; 2 ins.) Petioie length: 2 poll. 3-5 cm. 7 cm. (nearly 3 ins.) (without the sheathed portion 4 cm.—1% ins.) Vol. X. (1939). 188 Since ENGLER, who had in 1905 examined the type plants in the Singapore Botanic Gardens, gave a little greater dimensions of the leaves than the ones given by RIDLEY, one is justified in concluding that, when RIDLEY drew his specific description, the plant was still not fully developed, or was making poor growth, a surmise which would also explain why the spathes are described as not being cuspidate and why ENGLER himself was not able to gather even a sterile specimen of the plant for the Berlin Herbarium. In the absence of any specimen from the type plant, I go by DERRY’S specimen, which as pointed out above, came probably from the same collection as supplied the type plant to the Botanic Gardens, Singapore. It could be called Neotype or Neotopotype. Since RIDLEY did not cite the locality “Bukit Sadanen” and did not give higher dimensions that would include this neotype, it appears that RIDLEY had not examined this specimen at the time of preparing the description. This specimen of DERRY’S agrees very well with HOLTTUM 9736 from Negri Sembilan cited by RIDLEY (1925) as H. Griffithii. Unfortunately all the duplicates of the latter collection have been distributed, so that one is now not able to study the different variations represented. But FURTADO 33127, also from Negri Sembilan, represents the same species. Some specimens in the last: mentioned collection have a petiole up to 10 cm. long and a lamina up to 16 cm. long and 6.5 cm. wide. The peduncles are very short, so that they are hardly visible, the inflorescences remaining in consequence inconspicuous among the petioles and sheaths. | MALAYA: Malacca: Bukit Sadanen (DERRY, Sept. 1890: Neotype). Negri Sembilan: Selaru (HoLtTtTum, 9736); Bukit Tumian (ALVINS, 1849) Gunong Angsi (RIDLEY, IJ-1904; FURTADO, 33127 and 33127b). 2. Homalomena argentea var. purpurascens FURTADO var. be NOV nn ek de cr A forma typica differt lamina foliorum minus coriacea, subtus rubra, supra rubicundo-viridis. This may be identical with H. obscurifolia v. ALD. V. Ros. MALAYA: Negri Sembilan: Gunong Angsi, alt. circa. 700 ft. FURTADO, 33129). Among rocks in a small stream called Sungei Bendol. Rare. 3. Homalomena batcensis ENGL. in Pflanzenreich iv. 23. Da [55] (1912) 47 fig. 26 K. H. multivenosa RIDL. in Kew Bull. (1926) 92. Syn. nov. H. pygmaea sensu ENGL. op. cit. p. 34 p. p. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 189 I have compared the haptoholotypes of H. multivenosa with the holotype of H. batoeensis and find no significant difference to warrant their separation into two species. H. batoeensis is very closely allied to H. lancifolia of the Malayan Peninsula and may prove to be a variety of this. H. oblanceolata, which also appears to be very near to H. batoeensis, is distinguished (judging from a few specimens examined) by being prostrate, and repent, and not erect as the other species. SUMATRA: Batu Island (RAAP: 186, Holotype, HB; 266, HB). Sibolangit (LORZING, 53861 & 5728, HB); Brani (BUNNEMEIJER, 3104, HB). Mentawi Islands (BopEN-KLoss, 11441, Haptoholotype of H. multivenosa; IBOET, 30, HB.). 4. Homalomena Carrii FURTADO spec. nov. H. tenuispadice affinis, sed minor, lamina foliorum oblongo-elliptica, basi obtusa vel subtruncata (haud sagittata). Caudex erectus, 1.5 cm. usque crassus. Petiolus circa 15 cm. longus ad tertiam partem usque vaginatus. Lamina - foliorum oblongo-elliptica, maxima latitudine in medio sita, ineequilateralis, utrinque attenuata, apice acuminata, basi obtusa vel subtruncata, 15-20 cm. longa, 6.5—-7.5 cm. lata, nervis lateralibus primariis utrinsecus 7-9, prominentibus, secundariis quam eis vix gracilioribus, tertiariis gracil- limis. Pedunculus ad 7 cm. longus, gracilis. Spatha 2.5-3 cm. longa, sepe in cuspidem ad 1 cm. usque longam exeuns. Spadix spatham equans; pars feminea mascule equilonga, vel etiam paullo brevior quam ea. Papua: Koitaki, alt. 1500 ped. (CARR, 12053). Plants about 15 inches tall. Spathes green. 5. Homalomena confusa FURTADO spec. nov. Chamaecladon angustifoliwm (JACK) SCHOTT in Bonpl. VI (1858) 369, Prodr. (1860) 313; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 344, in Arac. Exsicc. et Iilustr. no. 103: omnino excl. basinymo. H. angustifolia (JACK) Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 533; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. II. (1907) 28; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 28. Da. [55] (1912) 31 fig. 12; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 108: omnino pro parte haud typica. H. angustifolia var. parvula RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 109. Syn. nov. H. trapezifolia sensu RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. LVII (1910).112 p. p. Ab H. Stollei ENGL. et KRAUSE, cui affinissima, differt foliorum lamina magis coriacea, spe etiam latiore, apice longe acuminata, raro falcata, pevtio fragiliore, spatha magis coriacea. | Vol. X. (19389). 190 Herba parva ad 25-30 cm. longa caudice prostrato, saxicolo. Petiolus lamina longior vel paulo brevior, vel lamine equilongus, ad 20 cm. longus, longe vaginatus. Lamina foliorum elongato vel lineari lanceolata, szpe trapezoidea, utrinque sepe plus basin quam apicem versus oblique attenuata; 7-15 cm. longa, 12-30 mm. lata, latitudine sua 4—6—plo longior; nervis lateralibus primariis utrinsecus 2—4, adscendentibus; secundariis valde gracilioribus, fere inconspicuis, subparallelis. Pedunculus 2.5-5 cm. longus. Spatha oblonga, haud in medio constricta, apice subito acuminata, 1.5—-2 cm. longa, coriacea, costulata. Spadices: inflorescentia mascula 214-—3—plo longior quam feminea. According to Mr. CORNER this plant with its long creeping rhizomes forms a dense mat on rocks, often covering them completely. The field notes on CORNER 33692 (Pahang) state that the petioles, peduncles and spathes in some plants are pinkish and that the species is found growing on rocks in streams at the altitudes of 3,000-6,500 ft. The species was confused with Calla angustifolia JACK =Homalomena humilis var. pumila (see my remarks on that variety). In the general aspect of the plants, H. confusa may be easily confused with H. Stollei, but it differs in the texture and shape of the leaves and in the shape of the spathes, and resembles some forms of H. humilis and H. paucinervia. MALAYA: Kedah, Gunong Jerai (RIDLEY, 5123, Holotype). Kemaman: Sungei Nipah (CORNER, 24—vi-1932). Pahang: Teku River on Gunong Tahan (RIDLEY, 15491: type of H. angustifolia var. parvula); Gunong Tahan alt. 5800-7000 ft. (HANIFF and Nur, 7969 RIDLEY, 16188; CORNER, 33692) ; Tahan River (RIDLEY, 2391). Penang: loc. incert. (WALLICH no. 8959 partim, vidi tantum Iconem SCHOTTII ab ENGLERIO reproductam); Government Hill (RIDLEY, in 1899); Telok Bahang (BURKILL, 4552; CURTIS, 2886). Perak: Tea Gardens (RIDLEY, in 1891); Bujong Malacca (RIDLEY, 9793); Ulu Temango (RIDLEY, 14305). Selangor: Pahang track (RIDLEY, 8488). 6. Homalomena consobrina (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Pflanzen- reich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 46. Chamaecladon consobrinum SCHOTT in MIQ., Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. I (1863) 126; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 344 et Illustr. Arac. n. 98. The type of this species has very thin, papyraceous leaves and spathes. Otherwise it could be easily mistaken for some forms of H. batoeensis and H. paucinervia to which it has great affinities. SUMATRA: Loc. incert. (KORTHALS in Herb. Leiden, Holotype). RriAu ARCHIPELAGO: Pulau Tujoh on Gunong Ranai (BUN- NEMEIJER, 5811, HB). ANAMBAS ARCHIPELAGO: Bunguran Island on Gunong Ranai (VAN STEENIS, 1191, HB). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 191 7. Homalomena Corneri FURTADO spec. nov. Inter species sectionis Chamaecladonis magnas spadicibus longissimis (e.g. H. bellula, H. deltoidea et H. tenuispadix) heec species collocanda, sed foliorum lamina haud deltoidea vel sagittata aut basi cordato- lobata, nervis lateralibus primariis pluribus facile distingui potest. Spathze spadicisque habitu magis speciebus sectionis Eu-Homalomenae similis, attamen propter staminodia parvissima sectioni Chaemaecladonti attribuenda. . Herba reptans, suffruticosa, majuscula, caudiculo sicco 7-12 mm. in diametro. Petiolus ad 35 cm. usque longus, supra vaginam 3—4 mm. amplus, basi ad 7 cm. usque vagi- natus. Lamina foliorum elliptico-ovata, maxima latitudine infra medium sita, apicem versus sensim attenuata, summo in acumen 2-2.5 cm. longo contracta, basi subtruncata, obtusa, interdum oblique rotundata, cum acumine 25-30 cm. longa, 9.5-12.5 cm. lata, nervis primariis lateralibus utrinsecus 7-8 (primariis subprimariisque cunctis 10-12), secundarlis tertiariisque pluribus, subparallelis. Pedunculs pauci, 6-9 cm. longi. Spatha oblonga, medio non constricta, coriacea, apice breviter cuspidato-acuminata, 4—4.5 cm. longa, 1.5 em. ampla. Spadix cylindricus, circa. 3.8 cm. longus, basi stipite 2-4 mm. longo suffultus, parte basali feminea laxiflora fere duplo breviore quam mascula apicali. Staminodia brevissima, ad pistillorum basin sita. Pistilla ovoidea, summo in stigma orbiculare contracta. MALAYA: Johore, Sungei Pelapa Kiri, on rocks and banks above the flood level, not in the stream bed (CORNER, 33581). 8. Homalomena Curtisii RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 34; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 28; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 34; RIDL., FI. Malay Pen. V (1925) 108. From the description it is evident that the plant was described from a living specimen; but the only specimen preserved by RIDLEY to represent the holotype consists of a leaf and a few spathes of a plant that was being cultivated in the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, in January 1899. The plant was introduced from the Botanic Gardens, Penang, where CURTIS had brought it from Perak, the locality “Bujong Malacca” being preceded with a query mark to show that the exact locality of its collection in the wild state was uncertain. This query mark has been omitted in the published descriptions. From the meagre material available it is very difficult to identify the species. Hence in interpreting it, another specimen made by CURTIS on 21st October 1897 from a plant growing in the Penang Gardens may be used. This Vol. X. (1939). 192 specimen was taken from a batch of plants obtained from Perak (exact locality is not given) and is moreover named H. Curtisi in RIDLEY’S hand. This specimen appears to be con-specific with the holotype of the species, but unfortu- nately it is sterile. The plant may be identical with H. humilis var. ophirensis, which has also short spathes, long petioles and often narrow, oblique acuminate leaves. MALAYA :Perak: Bujong Malacca? (cult. in Hort. Bot. Singap. leg. RIDLEY in January 1899, Holotype; cult. in Hort. Bot. Penang, leg. CURTIS, 21—X-1897, Haptoholotype). 9. Homalomena deltoidea Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 536; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 25; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 45; RIDL., FI. Mal. Pen. V. (1925) 105. This species bears perhaps the largest spathes in the section Chamaecladon. Both in the dimensions of the spathes and in the shape of the leaves, the species can easily pass as a member of the section Hu-Homalomena. The spathes end in a long wiry cusp and are much longer than the spadix within, two characters that make the species a close relative of H. Hendersonit. MALAYA: Kemaman, Ulu Kajang (CORNER, 30436). Kelantan, Sungei Keteh (Nur with Foxwortuy, 7-II-1924). Perak, Taiping Hills (Rm.Ley, Dec. 1902; HENDERSON, 10185). Negri Sembilan, Gunong Angsi (Nur, 11595). Johore, Gunong Pulai (RIDLEY, Jan. 1904; MAT, in 1892); Gunong Panti (CORNER, Jan. 1930). 10. Homalomena elliptica Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 536; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 28; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 37 fig. 17; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 108. H. Griffith var. falcata RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIX (1905) 50. Syn nov. H. trapezifolia Hook. f. 1. cit.; RIDL., Mat. cit. (1907) 28; ENGL. in op. cit. p. 49; RIDL. Flor. cit. (1925) 107 partim. Syn. nov. There are various grades of transitions between the H. elliptica and the H. trapezifolia forms rendering difficult their segregation into well defined varieties. In the typical elliptica form the leaf blade is broadest in the middle, while in the trapezifolia form the leaf blade is broadest at the base which in consequence becomes rounded. ENGLER depicts H. elliptica as a species with ovules fixed at the base of placenta; but in a spadix from the collection FURTADO 33082, they were fixed all’ along the middle partition of the ovary. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 193 From the constant deviations in the disposition of the ovules on the placenta, it appears to me that, in certain groups of species, this character is very variable and hence inadmissible as a basis of specific discrimination. This species could be well reduced as a variety of H. Griffithu. If I have retained its specific rank, it is because the transitions between this and H. Griffithii have not yet been noticed. Perhaps H. hayupensis ENGL. and H. habokoana v. ALD. v. Ros. are varieties of this species. MALAYA: Perak: loc. incert. (SCORTECHINI: 256 & 256a, Haptoholotypes of H. elliptica;. 606a, Haptosyntype of H. trapezi- folia); Temango (RIDLEY, 14306); Kulim hot springs in Grik (HENDERSON, 23872); Waterfall (Wray, 1976); Sungei Tampah at the foot of Gunong Chantek in Gopeng (FuRTADO, 33082); Sungei Gepai in Bidor (CORNER, 31687); Sungei Bil (CORNER, 33687) Batu Tegoh at Taiping (HENDERSON, 10318, HB). Malacca, Sabatu (BURKILL, 2820). BORNEO: Sarawak, Kuching (RIDLEY, 12417). 11. Homalomena elliptica Hook. f. var paucinervia FURTADO var. nov. H. multinervia. RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 36 et Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 29; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 49; Ripu., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 109. Syn. nov. Differt a forma typica foliorum lamina angustiore, apicem versus magis attenuata, nervis primariis paucioribus. Herba 20-30 cm. alta. Petiolus usque 15 cm. longus. Lamina 8-12 cm. longa, 3—5.5 cm. lata, maxima latitudine infra medium vel ad basin sita, basi cuneata vel truncata, apicem versus attenuata, falcata, longissime acuminata, summo cuspidata, nervis parimariis 4—5, interdum vix validioribis quam secundariis gracilibus. The Perak collection is represented by two plants mounted on the same sheet, both of which show many gradations of leaf variations which link H. multinervia with H. elliptica. In one plant some leaves approach very near those of the form described as H. multinervia; while others look like those described as H. Pierreana ENGL. or H. sulcata ENGL. or midway between these two. Otherwise the plant is hardly distinct from H. elliptica. MALAYA: Perak, Gunong Hijau (RIDLEY, in 1892, Holotype). Malacca, Mount Ophir (RIDLEY, 6—VI-1892, Holotype of H. multi- nervia). 12. Homalomena ellipticifolia FURTADO spec. nov. H. pygmaea (HASSK.) ENGL. forma longipes V. ALD. V. Ros in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) soo. Vol. X. (1939). 194 Ab H. humili, cui affinis, differt: petiolis gracilibus multo longioribus; foliorum lamina magis coriacea, elliptica, utrinque equaliter attenuata. Facie H. ellipticae simillima sed recedit: petiolo angustiore, pedunculis spathisque brevioribus. Herba erecta. Petiolus gracilis, ad 17 cm. longus, subduplo usque triplo longior quam lamina, vagina “rubes- cente” breviter instructus. Lamina foliorum 5-10 cm. longa, 2.5-5 em. lata, 2—-3-plo longior quam latitudine, elliptica, coriacea, utrinque attenuata, supra viridis, subtus pallidior, nervis primariis subparimariisque utrinsecus 6-10, fere parallelis, subtus valde prominentibus, alteris inconspi- cuis. Pedunculi breves, solitarii vel perpauci, gracillimi, ad 1.5 cm. longi. Spatha “rubescens”, circa 1 cm. longa, papyracea. Spadix spathe fere sequilongus, sessilis(?), in tertia parte basilari femineus, floribus femineis masculisque putrefactis. SUMATRA: Simalur Island, Tapah (ACHMAD, 1723, Holotype in HB. and Meroholotype in Herb. Singap. The duplicates are said to have been distributed to Kew, Leiden and Manila). 13. Homalomena Griffithii (SCHOTT) Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 534; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. Ill (1907) 26; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich Ty 23. Da [55] (912) 43 fig. 23; RIpDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 106. Chamaecladon Grifithi SCHOTT in Bonpl. VI (1858) 369, Prodr. (1860) 315; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 346 et Arac. Exsicc. et Illustr. n. 113. Basinym. C. metallicum N. E. Br. in Illustr. Hort. XXXI (1884) 173 t. 589. Syn. nov. C. obliquatum SCHOTT in Bonpl. VI (1858) 369, _ Prodr. (1860) 315; ENGL., Mon. cit. (1879) 347. Syn. nov. C. ovatum SCHOTT in Bonpl. VII (1859) 301, Prodr. (1860) 315; ENGL., Mon. cit. (1879) 348. Syn. nov. H. falcata RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL. (1902) 35 et Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 27; ENGL. Pflanzenr. cit. (1912) 34. Syn. nov. H. Griffith var. ovata (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Pflanz. tom. cit. (1912) 44; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V. (1925) | 106. Syn nov. H. Kingu Hook. f., op. cit. (1893) 535; ENGL. in. op. cit. (1912) 41 fig. 21. H. metallica (N. E. BR.) ENGL. in op. cit. (1912) bl. Syn. nov. H. obliquata (ScHOTT) Hook. f. op. cit. (1893) 534; ENGL. op. cit. p. 39 pro parte; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 107. Syn. nov. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 195 H. ovata (SCHOTT) HOOK. i. op. cit. (1893) 536 (non H. ovata ENGL.). Syn. no With the exception of the ree ‘of H. falcata, I have not seen the type of any of these species. ENGLER’S Illustr. No. 118, which I have seen, purports to be of the holotype of H. Griffithu; if so GRIFFITH 5963 labelled at Kew as the type of H. Griffithii is not the holotype, though it may belong to the holotype collection. My interpretation of these species is therefore based entirely on the descriptions, illustrations and citations given by HOOKER, ENGLER, and RIDLEY. The species is very variable in size, shape and texture. The spadices are usually distinctly stipitate, but sometimes shortly stipitate spadices are also found, perhaps a reason why HOOKER described H. Kingii and H. obliquata as species with sessile spadices. In his Clavis Specierum, ENGLER (Pflanzenr. cit. 1912 p. 27) has put both H. Kingii and H. obliquata among species having sessile spadices, but the figures and descriptions given by him in the text are not in harmony with this statement in the Clavis. (H. elliptica is also placed in the Clavis among species having sessile spadices, though HOOKER, its author, stated it to be distinctly stipitate and ENGLER’S figure of it also shows a stipitate spadix). All this shows that this character is very unstable and is not a good guide for distinguishing between various forms in this and allied species. In the cases examined I found the ovules were fixed on the placenta above its base. In the type of H. falcata the leaves are like those of H. Pierreana figured by ENGLER (op. cit. 1912); but transitions between that form and the H. obliquata form also occur, even in the same collection. Judging from the great range of variability manifested by plants in each collection, it appears that one and the same plant passes into different forms under different conditions of age and environment. Hence without being able to distinguish between the forms that are stable and those that are not, I am loth to arrange the various forms into varieties. But for the guidance of field workers, I have arranged the different variations into forme: viz.:— (a) forma eu-Griffithii (= H. ovata and H. Griffith). Planta plus quam 12 poll. alta. Petiolus quam lamina plerumque longior. Lamina oblonga, ovata, vel ovoideo- falcatoidea, basi obtriangularis, vel rotundata vel cordulata, apicem versus sensim vel vix attenuata, usque 20 em. longa, 5-10 cm. lata. Vol. X. (1939). 196 Forms growing in swamps and in places at some distance from streams often produce papyraceous leaves which dry brown. Similar leaves are also found in other forms. MALAYA: ee Sungei Nipah (CORNER, on 24~-vi-32). Kelantan, Kuala Pertang (HANIFF & Nour, 10362); Sungei Galas at Gua Musang (HENDERSON, 22600). Pahang, Sungei Sat at Ulu Tembeling (HENDERSON, 22000); Sungei Chelia at Chegar Perak (HENDERSON, 19372). Malacca, Pangkalan Miniak (ALVINS, vern. nom. Kumayan Jantan); Merlimau (ALVINS, vern. nom. Kumayang) ; Bukit Kayu Arang (ALVINS, vern. nom. Kulumayang Padi); Ayer Panas (GRIFFITH, 5963, Herb. Kew); Jasin (GOODENOUGH, 1661). Selangor, Ginting Simpah (HUME, 9457). Johore, Kluang (HOLTTUM, 9420); Tebrau River (RIDLEY, 13239) Singapore, Bukit Timah (BURKILL, 4080). (b) forma Kingii FURTADO (= H. Kingi Hook. f.). Probably this represents a form growing in swamps or in places at some distance from streams. The leaves in this dry brown, and are less coriaceous. Leaves having this colour and texture also occur in forme obliquata and eu- Griffith. The plant is usually about 30 cm. long and petioles are shorter than, or equal to, lamina. MALAYA: Province Wellesley, Bukit Mertajam (BURKILL & HouLtTtumM, 9016) Malacca, Loc. incert. (ALVINS). Johore, Sungei Kayu (KIAH, 32056); Batu Pahat (RIDLEY in Nov. 1900). Singapore, Bukit Timah (RIDLEY in 1898); Chua Chu Kang (GOODENOUGH: 10-II-1890; 21—XII-1889; Forest Guard under RIDLEY, in May 1889) ; Tanjong Gol (RIDLEY, in 1892). (c). forma sigmoidea FURTADO f. nov. H. Scortechinii Hook. f. sensu RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 109 quoad specimen selangorense. Herba repens, saxicola. Lamina sigmoideo-falcata, circa 12 cm. longa, 4-6 cm. lata. Differt a formis prioribus et sequentibus lamina sigmoideo-faleata, magis coriacea. Apparently this form is restricted to such substrata as rocks or sand which are constantly wetted by sprays, and only oceasionally are subject to floods. MALAYA: Pahang, Sungei Tras near Raub (BURKILL & HANIFF, 16937, Holotype). Selangor, Ulu Gombak (BURKILL, 9965). Negri Sembilan, Bukit Tumiang (ALVINS, 2239, vern. nom. Assam Tikus). (d) forma obliquata FURTADO f. nov. (= H. obliquata; and H. Griffithii var. obliquata RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV, 1905 p. 177). Foliorum petiolus plerumque brevior quam lamina: Lamina oblongo-lanceolata, basi paulum obliqua vel non, acuta vel subrotundata, apicem versus falcatoidea, acumi- nata, usque 15 cm. longa, 3—5.5 em. lata. Spadix stipitatus, ovula placentis centralibus tota longitudine affixa. In all cases examined by me the spadix was stipitate and the ovules were fixed above the base of the placenta. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 197 ENGLER (l.c.) states thai the spadix is sessile, but the figure (18, p. 38) depicts a stipitate spadix with ovules fixed at the base of the placenta. There is a great deal of variation in this form both regarding the size, colouration and shape, some plants from the same collection approaching very near the eu-Griffithu form. CORNER 33578 and 33578a-e, are all from the same collection, but I gave them different letters in order to indicate the differences in colouration noted by me in the living state, viz.:— 33578: Petioles, peduncles and young leaves reddish. Spathes and older leaves green. 33578a: Petioles reddish. Peduncles, spathes and leaf-blade green. 33578b: Petioles, peduncles, leaf-blades and spathes green. No young terminal leaf. 33578c: Like 33578b, but the terminal leaf is young and reddish. 33578d: Like 335786, but the spathes are reddish. 33578e: Peduncles, petioles and occasionally spathes - darkish. : Forms very similar to these also occur in Hu-Griffithii, which suggests that these forms are at present of no value except to warn botanists of the existence of great deal of variability in the species. The collector notes that all plants numbered 83578 were growing on rocks. MALAYA: Pahang, Kuala Teku (SEIMUND, 601); Tahan River (RIDLEY on 21-VII-1891). Johore, Batu Pahat (RIDLEY in Nov. 1900) ; Pengaram near Batu Pahat (RIDLEY, 10223); Sungei Pelapah Kiri (CORNER, 33578). Singapore, Sungei Bajau (BURKILL, 724); Bukit Mandai (RIDLEY in 1894). (e) forma falcatoidea FURTADO f. nov. (= H. falcata RIDL.). Differt a forma obliquata lamina lanceolata, parte basali rotundata 4—6—plo breviore quam terminali, apicem versus sensim attenuata, falcata, ineequilatera, acuminata. This form is hardly ‘distinct from the obliquata forms and represents only a transient stage. MALAYA: Kedah, Yan (RIDLEY, in June 1893). Province Wellesley, Tasek Glugor (BURKILL, 6602). (f) forma acuminata (RIDLEY) FURTADO stat. nov. H. Griffithti var. acuminata RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 177; ENGL. op. eit. (1912) 44, Herba usque 25 cm. alta. Petiolus 12 cm. longus, laminz equilongus, vel paulo longior. Lamina ovata basi rotundata vel rotundato-acuta, apicem versus sensim attenuata, falcata vel non, acuminata, nervis vix conspicuis, 9-12 cm. . longa, A-5 cm. lata. Vol. X. (1939). 198 This form, which like Kingwi dries brown, might also be a result of aswampy substratum. In shape it approaches very near the falcatoidea form, but the leaves here are comparatively smaller and the nerves almost inconspicuous; in texture of the leaves, it is like the Kingu form. BORNEO: Bau (RIDLEY, 11713, Holotype); Mardan (HEWITT on 27—XII-1905). 14. Homalomena Griffithii (SCHOTT) Hook. f. var. sumat- rana FURTADO var. nov. Differt ab omnibus hujus speciei formis lamina foliorum multo breviore, ambitu oblique ovato, longi- tudine quam latitudo paulo longiore vel non, basin versus rotundata, ima acuta vel cordulata, apice acuminata. Foliorum ambitu hec varietas H. ellip- etek simillima, sed eorum textura nervisque dissimil- ima. Petiolus 8-12 cm. longus, ad tertiam partem vaginatus. Lamina foliorum ovato-elliptica, 9-11 cm. longa, 6.5—9 cm. lata, nervis primariis utrinsecus 4—6. SUMATRA: Soengei Koermian (BiiNNEMEIJER, 3254, Holotype, SD ee (BUNNEMEIJER, 3239, HB); Batoe Island (RAapP, 117, HB). 15. Homalomena Hendersonii FURTADO spec. nov. Ab omnibus Homalomenae Sect. Chamaecladonis speciebus heee species spathis papyraceis utrinque longe attenuatis, apicem versus sensim acuminatissimis duplo longioribus quam _ spadix; inflorescentia mascula feminee equilonga, conspicue obovata, facile distingui potest. Herba erecta, in sicco ad 40 cm. longa. Petiolus flaccidus virescens, ad medium vel ad quartem partem usque vagina virescente preditus, quam lamina sesque longior, 9-18 cm. longus. Lamina foliorum papyracea, elliptico- lanceolata, utrinque attenuata, interdum inequilatera, apice sensim vel abrupte acuminata, interdum falcatula, maxima latitudine ad medium vel infra sita, 10-15 cm. longa, 3.5—6 cm. lata, supra atroviridis, subtus pallidior ; nervis laterali- bus primariis utrinsecus 4-5, secundariis gracillimis, pluri- bus, parallelis. Pedunculi plures, graciles, 4-6 cm. longi. Spatha papyracea, 2.5-3.5 cm. longa, 6-8 mm. ampla, utrinque attenuata, maxima amplitudine in medium sita, apice sensim longe cuspidato-acuminata, quam spadix duplo longior. Spadix basi in spatham decurrens, subsessilis, fertilis circa 1.5 cm. longus, parte mascula obovata, quam feminea crassiore, feminez zequilonga. Pistilla ovata, apice in stigma orbiculare subito contracta, 2—4 locularia, ovulis paucis ad loculi basin insertis. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 199 In the shape of the spathe and in the ratio of its length to that of the spadix, the species could be said to be a very near ally of H. deltoidea. In the nervation of the leaves and in the size and the shape of the spadix which is very enlarged and rounded in the apical portion and very short in comparison to the enclosing spathe, this species reminds one of the genus Piptospatha, but the apical portion of the spathes is not deciduous as in that genus. The leaves and the petioles are very soft to the touch and their surfaces are very dull. MALAYA: Kelantan, Sungai Nenggiri, on the track to Kuala Betis (HENDERSON, 29663). 16. Homalomena humilis (JACK) HOOK. f. sensu latissimo. This species is extremely variable, most of the varia- tions being due to both age and environment. Forms differing in colour, shape and size and even in leaf venation may be found among the plants collected from one and the same patch of ground and even in the same plant. The extreme forms appear to be very distinct, but the transitions are so very gradual that it is impossible in many cases to arrange the variations into clearly delimited varieties. In adopting the names for the varieties and forms described below I have followed the principle I expounded previously in this Bulletin (IX, 1937, p. 342) that any varietal name given to the type form of a species and retained as a variety of the same species is wrong in principle and therefore has no claim to be included in priority considerations. (a) Eu-humilis. H. humilis (JAcK) Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 533 quoad basinym tantum; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 25; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich iv. 23. Da [55] (1912) 49; RipL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 105: omnino pro parte typica. H. humilis var. velutina (Hook. f.) RIDL., Mat. cit. (1907) 25; ENGL. in op. cit. p. 49 fig. 28; RIDL., Flor. cit. (1925) 105. Syn. nov. H. pygmaea sensu ENGL. op. cit. p. 35 pro parte. H. velutina Scort. ex. Hook. f., op. cit. (1893) 5384. Syn. nov. Calla humilis JACK. in Malay Misc. I (1820) 22: Basinym. Chamaecladon humile (JACK) MIQ., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856) 213: ScuoTt, Prodr. (1860) 315; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 345 p.p., et Illustr. Exsic. ' No. 104: Isonym. Vol. X. (1939). 200 JACK described his species thus: “‘A small stemless plant’ .3o 1, 5 or 6 inches in height .... Leaves elliptic, ovate, rather obtuse with a subulate acumen, slightly cordate at the base ...... crisped margin, smooth and green above, somewhat hoary beneath, with villous papillae. Petioles shorter than the leaves ........ Spathes of an obscure red colour.” In this extract I have italicized those parts in JACK’S original description which clinch the identity of Calla humilis with the plant that passes as H. velutina. The plant that commonly passes as H. humilis are either some forms of H. velutina or of H. pumila (= H. humilis var. pumila) which have long petioles. The eu-humilis forms are variable as to the dimensions of the leaves. See also my remarks under H. humilis var. pumila. MALAYA: Penang, Government Hill = Penang Hill (R«m.ey, 7033; Curtis, II-1892; X-1889; XI-1898) ; Western Hill (HENDERSON, 21354). Perak, Lumut (RIDLEY, 10327; in IIJ-1896); Gunong Batu Puteh (WRAY, 1034); Tapah (RIDLEY, 14031); Taiping Hills near Waterfall (RIDLEY, 2952; in 1902; CurTIs in IX-1889 and X—1892) ; Gunong Keledang (RIDLEY in 1898); loc. incert. (SCORTECHINI, 276b) Selangor, Bukit Kutu (RIDLEY, 7665) ; Kuala Lumpur (RIDLEY, 13399) ; Rantau Panjang (HUME, 7598); Pahang Track (RIDLEY in 1897); Ginting Bidai (RIDLEY in May 1896); Petaling (RimDLEY, 10177); Ginting Simpak (HuMEg, 9549); Klang Gates (HuME, 7099; RIDLEY, 13398); Batu Caves (RIDLEY, 23—VI-1899); Bukit Kuda (RIDLEY, 23-VI-1889). Pahang, Fraser Hill (Nur, 11037). SUMATRA: Batu Island (RAAP, 412, HB). ANAMBA ISLANDS: Siantan (VAN STEENIS, 1445, HB). 17. Homalomena humilis (JACK) Hook. f. var. major (HASSK.) FURTADO comb. nov. Aglaonema ? pygmaeum sensu HASSK. Cat. Hort. Bogor II (1844) 57 et Pl. Jav. Rar. (1847) 154 p.p.; ZOLL., Syst. Verz. (1854) 76. 7 A. 2»ygmaeum var. majus HASSK. in HOEV. et. DE VRIESE, Tijdschr. IX (1842) 161: Basinym. Chamaecladon lanceolatum MiIQ., in Bot. Zeit. (1856) 564-et Fl. Ind. Batav. (1856?) 212 t. 40; ScHoTtT, Gen. Aroid. (1858) t. 60 fig. 1-26, Prodr. (1860) 318. C. pygmaeum (HASSK.) ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 345 et Arac. Exsicc. et Illustr. n. 96 p.p. H. pygmaea sensu ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 24 p.p. As defined here, this variety and the following sub- variety become confined to Java only, the records for outside Java being due to the misinterpretation of A. pygmaeum and of its var. majus. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 201. ~ It is impossible to distinguish this and the following subvariety on the red colour alone, because one individual form may vary in the presence and intensity of the colouration in its different parts. _ This variety is distinguished from the Malayan varieties of H. humilis in its leaves being much narrower and comparatively longer (3—4 times as long as broad), widest in the middle or in the upper half, with the principal veins running at about 30°, as well as in the leaves being more distantly placed on a scandent or almost erect stem. On the habit of the stem, and on the arrangement of the leaves on it, the herbarium specimens of this Javanese variety look very much like those of the Malayan varieties ophirensis and undulata. The petioles are subequal or longer than the lamina. The ovules are situated a little higher than the base of the placenta in the examined specimens as described by SCHOTT. For the original description of this variety, see H. humilis var major subvar. coccinea (Vv. ALD. V. ROs.) - FURTADO. JAVA: common up to alt. 1000 m. (BackER; 710; 1633; 4608; 23365; BAKHUIZEN V/D BRINK: 789; 3100; 3615; 3616; 3995; 5029; i ie BEUMEE, A-837; REINWARDT, 19-a: DE VRIES, 43: KOORDERS: 396958: 413228: VAN SLOOTEN, 597; VAN STEENIS, 2439: "All in herb. Buitenzorg). 18. Homalomena humilis es Hook. f. var major (HASSK.) FURTADO subvar. coccinea (V. ALD. V. ROS.) _ FURTADO subvar. nov. | Aglaonema ? pygmaeum HASSK., Diag. nov. (1842) 39, in HoEV. et DE VRIESE, Tijdschr. IX (1842) 161, et Cat. Hort. Bogor. II (1844) 57, et Pl. Jav. Rar. (1847) 154 p.p. Syn. nov. A. pygmaeum var. purpurascens ZOLL., Syst. Verz. (1854) 76 nom. nud. Chamaecladon lanceolatum var. purpurascens (ZOLL) MiQ., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856?) 213 nom. nudum. Ch. purpurascens SCHOTT. in Bonpl. (1858) 369, Prodr. (1860) 313. Syn. nov. Ch. pygmaeum (HASSK.) ENGL. in DC, Mon. Phan. IT (1879) 345 et Arac. Exsicec. Illustr. No. 96.. Syn. Nov. ' Ch. pygmaeum var. purpurascens (SCHOTT) ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 345. Syn. nov. Ch. rubescens SCHOTT, Gen. Aroid. (1858) t. 60 fig. 27-37 (prob. lapsus calami pro Ch. purpurascente). Syn. nov. H. coccinea v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 180. Basinym. Vol. X. (1939), 202 H. pumila Hook. f. var. purpurascens (SCHOTT) RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 35 et Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 26 p.p. Syn. nov. H. purpurascens (SCHOTT) Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 535 observ. sub. H. pumila p.p.,; RIDL., FI. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 105 p.p. Syn. nov. H. pygmaea (HASSK.) ENGL. in Bot. Jarhb. XXV (1898) 18 nom. nudum., quod basinym non citatum est; Index Kewensis Suppl. (1904) 92; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich 23. Da [55] (1912) 34 p.p. typica Syn. nov. H. pygmaea var. purpurascens (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Bot. Jahrb. XXV (1898) 18 nom. nudum, quia basinym non citatum est; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. p, 34 p.p. Syn. nov. H. rubrovaginata Vv. ALD. V. ROS, in op. cit. (1922) 331. Syn. nov. H. rubrovaginata var. subpurpurea V. ALD. V. Ros. in op. cit. IV (1922) 332. Syn. nov. From HASSKARL’S original description the subvariety coccinea appears to be the type form of A. pygmaeum. I transcribe here the description of A. pygmaeum and of its var. majus as published in HOEv. et DE VRIESE, Tijdschrift IX (1842) 161. AGLAONEMA* ? PYGMZUM: “Caulescens, caulis erectus, 14-34 ped. altus, foliorum emarcidorum rudimentis tectus. Folia oblongo-lanceolata utrinque acuta apice mucronata, nervosa, nervis subtus promi- nentibus, 2—3 poll. longa, 34-1 poll. lata; petiolus 1-114 poll. long. teres supra planiusculus, basi vaginans, vagina marginis rosei, pedunculi axillares vix pollicares, spatha viridi-alba, 34, pollices spadicem, superans. “@ MAJUS (flores non vidi) differt foliis majori- bus, 4-5 poll. long. 11/, poll. lata, petiolis 31% poll. long. supra atroviridibus lutescentibus. —Magnopere forma et habitu representat folia Ataccie integrifoliz, sed multo (plus duplo) minora.” In this description the italicised portions give the important clues in fixing the identity of the two forms described by HASSKARL. It is evident from the description that the var. majus is the form that passes as H. pygmaea and Ch. lanceolatum; and it appears that HASSKARL had only very small plants of the coccinea form which he referred to the typical A. pygmaeum. The coccinea form differs from the var. major described above in the leaf lamina being shorter, ovate or oblong (not frequently obovate-elliptic), twice as long as broad, the petiole usually longer than the lamina (plants with shorter petioles are also found, especially in the Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 203 younger plants), and in possessing more often than the var. major red pigments in one part or other of the plant. The angles that the principal leaf veins form with the midrib are also larger and so this form approaches very near the var. pumila of the Malay Peninsula. From the last however it is distinguished by comparatively shorter lamina and longer petiole, and also by its long or trailing or almost erect stem. From var. ophirensis it differs by its more slender petioles, more numerous leaf-veins, and longer stems and more distant leaves on the stems. As to the presence of red pigments, this form varies a great deal and a series of deviations from a plant with red in all its parts to one red only in the leaf-sheaths might be found. Red coloured plants are also found in the forms pumila, eu-humilts, etc., a reason why the term purpuras- cens has been used so very indiscriminately as to render the use of the epithet at present ambiguous. JAVA: Alt. 100-600 m: Batavia resid. (BAKHUIZEN V/D BRINK: 2028; 5030, paratype of H. rubrovaginata; 6390; 7065; 7185; BACKER: 5907; 10271; 31130). Preanger (BAKHUIZEN V/D BRINK: 3222 = 172, Holotype of H. coccinea). Bodjonmanik (KoorRDERS, 41580B.). Bantam (VAN DER PIJL, 70; BACKER, 7114); Mount Tjikorai, cult. in Hort. Bot. Bogor. sub. no. XI. B.X. 3, meroholotype of H. rubro- vaginata var subpurpurea in Herb. Singapore). With the exception of the last mentioned all the specimens cited are from the Herb. Bogor. BACKER, 10271 is entirely green. 19. Homalomena humilis (JACK) Hook. f. var. ophirensis (RIDL.) FURTADO comb. nov. H. angustifolia var. ophirensis RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 29; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. (1912) 31; RL. Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 109. Basinym. This differs from var. pumila in its long trailing stems and unusuaily long petioles. The leaves are very variable. According to a note on the sheet of the Ophir plants by RIDLEY the petioles are red and the long rhizomes grow in the crevices in rocks. H. Curtiswu may be identical with this variety. MALAYA: Kedah, Gunong Jerai (RIDLEY in June 1893). Pahang, Fraser Hill. alt. 4000-5000 ft. (BurKILL & HoLttrum, CF. 7879). Malacca, Mount Ophir, streams on Padang Batu (RIDLEY in June 1892 and in Dec. 1898: syntypes of the variety). Johore, Gunong Pulai (BEsT, 7723). 20. Homalomena humilis (JACK) Hook. f. var. pumila (Hook. f.) FURTADO comb. nov. Calla angustifolia JACK in Malay Misc. I (1820) 124. Syn. nov. Vol. X. (1939). 204 Chamaecladon angustifolium (JACK) SCHOTT in Bonpl. VI (1858) 369, Prodr. (1860) 313; ENGL. in DC, Mon. Phan. II (1879) 344 et Arac. Exsicc. et Illustr. n. 105 (omnino quoad partem typicam). Syn. nov. ’Ch. pygmaeum var. latifolium ENGL. in Malesia I (1882) 288. H. angustifolia (JACK) HK. f., F.B.I. VI (1893) 533 p.p. H. johorensis ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 37; RipL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 106. Syn. nov. H. propinqua RIDL. spec. nov. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 35 et Mat. Fl. Mal. Pee iy (1907) 26 (non H. propinqua SCHOTT). Syn. n H. pumila Hook. f., FI. Brit. “tnd VI (1893) 535; Rw... in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 35 et Mat. tom. cit. (1907) 26: Basinym. H. pumila Hook. f. var. purpurascens (SCHOTT) RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL. (1902) 35 et Mat. cit. (1907) 26: quoad specimina malayana. H. purpurascens (SCHOTT) Hook. f. op. cit. (1893) 535 observ. sub. H. pumila, pro. parte. H. purpurascens var. pumila (Hook. f.) RIDL., FI. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 105. Syn. nov. H. pygmaea sensu ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) pro parte non typica. 2H. pygmaea var. latifolia (ENGL.) ENGL. op. cit. (1912). 36. A. pygmaea var. pumila (Hook. f.) ENGL. 1. cit. Isonym. H. pygmaea var. purpurascens (SCHOTT) ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 36 pro parte non typica. The binomial H. purpurascens was validly published by HOOKER in FI. Brit. Ind. (1893) though it has been -over- looked by most authors and not listed in Index Kewensis. I have included ENGLER’S variety latifolia with some doubt. The bare description given by ENGLER both under Chamaecladon and later under Homalomena neither distin- guishes nor excludes the type form described by ENGLER. From the Malayan specimens cited by ENGLER, I surmise that “2-4 cm.” in the description may be a mistake, intended to mean that the petioles are 2—4 times as long as the lamina. JACK in publishing the name Calla angustifolia, gave a very brief description of the species; but since he compared the species with his better described C. humilis, the clues for the identification of the former should be found in the description of the latter. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 205 The following pairs of characters furnish important clues in identifying the species: Calla humilis 1. “A small stemless plant ..5 or 6 inches in height. Root a leaf-bearing tuber, which sends out numerous long villous fibres. Stem none, except the above-mentioned tuber, which is everywhere invested by sheaths of the petioles.” 2. ‘‘Leaves erect .. elliptic, ovate, rather obtuse, with a subulate acumen, _ slightly cordate at the base ....” | 3. “Foliis ellipticis, supra glabris.”’ 4. Peduncle 4—5 axillary, 1-flowered, shorter than the petioles. 5. “Spathes of an obscure red colour....” 6. “Petioles shorter than the leaves....” C. angustifolia 1. “A small plant of the same size and nearly re- lated to the preceding”’ 1.e C. humilis. In the diag- nosis in Latin the plant is described as_ being “acaulis.” 2. “leaves radical...:. lanceolate, acute at both ends.”’ 3. “Foliis lanceolatis ut- rinque acutis glabris.” 4. Peduncle 4—5 axillary, 1-flowered, shorter than the petioles. 5. “Flowers, etc. exactly in the preceding.” 6. “These two [species] are so closely allied that it is doubtful whether they might not be considered varieties.” From this comparison I conclude that JAcK’s C. angustifolia is a plant very near in general appearance to his C. humilis [see my remarks under H. humilis (eu- Humilis)], being stemless, about 5-6 inches in height, having a reduced leaf-bearing tuber or root, and obscurely red spathes; but differing from C. humilis in having leaves which are lanceolate in shape, acute at both ends and glabrous on both sides (C. humilis being described as ovate, slightly cordate at base, crisped in the margins, hoary beneath with villous papillz). Surely this description cannot be applied to H. angus- tifolia as currently interpreted, which has a long prostrate, trailing stem, petiole as long as, or even longer than, the lamina, leaves very narrow, almost linear (not lanceolate in the older sense), though attenuate at both ends, rarely reddish spathes, and with a height varying from 8 to 18 Vol. X. (1939). 206 inches. Perhaps when C. humilis was identified with ‘longer-petioled and taller forms of the species and the smaller forms were described as new, one was justified in giving C. angustifolia the current interpretation. But when it is shown that C. humilis is really identical with H. velutina, it ought to be clear that C. angustifolia is the Malayan form that passes under the different names of H. pygmaea, H. purpurascens or H. pumila. All the characters given by JACK best fit with the smaller forms of this plant (H. pumila) which is also one that can be said to approach very near to C. humilis as interpreted here. MIQUEL (FI. Ind. Bat. III, 1856 ?, p. 2138) appears to have suspected the correct affinity of the species. There is a good deal of variation within this variety; some plants have long petioles (2—4 times as long as the lamina) and a very broad lamina (these forms may be identical with H. pygmaea var. latifolia ENGL), some are quite small, even smaller than those described by JACK; some are red all over, others are red in some parts only, different plants having different degrees of redness distri- buted in different parts. There is no evidence to consider the various forms from the Malay Peninsula agreeing with ENGLER’S varieties purpurascens, pumila and latifolia to be other than ecologic forms within the same variety. H. johorensis ENGL. (=H. propinqua RIDL., non SCHOTT) is also a larger form of this variety, and transi- tions from the typical pumila to the johorensis forms occur. MALAYA: Kedah, Gunong Jerai (Kedah Peak), alt. 3000-4000 ft. (ROBINSON & KLoss, 6123). Perak, Bukit Kapayang (RIDLEY in 1904); Tambun (BURKILL, 6304); Ipoh (BURKILL, 2559; CURTIS, XII-1895; RIDLEY, 11932); Taiping Hill (RIDLEY, 11421); loc. incert. (SCORTECHINI, 276b, HB; sn.). Pahang, Sungei Sat at Ulu Tembeling (HENDERSON s.n. 20-VII-1929); Robinson Falls on Cameron High- lands, alt. 4800 ft. (HENDERSON, 17758); Telom (RIDLEY in Nov. 1908). Negri Sembilan, Gunong Angsi, 700-2000 ft. (Nur, 11605). Johore, Mount Austin (RIDLEY, 11990); Batu Pahat (RIDLEY, 11193) ; Pulau Tinggi (BURKILL, 918); Gunong Panti (CORNER, 30691): Gunong Lambak (HOLTTuUM, 9391); Pulau Aor (HENDERSON, 18374) ; Gunong Pulai (RIDLEY; 12144 & in Dec. 1904; Mat, 3722, Holotype of H. johorensis). Malacca, Ayer Panas (HERVEY in 1891); loc. incert (RIDLEY). Singapore, Bukit Timah (RIDLEY in 1889; Sept. 1890; and in 1894; Nur in Sept. 1982); Seletar (RIDLEY in 1889) ; : Reservoir Woods (RIDLEY in 1893). SUMATRA: Lingga Island at Sungei Tanda (TEYSMANN, HB); Gunong Paliwang in Pelamban (VAN STEENIS, 3794, HB); Asan Pulau (LATIF, 8, HB). BORNEO: Bidi (ANDERSON, 85; Brooks, A—4); Matang (RIDLEY in 1904); Tadjoek (JAHERI, 215, HB); Kinabalu Mountain Range, alt. 2500-4000 ft. (CLEMENS: 26199; 27230; 29139; 32508, HB); Koetai (ENDERT, 2360, HB). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 207 21. Homalomena humilis (JACK) Hook. f. var. undulata RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 105. H. pumila Hook. f. sensu RIDL. in Journ. F. M.S. Mus. IV (1909) 90. H. pygmaea sensu ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 34 pp. ?H. repens RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 106. H. undulatifolia RIDL. (errore typ. wndalatifolia) in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. LVII (1907) 111 et Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 106. Syn. nov. This form is very rare and approaches var. major of Java. H. undulatifolia is only a small plant flowering but not yet fully developed. I have not seen the holotype of H. repens, but from the description it appears to be this, unless it is a form of var. ophirensis, which is also very close to this variety. MALAYA: Perak, Sungei Kertai at Temango (RIDLEY, 14304: Holotype of H. undulatifolia). Pahang, Telom (RIDLEY: XI-1908; 13842 & 13842a, Syntypes); First Padang Stream (RIDLEY in 1911): Gunong Tahan (RIDLEY, VI-1911, Syntypes). Johore, Sednah - (RILEY, 13469); Sungei Tebrau (Riwiey, IIJ-1908). The following specimens, some of which are cited by ENGLER (1912) under H. pygmaea, either belong here or are forms of H. humilis var. pumila: BORNEO: Sibaloum (TEYSMANN, 10826, HB). s Laan Talaman (BiNNEMEIJER, 584, HB); Gajoe (DAALEN CELEBES: Minahasa (Koorpers 161808, HB); Kendari (KJELL- BERG, 612, HB); Pangkadjene (TEYSMANN, 12421, HB). 22. Homalomena Kiahii FURTADO spec. nov. Herba majuscula, erecta (sine caudiculo infrafoliari ad 10 cm. usque longo, radices plures geopetentes gerente), a basi ad foliorum summum usque 15-20 cm. longa. Petiolus 5-9 cm. longus, quam lamina brevior, ad mediam partem usque vagina rubescente conspicua preditus. Lamina foliorum papyracea, ovato- ad oblonga-lanceolata, inzequila- tera, apicem versus quam basin magis attenuata, 10-15 cm. longa, 3—4 cm. lata, maxima latitudine prope mediam vel infra sita; basi rotundata vel subtruncata, imo obtusa vel in uno latere acutiuscula; apice acuminata interdum fal- catula, summo mucronulata; supra viridis, subtus pallidior ; nervis lateralibus primariis utrinsecus 5-7, primariis sub- primariis-que cunctis 6-9, alteris pluribus, subparallelis, gracillimis. Pedunculi plures, tenues, reflexi vel erecti, 2-3 cm. longi. Spatha 15-25 mm. longa, convoluta, sub- cylindrica, in medio haud constricta, chartacea, apice breviter vel obscure cuspidata. Spadix stipitatus, spathe tubo fere xquilongus, masculus 2-214-plo longior quam femineus. Pistilla subglobosa apice in stigma orbiculare hnetele contracta; ovulis paucis, ad ovarize basin insertis Vol. X. (1939). 208 This species is very near H. argentea RIDL., from which it is easily distinguished in papyraceous (not coriaceous) leaves and spathes, ovate or oblong-lanceolate (not obovate or obovato-lanceolate) leaf-lamina, more numerous, and longer peduncles, longer spathes, and longer portion of the spadix occupied by female flowers. MALAYA: Johore, Sungei Kayu, on a hill (KIAH, 32358). 22. (b) forma maculata FURTADO f. nov. Differt a forma typica lamina in utroque latere inter costam marginemque teniis argyreis nota. In Aroids red and white markings are often a transient, non-hereditary response to environment. KIAH’S collection 32146 cited below shows that some specimens of the same collection do not have the markings. Hence this form with maculate leaves cannot be regarded as a stable form or a variety. MALAYA: Johore, Sungei Kayu in swamps (KIAH, 32146, Holo- ea Sungei Pelepah Kiri, on a hillside, not in stream-beds (CORNER, 23. Homalomena Korthalsii FURTADO nom. nov. H. subcordata (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 51 (non H. subcordata ENGL., 1882). Isonym. Chamaecladon subcordatum SCHOTT in Miq., Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. I (1863-1864) 348. Basinym. The new combination H. subcordata (SCHOTT) ENGL. (1912) was made on the mistaken supposition that dH. subcordata ENGL. (in Bot. Jarhb. I, 1882, p. 183 and in Malesia I, 1882, p. 281) was invalid or illegitimate and that the new combination could be legitimized. The new Rules of Botanical Nomenclature render the new combination on a because of the earlier binomial H. subcordata NGL. BORNEO: (KORTHALS, Herb. Leiden: non vidi). 24. Homalomena lancifolia Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 533; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 29; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 47 fig. 26 A-J; RIDL., Fl. Malay. Pen. V (1925) 109. H. Griffithii sensu BURKILL et HANIFF in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. VI (1930) 266. I have not seen the type of this species and so have followed the interpretations of the species as indicated by the determinations of PRAIN, RIDLEY and ENGLER, in the Herbarium of Singapore. H. batoeensis ENGL. may prove to be a form or variety of this. MALAYA: Kelantan, base of Bukit Papan (HENDERSON, 29564). Pahang, Batu Talam in Raub (BURKILL & HANIFF, 16974, as Rumput Gatal), Bentong on Raub boundary (FuRTADO, 33106); Kota Glanggi Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 209 (RIDLEY, VIII-1891); Tahan River (RipLey, VIII-1891). Perak, Gunong Batu Puteh, alt. 6700 ft. (WRAY, 385). Selangor, Ginting Simpah (HuME, 8975); Pahang track (RIDLEY, 8462). 25. -Homalomena mentawiensis FURTADO spec. nov. | “H. lanceolata. M1Q.”’ ex RIDL in Kew Bull. (1926) 92 nomen tantum. _. H. humili var. pumilae valde affinis, sed foliorum lamina lanceolata, subtus nervis validioribus, spathis pedunculisque minoribus facile recognoscenda. Ab H. humile var. majore recedit herba erectiuscula minore, - foliis in turione aggregatis, haud distantibus, petiolo - quam lamina subduplo breviore, lamina semper oblanceolata, subtus nervis validioribus, spathis pedun- culisque minoribus. Ab H. paucinervia, cui facie -simillima, differt herba minore, pedunculis spathisque multo brevioribus. - Herba ad 12 cm. longa, foliis in turione aggregatis. Petiolus 1.5-2:5 cm. longus, ad tertiam partem usque vagina _inconspicua, probabiliter rubescente, preditus. Lamina foliorum oblanceolata, coriacea, 3-5 cm. longa, 1-1.5 cm. lata, supra atroviridis, subtus pallidior, nervis supra incons- picuis, subtus prominentibus, primariis subprimariisque cunctis utrinsecus 5-7. Pedunculus gracilis, inconspicuus, vix 1 cm. longus. Spatha perbrevis, 4-6 mm. longa, ovata, apice acuminata vel acuta. Spadix spathe subequilongus, tertia parte femineus. | Apparently RIDLEY intended the name H. lanceolatum to be an isonym of Chamaecladon lanceolatum MiqQ., but since no basinym was indicated the name cannot be taken as validly published. MENTAWI ARCHIPELAGO: Sipora (BODEN Kuoss, 14777, Holotype in Herb. Singap. duplicate in HB; IBoreT 512, Paratype). 26. Homalomena mixta RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 36; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 30; ENGL. in -Pflanzenreich iV. 25.04. 155}).(1912)..30 ; RIDL., Hi. Malay Pen. V (1925) 110 p.p. This differs from all other species in the genus in having pistillodes in the male portion of the spadix. The specimen itself may be abnormal, but in vegetative charac- ters the specimen does not match any other species of the genus. The nearest allies in leaf characters appear to be H. oblanceolata and H. rupicola, both described from Sumatra. ~~ The following will complete the description given of the species : Pistilla ovoidea, in stigma discoideum abrupte contracta. Pistillodia linearia, masculis floribus (inter ‘quos sita) duplo longiora. -MALAYA: Pahang, Tahan woods (RIDLEY in 1891, Holotype). Vol. X. (1939). 210 27. Homalomena montana FURTADO spec. nov. Herba reptans ut videtur, caudiculo foliifero brevi. Petiolus laminz equilongus vel quam lamina sesqui-longior ad tertiam vel quartam partem vagina rubescente preditus, 16-25 cm. longus. Lamina foliorum nitida, coriacea, ellip- tico-lanceolata, interdum inzquilatera, maxima latitudine in medium sita, utrinque sensim attenuata, basi acuta vel rotundato-obtusa, apice longe acuminata, 14-20 cm. longa, 4-6 cm. lata; nervis lateralibus primariis utrinsecus 5-7 (nervis primariis subprimariisque cunctis 9-13), angulo 60°—40° arcuatim adscendentibus; secundariis pluribus, sub- parallelis; omnibus conspicuis. Pedunculi plures, graciles, 4-8 cm. longi. Spatha cum acumine 2—5 mm. longo 1.8-2.5 cm. longa, coriacea vel semi-coriacea, in latere dorsali decurrens. Spadix spathe tubo fere equilongus, basi breviter stipitatus, fertilis ad 1.8 cm. longus, parte mascula quam feminea triplo longiore. Pistilla ovoidea, apice stig- mate discoideo coronata, 3—4 locularia, ovulis perpaucis ad basin loculi insertis. In the general texture and size of the leaves this species might be confused with some forms of H. Griffithi, but the spadix of H. montana is shorter and has its male portion three times as long as the female; the leaves, which are more coriaceous, are neither falcate nor ovate. From H. Hendersonu it differs both in the leaves which are nitid and more coriaceous and have the veins very prominent underneath, and in the spadix which is nearly as long as the spathe tube, with the male inflorescence cylindric and three times as long as the female. MALAYA: Trengganu, Gunong Padang. alt. circa 4000 ft. (MoyYsEY & KIAu, 318389). Probably here also belongs Nur 11091 collected at Fraser Hill along Sungei Yet in Pahang, and cited in RIDLEY’s Flora under H. mixta. This collection has been attributed by RIDLEY to BURKILL under whose direction Nur then worked as plant-collector. 28. Homalomena nigrescens (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Pflanzen- reich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 81 inter species dubias vel imperfecte cognitas collocata. Chamaecladon ? nigrescens SCHOTT in MiQ., Ann. Mus. Lugd. Batav. I (1863) 126; ENGL. in DC, Mon. Phan. II (1879) 349. Basinym. . KORTHAL’S n. 221 preserved in the Leiden herbarium is purported to be from the holotype collection of this species. From the fact that SCHOTT did not describe the inflorescence of this species and used moreover a query mark after Chamaecladon, I conclude that SCHOTT had only seen sterile duplicate material from this collection. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. ——* 211 In the Leiden material the spathes (1 cm. long with a short slender peduncle, both as in H. humilis) are repre- sented; they show that the species belongs unmistakably to the section Chamaecladon. ‘ In size and general appearance of the leaves the species might be easily confused with H. Corneri; however it differs from H. Cornerz in its much smaller spathes and peduncles and its very much shorter leaves which are less rounded but slightly cuneate at base, less coriaceous and less acumin- ate at apex, with fewer primary nerves and with more numerous secondary nerves between any two primary ones. SUMATRA: (KORTHALS, 221, herb. Leid., Haptoholotype). 29. Homalomena novo-guineensis ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 28. Da [55] (1912) 47. ROMER 451 in the Buitenzorg herbarium has been labelled by ENGLER as having been included in the Pfianzen- reich, but is not cited there. LAM 722 was referred by VAN ALDERWERELT VAN ROSENBURGH doubtfully to H. pygmaca _ (HASSK.) ENGL. (in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV. 1922 p. 332); from this H. novo-guineensis is easily distinguished by more coriaceous, often oblanceolate leaves with the base somewhat longer on one side than on the other, and by longer peduncles. In LAM 722 the leaves are narrower in the lamina and shorter in the petiole than the ones in the type collection ; but this appears to be only a transient stage of the same species. NEW GUINEA: Southern districts [? South of Wilhelmina Peak] (ROMER, 451, flowers, 7—X-1909, Haptoholotype, HB); Northern Districts: Pionier Bivak, alt. 10 m. (LAM, 722, flowers, 29-—VII- 1920, HB). 30. Homalomena nutans Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 535; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 27; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 37; RIDL., FI. Malay Pen. V (1925) 108. H. purpurascens sensu BURKILL et HANIFF in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. VI (19380) 266. H. Scortechinii Hook. f. sensu RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. LVII (1910) 112; RIDL., FI. cit. (1925) 105. p.p. This species was so far known only from the holotype collection, of which I have not seen any representatives. My identification of the species is based entirely on the descrip- tion. This species is the only one in the genus that produces spathes cernuous as in Piptospatha. BURKILL and HANIFF record that the Sakais drink a preparation of this plant as a cure for loss of voice. MALAYA: Kelantan, Sungei Ketil at Gua Musang (HENDERSON, 22659). Pahang, Batu Talam in Raub (BURKILL & HANIFF, 16951, Sakai name, Gli). Perak, Temango (RIDLEY, 14367). Vol. X. (1939). 212 31.. Homalomena oblanceolata v. ALD. vy. ROS. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 170. The variations within this species have to be studied in order to see whether it is really distinct from H. rupicola v. ALD. Vv. ROS. (op. cit. p. 179). SUMATRA: Deli (cult. in Hort. Bot. Bogor. sub. n. XI. B.X. 47, HB, Holotype); Sibolangit (Nur, 7367). Here may also belong the following Sumatran collections: LORZING & JOCHEMS, 7380, HB; GALOENGI, 172, HB). 32. Homalomena paucinervia RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 175; ENGL. in Pflanzen- reich IV. 23. Da. [55] - (1912) 34; MERR., Enum. Bornean Pl. (1921) 95. H. angustifolia sensu RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 28; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 46; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 108; omnino pro parte. H. lucidula v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 171. Syn. nov. Piptospatha Ridleyi var. lanceolata RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 114 p.p. Syn. nov. This species very much resembles H. confusa which however is distinguished by its longer spathes, frequently longer petioles, and shorter lamina, and prostrate stems. The species was based on a Bornean plant having leaves thin almost chartaceous, but transitions from this to thickly coriaceous, as represented by some Anambas specimens, are seen. H. consobrina is very near this and further investiga- tions are necessary to see whether it is identical with H. paucinervia. RIDLEY’S Piptospatha Ridleyi var. lanceolata was based on a mixture consisting of typical P. Ridleyi and of H. paucinervia collected by HOLTTUM at Ulu Kahang sub no. 10863). 2a Johore, Gunong Panti (RmpLEY, XI-1892; CoRNER, 5-XII-1986); Gunong Muntahak (HoLTTuMm, 1993838); Ulu Kahang (HoLTTUM, 10863 partim). SUMATRA: Deli (cult. in Hort. Bot. Bogor. sub. n. XI. B.X. 138; Holotype of H. lucidula, HB); Lampongs (Voogp, 321, HB). ANAMBAS ISLANDS: Jemaja (HENDERSON, 20389); Siantan (HEN- DERSON, 20105; VAN STEENIS, 687). BORNEO: Sarawak, Matang (RIDLEY, Holotype). 33. Homalomena Pulleana ENGL. et. Krause in Engl., Bot. Jahrb. LIV (1916) 84; KRAUSE et v. ALD. v. Ros. in ‘Nova Guinea XIV (1927) Zi. ; From the description and the plate of H. Lauterbachii in ENGL., Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. (1912), H. Pulleana appears to be only a smaller spathed form or variety of the former.. Nova GUINEA: Mount Perameles, alt. 1100 m. (PULLE: 398, HB, Type of H. Pulleana; 410, HB). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 213 34. Homalomena refulgens vy. ALD. y. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 174. H. Burkilliana RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Malay Branch I (1923) 104. Syn. nov. SUMATRA: Sibolangit (DOCTERS VAN LEEUWEN, cult. in Hort. Bot. Bogor. sub XI. B.X. 50: Meroholotype in Herb. Singap.; Nur, 7412: Isoholotype of H. Burkilliana). 35. Homalomena Scortechinii Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 534; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 29; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 31 fig. 14; RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 109. p.p. H. crassa RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 36; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 29; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 37; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 109. Syn. nov. This species varies a great deal in the length of the petioles and in the size of the leaves. H. crassa represents a form with very short petioles. The typical H. Scortechinii has petioles nearly equal to, or slightly longer or shorter than, the lamina. MALAYA: Perak, Ulu Bubong (KUNSTLER = KING’s collector, 10603, Haptoholotype). Selangore, Kajang (RIDLEY, V—1896) ; Ginting Peras (RIDLEY, V—1896) (both these Selangor specimens are syntypes of H. crassa). Negri Sembilan, Bukit Plangi in Tampin (BURKILL, — Tebrau River (RIDLEY, 13237); Castlewood (RIDLEY, in - Probably CORNER 33685 from Johore belongs here. B. SECTION: EU-HOMALOMENA 36. Homalomena alba* Hassk., Decades (1842) 59 et in HoEv. et DE VRIESE, Tijdschrift [IX (1842) 162, et in Cat. Hort. Bogor. II (1844) 57; ScHoTT, Synops. Aroid. (1856) 118; Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856?) 211; ScHOTT, Prodr. (1860) 312; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 339 et in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 63; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. * Since writing the above I have had the opportunity of consulting HOUTTUYN’S description and plate of Dracontium cordatum HOvutTrT., Handleit. XI (1779) 200 t. 71 fig. 2 (non AUBL., 1775) as reproduced in the German edition of the work py~-CrRISTMANN and PANZER (Pflanzensyst. X, 1783, p. 151 t. 71 fig. 2), a work then not available for reference in Singapore; and, as a result of this, I conclude that D. cordatum HovutTt. is identical with Homalomena alba HAssk. as interpreted here. Not only is the type of HouTTuyn’s species from Java, but the figure given agrees very well with the specimens described as H. javanica. In view of this the correct name for the species is H. cordata (Houtt.) ScHott, Melet. T (1832)-20;"Kunth, Enum. III (1841) 57; Mig., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856?) 211; Engl, in Pflanzenr. IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 57 p.p. The correct name for the Moluccan species referred by ENGLER (l.c.) and others to H. cordata, should be H. Gaudichaudui ScHotTtT in Mig., Ann. Lugd. Bat. I (1863) 280. Vol. X. (1939). 214 IV (1922) 187: omnino quoad partem typicam javanicam (excl. planta amboinica). H. cordata SCHOTT sensu ZOLL. Syst. Verzeich. (1854) 75, Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856?) 211. H. discolor vy. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 185. Syn. nov. H, javanica Vv. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 183. Syn. nov. H. javanica var. kangeanensis Vv. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 185. Syn. nov. H,. palliformis v. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 182. Syn. nov. H. Zollingert SCHOTT in Bonpl. (1859) 30 et Prodr. (1860) 309. Evidently as a consequence of HASSKARL’S having given a very brief description of the species and not having preserved the types, H. alba has had a very chequered career. The species was first published in 1842 in the Tijdschrift (of which separates with independent paging appears to have been issued in advance as Decades or Diagnoses) and later in Cat. Hort. Bogor. From the refer- ences made in the descriptions published in the Tijdschrift, it appears that this Catalogue was ready in manuscript form when the Decades were being published. The descrip- tion given in 1842 runs thus:— “HOMALONEMA [= Homalomena] ALBUM mihi. “cf. ibidem [= Cat. Hort. Bogor.] 305: 1 (5) et RUMPH. H. Amb. V. 322 t. 111. 2 ubi descriptio bona. Petioli 3-314 ped. longi, basi diametro 1-114 poll. folioli lamina juxta nervum medium pedali lobi 5—6 poll. long. latitudo pedalis, spatha 3 poll. long. Sapdix inodorus.” In Catalogus (1844) p. 57 under the specific no. 1 of the genus numbered 305 we find the following: “H. album HASSKL. (3) (Dracunculus amboinicus RUMPH. Amb. V. t. 111.2) Tyarieang boddas (album).” The number (3) immediately after the name of the author of the species refers to the following description given as a footnote: “Caulescens foliis cordato-ovatis mucronatis atroviridibus, lobis baseos parallelis, petiolis viridibus, spatha spadice vix breviore mucronata viridi alba, margine alba.” Since both these descriptions are very brief and there are no type specimens, it is worth while considering the description given by RUMPHIUS, which was considered by | HASSKARL as being “descriptio bona” of his species. RUMPHIUS described three forms under Dracunculus amboinicus, namely: (1) Anappur nigra, seu mas, (2) Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 215 Anappur alba seu femina, and (3) Anappur rubra. The description of Anappur nigra may be re-stated thus to conform with current terminology: Folia rotundato-cordiformia, basi profunde cordata, viridia, glabra, splendentia, 9-10 poll. longa, latitudine quam longitudo sua vix breviora; in apicem brevem terminata, ad insertionem petioli nervis 7-9 gerentia, quorum maximus (costa media) recte excurrit ad finem et ad latera alios emittit; alii vero laterales nervi incurvis decurrent finibus ad oras; supra nervis depressis subtus prominentibus. Petioli 2-214 ped. longi, pallidi-virentes. Cataphylla semi-pedem longa, ac pollicem lata, bicarinata (?), in quorum axilla 4-5 pedunculos albicantes gerentia. Spatha vix minimum digitum longa et crassa, corniculata, oblonga viridis. Spadix masculus digiti articulum longus, flavo cinereus ; femineus primum viridis sensim igneus tandem croceus. The description of D. amboinicus (albus) reads thus: “Secundo Anappur alba, seu femina fere nil differt a precedenti [=Anappur nigra seu mas] sua forma, Bar hac in re autem optime distingui possunt, quod feminae folia pallidiora sint, atque in medio lineam habeat flavam, seu albicantem, juxta nervum medium decurrentem”’. Further RUMPHIUS has the following additional remarks on these two forms: “Alii autem has species ita dividunt. Anappur mas longiora, et acutiora gerit folia instar Ari; ...... Femina semper rotundiora gerit folia, ac bicolor est, una perfecte viridis gramini coloris .... altera folia gerit pallidiora, et in medio lineam luteam ....”’ Now these descriptions of Dracunculus amboinicus (albus) were based on Moluccan plants; but HASSKARL had found them to be applicable also to the Javanese plants referred by him to H. alba. The only species that answers to these descriptions given by RUMPHIUS is H. alba as interpreted here. It also produces occasionally white- nerved leaves as may be seen from the following field-notes left by HALLIER on the specimen no. 648: “Ziemlich dick, krautig, oberseits glanzend, lebhaft griin, mit helleren gelbgriinen Mittel-und Fieder-nerven und zahlreichen parallelen feinen dunkelgriinen Fieder-nerven ; unterseits swach glanzend hellgriin, Nervatur wie auf der oberseite.” Younger forms produce leaves having numerous fine herves, and it is possible that this was the form that MIQUEL had identified as H. rubescens KUNTH (in MiQ., FI. Ind. Bat. Vol. X. (1939). B 216 III) ; for he not only described it as having “‘venulis tenuis- simis densissimis” but distinguished from it H. caerulescens as having “venulis quam in H. rubescente minus densis.” The dimensions of the spathe given by HASSKARL are 3 poll. for H. alba and 2-214 poll. for H. rubra. Now though the spathes in H. alba vary but very little, in H. rubra they exhibit a great deal of variation regarding the size, some being twice the length given by HASSKARL. These measure- ments may be one of the reasons why HASSKARL’S two species have not been correctly identified. JAVA: Gunong Tijbodas (Sapu, 117, Syntype of H. javanica; 2000; VAN SLOOTEN, 245, Holotype of H. discolor; HALLIER, 648; LORZING, 1716, Syntype of H. javanica); Semarang (BEUMEE, 5045 & 816: Syntypes of H. palliformis; 3897) ; Rembang (BEUMEE, 5560) ; Preanger (KRAMER, 118); Pasir Selama (BACKER, 18750); Banean (KARTA, 92); Kediri (BACKER, 11275). KANGEAN ARCHIPELAGO: (BACKER, 27477: Holotype of H. javanica var. kangeanensis; 29723, 27017). 37. Homalomena Lindenii (RoD.) RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIX (1908) 49. Alocasia ?Lindenii Ron. in Illustr. Hort. (1886) 111 t. 652. Basinym. H. singaporensis REGEL sensu ENGL. in Pflanzen- reich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 52 excl. parte typica; RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 110 p.p. REGEL’S description of H. singaporensis was published in “Supplementum ad indicem seminum anni 1868 que hortus botanicus imperialis Petropolitanus pro mutua commutatione offert” (1869, p. 18) and reads thus: “Petiolis precipue basin versus rubescentibus, apicem versus olivaceis; folii lamina olivaceo viridi; spadice quam spatha breviore. Cetera ut H. rubes- centis KUNTH. “Caulis abbreviatus. Petiolus basi vaginatus, apice teres, circiter 14 ped. longus. Folii lamina cordato-hastata, plus minus acuminata, circiter 8 poll. longa et 6 poll. lata. Spatha extus virescens intus albida. Spadix inclusus. Staminodia clavat. “Homalomena spec. e Singapore h. Berol. (RGL.)”’. I do not know whether any of the specimens named in the Berlin Herbarium represent the original types studied by REGEL or their duplicates. But from the specimens so named in the Berlin herbarium (examined by me in 1935) and from the provenance and description given by REGEL, I conclude that the name H. singaporensis REGEL was based on not fully developed specimens of H. rubra (as here interpreted) which have small somewhat deltoid leaves. This may have misled ENGLER to identify H. singaporensis with H. Lindenii, which, when cultivated in pots, frequently Gardens Bulletin, S.S. ~~ ea! 217 produces similar leaves, but is known neither to produce reddish petioles nor to grow wild in Singapore, its petioles being yellowish or cream white. I have not been able to find a record to show that H. Lindenut was being cultivated in Singapore previous to 1907, in which year RIDLEY introduced the species from Rangoon, Burma (RIDL., in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc., Straits Br. XLIX, 1908, p. 49). The plant referred to H. singaporensis in RIDLEY’S Flora (V, 1925, p. 110) is neither H. Lindeni, nor H. rubra, but H. rubescens (ROXB.) KUNTH. RIDLEY’S assertion that it is a native of Papua is based obviously on ENGLER’S opinion that H. singaporensis is identical with H. Lindeniwi. In the Materials (IIJ, 1907 p. 30) RIDLEY recorded the following information concerning the plant cultivated in the Singapore Botanic Gardens under the name H. singaporensis :— “The plant thus labelled at Kew is a species which has long been cultivated in Gardens at Singapore, the history of which is not known. It is not however a native of the peninsula as far as is known, but is traditionally stated to have originally been obtained from Calcutta. It differs however from MREGEL’S description in having the petioles and_ spathes completely red.” Previously RIDLEY wrote of the same plant thus :— “Piants cultivated at Kew under this name [H. singaporensis REGEL] which seem to agree with a type in the Kew Herbarium are identical with a plant which has been cultivated in Singapore for very many years, but has never been obtained wild by any collector. It is said to have come from India.” (Journ. Bot. XL. 1902, p. 34). Plants of H. Lindenu, H. rubescens and H. rubra, when grown in pots, very rarely produce large leaves, and herbarium specimens from such plants are not easily distin- guished unless their inflorescences are carefully examined. This may explain why H. singaporensis has been identified at one time with H. rubescens (cf. SCHOTT, Prodr., 1860 p. 310; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II, 1879 p. 336; RIDLEY, Mat. l.c.) and another time with H. Lindenti. (ENGLER, Pflanzenr. cit. p. 52). It may be noted here that the Singapore specimens which were named by RIDLEY as H. singaporensis were previously cultivated as H. rubescens (see my remarks on H. rubra). Nova GUINEA: Kataki (CARR, 12608) ; 38. Homalomena rubra HASSK., Decad. (1842) 60, in HOEV. et DE VRIESE, Tijdschrift IX (1842) 162, et Cat. . Hort. Bogor. II (1844) 57; SCHOTT in Bonpl. X (1862) Vol. X. (19389). 218 148; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 338 et in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 63; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buit. IV (1922) 187. H. alba HASSK. sensu V. ALD. V. ROs. L.c. H. aromatica var. cordata (SCHOTT) ENGL. in Becc., Malesia I (1877) 282 pro parte non typica; RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 173 p.p. H. bancana Vv. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 186. Syn. nov. H. coerulescens JUNGH. ex SCHOTT. Synops. (1856) 119 nomen? (non vidi) ; MiqQ., Fl. Ind. Bat. III (1856?) 212; SCHOTT, Prodr. (1860) 310; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 338 et Arac. Exsice et LIllustr. 63; Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 533; RIDL., Mat. FI. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 24; ENGL. in Pflanzenr. tom. cit. (1912) 64; RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 104. Syn. nov. H. coerulescens var. pontederiifolia (HooK. f.) RIDL., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 104. Syn. nov. H. cordata sensu RIDL. in Kew Bull. (1926) 92. Hi. curvata ENGL. in Pflanzenr. tom. cit. (1912) 53 fig. 29. Syn. nov. H. gigantea ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 49 figs. 37 and D8. Syn. nov. H. latifrons ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 54 fig. 30; V. ALD. Vv. Ros. op. cit. (1922) 182 p.p. Syn. nov. H. major GRIFF., Notul. III (1851) 153; ScHOoTT, Synops. (1856) 119, Prodr. (1860) 312. Syn. nov. H. minor GRIFF. op. cit. (1851) 52; SCHOTT, Synops. (1856) 119, Prodr. (1860) 311. Syn. nov. H. pontederiifolia GRIFF. ex Hook. f., op. cit. (1893) 533; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. (1912) 55 fig. 31. Syn. nov. H. Raapii ENGL. sensu RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soe. Mal. Branch I (1922) 104. . HA. rosea V. ALD. V. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buit. IV (1922) 334. Syn. nov. H. singaporensis REGEL, Ind. Sem. Hort. Petrop. (1869) 19; Gartenfl. (1870) 53; Hook. f., op. cit. (1893) 537; RIDL. in Journ. Bot. XL (1902) 34 pro. parte typica; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 30 p.p.; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. (1912) 52 p.p.; RIDL., Flora cit. (1925) 110 p.p. Syn. nov. H. Wallichtt ScHoTT in Bonpl. VII (1859) 30, Prodr. (1860) 311. Syn. nov. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 219 The original description of H. rubra as published in the Tijdschrift IX (1842) is as follows: “ef. Cat. Horti Bogoriensis 305.3. RUMPH. amb. V. 223.—Petioli 1-114 pedalis, supra medium cernui, folia 8-9 poll. juxta nervum medium longa, lobi 4 poll., latitudo 7-8 poll. Pedunculi primum erecti dein apice penduli, spatha extus rubra, intus viridis, 2-2! poll.” In Cat. Hort. Bogor. II (1844) 57, the following information is recorded about this species under no. 305. 2: “H. Rubrum HASSKL. (Dracunculus amboinicus ruber RMPH. amb. V. 323) Tjarieang burrum (rubrum) “Caulescens humilius, foliis cordato-ovatis breviter acuminatis lobis baseos divaricatis subtus et petiolis, pedunculis, spatha ovariisque rubris, spatha spadice vix breviore mucronata.” HASSKARL listed another variety called H. rubrum var. majus (Tjarieang burrum gedeh), but did not describe it. This species is very variable in the shape, size and colour of all its parts. Some plants are typical rubra, but others show all shades of absence of this colour so that purely green forms pass now as H. alba when they are from Java, or as H. coerulescens, when they are from the Malay Peninsula. Sometimes the spadices emerge from the spathes, and sometimes they are almost equal to, or shorter than, the spathes. H. coerulescens was based originally on a plant collected by JUNGHUHN in Java*, but according to newer interpre- tations the name is restricted to specimens from the Malay Peninsula, though the peninsular form has older names given to it by GRIFFITH. H. singaporensis is also a form of the same species. There is no reason why this should be identified with H. Lindenii, a plant introduced to Singapore many years after the description of REGEL. Young specimens of H. rubra, H. rubescens, H. Lindenii and allied species frequently produce smali deltoid leaves when grown in pots, and probably this is a reason why the specimens of these species are frequently confused in herbaria. (cf. my remarks under H. Lindenii). H. gigantea and H. rosea are larger forms of the same species. H. bancana and H. pontederiifolia are narrower leaved forms of this species, but transitions between these extremes and the typical H. rubra also occur. At most they could be separated as a variety of H. rubra. Others are merely various stages in the development of the plant. SUMATRA: Mentawi Island (BoDEN-KLoss, 12297); Pulau Bangka (BUNNEMEIJER, 1439, Holotype of H. bancana, HB; 2337 & 2422: Paratypes of H. bancana, HB); Brastagi (E. M. BuRKILL, 110); * Cf. Footnote under H. sagittifolia p. 227. Vol. X. (1939). 220 Tanjong Gedang (JACOBSON, 75, HB); Gunong Malintang (BUnN- NEMEIJER, 3630, HB); Fort de Kock (JACOBSON, 2084, HB) ; Rambutan (BUNNEMEIJER, 3390, HB); Gunong Koemitji (BUNNEMEIJER, 8490 & 8660, HB); Sibolangit (Nur, 7410; LORZING, 5324, HB); Ophir Distr. (BUNNEMEIJER, 604, HB); Gunong Sago (BUNNEMEIJER, 4018, HB); Asahan (YATES, 1657, HB); Gajoe (DAALEN, 350, HB). MALAYA: Penang, Government Hill (RimpLeEy, VI-1898) ; Waterfall (CURTIS, 1857; RIDLEY, 9400); Moniots Road (BURKILL, 3304). Kelantan: Gua Musang (HENDERSON, 22706); Bukit Batu Papan (HENDERSON, 29518). Pahang: Sungei Tahan (RIDLEY, in 1891); Gunong Sennyum (HENDERSON, 22216) ; Fraser Hill, alt. 3900 ft. (Nur, 113880); Chegar Perah (HENDERSON, 19369). Perak: Grik (HENDER- SON, 23871; BURKILL, 13835); Jor (HENDERSON, 10862); Tapah Road (BURKILL, 13435); Gopeng on Gunong Chantek (FURTADO, 33088); Kroh (FURTADO, 33036); Taiping Hill (HENDERSON, 10467); Maxwell Hill (BURKILL & HANIFF, 12792); Tanjong Malim (RIpLeEy, II—1904) ; Pulau Lalang (SEIMUND); Gunong Tungal (RIDLEY, 7251). Selangor: Semangkok (RIDLEY, VIII-1904); Kampong Kerling (GOOoDENOUGH, 10-X-1899); Port Swettenham (BURKILL, 4097); Klang (BURKILL, 6839); Dusun Tua (RIDLEY, V-1896); Pahang Track (RIDLEY, 8489) ; Sungei Buloh (Nur, 11861). Negri Sembilan: Tampin Hill (BuRKILL: 1344; 2520; 2527; 2546); Bukit Tangga (Nur, 11779); Gunong Beremban (ALVINS, 1683, vern. nom Keladi Moiang). Malacca, Bukit Sedanan (BURKILL, 1341); Nyalas (BURKILL, 539). Johore, Kluang (HOLTTUM, 9482). Singapore: Chan Chu Kang (RIDLEY, X—1889); Chua Chu Kang (RIDLEY, 29—-VIII-1899); Pulau Buru (RIDLEY, V- 1890); Seletar (RIDLEY, 6240); Bukit Mandai (RIDLEY, 6537); Kranji (GOODENOUGH, 14—VIII-1890) ; Bukit Timah (GOoDENoUGH, 12—VIII- 1889); Changi (RIDLEY, VII-1890). RIAU ARCHIPELAGO: Pulau Papan (BUNNEMEIJER, 7814, HB). BORNEO: Loc. incert. (HALLIER: 68 & 1357, Syntypes of H. lati- frons, HB); Tenompoh, on Mount Kinabalu, alt. 4500 ft. (leg. F'URTADO, comm. CLEMENS, subn. 29 151). JAVA: Preanger (WINCKEL, 854B, HB); Buitenzorg (HALLIER, 556C, HB; VAN STEENIS, 411, HB); Meester Cornelis (BACKER, II-1905, HB); Batavia (BACKER, 7142, HB). CULT. IN Hort. Bot. Bocor.: XI. B.X. 103 in HB: Syntype of H. gigantea; XI. B.X. 73: Holotype of H. rosea, HB; XI. B.X. 105, HB; XI. B.X. 98, Spermosyntype of H latifrons, HB). 39. Homalomena Versteegii ENGL. in Nova Guinea VIII (1911) 250 et in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 52; KRAUSE et v. ALD. v. Ros. in Nova Guinea XIV (1927) 217. H. Peekelii ENGL. var. mamberamica KRAUSE in Nova Guinea XIV (1927) 217 Syn. nov. The specimens cited below are specifically identical, but KRAUSE and v. ALD. v. ROs. cited them under two different species. I have not seen the types of H. Versteegzii and H. Peekeliu, and so my identification of the specimens is based entirely on the descriptions. NEW GUINEA: Prauwen Bivak, alt. 50-100 M. (Lam, 789, HB; 866, HB; 1223, HB—The last two are the syntypes of H. Peekeli var. mamberamica). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 221 C. SECTION: CYRTOCLADON FURTADO 40. Homalomena Beccariana ENGL. in Bull. Soc. Tose. Ort. (1879) 286, in Malesia I (1882) 281 et in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 66. BORNEO: Sarawak (non vidi). 41. Homalomena borneensis RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. XLIV (1905) 173; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich TV.ace. Da. [b0)- (1912): 71. BORNEO: Sarawak, Kuching (RIDLEY, VII-1903, Holotype). 42. Homalomena Gillii FURTADO spec. nov. H. insigni affinis, sed differt lamina foliorum magis coriacea, spathis angustioribus; inflorescentia: mascula pro rata longiore; feminea minore. Herba erectiuscula vel scandens. Petiolus longitudine multo variabilis, nunc quam lamina brevior, nunc longior, 5-15 cm. longus, ad medium vaginatus. Lamina foliorum plerumque coriacea, ambitu variabilis, oblonga, ovato- vel obovato-lanceolata, vel elliptica, interdum falcatoidea, basin versus acuta vel obtusa, 9-20 cm. longa, 2.5—6 cm. lata, nervis lateralibus primariis subprimariisque utrinsecus 6-9, alteris gracillimis. Pedunculi 4-8 cm. longi, graciles, petiolo breviores, raro eo equilongi. Spatha ovata, apicem versus abrupte et valde attenuata, cuspidata, parte basilare 1-1.5 cm. longa, 8-12 mm. crassa, apicali circ. 3 cm. longa, 3—5 mm. crassa. Spadix spathe subequilongus, subsessilis ; femineus 8-12 mm. longus, triplo brevior et duplo crassior apicali 3 cm. longo 3-4 mm. crasso, floribus oblonga stigmate orbiculari coronata. Staminodia et flores masculos non vidi. Named after WALTER GILL who collected extensively in the company of his uncle and aunt Mr. and Mrs. JOSEPH CLEMENS, and who showed very keen eyes in detecting small obscure plants in the jungle. BORNEO: Mount Kinabalu: Dallas, circa 3500 ft. alt. (CLEMENS, 29138, Holotype; 26226; 26730 and 29140); Tenompok, circa 4500 ft. (leg. Furtapo & KIAH, comm. CLEMENS sub no. 29142; CLEMENS, 29145); Penibukan circa 5000 ft. (CLEMENS 31023). Sandakan at Bettotan (BODEN KLoss, 19167). The last mentioned (BoDEN KLoss 19167) has much shorter petioles, comparatively broader and longer sheaths than in the type, and the leaf base is obtuse. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from the other specimens. Vol. X. (1939). 222 43. Homalomena Havilandii RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soe. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 173; ENGL. in Pflanzen- reich TV. 23. Da; [55], (1912). 71. The species is very near H. Treubii where the spathes are longer and the leaf-lamina larger and more rounded at base. BORNEO: Sarawak, Bongritu (HAVILAND, 102, Holotype). 44. Homalomena insignis N. E. Br. in Illustr. Hort. XXXII (1885) 93 t. 560; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 68. H. intermedia RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 175; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 68; MERR., Enum. Bornean Pl. (1921) 94. Syn. nov. H. sarawakensis RIDL. op. cit. (1905) 172; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 68; MERR., op. cit. (1921) 96. Syn. nov. Originally described from plants introduced to Euro- pean gardens from Borneo by the Campagnie Continentale d’Horticulture, H. insignis has not been associated with any subsequent collections from Borneo. I have not seen the type specimen, my identification of the species being based entirely on the original plate and description. The plants may either be green or produce various stages of redness in petiole, leaf and peduncle. This species is closely related to H. schismatoglottoides and H. Nieuwenhuisii, both of which however produce ovate, often cordulate leaves. BORNEO: Sarawak: Matang (RIDLEY, 11714, Holotype of H.- sarawakensis; RIDLEY, VII-1903, Holotype of H. intermedia; RIDLEY, IX-1904); Bau (ANDERSON, 54). 45. Homalomena kinabaluensis Furtado spec. nov. H. rostratae affinis, sed differt: herba minore; lamina foliorum breviore, chartacea, oblonga; petiolo breviore, multo graciliore; spatha chartacea. Facie foliorum H. Gilli simillima, sed spatha longiore, parte mascula paulo attenuata; spadice quam spatha multo breviore; inflorescentia feminea fere zequali dimensioni- bus mascule facile diagnosci potest. Herba erectiuscula vel scandens, circ. 30—40 cm. alta. Lamina foliorum oblonga, chartacea, interdum inequilatera, basi acuta vel rotundato-acuta, apice acuta, mucronulata, 12-17 cm. longa, 5-7 cm. lata, nervis primariis utrinsecus 9-6 (primarilis subprimarlisque cunctis 7-9), alteris gracil- limis, omnibus supra inconspicuis, subtus prominentibus. Petiolus 11-18 cm. longus, ad tertiam partem usque vaginatus. Peduncult 7-14 cm. longi. Spatha 6-8 cm. longa, 5-10 mm. ampla, apicem versus sensim attenuata. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 223 Spadix breviter stipitatus, brevior quam spatha, 3-6.5 cm. longus, 5-7 mm. crassus, inter masculam et femineam inflorescentiam zona florum asexualium preditus. BORNEO: Mount Kinabalu, Tenompok, circ. 4500 ft. (leg. FURTADO comm. CLEMENS sub. no. 29137). Very common, but rarely in flower. The stem, petiole, peduncle, and spathe dark purple. Leaf lamina dark green above, paler beneath. Here may also belong: CLEMENS 51019 collected at Gurulau Spur on Mount Kinabalu, but the specimen is poor. 46. Homalomena lancea Ridl. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 176; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 66. BORNEO: Sarawak, Matang (RIDLEY, VII—1908, Holotype). 47. Homalomena lunduensis Furtado in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. VIII (1935) 148. H. multinervia RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIX (1907) 49, non RIDL. (1902). Basinym. BORNEO: Sarawak, Lundu (RIDLEY, Sept. 1905, Holotype). Dutch West Borneo (ENDERT, 3738, HB). Here also appears to belong JAHERI 1142 (NIEUWENHUIS Exp.) ‘ag ee ve in Borneo cited by ENGLER l.c. under H. hostifolia = H. ovata). 48. Homalomena Nieuwenhuisii v. Ald. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 189. This species is very near to H. schismatoglottoidis; but the spathes in H. Niewwenhuisti are coriaceous and long- mucronate (circa 1 cm. mucro), and the neutral flowers are crowded, forming a uniform band between the male and female portions of the spadix. (In H. schismatoglottoidis the spathes are papery and not mucronate, and the neutral flowers are few and far apart). In leaf characters and habit the two species are hardly distinguishable, and judg- ing from the herbarium specimens both appear to produce reddish colour in leaves, petioles and peduncles. BORNEO: loc. incert. (leg. NIEUWENHUIS in 1882, floresc. in Hort. Bot. Bogor., Holotype, HB). 49. Homalomena ovata ENGL. in Bull. Soc. Tose. Ort. (1879) 296 et in Malesia I (1883) 281. H. hostifolia ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 238. Da. [55] (1912) 70 fig. 45, pro parte typica. Syn. nov. I have not seen the type of this species. JAHERI 1142 (NIEUWENHUIS Exp.) quoted by ENGLER under this may not belong here. Its spathes are much shorter than the ones described for H. ovata. In its mucronate spathes the proportions between the male and the female parts of the Vol. X. (1939). 224 spadix and in the size and shape of both the spathes and the leaves, JAHERI 1142 appears to be H. lunduensis; but the specimen is too poor to permit certainty in the determination H. ovata is closely allied to H. paludosa but the leaves are shorter, more veined and vary in shape from elliptic to truncate ovate. On leaf characters alone the specimens of H. ovata are distinguished with difficulty from H. lunduensis. H. ovata ENGL. (1879) has priority over H. ovata (SCHOTT) Hook. f. (1893), and so H. hostifolia ENGL. (1912) is superfluous. BORNEO: Mount Kinabalu at Dallas (leg. FURTADO, comm. CLEMENS sub no. 29134). 50. Homalomena propinqua SCHOTT in Miq., Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. I (1863) 280; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 334; RIL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Straits Br. XLIV (1905) 172; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 25. Da. [55] (1912) 72 p.p.; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 191 p.p. H. Raapii ENGL. in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. (1912) 73 t. 49; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 191. Syn. nov. H. sagittifolia JUNGH. ex SCHOTT sensu HOOK. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 531; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 23; ENGL. op. cit. (1912) 73; RIDL., Fl. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 103; omnino pro parte. H. sagittifolia var. sumatrana Vv. ALD. V. ROS. op. cit. (1922) 192. Syn. nov. As interpreted by the various authors mentioned above, H. sagittifolia agrees neither with the original description nor with any of the specimens from Java, whence SCHOTT appears to have received living specimens from JUNGHUHN: it (H. sagittifolia Auctt.) is conspecific with H. propinqua. The species is very variable as regards the shape of the leaves, some variations depending on the age of the plant. (see my remarks on H. sagittifolia). It is possible that some of these variations deserve a varietal rank, but with the material at my disposal I am unable to distinguish the forms that are merely transient or ecologic from those that are really hereditary. H. propinqua, though closely allied to H. sagittifolia, has not yet been recorded from Java. MALAYA: Perak: loc. incert. (SCORTECHINI; WRAY, 1749); Larut Hills (Curtis, 25—-XII-1901); Tea Gardens (RIDLEY, in 1891); Maxwell Hill (Wray); Taiping Hill (HENDERSON, 10256; BURKILL & HANIFF, 12805; RIDLEY, II-1904; in 1902); Tapah (FURTADO, 33098). Pahang: Pulau Tioman (Nur, 18573); Raub Track (MACHADO, Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 225 15-V-1903); Bentong by Sungei Kesar (FurTapo, 33116). Negri Sembilan, Bukit Tumiang (ALVINS, 1963). Selangor, Semangkok Pass (RIDLEY, in 1897); Semenyih (Humes, 7931); Ginting Bidai (RIDLEY, 7774). Johore, Pulau Tinggi (BURKILL, 908 & 981). Singapore, Bukit Timah (RIDLEY, in 1892; in 1906, HB). SUMATRA: Batoe Island (RAAP, 235, Syntype of H. Raapii, HB) ; Ophir: Taloe (BUNNEMEIJER, 129 & 159, HB); Loeboeg Sikaping, Bukit Kaboeng (BUNNEMEIJER, 1220, HB). ANAMBA ISLANDS: Siantan (VAN STEENIS, 707 & 917, HB; HENDERSON, 20262). BORNEO: Dutch Borneo, loc. incert (AMDIAH, 261, HB; JAHERI, 1485, HB); Landak (TEYSMANN, 11542, HB) Gintang (KORTHALS, in Herb. Leiden: Syntype). Sarawak, Matang (RIDLEY, in VII—-1908) ; Satubong (HEWITT, 17) ; Kapit (CLEMENS, 21926, HB); Bangey Island (CASTRO & MELEGRETO, 1410, HB). Mount Kinabalu: Penibukan alt. 5500 ft. (CLEMENS, 50279); Dallas alt. 2000-3000 ft. (leg. FURTADO comm. CLEMENS sub no. 29152; CLEMENS, 26732 & 26086). 51. Homalomena punctulata ENGL. in Bull. Soc. Tose. Ort. (1879) 296 et in Malesia I (1883) 282; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 66. H. crassinervia RIDL. in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. XLIV (1905) 176. BORNEO: Sarawak Matang (RIDLEY, VII-1903, Holotype of H. crassinervia) ; Mount Tiang Layu (HEWITT, 34). 52. Homalomena rostrata GRIFF., Notul. III (1851) 154 (errore typ. H. roshalum) ; SCHOTT, Synops. Aroid. (1856) 119, Prodr. (1860) 312; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 343; ENGL. in Malesia I (18835) 281. sub H. Bercarianae observ. (ut H. prostrata); N. E. Br. in Illustr. XX XII (1885) 94 sub H. insignis observ. (ut H. rostrata) ; Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 532; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 24; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 66; RIDL., FI. Mal. Pen. V (1925) 108. H. ensiformis v. ALD. Vv. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 335. Syn. nov. H. Miqueliana ScHoTT in Miq., Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. I (1863) 120; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 333 et in Pflanzenreich tom. cit. (1912) 69 fig. 44; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 190 et 335. Syn. nov. H. Miqueliana var. truella v. ALD. V. ROS. in op. cit. (1922) 336. Syn. nov. H. Teysmannii ENGL. op. cit. p. 68. ? Cyrtocladon. sanguinolentum GRIFF., Notul. (1851) 147. ? Chamaecladon sanguinolentum (GRIFF.) SCHOTT Prodr. (1860) 316; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 349. Vol. X. (1939). 226 This species is very variable in the shape of the leaves, the variations depending mostly on age and to a certain extent also on environment. Some leaves are very narrow with cuneate base (H. Teysmannii form), others are much broader with the broadest portion above the middle, and still others have the broadest portion below the middle and near the base. The last mentioned form tends to produce leaves with rounded base (H. Miqueliana form). I have not seen any authentic specimens of H. Beccari- ana and from the key given by ENGLER in Pflanzenreich (p. 29) it appears that this species differs very much from H. rostrata; but in Malesia I (p. 281), ENGLER recorded that H. Beccariana is very near to H. rostrata and that it may be identical with it. I have not seen the type of Cyrtocladon sanguinolentum; but from the general description it appears that HOOKER was right in reducing it here. But GRIFFITH described the spathes as shedding their apical portions, a character noticed in Schismatoglottis and Piptospatha. The type must be examined in order to verify whether it is really a Homalomena species. In the type specimens the spathes might have been injured. MALAYA: Pahang: Kuala Maliang (RIDLEY, 26—VI-1891); Semantan in swampy forest (BURN-MuRpOcH, 155); Kota Glanggi (HENDERSON, 22504); Temerloh (HENDERSON, 10527). Selangor, Kuala Langat (BURKILL, 4101); Bukit Changgang near Kuala Langat (Nur, 33992); Kuala Lumpur (RIDLEY, 27—VII-1889) ; Telok Reserve in Klang (BURKILL, 6521); Batang Berjuntai (RIDLEY, 7662). Negri Sembilan, Tampin (Nur, 1317). Malacca, Batang Malacca (BURKILL, 3192; 3193; 3194; & 3195); Bukit Bruang (CurTis, V—1901; RIDLEY, 3529); Brisu (HOLMBERG, 743). Johore, Sungei Sedili Ketchil (CORNER, 28612). RiAU ARCHIPELAGO: Pulau Bintan (BUNNEMEIJER, 6200, HB; Holotype of H. miqueliana var. truella). BORNEO: Pontiak (Monpi, 14, HB); Lundu (FoxwortTuy, 58); loc. incert. (HALLIER, 1465, HB, Holotype of H. ensiformis). SUMATRA: Banka Island at Plangas (TEYSMANN, 3227, HB, Holotype of H. Teysmannii). 53. Homalomena sagittifolia Jungh. ex Schott, Synops. Aroid. I (1856) 119, et Miq., Fl. Bat. Ind. III (1856?) 212 nomen nudum; SCHOTT in Prodr. (1860) 311; ENGL. in DC., Mon. Phan. II (1879) 334; Hook. f., FI. Brit. Ind. VI (1893) 531 p.p.; RIDL., Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. III (1907) 23 p.p.; ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 73 p.p.; Ripu., Fl. Malay Pen. V (1925) 103 p.p. H. paludosa Hook. f., op. cit. (1893) 531; RIDL., Mat. cit. (1907) 24; ENGL. in Pflanzenr. tom. cit. (1912) 73; RIDL., Fl. cit. (1925) 104. Syn. nov. H. propinqua SCHOTT sensu ENGL. in Pflanzenr. tom. cit. (1912) 72; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Buitenz. IV (1922) 191 p.p. Gardens Bulletin. SS. > ag 227 H. Ridleyana ENGL. in Bot. Jahrb. XXXVII (1905) 123. Syn. nov. When the name H. sagittifolia first appeared in print*, it was a nomen nudum, and was accompanied by the following information: “H. sagittifolia JUNGHUHN (in schedula) —(Stirps viva nondum satis evoluta notas differentiales non offert )—Java.” This information was reprinted verbatim by MIQUEL. Four years later (in 1860), when the name was duly validated, SCHOTT, the author of the description, cited a Bornean specimen collected by MOTLEY (preserved in HOOKER’S herbarium) and added that he had seen the plant also alive. From this I conclude:(1) that JUNGHUHN, who had botanised in Java, supplied to SCHOTT a living specimen under the above-mentioned binomial for the purpose of cultivating it in Schenbrunn garden where SCHOTT, its director, was studying the Aroids; and (2) that the Java- nese plant must be included as a syntype, if not as a holotype. It is not improbable that MOTLEY’S specimen was the same as the one which ScHoTT later cited under H. Buitenzorg Gardens (which was printed in Java in 1855), it appears that both Homalomena coerulescens and H. sagittifolia were so named originally by TEYSMANN and BINNENDIJK, the then curators of the Gardens and the joint authors of the unpublished Catalogue. JUNGHUHN must have obtained tubers of these species from Buitenzorg Gardens and sent them to ScuoTT under the above mentioned botanical names but without any indication as to their real authorship—an obvious reason why SCHOTT attributed the paternity of the names to JUNGHUHN. The following entries in the Catalogue support this conclusion of mine: p. 50: “Homalomena coerulescens T. et B. (20)....Tjariang boelauw.”’ “Homalomena sagittifolium T. et B. (21)....Tjariang heedjoh.” The numbers in brackets refer to the original descriptions given on page 240 of the Catalogue, which run thus: (20) “Homalomena coerulescens’’: “Hom. caulescens; foliis cordato-ovatis, breviter acumi- natis, lobis baseos rotundatis supra coerulescentibus subtus pedunculis spathisque atroviridis, spatha spadice vix breviore.” “Habit. In humidis montosis provincie Buitenzorg.” (21) Homalomena sagittifolium: “Hom. subcaulescens; foliis oblongo-cordato-ovatis bre- viter acuminatis, lobis baseos divaricatis subsinuatis, petiolis atroviride—striatis; pedunculis brevibus, spatha alba mucronata.” : “Habit. In humidis montosis provincie Buitenzorg.”’ Vol. X..( 1939). 228 examined HOOKER’S herbarium at Kew, cited MOTLEY’sS specimen under H. propinqua and not under H. sagittifolia. HOOKER (1893), who had not seen KORTHAL’S specimen cited under H. propinqua, doubtfully reduced this last binomial as a synonym of H. sagittifolia. RIDLEY (Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. XLIV, 1905 p. 172) also speaks as if there was only one specimen of MOTLEY’s; he quotes it under H. sagittifolia together with KORTHAL’S, but remarks that ENGLER had quoted them under H. propinqua. In interpreting H. sagittifolia, however, ENGLER (1879) did not consider MOTLEY’S specimen, but cited a Javanese specimen from Leiden Herbarium which, I am informed, was so determined by SCHOTT himself. From the comparisons with this material made at my request by Dr. S. J. VAN OoSTSTROOM of Leiden, I conclude that this species (H. sagittifolia) is the one that passes as H. propinqua if it is from Java and Borneo, and as H. paludosa if it is from the Malay Peninsula. This interpre- tation also accords with the original description of H. sagittifolia which was said to have ‘“elongato-hastata’”’ leaves, whereas H. sagittifolia as currently intepreted not only does not agree with SCHOTT’S original description of the species, but also has not been recorded from Java. H. propinqua as interpreted by ENGLER (e.g. HALLIER 1356) is a much smaller form. H. Ridleyana has leaves that are more elongate, less triangular in shape, and less cordate at base. KUNSTLER 3082 from the Singapore herbarium (a haptosyntype of H. paludosa) differs but very little from HALLIER 1356, but most of the specimens from the Malay Peninsula are larger like the Javanese. The species is very near H. rostrata. The specimens vary a great deal in the shape and size of the leaves. JAVA: Hort. Bot. Bogor. cult. (XI. B.X. 167, HB); Buitenzorg (KOoRDERS, 30812B partim, HB; BAKHUIZEN V/D BRINK: 7063, HB; 5016, HB). MALAYA: Perak, Larut (KUNSTLER, 3082, Haptosyntype of H. paludosa). Province Wellesley, Tasek Glugor (BURKILL, 6400 bis). Singapore, Seletar (RIDLEY, 23-IV-1889); Changi (RIDLEY, 4607) ; Ang Mo Kio (RIDLEY, in 1894); Bukit Panjang (RIDLEY, in 1905); Bukit Timah (RIDLEY, 6318 & 6538); Bukit Mandai (RIDLEY, in 1894 & 1899). Johore, Pulau Kukub (RIDLEY, in 1909); Tanjong Kopang (RIDLEY, 6310). BoRNEO: loc. incert. (HALLIER: 1356, HB; 1391, HB); W. Koetai (ENDERT, 1922, HB); Kalaka (HaviLanp, 11-IV-1893); Kuching (HAVILAND, 3134; 19-V-1893, Holotype of H. Ridleyana); Lundu (FoxwortTnHy, 41). 54. Homalomena sagittifolia var. angustifolia FURTADO var. nov. A forma typica differt lamina foliorum angustiore et longiore. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 229 Many of the specimens cited here were quoted by RIDLEY (1907 & 1925) and ENGLER (1912) under dH. paludosa. LXNGLER’S fig. 50 represents this form. This variety makes one suspect that H. sagittifolia may be a variety of H. rostrata. The two species require a further study in their range of variations. MALAYA: Singapore: Sungei Jurong (RIDLEY, in 1897); Krangi (RIDLEY, in 1889); Toas (RIDLEY, in 1894). Johore: Castlewood (RIDLEY, in 1905); Tanjong Kopang (RIDLEY, in 1892); Sungei Berassau (CORNER, 29360); Mount Austen (RIDLEY, 12018). SUMATRA: Langat (BEUMEE, A-—486, HB). 55. Homalomena schismatoglottoides ENGL. in Pfianzen- reich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 71. BORNEO: Soengei Maruee (AMDJAH, 226, HB, Holotype). 56. Homalomena subcordata ENGL. in Bot. Jahrb. I (1882) 183, in Malesia I (1883) 281 [non H. subcordata (SCHOTT) ENGL. (1912)= H. Korthalsii]. H. subcordifolia ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da [55] (1912) 71. Syn. nov. H. subcordata ENGL. (1882) has priority over H. subcordata (SCHOTT) ENGL. (1912), and hence H. subcordifolia is superfluous. BORNEO: Sarawak (non vidi). 57. Homalomena subemarginata v. Ald. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 190. This species is known entirely from specimens cultivated in the Botanical Gardens, Buitenzorg. On a specimen from group XI. B. X. 66 the nativity of this species is indicated to be Java; but this musi be an error, for the species is very closely allied to H. borneensis, if not identical with it, and a no allies in Java. Probably it was introduced from orneo. Hort. Bot. Bogor. Cuuit.: XI. B.X. 46, Holotype in HB; XI. B.X. 66. 58. Homalomena Treubii ENGL. in Pflanzenreich IV. 23. Da. [55] (1912) 70; v. ALD. v. Ros. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. IV (1922) 188. This species is very like H. Havilandii from which it differs by larger leaves and spathes and more rounded base of the leaves. BORNEO: (HALLIER, 2622, Holotype, HB). V. Summary of the Systematic Notes In order to facilitate the classification of the Indo- Malaysian species I have created a new section CYRTOCLADON to include all those Homalomena species which have their Vol. X. (1939). 230 spathes constricted above the female inflorescence. This section appears to be much more natural and distinct than the section Chamaecladon. Apart from the many forms or varieties described as new or reduced as synonyms, the following is a summary of the systematic notes on the species: A. NEW SPECIES: (a) Malaya (7.e. Malay Peninsula) : H. confusa, H. Corneri, H. Hendersoni, H. Kkiahii and H. montana; (b) Sumatra: H. ellipticifolia and H. menta- wiensis ; (c) Borneo: AH. Gilli and H. kinabaluensis; and (d) New Guinea: H. Carrii. B. NEW COMBINATIONS: H. Korthalsii. C. NEW INTERPRETATIONS: H. alba, H. angustifolia, H. cordata, H. humilis, H. propinqua, H. purpuras- cens, H. pygmaea, H. rubra, H. sagittifolia and H. singaporensis. D. NEW REDUCTIONS: Chamaecladon rubescens, H. alba (see footnote p. 213), H. bancana, H. Burkiliana H. coerulescens, H. coccinea, H. crassa, H. discolor, H. ensiformis, H. falcata, H. gigantea, H. hostiifolia, H. intermedia, H. java- nica, H. johorensis, H. latifrons, H. lucidula, H. metallica, H. Miquelliana, H. multinervia, H. multivenosa, H. obliquata, H. ovata (SCHOTT) Hook. f., H. palliformis, H. paludosa, H. pumila, H. pygmaea, H. Raapii, H. repens, H. rosea, H. rubrovaginata, H. sarawakensis, H. singaporen- sis, H. subcordata (SCHOTT) ENGL., H. subcordi- folia and H. velutina. E. OLD NAMES RESTORED: H. Gaudichaudu, H. Lin- denui, H. ovata ENGL., and H. subcordata ENGL. VI. Index to the Numbers Cited ACHMAD: 1723 (12). ALVINS: 1683 (38); 1849(7) ; 1963 (50) ; 2239 (13-c). AMDJAH: 226(55) +261 (56). ANDERSON : 54 (44) ; 85(20). BACKER: 710(17) ; 16383(17) ; 4608(17) ;x 5907(18) ; 7114(18) ; 7142(38); 10271(18); 11275(36); 18750(36) ; 23365 (17); 27017636) ; 27477(36) ; 29723 (36) ; 31130(18). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 231 BAKHUIZEN V/D BRINK: 16077) 5 1 72=93222 (18) ; 789(17} ; 3100(17) 5; 3222— 172(18); 3615(17); 3616(17); 38995(17); 5016(53); 5028(18); 5029(17); 5030(18); 6390 (18) ; 7063(53) ; 7065(18) ; 7185(18). ST: figs (19). BEUMEE: , A-337 (17) ; A-486(54) ; 816(36) ; 3897 (36) ; 5045(36) ; 5560 (36). BODEN KLOSS: 11441 (2) ; 12297 (38) ; 14777 (25) ; 19167(42). BROOKS: | A-4(20). BUNNEMEIJER: 129(50); 159(50); 584(21); 604(38); 1220(50) ; $459(38); 2387(38); 24226328); (~73804(3) ; a209(14); 3254(14); 3390(38); 3630(38) ; 2018 (38) 5 <05811:(6) 5. .-6200(52) 3 - T814(88) ;xX 8490 (38) ; 8660(38). BURKILL (E.M.): 110(38). BURKILL: 539(38); 711(13-b) ; 724(13-d) ; 908(50) ; 918(20) ; 351 (50): 1341 (38) ; 1544 C38) * "2520 (88) : Zant (ae)* - 2544(35) :>. 2546(38):; 2559-20); Z2020(10)> > 3192Z(52): § 3193052); — 3194(52) ; 3195(52); 38304(38); 4080(13-a); 4097(38); 4101(52); 4552(5); 6304(20); 6400 bis(53); 6521(52); 6602(13-e); 6839(38); 9965(13-c) ; 13435 (38) ; 13835(38). BURKILL & HANIFF: 12792(38); 12805(50); 16937(13-c); 16951(30) ; 16974(24). BURKILL & HOLTTUM: 7879 (19) ; 9016(13-b). BURN-MURDOCH: BE CASTRO & MELEGRITO: 1410(50). CLEMENS: 21926(50); 26086(50); 26199(20); 26226(42); 26730 (42) ;. 26732(50) ; 27230(20); 29134(49) ; 29137(45) ; 291388(42); 29139(20); 29140(42) ; 29142 (42) ; 29145 (42) = (29151 (38) ; 29152(50) ;s 31023 (42) ; 32508(20) ; 50279 (50) ; 51019(45). Vol. X. (1939). 232 CORNER: 28612(52); 29360(54);: 30436(9); 30691(20); 31687 (10) ; 33578 (13-d) ; 33579 (22-b) ; 33581 (7) ; 33685 (35); 33687(10) ; 33692(5). CURTIS: 1857 (38) ; 2886(5). DAALEN: 30(21) ; 350(28). DE VRIES: 43 (17). DOCTERS VAN LEEUWEN: Hort. Bot. Bogor. cult. XI. B.X. 50(317). ENDERT: 1922 (53); 2630(20) ; 3738(47). FOXWORTHRY: 41(53) ; 58(52). FURTADO: 33036(38); 33082(10); 33088(38); 33098(50); 338106(24); 33116(50) ; 33127(1); 33129(2). GALOENGI: 172(31). GOODENOUGH : 1661 (13-a). HALLIER: 68(38); 556c(38); 648(36); 1356(52); 1357(38): 1391 (53); 1465(52); 2622(58). HANIFF & NUR: 7969(5) ; 103862(13-a). HAVILAND: 102 (43) ; 31384(53). HENDERSON : 10185(9) ; 10256 (50) ; 10318 (10) ; 10467 (38) ; 10527 (52); 10862(38); 17758(20); 18374(20); 19369 (38) ; 19372 (13-a) ; 20105(32) ; 20262 (50) ; 20389 (32) ;21354(16-a) ; 22000 (13-a) ; 22216(38) ; 22504 (52) ; 22600 (13-a) ; 22659(29) ; 22706(38) ; 23871(38); 23872(10); 29518(38); 29564(24) ; 29663 (15). HEWITT: 17(50) ; 34(51). HOLMBERG: 173 (52). HOLTUM: 9391(20); 9420(13-a); 9482(38); 9736(1); 10863 partim (32); 19933(32). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. HUME: 7099(16-a); 7598(16-a); 7931(50); 8975(24); 9457 (13-a) ; 9549(16-a). IBOET: 30(3); 512(25). JACOBSON : 75(38) ; 2084(38). JAHERI: 215(20) ; 1142(47) ; 1485(50). KARTA: 92(36). KIAH: 32056 (13-b) ; 82146(22-b) ; 32358(22). KING’S Collector in Malay Peninsula w2de KUNSTLER KJELLBERG: 612 (21). KOORDERS: 161808 (21) ; 301828 (53) ; 396958 (17) ; 41822 B(17) ; 41580 B (18). KORTHALS: 221(28). KRAMER: 118 (36). KUNSTLER: 3082 (52) ; 10603 (35). LAM: 722 (29) ; 789(39) ; 866 & 1223(39). LATIF: 8(20). LORZING: TT1G(86) = 5324138); 5601 (2). 5728 (8). LORZING & JOCHEMS: 1380631): MatT: 3722 (20). MONDI!I: 14(52). MoyYSsEY & KIAH: 31839 (27). NUR: 1317(52);, 71367(31) ;.7410(28); 7412(34) >, 11037 (i768): . 41380(98); 11595(9); | 11605620); 11779(38); 11861(38); 18573(50); 33992(52). PULLE: 398 & 410(33). Vol. X. (1939). 234 RAAP: 186(2) ; 235(50) ; 266(3) ; 412(16-a). REINWARDT: 19-a (17). RIDLEY: 2391 (5) ; 2952 (16-a) ; 3529(52) ; 4607(53) ; 5123(5) ; 6240(38); 63810(53); 6318(53); 6537(38); 6538(53); 7083(16-a); 7251(38); 7662(52); 7665(16-a); 7774(50); 8462(24); 8488(5); 8489(38); 9400 (38); 97938(5); 10177(16-c) ; 10223 (13-d); 10327(16-a); 11193(20); 11421 (20); 197138 (13-f); 11714(44); TISSs2Ceer; 11990(20); 12018(54); 12144(20), 12417(10) ; 13237(35); 13239(13-a); 138398(16-a); 13399 (16-a); 13469(21); 13842 & 18842a (21); 14031 (16-a) ; 14304(21); 14805(5); 14306(1@) ; 14867 (30) ; 15491(5) ; 16188(5). ROBINSON & KLOSS: 6123(20). ROMER: 451(29).° SAPII: 117 (36) ; 2000(36). SCORTECHINI: 256 & 256a(10); 276b in Herb. Singapore (16-4) ; 276b in Herb. Bogor. (20); 606a(10). SEIMUND: 60(13-d). SLOOTEN : 245(86) >*59T (17). STEENIS: 411(38); .687(32).;... TO7{50).:. SIT(50) ; Titer 1445 (16-a) ; 2489(17) ; 3794(20). TEYSMANN: 3227 (52) ; 10826(21) ; 11542(50) ; 12421(21). VAN DER PIJL: 70(18). VAN SLOOTEN vide SLOOTEN. VAN STEENIS vide STEENIS. VooGD: Soils? ). WINCKEL: 854B (38). WRAY: 385 (24); 1084(16-a) ; 1749(50) ; 1976(10). YATES: 1657 (38). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 235 VII. Index to the Botanical Names New botanical names in clarendon type Synonyms in italics Aglaonema: pygmaeum (18 & 18 observ.) 201 & 202 pygmaeum var. majus (17 & 18 observ.) 200, 202 var. purpurascens (18) 201 Alocasia Lindenii (37) 216 Anappur: alba (36) 215 nigra (36) 214 & 215 rubra (36) 215 Calla: angustifolia (20) 203 & 205 humilis (16-a & 20) 199 & 205 Chamecladon: angustifolium (5 & 20) 189 & 204 consobrinum (6) 190 Griffith (13) 194 Griffith var. argenteum (1) 186 humile (16-a) 199 lanceolatum (17) 200 lanceolatum var. purpurascens (18) 201 metallicum (13) 194 nigrescens (28) 210 obliquatum (13) 194 ovatum (18) 194 purpurascens (18) 201 pygmaeum (17 & 18) 200 & 201 pygmaeum var. latifolium (20) 204 rubescens (18) 201 sanguinolentum (52) 225 subcordatum (23) 208 Cyrtocladon sanguinolentum (52) 225 Dracunculus: amboinicus (36) 214 amboinicus ruber (38) 219 cordatum (36 footnote) 213 Homalomena: alba (36 and footnote) 2138 angustifolia (5 & 20) 189 & 204 angustifolia var. ophirensis (19) 203 angustifolia var. parvula (5) 189 argentea (1) 186 argentea var. purpurascens (2) 188 aromatica var. cordata (38) 218 bancana (38) 218 Vol. X. (1939). 256 batoensis (3 & 24) 188 & 208 Beceariana (40) 221 borneensis (41) 221 Burkilliana (34) 213 Carrii (4) 189 coccinea (18) 201 coerulescens (88) 218 & 227 footnote coerulescens var. pontederiifolia (38) 218 confusa (5) 189 consobrina (6) 190 cordata (36 footnote) 213 Corneri (7) 191 crassa (35) 213 crassinervia (51) 225 Curtisii (8 & 19) 191, 203 curvata (38) 218 deltoidea (9) 192 discolor (36) 214 elliptica (10) 192 elliptica var. paucinervia (11) 193 ellipticifolia (12) 193 ensiformis (52) 225 falcata (13 & 13-e) 194 & 197 Gaudichaudii (36 footnote) 213 gigantea (388) 218 Gillii (42) 221 Griffithii (13-a) 195 : forma acuminata (13-f) 197 3 var. faleata (10) 192 e ‘forma falcatoidea (13-e) 197 » Kingii (13-b) 196 eS » Obliquata (13-d) 196 - var. obliquata (13-d) 196 ds , ovata (13) 195 &. forma sigmoidea (13-c) 196 » var. sumatrana (14) 198 Havilandii (48) 222 Hendersonii (15) 198 hostufolia (49) 223 humilis (16 & 16-a) 199 Ss var. major (17) 200 | a var. major subvar. coccinea (18) 201 bs var. ophirensis (8 & 19) 192 & 203 - var. pumila (20) 203 a var. undulata (21) 207 var. velutina (16-a) 199 insignis (44) 222 intermedia (44) 222 javanica (36) 214 Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 237 javanica var. kangeanensis (36) 214 johorensis (20) 204 Kiahii (22) 207 , torma maculata (22-b) 208 kinabaluensis (45) 222 Kingu (13 & 18-b) 194 & 196 Korthalsii (23) 208 lancea (46) 223 lancifolia (24) 208 latifrons (88) 218 Lindenii (37) 216 lucidula (32) 212 lunduensis (47) 223 major (38) 218 mentawiensis (25) 209 metallica (13) 194 minor (38) 218 Miqueliana (52) 225 mixta (26) 209 montana (27) 210 multinervia (11 & 47) 193 & 223 multivenosa (3) 188 Nieuwenhuisil (48) 223 nigrescens (28) 210 novo-guineensis (29) 211 nutans (30) 211 oblanceolata (31) 212 obliquata (13 & 13-d) 194 & 196 obscurifolia (2) 188 ovata (13) 195 ovata (49) 223 palliformis (36) 214 paludosa (53) 226 paucinervia (32) 212 Peekelui var. mamberamica (39) 220 pontederiifolia (38) 218 propinqua (50) 224 Pulleana (33) 212 pumila (20) 204 pumila var. purpurascens (18) 202 punctulata (51) 225 purpurascens (18 & 20) 202 & 204 purpurascens var. pumila (20) 204 pygmaea (16-a, 17 & 18) 199, 200 & 202 3 var. latifolia (20) 204 3 forma longipes (12) 193 - var. pumila (20) 204 3 » purpurascens (18) 202 Vol. X. (1939). 238 Raapu (50) 224 refulgens (34) 213 repens (21) 207 Ridleyana (53) 227 rostrata (52) 225 rubra (38) 217 rubrovaginata (18) 202 ‘5 var. subpurpurea (18) 202 sagittifolia (50) 224 sagittifolia (53) 226 bs var. angustifolia (54) 228 ‘i var. sumatrana (50) 224 sarawakensis (44) 222 schismatoglottoides (55) 229 Scortechinil (35) 213 singaporensis (38) 218 subcordata (56) 229 subcordata (23) 208 subcordifolia (56) 229 subemarginata (57) 229 Teysmannu (52) 225 trapezifolia (10) 192 Treubii (58) 229 undulatifolia (21) 207 velutina (16-a) 199 Versteegii (39) 220 Wallichi (38) 218 Zollingeri (36) 214 Piptospatha Ridleyi var. lanceolata (32) 212. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Sores ON THE SYSTEMATY AND DISTRIBUTION OF MALAYAN PHANEROGAMS III By E. J. H. CORNER, Botanical Gardens, Singapore Note.—The contractions C.F. (Conservator of Forests) and SFN _ (Singapore Field Number) are used to indicate the collections made by the Forest Department, S.S. & F.M.S. and the Botanic Gardens, Singapore respectively. Both of these Departments use a single series of field numbers which serve also as Herbarium numbers. DACRYDIUM : There is much yet to be learnt, both systematic and ecological, about the needle-leafed, Malayan members of this genus and the systematic, as well as the ecological, study must be made in the field. We have been credited with two such species, D. elatum and D. Beccarui, but my own observations have led me to distinguish a third species, D. comosum, and a marked variety of D. Beccarii, namely var. subelatum. The differences between the species rest almost entirely on the size of the leaf and this may alter greatly as the tree grows from the sapling to the adult. A sterile herbarium specimen unaccompanied by field-notes describing the size of the tree, the position of the branch from which the specimen was taken, the variation in leaf- size over the whole crown of the tree and the habitat of the tree, may therefore be classified in the herbarium as either the juvenile stage of one species or the adult of another. The specimens in the Singapore Herbarium, as well as those cited in Ridley’s Flora are much confused and no one, it seems, has published a critical study of the living trees or even pointed out that it is impossible to identify them at present. After examining, purposely, many wild trees on Penang Hill, Fraser’s Hill (Pahang), Gunong Tahan (Pahang) and those cultivated in Penang, Kuaia Lumpur and Singapore, I propose the following classi- fication. ___ It should be noted that I can find no specific differences in the shape, size or colour of the ovule or the seed or in the size of the male-cone. But the position and grouping of the ovules (singly or paired) may be characteristic, though I have not seen sufficient fertile trees to satisfy myself on this point, and those trees with longer needle-leaves have shortly acuminate scales to the male-cones. The apparently specific characters of the male-cone are merely the reflection of the vegetative differences. Vol. X. (1939). 240 KEY TO THE NEEDLE-LEAFED SPECIES OF DACRYDIUM IN MALAYA Twigs very dimorphous: lower branches of young trees with drooping bushy twigs set with needle- leaves 6-12 mm. long: upper or fertile twigs erect, cord-like, 1-2 mm. wide, with minute adpressed scale-leaves 1-1.5 mm. long, without projecting leaf-points .. .. D. elatum Twigs not or only slightly dimorphous: upper twigs always with projecting leaf-points Upper or fertile twigs with needle-leaves 12-20 « .7-1.3 mm., very bushy: lower or sapling twigs with needles 20-33 mm. long D. comosum Upper or fertile twigs with needles 3-12 mm. long, often distinctly narrower than the lower bushy longer-needled twigs: needles of saplings and lower twigs 8-20 mm. long D. Beccarii Upper or fertile twigs with needle-leaves 3-5 (-—7) mm. long, distinctly narrower than the lower, bushy, long-needled twigs of young trees . var. subelatum Upper or fertile twigs with needle-leaves 6-12 (-16) mm. long, little less bushy than the lower twigs of young trees Needle-leaves on the upper twigs A—-S. MM. wide ....<... typical D. Beccarii Needle-leaves on the upper twigs .7-1.8 mm. wide, coarse: Mt. Kinabalu .. . var. kinabaluense KEY TO THE SAPLINGS Needle-leaves 6-12 mm. long a3 .. D. elatum Needle-leaves 10-20 mm. long eh. .. D. Beecarr Needle-leaves 20-33 mm. long .. D. comosum /p, elatum (Roxb.) Wall. ex Hacivay Lond. Journ. Bot. II, 1éo75, @ 144, G2" Pree Wallich Cat. No. 6045 (1832). Syn. Juniperus elata Roxb. Fl. Ind. III, 1832, p. 838. This, the commonest and best known Malayan species, has the most remar kably dimorphous twigs. Both kinds of twig may generally be found on unpruned, cultivated trees in the open but in the forest the bushy sapling twigs are lost when the tree is 15-20 feet high; the crowns of the adult forest-trees being composed entirely of posses of erect, cord-like and apparently leafless twigs. The seeds are solitary and, generally, terminal on the cord-twigs, occa- sionally lateral, and the cup is slightly reticulate at the base, though for the most part smooth. The male cones are terminal and have blunt scales. So far as I have seen, the sapling form of twig is never fertile. D. elatum is, typically, a tall, conical or dome-like tree of mid-mountain forest (500-1,700 m.). In Penang, how- ever, it grows in the forest almost at sea-level and throughout Malaya it is readily cultivated on open lawns in the plains, where it produces fertile seed. In the Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Plate 5. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Dacrydium elatum mature cord-twigs Gard: Bull, SS: Vol. xX Plate 6. ee ee ee a i ay Nine Ficus q - «HERB. HORT BOT Sincap . —— — on pen Yy a s { . ee _ — s : i ~ - : ee EAS = SS { Dacrydium Beccarii from the type-locality: mature twig 241 mountain forest it grows to a height of 40 m. (ca. 120 ft.). I am very doubtful if it ever becomes one of the bushes of the Beckia-Leptospermum-scrub of high mountains: it certainly does not occur in this form in the extensive moorland-scrub of Gunong Tahan, and most such records of it in Malaya should be referred to D. Beccaru var. subelatum. Juniperus elata Roxb. was described from _ trees cultivated in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Calcutta, and derived from Penang. It seems that there is no type- specimen so that Wallich Cat. No. 6045, which is generally quoted as the basis of the species, is of the nature of a neotopotype.* I have not seen Wallich’s specimen but as it also came from Penang and, as only one species of Dacrydium grows there and it answers exactly to the descriptions of Roxburgh and Wallich, there can be no doubt of its identity. In the Singapore Herbarium there are no exotic specimens, from outside Malaya, which can be referred to D. elatum with certainty, for none have the typical cord- twigs. The presence of the species outside Malaya has yet to be proved, though it has been reported from Tenasserim to Fiji. Collections :—— KELANTAN: Bell 7507 (Kedah Peak 3500’). PENANG: Curtis 2880. PERAK: C.F. 25809 (Symington) (Kledang Saiong, 2500’) : C.F. 29926, Gunong Bubu, (4000/). PAHANG :— Gunong Tahan, SFN 7959 (Haniff & Mur) (5500) and 8018 (3300’), Kloss 12234 (5500’), C.F. 42941 has 5 ( 3300’), C.F. 8216 (Woolley) (5500’), Wray & Robinson 5354, 5380 aie Gunong Chini, Henbrey s.n. 8.4.17, C.F. 31707 (Landon) '(2100° summit). Fraser’s Hill, C.F. 28962 (Arnot) (4000’), C.F. 3875 ae (3300’) C.F. 20315 (Strugnell) (Gap, o Bukit Kutu, C.F. 23835 (Osman) (2000/). Gunong Lesong, C.F. 4155 (Watson). SELANGOR: C.F. 12077, 12078 (cult.): C.F. 14827 (Fyfe) (Ulu Gombak, quartzite outcrop): C.F. 12626 (Strugnell) (cult.). SINGAPORE: cultivated, Cantley 268 and 270, Corner s.n. 12.2.37, Holttum s.n. 17.4.381, Kiah s.n. 1.1.82, SFN 26173 (Nur), Nur s.n. 16.8.18, 20.6.24 and 15.6.26. D. Beccarii Parlatore, D. C. Prodr. XVI pt. - 1868, p. 494. Plate 6. R. Pilger, Pflanzenr. Taxacee. In the Singapore Herbarium there are three collections from the type-locality namely Mt. Poe in Sarawak, and, *C. X. Furtado, Gard. Bull. IX, 1937, p. 288. Vol. X. (1989). 242 as they come from the summit-tree, they may well be fragments of the type-tree. These collections are Anderson 190, Clemens 20385 and Foxworthy s.n. July 1908. With this last collection, there is a note by Foxworthy to say that the specimen has been compared with a fragment of the type sent by Beccarii and that it agrees well. A!l three collections agree with the descriptions of Parlatore and Pilger except that the leaves are triagonal, not tetragonal. As all the Malaysian, needle-leafed species of Dacrydium have normally triagonal leaves (as seen in cross-section, and disregarding the slight bulge of the midrib on the adaxial side) I consider the description of them in D. Beccaru as tetragonal as a mistake or based on an aberra- tion. From these specimens I feel that I have been able to define D. Beccarii with certainty, though I have not seen the type. Typical D. Beccarvi, in the taxonomic sense, has the bushy twigs and umbrella-shape of D. comosum, but much smaller needles. Its seeds are born singly or in pairs at the ends of the ordinary twigs (as in D. elatwm) or laterally on very short twigs set with reduced needle-leaves (as in D. comosum): their cups are smooth or more or less rugosely reticulate (as in var. subelatum). Its habitat is exposed mountain sites from 4,000-7,000’ (9,000’ in Borneo), either in mossy ridge-forest where it reaches 20-30 ft. high or in the Beckia-Leptospermum-scrub where it is often a bush. I believe, indeed, that most records of D. elatum: from mountain-tops of Western Malaysia will be found to be D. Beccarii, particularly the variety subelatum. Both the typical state and the var iety appear to be widespread. The character of the leaves of D. Beccari intermediate between those of D. elatwm and D. comosum suggest that D. Beccaru 1s a self-perpetuating or continually originating hybrid of the other two. It is for this species that we are in need of many more observations on living trees. Collections :— MALAYA :— Kedah Peak, (1000 m.), Bell 7508 and 7514, Evans and Gordon 1032, SFN 14877 (Holttum), C.F 23162 (Marshall), C.F. 20731 (Mustafa), Robin- son and Kloss 60538, C.F. 27454 (Wilkinson). Gunong Stong (Kelantan), (2000 m.), SFN 12210 (Foxworthy & Nur), J. Jupe s.n. Sept. 1922, C.F. 37670, 37777 (Symington) (1500 m.). Gunong Tahan (Pahang) (1700 m.), Kloss 12222, 12223, 12224. Bujong Malacca (Perak) (1300 m.), Curtis 3302. Gunong Benom (Pahang) F.M.S. Mus. Coll. s.n. 26.7.25. Mt. Ophir (Johore) (1300 m.), Hullett, s.n. April 1888, Ridley 3155. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Bs ERIE te 4 OD 33224 ae * oe: He Z GE Z Zi 2 Hf TACT. 7: MALAY PENINSULA STATE OF PAHANG ~,, BB2a4 SAA Rate Name : Tears ae 1.5-2.5 cm., green then red, | densely set with short spines 2-4 mm. long, splitting into 2-4 parts; seeds black with a tiny orange aril round the hilum .. D. Grifithii Leaves distinctly hairy beneath, subtomentose; flowers 2.5-8 cm. wide, in clusters on the branches; calyx with big scales, cup-shaped with 4 short lobes; petals ? white or pink; stamens 1.2 ecm. long, joined in four bundles; fruit like that of D. zibethinus but set with closer narrower spines 1 cm. or : more long; seed covered by the aril os D. Oxleyanus Leaves wholly scaly on the underside, not glaucous but silvery or brownish; flowers 4 cm. or more wide; petals 5; stamens grouped in 5 bundles (phalanges) Calyx cup-shaped with 5 short lobes; petals obovate with a narrow stalk; ramiflorous; leaves 6-18 cm. long Staminal phalanges joined into a tube for a third the length of the stamens .. D. malaccensis Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 303 Stamina] phalanges not or Pore joined Flowers white .. : .. D. zibethinus . Flowers red . var. roseiflorus Calyx divided completely into 5 sepals; petals sessile, ovate-oblong; staminal phalanges joined in a tube 1-7 cm. long, generally for half the length of the stamens Ramiflorous; flowers white; petals very scaly outside; staminal tube 1-4 cm. long; fruit set with dense, narrow stiff rambutan-like spines, the calyx per- sistent; aril more or less covering the seed; leaf large, 17-30 K 49cm. .. D. oblongus Caulifiorous; flowers red; petals not or scarcely scaly outside; staminal tube 3-7 cm. long; fruit with broad pyra- midal spines like D. zibethinus, calyx not persistent; aril incompletely cover- ing the seed Flowers large; stamens 9-10 cm. long; leaves more than 4 cm. broad Lamina 10-20 these closely allied species is far from satisfactory. E. cruciatus nov. spec. Ramulis crassis, apicem versus dense resinosis, glabris. Laminis 11-22 5-10 cm., anguste vel late ellipticis, obtusis, saepe subretusis, distanter denticulatis, valde coriaceis, glabris, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 10-14, interstitiis valde reticulatis: petiolis 2.5-5 cm. longis, crassis, apici haud geniculatis. Racemis 6-10 ecm. longis, paucifloris, glabris, bracteis caducis: pediculis florum 1.5-2 cm. longis, glabris: sepalis 5, 12-13 mm. longis, lanceolatis, glabris: petalis 5, 13 mm. longis, 4-5 mm. latis, anguste spathulatis, tenuibus, utrinque sericeis, externe apicem versus glabris, dentibus 5-6 brevibus (1-2 mm. longis) praeditis, haud bifidis: staminibus ca. 30-40, filamentis 3-4 mm. longis, antheris 4-5 mm. longis minute puberulis, nec aristatis nec piloso-cristatis sed apice loculi externi recurvato: ovariis densissime pilosis, 2-loculatis. Fructibus 3-3.5 em. longis, oblongis, pubescentibus; putami- nibus 25 &K 18 X* 12 mm., compressis, rugoso-tuberculatis, 4—alatis, alis crassis obtusis, sectione transverse cruciatis. Distrib. Malaya, in silvis montanis, 1300 m. alt. Collect. :— SFN 8570 (Burkill et Holttum), Fraser’s Hill, Pahang Sept. 1922. C.F. 22357, Fraser’s Hill, Pahang, 17.6.30: typus. The stout resinous twigs, blunt leathery leaves with straight petiole, the large pentamerous flowers with few teeth to the petals and the simple anthers distinguish this mountain tree. It seems most nearly allied with E. litto- ralis, the twigs of which are never resinous, the anthers of which have long awns, and the habitat of which, in tidal rivers, is very different. E. grandiflorus has smaller, pointed leaves, multidenticulate bifid petals, aristate anthers and spinous, not winged or ridged, putamen, though it is certainly allied. E. eriobotryoides Ridley Journ. F.M.S. Mus. V, 1913, p. 29. As originally described, the flowers were said to be pentamerous. In the Fl. Mal. Pen. vol. I, p. 320, however, Ridley placed the species in the section Acronodia and described the sepals as 4. There is a specimen of the type- collection at Singapore (H. C. Robinson, Gunong Meng- kuang, Selangor, 18.1.13) and it has distinctly pentamerous flowers with trilocular ovary. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 319 The species is close to the specimens of E. Wrayi from G. Tahan, but more collections and fruiting specimens are needed to establish its specificity. E. ferrugineus (Jack) Steudel Nomencl., 1840 p. 545. Basinym:—Monocera ferruginea Jack Mal. Misc. 1, 1820, p. 44. Synonym:—E’. jackianus King, Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. 1, 1891, AT. a: pe ae ee ferruginea Wight, lc. t. 205, 1840. E. ferrugineus (Wight) Beddome, Fl. Sylv. 1869, pl. 112. In the Index Kewensis, M. ferruginea Jack and M. ferruginea Wight are confused, though they belong to different sections of the genus. King distinguished Jack’s species from the Indian and gave it a new name reserving E. ferrugineus for the Indian. In this he was wrong because thirty years previous to the publication of F’. ferru- gineus (Wight) Beddome, Steudel had made the combination E. ferrugineus (Jack). Accordingly, pe Spar species must have a new name for which I propose E. recurvatus in view of Gamble’s note “The characteristic of the curiously folded back leaves makes le interesting tree easily recognizable” (Fl. Madr. 1, p. 124); That the plants described by King and subsequent authors as EH’. jackianus are the same as M. ferruginea Jack there can be no doubt. Only one other species of Eleocar- pus in Malaya has such “ferruginously villous’ twigs, namely E. glabrescens but it has glabrous leaves much smaller than those described by Jack. E. floribundus Bl. I think this is a variable and much more widely spread species than has been supposed. FE. tahanensis is probably only a variety and so, too, probably are the collections C.F. 4120 and SFN 33969. These two collections differ from E. floribundus in their almost entire lanceolate or lanceolate- elliptic leaves (8-18 xX 2.7-6 cm.), which are scarcely pustulate when dried or not at all, and in their fusiform fruit. Their floral structure and venation are identical with that of E. floribundus. Still, I am uncertain that they are not an undescribed species or, even, HE’. acmosepalus. E. grandiflorus Sm. Rees’ Cycl. n.5. (1819). Buds and twigs finely adpressed silky hairy, not resin- coated. Leaf-blade 6-16 X 2-5.5 cm., narrowly elliptic or lanceolate-elliptic, thin, simply pointed or narrowed to a rather blunt apex, the base cuneate and slightly decurrent on the petiole, the edge slightly crenate-toothed, sparsely and finely ad- pressedly sericeous on the underside, more so on the main veins Vol. X. (1939). 320 and petiole, becoming glabrous, upperside glabrous, with 1 0-13 pairs of side-veins: petiole 1-3 cm. long, geniculate at the apex, finely adpressedly sericeous becoming glabrous. Raceme 4-6 cm. long, 3-6 flowered, the flowers corymbose, sparsely sericeous or nearly glabrous, mostly from the lower leaf-axils: bracts small, caducous: pedicels 1.5-2.5 em. long, (red): sepals 11-13 mm. long, finely and sparsely sericeous (red): petals 12-14 mm. long, 6-9 mm. wide at the apex, cuneate, bifid for about % the length, each lobe with 6-14 short teeth, 1-3 mm. long, or each lobe obscurely bifid itself, adpressedly sericeous on both faces, glabrous towards the teeth: stamens ca. 40, with short filaments 1 mm. long, anthers 3-4 mm. long, and awns 2-3 mm. long, the anthers very minutely adpressedly hairy: disc hairy with 5 indistinctly separated lobes: ovary 2-celled, hairy. Fruit 3 cm. * 1.5 em., fusiform elliptic, 1-celled; the stone spindle-shaped, set with short often recurved spinous processes, 2-3 mm. long, extending into the pulp. Cochin-China, Burma, Siam, Java, Malaya. Collections :— KEDAH; C.F. 21501, Ulu Muda Reserve. SELANGOR; C.F. 11161, Ginting Simpak. PAHANG; C.F. 37509, Cameron Highlands, alt. 1300 m. Except the fruit, this description is based on the Malayan specimens. It seems that they have smaller flowers than typical of the species so that they might be called var. parviflora but I find very few measures of the size of the flower. Pierre (Fl. For. Cochinch. pl. 142) gives the sepals 22 mm. long, the petals 21 mm. long, and stamens 12 mm. long (anthers 5 mm., awn 3—4 mm. filament 3 mm.) ‘ Kurz (For. Fl. Burma I, p. 166) gives the sepals as 7 lines (ca. 15 mm.) long and the petals somewhat longer. The figure in the Bot. Mag. (t. 4680) shows the petals about 18 mm. long. On the other hand Koorders and Valeton give the anthers as 4 mm. long and the awn as 2.5 mm., which figures agree with the Malayan collections, (Bijdr. Booms. Java, 1, p. 244). Koorders and Valeton state that the pedicels and sepals are red, as shown in the Botanical Magazine. So this species should be easy to recognise in the forest when in flower. The ovary is 2-celled, not 3-celled as stated by Gagne- paine (Fl. Gen. Indoch. 1, p. 568). E. hainanensis Oliver Hook. Ic. 2462, 1896. Very like E. grandiflorus Sm. but:— Buds, twigs, leaves and racemes entirely glabrous, or the buds sparsely adpressedly hairy, the buds thinly resinous. Lamina 7-15 X 2-4.5 em., lanceolate-elliptic, distinctly but not strongly coriaceous, tapered very gradually into the shorter, scarcely if at all geniculate, petiole .5-1.5 cm Jong: (lat. veins 9-12 pairs). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. d21 Racemes with more or less persistent oblong-ovate, blunt, finely denticulate, leafy bracts 6-18 X 2-7 mm.: pedicels 1.5-3 cm. long: sepals 12-13 mm., more or less glabrous: petals 18-15 mm., 9-10 mm. wide: ovary adpressedly pubescent. Fruit narrowly fusiform, 3 « 1.2 cm. (stone 25 & 6 mm.). S. China, ? Indo-China, N. Malaya. Collections :— KEDAH; C.F. 10065 (Sungei Sok), 21717 (S. Muda). These two Malayan collections are exactly intermediate between FE. hainanensis and E. rivularis as described by Gagnepain (Fl. Gen. Indoch. 1, p. 567). They have the large broad bracts of E.. hainanensis but the hairy ovary and bifid petals of EH. rivularis. The division of the petals and the shape and size of the bracts vary considerably in the Malayan collections so that I am doubtful whether E.. hain- anensis and EF. rivularis are different species. E. Lacet Craib (Kew Bull. 1925, p. 23) seems also identical with FE. hainanensis, which is the oldest of the three names. That a “Chinese” species should occur in the north of Malaya is not remarkable because EL. hainanensis is probably a species of the Burmese-IndoChinese monsoon-forest which extends into South China and the northern states of Malaya. E.. hainanensis is so very closely allied with FE. grandi- florus, having the same raceme, floral structure and fruit, that it may well be considered a variety c.f. E. grandiflorus var. rivularis Pierre mss. FH. Lacei is said to have red sepals like EF. grandiflorus. EK. littoralis Kurz. Journ. As. Soc. Bengal 48, 1874, p. 182. E. obtusa Bl. sensu King, Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. 1, 1891, As | gated an by Koorders and Valeton (Exc. Flora v. Java II, p. 570), King wrongly referred the Malayan specimens to FE’. obtusus Bl. which differs from E. littoralis in its pointed leaves, shortly awned anthers, multidenticulate petals (20-25 teeth: 8-15 in E. littoralis) and mountainous habitat. Hence our Malayan specimens have been consis- tently misnamed. The authorship of E. littoralis is generally attributed to Teysmann and Binnendijk, but these authors never pub- lished a description of the species. Kurz first published the name validly and referred to it only the Burmese plant. Therefore one must take Kurz’s Burmese plant as the type of EF. littoralis. It is important that this should be realised because King denied that EF. littoralis Kurz was the same as E. littoralis T. and B. ined. E. longifolius BI. emend. Koorders et Valeton, Bijdr. Booms. v. Java V, 1900 p. 416. Vol. X. (19389). o22 “var. fusiformis var. nov. A typo differt petalis minus divisis, laciniis 12-20 praeditis, intus pilis longis sericeis dense hispidis: fructibus fusiformibus, longe apiculatis, 25-37 > 9-10 mm., putamine fusiforme, longitudinaliter rugoso. Typus:—Forest Department 4151, leg. J. G. Watson, flum. Rompin, Pahang, 2.8.19. Buds adpressedly silky, not resin-coated: twigs soon glabrous, slender. Leaf-blade up to 10 & 3.5 cm., narrowly ovate-elliptic or elliptic, shortly tapered to a blunt or subacute apex, the base rather broadly cuneate or almost rounded, the edge slightly crenate-toothed, thin, glabrous, with 5—7 pairs of lateral veins: petiole 1-2 cm. long, geniculate at the apex, practically glabrous. Racemes 5-8 cm. long, from the leaf-axils, puberulous, many-flowered: pedicels .5—-1 cm. long, finely puberulous; bracts deciduous, minute: sepals 6 mm. long, thinly adpressedly puberulous: petals 6-7 mm. long, divided to the middle into about 15 laciniae, glabrous externally but densely chaffy with rather long hairs on the inside and on the edges: stamens as in E. floribundus but with a tuft of long hairs at the tip of the anther: ovary hairy, 8-celled, soon becoming fusiform in the young fruit. Fruit 2.5-8.7 cm. long, 9-10 mm. wide, fusiform pointed; the stone longitudinally rugulose, (not spinous) 25-30 6-7 mm. MALAYA :— Collections— PAHANG; C.F. 3186, 4151, 15601 (all from the Rompin River). : ; Because these Pahang collections are so obviously allied with the Javanese FE. longifolius, which is reported from Borneo, and because the differences do not seem to me of great importance compared with the resemblances, | prefer to regard them as a variety of E. longifolius. In leaf only, the Pahang specimens greatly resemble HE. Griffithu, E. palembanicus and E. pseudopaniculatus but the silky buds distinguish them. The type-collection of var. fusiformis was referred by Ridley to H. acmosepalus but, as I have noted under that species, it cannot be considered as such according to the original description of the species. E. submonoceras Mig. seems closely allied, if not identical. JK. nanus nom. nov. Synonym :—E. reticulatus Ridley, Journ. Str. Br. R. As. Soc. 61, 1912, p. 2. haud EF. reticulatus Sm. in Rees Cycl. XII, n. 6. As remarked by Ridley some Malayan collections of this species were referred by King to EF. punctatus Bl. which however is certainly a different species. Ridley overlooked that his name was a homonym. I have proposed the new name for the dwarf or bushy habit of the plants. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. YAS) E. nitidus Jack. Mal. Miscell. 1, 1820, p. 41. Synonym:—E. parvifolius Wall. ex C. Mull., Annot. de fam. Elaeocarp., 1849, p. 24 (teste auctt.). This species has been misinterpreted by King in the ‘Materials’, who referred to it specimens which I eonsider to be EF. robustus. From the following considerations I think that there can be no doubt of the correct identification of EF. nitidus. The important points in Jack’s description are these :— “Leaves .... 3 or 4 inches long, ovate-lanceolate, acuminate... Stipules none ...... Staming bees... Drupe globose, containing a 5-celled nut ...... Native of Pulo Pinang”’’. Of Elzocarpus with round, 5-locular fruits in Penang, there are only three species, namely E. sphaericus, E. parvifolius and EF. stipularis. E. nitidus cannot be the first because E. sphaericus has lanceolate or lanceolate-obovate leaves and 30-40 stamens: nor can it be the third because EF. stipularis has conspicuous stipules and 25-80 stamens. It must therefore be E. parvifolius which agrees exactly. King identified #. nitidus with specimens having a 3- locular drupe, leaves 4.5—9 inches long, and 15-35 stamens. These specimens clearly belong to the variable EF’. robustus and cannot be admitted as H. nitidus because Jack’s description is unquestionably accurate. E. palembanicus (Miq.) Basinym:—Monocera palembanicum Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 1, 1862 p. 408. Synonyms :— E. Hullettu King, Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. 1, 1891, p. 242. E. leptomischus Ridley, Journ. F.M.S. Mus. V, 1913 p. 30. Specimens distributed from the Buitenzorg herbarium as E. palembanicus agree exactly with the Malayan speci- mens of E. Hullettu, syntypes of which are at Singapore. When the combination EF. palembanicus was published, I have not been able to find out. As regards EF. leptomischus, Ridley described it as tetramerous but the type-specimen in Singapore (H. C. Robinson, Gunong Mengkuang, Selangor, 18.1.13) has pentamerous flowers and is exactly E. Hulletti. I find that the ovary in this species is generally trilo- cular, though occasionally bilocular as King described. But the hairy, shortly fimbriate petals with incurved edges, the aristate anthers and the resinous buds place it nearer to E. petiolatus and E. Griffithu than to the other Malayan Species in the section with 3-locular ovary. Vol. X. (1939). 324 E. petiolatus (Jack) Wallich Cat. no. 2678, 1829. Basinym: —Monocera petiolata Jack, Mal. Misc. 1, 1820, p. 43. Synonym:—E. integer Masters, Fl. Br. Ind. 1, 1874, p. 408. Homonym:—E. petiolatus Gray, Bot. U. St. Expl. Exp. 1, p. 203. In the Index Kewensis, EF. integer is given as the correct name for this species on account of the homonym, but it was overlooked that Wallich transferred Jack’s Monocera to Eleocarpus many years previous to Gray’s publication. The validity of Wallich’s transfer was pointed out By Manone EES and Valeton (Bijdr. Booms. Java, V, 1900, p. 420). That the Malayan plants, which King and subsequent authors have identified as EH. petiolatus, truly represent Jack’s Monocera petiolatus, there can be no doubt. The only other species to which Jack’s description might be considered as belonging would be EF. paniculatus but the short inflorescence, the toothing of the petals and, evidently, the glabrous ovary, described by Jack, prevent such a possibility. YR. pseudopaniculatus nov. spec. Ramulis gracilibus, apicem versus resinosis, glabris. Laminis 8-14 X< 47.5 ecm., ellipticis vel ovato-ellipticis, acuminatis, margine integro, basi rotundatis vel late cuneatis abruptis, subcoriaceis, glabris, costis lateralibus utrinsecus 6—9, interstitiis minute et dense reticulatis: petiolis 1.8-5.5 cm., gracilibus, glabris, geniculatis. Racemis 7-15 cm. longis, puberulis vel glabrescentibus: pediculis florum .3-1 cm. longis, brevibus: sepalis 4, ca. 5.5 em. longis, lanceolatis, subsericeis vel glabris: petalis 4, 5 mm. longis, marginibus incurvatis, externa sericeis, interne dense piloso-sericeis, apict dentibus 2-4 brevibus inaequalibus praeditis; staminibus 12-16, filamentis brevibus puberulis, antheris 2 mm. longis glabris arista breve, .2 mm. longa, praeditis: ovarus hirsutis, 2-loculatis: discis 8—lobatis. Fructibus 14-16 & 10-12 mm., oblongis, glabris. Habit: Malaya, in silvis montanis ca. 1300 m. alt. Collect. :— PERAK; Gunong Batu Puteh, Wray 1223 (det. LH. petiolatus). PAHANG; Gunong Tahan, SFN 7977 (Haniff & Nur). Fraser’s Hill, SFN 8567 (Burkill & Holttum), SFN 11391 (Nur) (TYPE: det. HE. paniculatus), SFN 33247 (Corner), C.F. 22499, 22560 (det. E. paniculatus). This species is best described as E. palembanicus with tetramerous flowers and long racemes. Systematically it comes nearest E. polystachyus from which it is at once distinguished by the entire leaves and glabrous twigs. Sterile specimens can be distinguished from EF’. palembanicus only by subtleties of venation which become apparent on comparing specimens. The shorter inflorescence distin- guishes the species most readily from EF. paniculatus. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 325 y | E. recurvatus nom. nov. Synonym: — YE. ferrugineus (Wight) Beddome, Fl. Sylv. 1869, t. 112. M. ferruginea Wight, le. t. 205, 1840, haud M. ferruginea Jack 1820. The need for this new name for the Indian species of Eleocarpus I have stated under FH. ferrugineus (Jack) Steudel. E. robustus Roxb. Fly Ind. Tl, 27832, p.. 598: Synonyms :—- E. leptostachyus Wall. ex C. Mull., Annot. de fam. Elaeocarp. 1849, p. 23. E. nitidus Jack sensu King, Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. I, 1891, . wots E. neebresettus Ridley, Fl. Mal. Pen. I, 1922, p. 321. I am unable to distinguish the specimens identified by King with EL. leptostachyus and by Ridley with E. macro- carpus from those identified by King with E. robustus. In leaf-characters and size and structure of inflorescence and flowers they are identical. It is possible, however, that there are varietal differences in the fruit. In typical E. robustus it seems that the fruit is 1-114” long and broadly oblong or subglobose, whereas in #. macrocarpus it is 134- 214” long and 114-214” wide. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the oblong fruits are not an immature state of the larger, subglobose ones. The petals vary in different collections from 4—7 mm. long, and from having the inner face glabrous or slightly hairy to rather densely hairy. As I have remarked under E. nitidus, the specimens which King referred to it should be referred to E. robustus because he misinterpreted E. nitidus. One might make a variety of HL. robustus to accommodate these specimens with oblong leaves, but more collections are necessary before one can be certain that such a difference is constant. I have found both flowers and fruits of FE. macrocarpa on the same trees near Baling in Kedah and am thus certain of the floral characters of Ridley’s species. Merrill has proposed the binomial FE’. tectorvus (Lour.) Poir. for H#. robustus (Trans. Ann. Phil. Soc. XXIV, pt. 2, 1935, p. 256). E. tectorius has Craspedum tectorium Lour. as its basinym. Merrill admits that Loureiro’s description of the fruit of Craspedum must be excepted, and bases his identification on Loureiro’s description of the flowers. But I do not think that the description of the flowers as “Flos luteo-viridis, spicis sub-terminalibus, congestis” applies to E. robustus which has white flowers Vol. X. (1939). 326 on racemes which are, mostly, borne on the twigs behind the leaves, and the leafy portion of the twigs is long. [I do not know why the description of the fruit should be omitted. If Loureiro invented it, then what might he not have invented? It seems that the sole distinction between Craspedum and Elaeocarpus which Loureiro made was the fruit, the former having a many-seeded berry, the iatter a drupe. I consider the identity of C. tectorium is still doubtful. E. rugosus Roxb. Fl. Ind. II, 1832, p. 596. I have followed Kurz in his interpretation of E. rugosus, but I am doubtful if it is correct because Roxburgh described his species with subsessile leaves, and those of the Burmese specimens have distinct petioles. However, it seems impos- sible to disentangle the species of Monocera until many more collections have come to hand and the material from Indo- Malaya generally can be examined critically. The species seem to be rather rare and either variable in several points or several more species must be distinguished after the old ones have been defined anew. It may well be that E. api- culatus is really E. rugosus, as King suggested, in which case EF’. rugosus sensu Kurz will need another name and E. rugosus var. singaporensis will have to be transferred. The specimens which I refer, provisionally, to E. rugosus are Curtis 3274 and 3570 (Penang Hill). Var. singaporensis Ridley (Fl. Mal. Pen. I, p. 318) differs from EF. rugosus in its smaller, more obovate leaves, more slender petioles and twigs, smaller flowers (petals 10-14 mm. long with only 7-10 teeth: 16-22 mm. with 10-14 teeth in E.. rugosus) and, apparently, smaller, rounder fruit. The variety has been mistaken for L. littoralis, the petiole of which is not geniculate. The following two collections from Sumatra, identified as E. littoralis, should be referred to EH’. rugosus var. singaporensis:— Krukoff 4209, 4306. The variety seems commoner in Malaya than the typical state. E. aie (Gertn) K. Schum., Pflanzenf. III-6, 1895, 5. (E. ganitrus Roxb.). rae + aeeaieuite Merrill, Philipp. Journ. Sci. 4c, 1904, p Both Ridley and Burkill (Dict. Ec. Prod. Mal. Pen., 1935) have excluded this as a native of Malaya. Neverthe- less I am certain King was right in recording it as such. I have found it in the high forest in three places in the East Gardens Bulletin, S.S. BY A of Johore, about 30 miles inland in Kemaman, in the forest on Penang Hill and in belukar round Kuala Lumpur. In each case I have been aware of the importance of such ‘finds’ and I carefully studied the trees to be certain that they were forest-grown. Indeed, cultivated specimens of E. sphaericus are distinctly rare in Malaya because it is not a plant known to Malays, who have no use for it: yet the forest-trees seem to be not uncommon. The red, lanceo- late leaves on the ground and the knobbly round nuts enable one to distinguish the species with certainty from all other forest-trees. It has been collected also by the Forest Department in Pahang. After studying the specimens of E. subglobosus at Singapore and the original description of the species, I conclude that it can be at most only a form of E. sphaericus with rather petioles (1.2 cm.) and small flowers (petals 6-7 mm. long). In the Malayan specimens the flowers vary considerably in size, some collections having the petals 12 mm. long, others with petals 10 mm. long, others with petals 8-9, mm. long and yet others with petals 6-7 mm. long. There is no structural difference between EH. subglobosus and E. sphaericus. Malayan Collections :— PENANG—Curtis 775, Corner s.n. July 1936. PERAK—Scortechini s.n. TRENGGANU—Corner s.n. 28.11.35. PAHANG—C.F. 15437, 15711. SELANGOR—C.F. 3325, 16868, 17094, 37554. JOHORE—Corner s.n. (1935, 1936, 1987). (SINGAPORE—cult. in Hort. Bot. Lawn Z). E. stipularis Bl. Koorders and Valeton have shown that the Malayan specimens referred to this species differ from the Javanese in having fewer stamens (15-25: 30-40 in the Javanese), 5-celled ovary and round fruit (3-celled ovary and oblong- globose fruit in the Javanese) (Bijdr. Booms. Java I, p. 251). I find however that the Malayan specimens may have occasionally, a 3-locular ovary and as many as 35 stamens. Indeed, I think that HL. stipularis must be regarded as a large species variable in detail such as the size of the flowers, numbers of stamens, number of loculi in the ovary, and shape of fruit. I agree with Ridley (Fl. Mal. Pen. I, p. 312) in calling the Malayan specimens F. stipularis and regarding EH. Scortechinii King and EH. gambir Bece. as synonyms, though Merrill proposed to call them EF. gambir (Str. Br. Journ. R. As. Soc. 77, p. 203). The species needs to be monographed from its whole distribution. Vol. X. (1939). 328 E. tahanensis Henderson Gard. Bull. S. S. V, 1930, p. 74. I think that this will prove to be only a mountain variety of the variable E. floribundus with lanceolate leaves. I can see no difference between these two species except in the narrower and more pustulate leaves and flowers of E.. tahanensis. E. Wrayi King This species was collected originally from the mountains in the neighbourhood of Taiping in Perak. Ridley referred to it Robinson’s specimen from Gunong Tahan in Pahang which he had called E. monticola, designating it ‘the form monticola’. Several more collections are to hand now from G. Tahan and all seem to differ in the almost entire leaf and in slight points of ultimate venation so that I am not con- vinced that they are the same species as the Perak speci- mens. More collections are needed to decide this. Corrected Identifications of Malayan Collections Identified as E. acmosepalus :— C.F. 4151 (Watson) is EH. longifolius Bl. var. fusi- forms. Identified as EF. Griffithiu:— Hullett 294, C.F. 12613, SFN 2009, 8341, 10028, 10433, Derry 52, Ridley 274, 359, 418, 1091, are E.. Mastersu. Identified as H. Hullettu (= E. palembanicus) :-— C.F. 3186, is EF. longifolius var. fusiformis: SFN 16081 is E. salicifolius: Cantley 91, C.F. 23821, SFN 11306 are E. Mastersi. Identified as E. leptomischus :— C.F. 14969, 14978, 15477, 15667, 17107 are EL. Griffithiu. Identified as EF. Mastersi:— Goodenough 1768, Derry 197 and 431 are E. Griffithi: C.F. 12723 is E. glabrescens: Identified as E. nitidus:— Wray 2313, Curtis 282 and 463, SFN 1216 are EL. robustus: C.F. 4934 is HE. petiolatus. Identified as E. obtusus (= E. littoralis) :— SFN 10003, Goodenough 1467, C.F. 1835. C.F. 16925 are E. rugosus var. singaporensis. Identified as E. paniculatus :— SFN 8567, 11391, C.F. 22499, 22560 are E. pseudopaniculatus: Wray 1935, SFN 24118, 24981, 5957, Gardens Bulletin, SS: 329 C.F. 162, 2727, 2778, 3297, Hume 7555, Ridley 7353, Curtis 3578 are HE. Griffithit: SFN 12599, C.F. 2783, 5425 are E.. petiolatus. Identified as EH. parvifolius (= E. nitidus) :— Ridley 1120, SFN 11602 are E. stipularis. Identified as HE. punctatus :-— Wray 1223, SFN. 7977 are E. pseudopaniculatus: C.F. 3102 is E.. polystachyus: C.F. 15601 is H#. longifolius var. fusiformis. Identified as E. robustus :-— C.F. 22520 is E. sttpulars. Identified as E. petiolatus :— Curtis 2534, Ridley 5277, C.F. 20733, SFN 5180 are E. Mastersit. Identified as EF’. stipularis :-— C.F. 189, 694, 890, 4101 are E. robustus. INDEX TO GENERA Page Page rears sah ie .. 268 Inocarpus 43 ay 269 gathis sit i iyeeae : Artocarpus he 5.250 “22 a br ‘2 ae Baccaurea ME -- 288 Melanorrhea .. .. 260 Bridelia 7 -- 291 Melastoma hee eo Campnosperma .. :, Zbo “Meha Hs 2 BUS Cerbera At .. 273 Millettia i, tae EO Chickrassia ie ‘. 267 Mischoearpus <<: 14° 263 Cinnamomum ... 230) LG : Claoxylon eS » 2o2 — ik Daeg Croton wt _. 294 Pentaspadon a4 pt S261 } Phoebe % Daa A 3 Dacrydium + -- 239 Podocarpus ky! wai 24 Drypetes .. -- 295 Pterospermum .. po BIR, Durio As a “S0Z Quercus oe sei 2 Elzocarpus ot oa OOS A Endospermum .. .. 296 Rhodamnia - -. 272 Erythrina eH .. 268 Saraca - -» 272 Ficus i "+ 533 Sletia 5 :. 287 Gelonium Le _. 299 Tabernemontana Sos ATG Gnetum af .. 247 Taxotrophis as -- 288 Grewia it _. 962 Tristania a: neko Heynea m Rss 267 Vitex oe ee 256 Vol. X. (1939). 300 “THE TYPIFICATION OF RHUS JAVANICA L. By C. X. FURTADO, Botanic Gardens, Singapore. Page 1. Two INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SPECIES 2. ee 2. THE SYNTYPES OF Rhus javanica .. emer | 3. THE TYPIFICATION BY DR. MERRILL .. . | aoe! 4. CRITICISMS OF DR. MERRILL’S VIEWS .. see 5. RE-INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIES .. ~ <). Seee 6. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS .. #S .. oof 1. Two Interpretations of the Species Rhus javanica L. has been interpreted in two ways: THUNBERG (FI. Jap. 1784, p. 121), DE CANDOLLE (Prodr., 1825 p. 67), SPRENGEL (Syst.. Veg. I, 1825, p. 987) and most botanists up to very recent times interpreted the species as if it were synonymous with Rhus semialata MURR. (1784), the only dissentients of this view being SALISBURY (1796), BENNETT (1844) and Dr. E. D. MERRILL (1928). The stand of the latter may be summarised as follows. According to BENNETT (HORSFIELD, Plant. Jav. Rar., 1844, p. 200), SALISBURY (Prodr., 1796, p. 171) quoted R. javanica L. as a synonym of Ailanthus gracilis SALISB. ; whether by this SALISBURY meant that the entire species R. javanica L. or only R. javanica L. partim was synonymous with his Adlanthus gracilis I am not able to verify. But BENNETT, in criticising DE CANDOLLE for excluding the Synonym R. javanica L. from the new combination Brucea gracilis (SALISB.) DC (1825) (= A. gracilis SALISB.), wrote the following: “DE CANDOLLE omits SALISBURY’S synonym of Rhus javanica L. for this plant; which is, however, quite correct so far as regards the specimen in the Linnean Herbarium so marked by LINNAEUS himself; but there is also a speci- men of a true Rhus (R. javanica of authors) pinned on to the specimen of B (rucea) sumatrana thus misnamed.” Dr. MERRILL (Journ. Arnold Arb. IX, 1928, pp. 1-4, pl. 10 & 11), after investigating this problem with reference to the Linnean types, considered that the most widely current interpretation of R. javanica (dating from THUNBERG, 1784) should be rejected and the interpretation given by SALISBURY (1796) and BENNETT (1844) should be accepted. Accordingly he published the new combination Gardens Bulletin, S.S. dol Brucea javanica (L.) MeERR. for B. sumatrana Roxs., and adopted Rhus semialata MurRR. (1784) as the correct name for R. javanica L. sensu THUNBERG and others. He rejected the use of R. chinensis OSB. (1757) as a nomen nudum, but did not give an opinion whether R. chinensis MAXIM. (1759) or R. chinensis MILL. (1768) is the same plant, though both these names appear to have been validly published and have been considered to be synonymous with R. semialata Murr. (1784), than which they are older. I have re-investigated the problem at the request of Mr. E. J. H. CoRNER, who was interested in the nomencla- ture of Rhus semialata Murr. (= R. javanica I.. sensu THUNB. et al.) ; and my conclusions are that the traditional usage should be maintained. 2. The Syntypes of Rhus javanica On the sheet of Rhus javanica L. in the Linnean her- barium there are two specimens, both apparently OSBECK’S, the photographs and other details of which are published by Dr. MERRILL. One is properly mounted on the sheet, and this specimen bears the specific epithet “javanica” in LINNAEUS’sS hand; the other is pinned to the sheet and bears a number which indicates that it was referred by LINNAEUS himself to R. javanica of the Species Plantarum (1753). Apparently both these specimens were in the possession of LINNAEUS when preparing the description of Rhus javanica for the Species Plantarum (1753) and the _ brief description would cover both of them. Hence both must be taken as the syntypes of R. javanica L. (1753) ; or alternatively both must be rejected from the consideration of the syntypes: there is no proof that one was seen by LINNAEUS while preparing the Species Plantarum (1753) and ae other not, or seen only after the preparation of the work. When LINNAEUS described the species, he stated that it was native of Java, but in the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762), he changed its nativity to China. The mounted specimen belongs to the genus Brucea, it being identical with Brucea sumatrana Roxs., and the other (pinned) belongs to the genus Rhus, being identical with R. semialata MURR. 3. The Typification by Dr. Merrill Dr. MERRILL, in discussing the whole question of Rhus javanica L. writes: “Now Brucea sumatrana RoxsB. (Rhus javanica LINN., according to the extant specimen so named by LINNAEUS himself) is locally common at low altitudes in Java, while Rhus javanica as currently interpreted occurs in Java only Vol. X. (1989). dd2 as an introduced plant and is apparently not common; on the other hand both are very common in thickets throughout the entire region about Canton, south-eastern China. It is thus possible that OSBECK collected the Brucea in Java, but this is improbable in view of the fact that the extant speci- men represents the Chinese, not the Javan form of Brucea sumatrana ROxB. It is most improbable that he observed or collected a true Rhus in Java. It is hence probable that the use of the specific name javanica was a pure error. It should be remembered that OSBECK did not reach Sweden on his return voyage until June 26th, 1752, while the Species Plantarum was published in 1753. It is clear that the rather numerous references to OSBECK’S plants must have been interpolated in the manuscript by LINNAEUS, and probably this was hurriedly done. “As noted above, among the few plants cited by OSBECK as having collected in Java, no Rhus is mentioned; on the other hand in his Dagbok, p. 232, (1757) he cites among plants collected on September 27, 1751, on Dane’s Island (near Whampoa, South-eastern China) ‘Rhus chinensis ... and Rhus javanica .... “Doubtless both plants are those now in the Linnean herbarium, the Brucea, marked by LINNAEUS as Rhus javanica, and the true Rhus which is pinned to same sheet and unnamed except by inference. What apparently happened is that LINNAEUS actually based his short and _imperfect description of Rhus javanica on the Brucea, and later pinned the sheet of Rhus chinensis OSBECK to the Brucea, altering the locality from ‘Java’ to ‘China’, but without changing the specific name in the second edition of his Species Plantarum, and without adding OSBECK’S specific name chinensis to the specimen; OSBECK, as quoted above, had used the binomial Rhus chinensis as a nomen nudum, in 1757. This being the case, a strict interpretation of types would involve dropping the specific name 7aanica in Rhus, adopting this name for the common and widely distributed Brucea sumatrana ROXxB. and the further adop- tion of some other specific name for the Rhus.” “After giving due consideration to all the evidence I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the actual type of Rhus javanica LINN. is the Brucea in the Linnean Herbarium, as named by LINNAEUS, and that this name has nothing to do with Rhus javanica of recent authors.” 4, Criticisms of Dr. Merrill’s Views Dr. MERRILL’S case as above stated depends on a number of probabilities and possibilities, none of which can be definitely established. Such an argument appears to me Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Doo unsatisfactory for rejecting a long accepted typification of a species. Moreover, Dr. MERRILL’S arguments lead to the con- clusion that OSBECK, the collector of the specimens, was in error when he called a species by a name indicating that he had collected it, or at least seen it, in Java; and they moreover overlook the important fact that OSBECK was corresponding with LINNAEUS from the East, so as to furnish the latter with other sources of information con- cerning his (OSBECK’S) collection besides the field-tickets and the Dagbok. In the introduction to the Species Plantarum (1753) LINNAEUS refers to OSBECK’S “PI. chinensis in literis, Msc.”’, and the numerous references to OSBECK’S plants in the Species Plantarum (17538), some- times accompanied with long, minute descriptions, testify to this. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762-1763) LINNAEUS has omitted the reference to the manuscript letters, but has instead a reference to OSBECK’S “Iter Ind. Orient. Holmiz, 1757” (the Dagbok) ; and such alterations as were introduced in the second edition of the work concerning the particulars about OSBECK’S plants were apparently based on the information given in OSBECK’S diary or Dagbok. As regards the manner of mounting, it appears to me that this has not necessarily any significance. The named specimen was presumably mounted first;, but that is not evidence that it was the one first identified, or the one on which the published description was based. The description is equally applicable to both. 5. Re-Interpretation of the Species Leaving the surmises apart, the evidence so far avail- able is that both the specimens were in possession of LINNAEUS at the time of preparing the Species Plantarum (1753) and that both had been referred by LINNAEUS himself to Rhus javanica. There is no evidence to show that only one of these was examined while framing the diagnosis and not the other. Hence, as said above, either both the specimens must be taken as the syntypes of the species, or, both disregarded in typifying the species. The mounted specimen was mostly overlooked or ignored, so that the general interpretation of the species from 1784 up to very recent times agreed with the pinned syntype. The species thus interpreted is recorded as native of Sumatra and as an uncommon (probably introduced) plant in Java, and belongs to the genus Rhus to which Vol. X. (1939). 334 LINNAEUS originally referred it. Hence there is nothing against taking the pinned syntype as the lectotype of the species. However, if, disregarding this widely current inter- pretation, one selects the glued syntype as the lectotype, the following difficulties arise: (1) “The extant specimen [glued] represents the Chinese, not the Javan form of Brucea sumatrana ROxXB.” (MERRILL), while the specific epithet originally given by the collector himself indicates that the type came from Java—the only locality mentioned in the original description of Rhus javanica L: (2) the interpretation contradicts the obvious inten- tion of LINNAEUS to apply the name Rhus javanica to species of the genus Rhus: (3) and consequently the interpretation also leads to: (a) the rejection of the oldest and widely current interpretation of the species; (b) name changes of the two species, one in the genus Brucea and the other in the genus Rhus. Hence, I think it behoves botanists to maintain the oldest and widely current interpretation and to accept the pinned syntype as the lectotype of Rhus javanica L. (1753), of which R. semialata MuRR. (1784), B. chinensis MAXIM. (1759) and B. chinensis MILL. (1768) are accepted synonyms. 6. General Conclusions My principal object in writing this note is to draw the attention of taxonomists to the need of some uniform rules which will help one to typify a species containing more than one syntype belonging to more than one species or variety. In my previous paper on the nomenclature of types (Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. IX 1937 pp. 285-309) I demonstrated the need of recognizing the different categories of types in typifying a species, and why the earliest typification on a reasonable basis should be accepted. In another paper published simultaneously in the same Bulletin (pp. 244-249) I drafted some general rules which could be followed in interpreting Mixta composita. But it must be emphasized that in equality of circumstances a species should be typified in preference on a syntype which will defend the traditional usage and avoid unnecessary nomenclatural changes. There are many cases where the specimen first to receive a new manuscript name is not the one cited or selected as the holotype of the published species. Some- times the first named specimen is imperfect and the Gardens Bulletin, S.S. RA / 335 characteristic differences of a species are drawn from a later, more perfect specimen. Hence the fact that a certain syntype was named before another is not of much import- ance in selecting from the various syntypes a lectotype of the species. Dr. L. O. WILLIAMS (Bot. Mus. Leaf. Harvard Univ. V, 1988 pp. 171-172) has also made a plea to accept as the lectotype the syntype that, though differing in certain characters from the original description, would accord with traditional usage and prevent unnecessary nomenclatural changes. It is a plea worthy of consideration by botanists. Vol. X. (1939). 336 NOTES ON MALAYAN DIPTEROCARPACEAE V* by C. F. SYMINGTON, Forest Research Institute, Kepong The bulk of this paper is composed of the results of my investigations of species of Hopea belonging to the Bracteata and Dryobalanoides groups. These results are somewhat cataclysmic, involving the addition of ten names to the list of Malay Peninsula species, but as I have been fortunate in being able to study all the critical material concerned, it is hoped that reasonable stability in the nomenclature of Hopea will result. ; In preparing the botanical notes for Desch’s Commercial Timbers cof the Malay Peninsula: I, the genus Shorea [Mal. For. Rec. 12 (1936)] I endeavoured to straighten out the nomenclature of our species as far as possible at the time, but, for one reason or another, some species received tenta- tive names only. In the last paper in this series a few of these species were given more permanent binomials, while in this paper most of the remainder are considered. The recent acquisition of flowering herbarium material of Shorea atrinervosa, S. lumutensis, and S. Meadiana, has made it possible to describe these three species, all of which are in the Eushorea group, while additional field and herbarium study has revealed the desirability of changing the names or status of several other species.. One of the name-changes involved is that of Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff. to S. ovalis (Korth.) Bl. I mention this in particular, because it illustrates very nicely the sort of problem the systematist has frequently to tackle in this region. S. ovalis is based upon a sterile specimen of seedling leaves which differ very markedly from those of the mature tree. Thus, before the species could be inter- preted it was essential, firstly, to see the type specimen, and secondly, to have representative collections of wmmature stages of this form for comparison. The first of these precepts is generally appreciated, although not always followed by the systematist, owing to impatience or necessity : but to the second, I think, inadequate attention is given. The much despised, sterile, immature specimen 1s frequently the key to interpretation of early, obscure species, which play such havoc with accepted nomenclature if they * For previous papers see Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. VII, pp. 129-159 (1933), Vol. VIII, pp. 1-40 (1984) and 265-292 (1935), and Vol. IX, pp. 319-354 (1988). Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 15 Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. var. penangiana Sym. Hopea minima Sym. 307 are left too long in obscurity, and it is therefore very desirable that the intelligent collection of such material should be encouraged. The description of only three new Bornean species is given in this paper, namely Shorea leptoclados, S. Flemmi- chit, and Dryobaianops Keithii. Although little is offered for publication, the study of Bornean dipterocarps has made good progress during the year. For this we are particularly indebted to Messrs. H. G. Keith and C. O. Flemmich, the forest officers in North Borneo and Brunei, respectively. In addition to continuing to pursue their extremely energetic policy of collection of herbarium material, these gentlemen organized most interesting and comprehensive tours for me, on which I had the invaluable opportunity of studying the dipterocarps in the field. - Dr. van Slooten’s visit to Kepong, during April, 1938, did much to stimulate systematic research on the diptero- carps, and his generosity in placing at my disposal the valuable early Dutch collections is greatly appreciated. I am also indebted to the Forest Botanist of the Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun, for sending on loan his entire collections of Shorea, Hopea, and Balanocarpus; to the Director of the Forest Research Institute, Buitenzorg; and to numerous other botanists and forest officers whose assistance, if less spectacular, is no less valued. These notes are arranged as in my previous papers, the concluding paragraph under each heading being a brief précis for the benefit of Malayan forest officers. In previous papers, under citation of specimens, I have followed Foxworthy in prefixing numbers in the Federated Malay States Forest Department series with the letters “C.F.” I propose, in future, to substitute for this prefix “Forest Dept. F.M.S.” The original specimens in this series are, in all cases, preserved in the herbarium of Forest Research Institute at Kepong, for which I intend to employ the contraction ‘Kep.” proposed by Lanjouw in Chronica Botanica 3: 347 (1937). Hopea minima Symington, nom. nov. Balanocarpus Curtisit King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 62: 131 (1893) et in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 5, pt. 2: 158, plate 191 a. (1896) ; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. 31: 111 (1895) quoad speciminum penangiorum; Burkill in Journ. Str. Br. R. As. Soc. 81: 59, fig. 26-45 (1920); Ridley, FI. Mal. Penins. 1: 246, fig. 23F. (1922). Balanocarpus bracteatus sensu Merr., Bib. Enum. Born. Pl. 407 (1921), et sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 142 (1932) Tuone synon. B. Curtisii; non Hopea bracteata Burck. ate 11. | Vol. X. (1939). 338 The earliest collections of this species were made hy Kunstler (1882 and 1884) and Wray (1888) in Perak, and Curtis (1888 and 1853) on Penang Island. It was first described by King in 1893 who, in 1896, published a figure accompanied by an almost identical description. He named the species Balanocarpus Curtisit. In 1895 Brandis united B. Curtis with Hopea bracteata Burck (1887) from Borneo but, following the “Kew Rule”, he retained King’s name. The combination Balanocarpus bracteatus was made by Merrill in 1921 to conform with the “International Rules’’. I do not agree with Brandis in this union. The flowers are, as he says, structurally almost identical, but they are more distinctly pedicellate and the panicle is very much more lax that any collection of Hopea minima sensu lato. Moreover, there is an undefinable difference in facies—they look different! I have already* expounded my views on the generic affinities of this plant. It belongs to an as yet undefined group of Hopea, very closely allied to the section Dryobala- noides Miq., which is characterized by persistent, paired bracteoles on the inflorescence. To this group, which for convenience I shall cal] the Bracteata group, belong Hopea bracteata Burck, H. Griffithii Kurz, H. nigra Burck, H. _subalata Sym., H. nervosa King, H. sublanceolata Sym., and some others. While removing King’s Balanocarpus Curtisu to the genus Hopea, a new name must be sought, because a Hopea Curtisii (synonym of H. sangal Korth.) already exists. Hopea minima seems appropriate for this smali tree which, on Penang Island at any rate, never exceeds about 40 feet in height and may mature at a height of only 10 feet. King has given auite adequate descriptions of this species, but he did not draw attention to the fact that there are two distinct forms. The collections from Penang differ from those from Perak and elsewhere on the mainland. The differences are slight, but so constant that specific separation might be considered justifiable. I think, how- ever, that the best way to treat them is to constitute two varieties as follows— Folia elliptico—lanceolata, basi subcuneata; ramuli petiolique fere giahri; paniculi densiflori seen e ee eee Sirdar He Peleg Lehi R vgn oh var. penangiana var. nov. Folia ovato-lanceolata, basi obtusa; ramuli petiolique puberuli; paniculi laxiores ...... var. perakensis var. nov. * Gard. Bull. S.S. 8: 26-29 (19384). Gardens Bulletin, SS. al — “ss Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 12. — pak win Ne Se ee ee et eat Ce os be gi / a ; sage Jor =o Hopea subalata Sym. 309 When describing B. Curtisii, King had before him flowering and fruiting material of both forms but, although he has taken the specific name from the collector of the Penang specimens and placed them first in his list of citations, his description and figure are apparently drawn mainly from the Perak collections of Kunstler and Wray. Also the figure published in the Ann. Bot. Gard. Calc. shows clearly the puberulous branchlet and lax panicle of the Perak form. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PENANG (var. penangiana): Curtis 1406 (flower, 1888) (Syntype of Balanocarpus Curtisti King and Type of Hopea minima var. penangiana Sym.); Curtis 1406 (fruit, 1893) and s.n. (flower, 1901). Also—Ridl. s.n.; S’pore Field No. 3141, 3322, 3364, 3402, 34938, 3722, 3749; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 11657, 28022. PERAK (var. perakensis): Wray 2860, Kunstler 3171, 3294 and 6543 (Syntypes of Balanocarpus Curtisit King. Wray 2860 may be taken as the Type of Hopea minima var. perakensis Sym.). Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 175. PAHANG: The following incomplete specimens exist: it is doubtful to which variety they belong—S’pore Field No. 16520; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 5088, 37320. The species here renamed Hopea minima Sym. is a small, smooth-barked, stilt-rooted form of merawan which is best known from the vicinity of the Waterfall Gardens in Penang. Originally it was named Balanocarpus Curtisti by Dr. King. While transferring the species io Hopea a new name must be given, because a Hopea Curtisii already exists. The species also occurs in Perak but the Perak Specimens are considered to differ varietally from the Penang ones. Two varieties are therefore here described, var. penangiana Sym. from Penang, and var. perakensis Sym. from Perak. . Hopea subalata Symington, sp. nov. Balanocarpus ovalifolius sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 148 (1932) partim; non B. ovalifolius Ridl. Plate 12. H. minime Sym. valde affinis sed omnibus partibus majoribus, paniculis laxioribus satis distincta. Branchlets rather fine, dark, puberulous towards the ends with short, prominent, decurrent leaf traces. Leaves oval to ovate, acuminate, about 9.0 cm. long (including the narrow, blunt acumen 1.5 em. long) xX 4.5 em. broad, glabrous except for the midrib on the upper surface, drying pale grey-green above and darker beneath (both surfaces may have a silvery sheen due to the presence of minute silvery scales); midrib slightly depressed above but Vol. X. (1939). 340 tomentose, prominent and glabrous beneath; main nerves about 10 to 13 pairs with occasional shorter intermediate nerves, inconspicuous above, fine but distinct beneath and sometimes with small tufted domatia in the axils of the lower ones; reticulations invisible to the naked eye; petioles about 5.0 mm. long, slightly channelled or subterete, tomen- tose or glabrescent. Panicles axillary towards the ends of the branchlets, in solitary (occasionally paired) racemes up to 6.0 cm. long; racemes glabrescent, dark-coloured when dry; branchlets about 2.0 cm. long, delicate, 2 to 5-flowered, subtended by caducous bracteoles. Flowers about 5.0 mm. apart and about 3.0 mm. long, each subtended by small, triangular, glabrous ov ciliate, subpersistent, paired brac- teoles ; pedicel very short, glabrous. Sepals glabrous except for a few sete on the exposed portions; two outer ovate- rotundate, blunt or acute at the apex; three inner broader than long, sinuate at the apex. Petals oblong, blunt, tomentose on the portions exposed in bud, purple (D.B. Arnot, Forest Dept. F.M.S. 13045). Stamens 15, arranged as in most species of Hopea; filaments broad at the base, narrowing abruptly to the filamentous upper portions; anthers 4-celled, cells subequal; appendage to connective filiform, slightly longer than the filament and anther. Ovary and stylopodium oblong, truncate, constricted in the upper portion, glabrous; apex of the stylopodium pellucid gland-dotted, forming a ring around a depressed portion in which is set the style; style short, oblong-conical; stigma minute. Fruit a wingless or shortly 1-or 2-winged nut, all parts glabrous; stalk short but prominent, about 1.0 mm. long; nut ovate-conical, shortly apiculate, about 1.3 cm. long, enclosed except towards the apex by the closely appressed bases of the calyx-lohes; calyx-lobes woody at the base, cemented together and to the nut by a sparse, resinous cement; one or both of the two outer lobes sometimes deve- loped into short, rudimentary wings which oc«casionally exceed 1.0 cm. in length. This species, which is known only from one locality in Selangor, was first collected in 1921. The specimens were in fruit: flowers were obtained in 1927. These fruiting specimens, and one other sterile specimen, were the basis of what Foxworthy called Balanocarpus ovalifolius Ridl. Ridley’s species, however, as I have pointed out elsewhere (Gard. Bull. S.S. 8: 28 (1934) ], has no real existence, being based on a mixture of Hopea Beccariana Burck and Shorea Maxwelliana King. The only flowering collection (Forest Dept. F.MS. 13045), which becomes the type of H. subalata Sym., was referred by Foxworthy to Hopea intermedia King. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. rok, ake Se i Fe ceh Bae Aw Avepy ~ ‘> 7 * a ne om Tt: + . “by. ’ “aie pm’. Se Sahat Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Hopea sublanceolata Sym. | o41 H. subalata is clearly a member of what I have called (vide p. 338) the Bracteata group. Its closest ally is probably H. minima Sym., but it differs in beirg larger in all parts and in having rudimentary wings. In this latter respect it is of particular interest because it exhibits a transition between the winged and wingless members of the group. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 18045 (Type of H. subalata Sym.); D.B. Arnot; Kanching Forest Reserve, Compt. 1; 9th August, 1927; flower. Field notes—‘“Tree, inflorescence purple” Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 5796, 14901, 22074, 24921, | 29770, 29831, 32876. The species here described as Hopea subalata Sym. is | a small, smooth-barked tree with pronounced stilt roots. It occurs in Compt. 1 of Kanching Forest Reserve in Selangor. No vernacular name is known but merawan or merawan jangkang would probably be given to it. In Mal. For. Rec. ( 10 this tree is confused with Balanocarpus ovalifolius Ridl. v VvHopea sublanceolata Symington, sp. nov. H. nervosa sensu | Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 129 (19382) partim; non H. nervosa King. Plate 13. | H. nervosae King valde affinis sed paniculis petiolisque gracilioribus, foliis tenuioribus, nervis intermediis haud conspicuis differt. Branchlets glabrous, pale towards the ends. Leaves | lanceolate to ovate-lanceolate, caudate-acuminate at the apex, acute to shortly cuneate at the base, averaging about 12.0 < 4.3 em., glabrous and usually drying paie greenish- yellow on both surfaces; midrib slightly depressed above, prominent beneath; main nerves about 15 pairs, very faint on the upper surface, fine but prominent on the lower, | intermediate nerves absent or very faint; nervules joining the main nerves in fine wavy lines, hardly visible on either | surface; petioles subterete, rather slender, about 1.5 cm. | long, glabrous, drying black. Panicles axillary towards the ends of the branchlets, or terminal; racemes solitary or two (rarely three) together, up to 5.0 cm. long: sparsely __ einereous pubescent towards the ends; ultimate branchlets up to 1.7 cm. long, 2 to 6-flowered, pubescent. Flowers secund, 1.0-1.5 mm. apart, about 3.0 mm. long in mature bud; pedicel very short, pubescent. Sepals puberulous on | the outside; two outer broadly ovate; three inner slightly larger and broader, acute. Petals oblong, fimbriate at the apex, minutely tomentose on the portions exposed in bud, “corolla falling in one piece; petals deep, dark red with | light tips” (Symington, 30808). Stamens 15, in three rows Vol. X. (1989). 042 arranged as in most species of Hopea; filaments broad at the base, narrowing abruptly about the middle to the filamentous upper portion; anthers 4-celled, cells subequal; appendage to connective filiform, about as long as the filament and anther. Ovary and_ stylopodiun broadly cylindrical, truncate, slightly constricted just above the middle, glabrous; style short, cylindrical; stigma minute. Fruit glabrous; stalk short; sepal bases very thick and woody; two large sepuls spathulate, up to 10.0 « 2.0 cm. and 9-nerved but frequently much smaller; three small sepals closely appressed to the nut, without, or with only rudimentary, free portions; nut ovate-conical, up to 2.0 cm. long, shortly blunt apiculate, frequently shining with a resinous coating, closely embraced in the lower half by the imbricate sepal bases. Several collections of this species have been made in the Malay Peninsula since 1920. In 1932 Foxworthy referred five of these collections (S’pore Field No. 6929; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 10377, 12192, 8818, 12070) to Hopea nervosa, with which species they are certainly closely related. Both species belong to the Bracteata group (vide p. 338) and both have unusually large leaves and fruits. The chief distinguishing characters are these :— H. sublanceolata—buttresses not, or inconspicuously, stilted; twigs light-coloured when dry; petioles about 1.5 cm. long, slender, drying black; leaves lanceolate or ovate- lanceolate, acute or shortly cuneate at the base; intermediate nerves aosent or very faint; panicles with 2 to 6 flowers per branchlet. H. nervosa—buttresses usually markedly stilted; twigs dark or pale lepidote; petioles coarser, about 1.0 cm. long, frequently pale lepidote; leaves usually oblong or elliptic- oblong, usually rounded at the base; intermediate nerves frequently present and conspicuous; panicle branchlets with not more than 4 flowers. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: KEDAH: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 42292. PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30808 (Type of H. sublanceo- lata Sym.) ; C.F. Symington; Sumpitan, Upper Perak, low-lying land; 6th April, 1933; flower. Field notes— “Tree 3 ft girth; coarse jangkang habit not very obvious; bark flaking in small scales; small exudations of clear damar from bole; inner bark slightly pink; corolla falling in one piece; petals deep dark red with light tips’. Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 8818, 10877, 12070, 12192, 30342, 30804, 39151; S’pore Field No. 6929. KELANTAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 29119, 32845, 33260. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 40420. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. SS. Vol. X. Plate 14 Hopea Griffithu Kurz. 343 Hopea sublanceolata is a large-leaved Hopea which occurs mainly in the north of the Peninsula and in Temerloh District of Pahang. Jt has rather an unusual bole which has been described as resembling petaling (Ochanostachys amentacea), and in Perak North it has been calied jerawat. The leaves resemble those of Hopea nervosa (merawan jangkang) with which species it was formerly confused. Hopes Griffithii Kurz in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 42, pt. 27-60 (1Sio) ef For, FL Brit.. Burma 1:°122;: Dyer im tiook. f.. Fl. Brit. Ind, 1:°310. (1875) ; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 69 (1895) var. nedicellata excl., et Indian Trees: 68 (1911) ; Sym. in Gard. Bull. S.S. 9: 324 and 329 (1938) in obs. Hancea Griffithi (Kurz) Pierre, Fl. For. Cochinch. 4 (1891) in nota sub t. 248. Hopea Pierrei sensu Ridl., Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 238 (1922) partim; non H. Pierrei Hance. Plate 14. Branchlets rather fine, glabrous, usually drying dark purple or black. Leaves ovate to ovate-lanceolate, caudate- acuminate at the apex, subacute to rounded at the base, averaging about 7.0 < 3.5 em. on Malayan specimens but considerably variable, glabrous, drying grey-brown on the upper surface and dull purple-brown on the lower; midrib slightly depressed above, elevate beneath; main nerves 10 to 14 pairs with 1 to 2 shorter intermediate nerves between each, usually invisible above, faint and hardly elevate on the lower surface; reticulations invisible to the naked eye; petioles slender, about 0.5-1.0 cm. long, glabrous, drying black. Panicles axillary towards the ends of the branch- lets, or terminal; racemes solitary or paired, usually less than 3.0 cm. long, glabrous, drying black; branchlets about 0.4 cm. apart, up to 1.5 cm. long, 2 to 5-flowered, subtended by caducous bracteoles. Flowers about 3.0 mm. apart, about 3.0 mm. long in mature bud, each subtended by minute, triangular, glabrous, black, persistent, paired bracteoles; pedicel very short, glabrous. Sepals drying black; two outer ovate, obtuse, glandular at the apex; three inner sub- rotundate, shortly acuminate, ciliate along the upper margins. Petals oblong, tomentose on the portions exposed in bud, red (Ridley). Stamens 15, in three rows arranged as in most species of Hopea; filaments broad in the lower half, narrowing abruptiy to the filamentous upper portion; anthers 4-celled, cells subequal; appendage to connective filiform, as long as the filament and anther. Ovary and stylopodium broadly cylindrical, slightly constricted just above the middle, glabrous, gland-dotted at the apex; style short, cylindrical; stigma minute. Fruit glabrous; stalk very short, attached at a concavity formed by the woody bases of the sepals; two large, accrescent sepals spathulate, Vol. X. (1939). F 344 blunt, up to 5.0 < 1.2 cm., woody at the base, chartaceous on the free portions, about 9-nerved; three small sepals oblong, blunt, hardly enlarged beyond the nut, or up to 1.9 cm. long; nut ovate-ccnical, shining, surmounted by a short blunt apicula, embraced in the lower half by the closely appressed, imbricate sepal bases. Hopea Griffithu was briefly described by Kurz in 1875 from a flowering collection made by Griffith in Mergui, Tenasserim. In 1875 Dyer improved slightly on Kurz’s description by describing the floral bracteoles. Brandis, in 1895, was the first materially to alter the circumscription of the species. He included four additional collections (Ridley, Singapore; Curtis 167, Penaug; Forbes 3205 and 3208, Sumatra), and amended the specific descrip- tion to admit them. Ridley’s Singapore coilection is presumably No. 4738 of which sheets are preserved at Kew, Leiden, Singapore, and Buitenzorg. This collection has broader leaves than the Burmese type of H. Griffithu but the texture of all parts, and the floral structure, are identical. Ridley referred it to H. Pierrei, but the shape of ovary denies this possibility and I consider that Brandis was correct in referring it to H. Griffithi. The collections of Curtis and Forbes, which Brandis cited, were made the basis of his variety pedicellata. These collections have a similar stylopodium to H. Griffithu but, as I have stated in /.c., they differ markedly in other respects and should be kept specifically distinct. I have made Curtis 167 the basis of H. pedicellata (Brandis) Sym. Hopea Griffithii is clearly a member of the Bracteata group (vide p. 338). Collections examined :— BURMA: TENASSERIM: Griffith 717 (Iso-holotype of H. Griffithu Kurz in Herb. Kew). MALAY PENINSULA: KELANTAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 29128, 32742, 33487, 37846, 37850, 37972. TRENGGANU: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 26705, 26906. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 15635, 17402, 31674, 438132. JOHORE: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 45944, 45949. SINGAPORE: Ridley 4738 (? Herb. Lued. Bat. 902146, 377 and 378), Ridley 5093, Mohd. Nur. s.n. (Gardens’ Jungle, 5th Oct. 1920). Hopea Griffithii is a form of merawan originally described from Burma. It was collected in the Botanic Gardens’ Jungle, Singapore in 1893, but botanists have disagreed concerning the identity of the Singapore tree. It is here concluded that the Singapore collection is con- specific with the type of H. Griffithti. The species occurs throughout the east ot the Malay Peninsula, from Kelantan to Singapore. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 15. Hopea dryobalanoides Miq. 345 V Hopea dryobalanoides Migq., Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl.: 492 (1860) ; Scheff. in Nat. Tijdschr. N.I. 31: 351 (1870); Burck in Ann. Jard, Bot. Buitenz. 6: 240 (1887); King in Journ. Asiat. Soe. Beng. 62, pt. 2: 125 et 126 (1893) in note; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 69 (1895); Boerlage, Cat. Hort. Bogor. 104 (1901) ; Heyne, Nutt. Plant. Ned. Ind. 1107 (1927) in nota; Endert in Tectone 28: 248-311 passim (1935) ; Rappard in Tectona 30: 897-913 passim (1937). % ?Hopea sara- wakensis Heim (syn. nov.) in Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: OTT 4/1301) © “Brandis in“ le. 69 (1895). Hopea micrantha sensu King in l.c. 126, in nota; sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 135 (1932) partim; non H. micrantha Hook. f. Plate 15. Branchlets dull reddish-or grey-brown, more or less lenticellate. Leaves usually elliptic to oblong-lanceolate, rather variable, bluntly caudate-acuminate at the apex, slightly unequal at the base, usually rounded on one side and acute on the other, average size about 7.5 xX 2.75 cm., glabrous on both surfaces; usually drying duil grey-or yellow-brown above, slightly darker but shining on the lower surface; midrib slightlv raised on the upper surface, rather sharply keeled beneath; main nerves about 12 pairs with 1 to 3 hardly less preminent intermediary nerves between each, slightly depressed but inconspicuous on the upper surface, hardly elevated but clearly defined and usually light yellow on the lower surface, occasionally with hairy domatia in their axils; reticulations hardly visible to the naked eye; petioles about 8.0 mm. long, slightly thickened in the upper portion, glabrous; stipules minute, caducous. Panicles terminal and axillary towards the ends of the branchlets; racemes usually solitary but occasionally paired, short, rarely exceeding 3.0 cm. in length or with more than 6 alternating branchlets; branchlets about 13.0 mm. long or less, 2 to 6-flowered, the flowers about 2.0 mm. apart. Flowers subovate in bud, pedicellate, about 4.0 mm. long (including the pedicel) ; pedicel about 1.0 mm. long, appa- rently glabrous at low magnifications. Sepals: two outer ovate, thick, puberulous outside, tomentose at the apex on both surfaces ; three inner subrotundate, thinner, puberulous outside and fringed with minute hairs. Petals linear-oblong, slightly fimbriate at the apex, tomentose on the portions exposed in bud, creamy white to pale yellow in the throat of the corolla (Symington). Stamens 15, arratiged in the manner usual in this group; filaments broad and flattened at the base, narrowing in the upper half (abruptly in mature stamens), 2 to 3 times as long as the anthers; anther cells subequal; appendage to connective filiform, about as long as the filament, sometimes sparsely glandular-tuberculate. Vol. X. (1939). 346 Ovary ovate-conical, glabrous, narrowing gradvelly to the style; style cylindrica!-filiform, about as long as the ovary, glabrous or furnished with a ring of minute hairs at the base*; stigma minute. Fruit shortly but conspicuously stalked, glabrous; calyx-lobes thickened and woody at the base, closely embracing the lower portion of the nut and cemented to it by a resinous exudation; two long wings spathulate, up to 6.0 * 1.3 cm. but frequently shorter and narrower, about 7-nerved; three lobes obtuse at the apex and only 14 the height of the nut; nut ovate-conical, pointed (the style sometimes persists as an awn-like aniculus until maturity), up to 13.0 * 9.0 mm. when mature, free on the upper half. Hopea dryobalanoides was described by Miquel, in 1860, from two collections made by Teysmann in East Sumatra. The Priaman specimen consists of fragmentary immature fruit, twigs, and leaves: the Sungei Pagu specimen has leafy twigs only. In 1887 Burck stated that the two collections represented different species, the Sungei Pagu one being H. mengarawan Miq.** He states that the fruits described by Miquel under H. dryobalanoides are H. mengarawan: but the fruits accompany the Priaman Specimen, not the Sungei Pagu one! King accepted Burck’s opinion concerning the mixed nature of Miquel’s species. In 1893 he suggested that H. micrantha Hook. f. (or what he thought was H. micrantha Hook. f.!) was H. dryobalanoides Mig. emend. Burck, but concluded that, because of the supposed mixed nature of Miquel’s species and the lack of flowers, it should be Suppressed as a Species. King’s suggestion apparently did not find support from Dutch botanists. In 1901 Beerlage appears to have, rightly in my opinion, considered both Teysmann’s original collec- tions of H. dryobalanoides as conspecific, and with them identified tree number VII. B. 23, cultivated in the Botanical Gardens, Buitenzorg. Although there are no important references to H. dryobalanoides in subsequent systematic works, and the species has never been adequately described, it is mentioned frequently in forestry literature of the Netherlands Indies as one of the main prceducers of high quality damar (damar mata kuching). * The presence or absence of this hairy ring is fairly constant in any given specimen, although the hairs are less evident in mature flowers than in young buds, but varies between collections: e.g. Forest Dept. F.M.S. 623 and 2121 have a distinct ring, Forest Dept. F.M.S. 17326 has traces of a ring only in young bud, while Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30912 and H.B. 938.12.56 have no hairs. ** King considered the same collection to be Hopea micrantha Hook.f. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Plate 14m Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Hopea myrtifolia Miq. O47 In 1891, Heim described a Bornean collection of Beccari as H. sarawakensis. The specimen has only immature fruits but, in my opinion, does not differ in any essential from H. dryobalanoides Mig. Actually when describing the species Heim stated that “Cette espéce ne peut en Vabsence de Vanatomice, étre qwimperfaitment differencée de Hopea borneensis’’. H. dryobalanoides has been collected from time to time in the Malay Peninsula, but no specific name was put to the specimens until Foxworthy, in 1932, referred them, along with some of H. sulcata Sym., to H. micrantha. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: KELANTAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 32832. PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30912. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 729, 18280, 24007, 24085, 29745. NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 625, 2110, 2121, 2123, 2147, 23794, 46106. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 10606, 17304, 173805, 17326, 17345, 45017. SINGAPORE: ? S’pore Field No. 2879 (fruits only). SUMATRA: Teysmann s.n. (H.B. 587; 9388.12.2: Utrecht 035932) Sungei Pagu (Syntype of H. dryobalanoides Mig.) and Teysmann s.n. (H.B. 988.12.4). Teysmann s.n. (H.B. 2078; 9388.12.38: Utrecht 035933) Priaman (Syntype of H; dryobalanoides Miq.). Herb. De Vriese No. 26 (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 902144, 382). Also-—Heyne’s native collector s.n. and bb. 21535 (Beng- kulen). JAVA? FBX 95612.5 (Cult: Vil. B.23)s B.B; 6515 (Cult: ex Bangka). BORNEO: SARAWAK: Beccari 2897 (Iso-holotype of H. sarawakensis Heim in Herb. Kew). S’pore Field No. 36108 (= Forest Dept. Sarawak A0658). WEST BoRNEO: 6b. 17519 and bb. 21687. The specific identity of the forms of Hopea producing damar mata kuching in the Malay Peninsula has long been in doubt. It is here shown that one of these species is H. dryobalanoides Miq. which has for many years been recognized as a source of high grade damar in the Netherlands Indies. J Hopea myrtifolia Mig., Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 493 (1860) ; Scheff. in Nat. Tiidschr. N.I. 31: 351 (1870); Burek in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 242 (1887); Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 71 (1895) guoad spec. Teysm.;? Heyne, Nutt. Plant. Ned. Ind. 1107 (1922) in nota; non sensu Endert in Tectona 28: 248-311 passim (1935). Plate 16. Branchlets grey-brown, covered with a close, soft, fulvous-grey tomentum towards the ends. Leaves ovate- oblong, with a short blunt acumen at the apex, rounded at Vol. .X.\ (1939). 348 the base or sometimes slightly unequal with one side subacute, from 4.5 * 2.4 em. or less to 10.0 < 5.0 em., glabrous except for the midrib, usually drying dull grey- green on the upper surface and yellow-brown on the lower; midrib slightly raised and tomentose above, prominent but glabrous beneath; main nerves about 12 pairs, separated from one another by intermediary nerves some of which are almost as long and prominent as the main nerves, hardly visible above, faint but visible on the lower surface, some- times with a few tufted domatia in their axils; reticulations hardly visible to the naked eye; petioles 4.0-10.0 mm. long on mature leaves, densely tomentose; stipules not seen. Panicles terminal and in the axils of the upper leaves; racemes solitary or paired, 5.0 cm. long at most, usually with 5 to 7 alternating branchlets; branchlets about 4.0 mm. apart, the longest about 1.5 mm. long with 6 secund flowers about 2.0 mm. apart. Flowers about 5.0 mm. long including the pedicel; pedicel 2.0 mm. long, glabrous. Sepals furnished with minute waxy scales outside; two outer broadly ovate, thick, with waxy masses in the apical portions on the inner side; three inner sepals sunrotundate, pointed or subfimbriate at the apex, glabrous inside. Petals oblong-linear, fimbriate towards the apex, tomentose on the portions exposed in bud. Stamens 15, arranged in the manner usual in this group; filaments broad and flattened at the base, narrow in the upper portion; anther cells subequal; appendage to connective about as long as the filament, sometimes sparsely furnished with a few smal! glandular tubercles. Ovary in shape intermediate between the H. Pierret and H. pedicellata types, minutely gland- dotted ; style short, cyliudrical, erect; stigma minute. Fruit entirely glabrous: stalk short but prominent, abcut 1.5 mm. long; caiyx-lobes woody at the base, closely appressed to the lower half of the nut; two outer lobes wing-like, very narrow near the base, broad above, about 4.5 x 0.9 em., about 8-nerved, thin and papery ; three inner lobes broad, irregular at the apex, about half as high as the nut; nut ovate-conical, about 9.0 * 7.0 mm., crowned by a short but prominent Sharp apiculus, more or less resinous. Hopea myrtifolia was described by Miquel in 1860 from a collection made by Teysmann at Kebang, Lampong, Sumatra. The material, which consists of sterile immature branchlets, is represented by one sheet in the Utrecht Herbarium (Utrecht 035927) and two in the Buitenzorg herbarium (one of which is marked H.B. 4321). The Utrecht sheet bears a larger branchlet with some leaves more mature than those on the Buitenzorg sheet. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the type material it is not surprising that the species has remained Gardens Bulletin, S.S. SE AS fle einen >> roe eemeeoameernec colin mre. nn en SE 549 in comparative obscurity. The only additional collectior cited in botanical literature is Beccari 3021, which Brandis considered to be H. myrtifolia. In this he was obviously wrong; Becc. 3021 represents an undescribed species related to H. bracteata Burck. H. myrtifolia is mentioned in the forestry literature of the Netherlands Indies as one of the main sources of high grade damar. This may be the case, and if my interpreta- tion of the species is correct, H. myrtifolia does produce a high grade damar, but there is no evidence that, when speaking of H. myrtifolia, Dutch forest officers have had this species in mind. Indeed the only herbarium material from the N.I., that I have seen identified as H. myrtifolia, has - been what I consider to be H. ferruginea Parijs. We have only a few collections of H. myrtifolia from the Peninsula. One was made in 1919 but the rest are quite recent. To identify these with Teysmann’s sterile immature Specimens may seem rather rash, but there is such a marked similarity in shape of leaves, and texture and tomentum of all parts, that I feel reasonably confident about it. Some of our collections of slightly immature leaves are an excellent match for the more mature portions of Teysmann’s type collection. Hopea myrtifolia is undoubtedly very closely related to H. pedicellata (Brandis) Sym., which differs only in the more abruptly truncated stylopodium, the lIenger and narrower leaves, and the less tomentose branchlets. Detached mature leaves may be almost indistinguishable. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 45538, 28623, 31042, 31087, 33915, 41909, 41911, 41915, 43367, 44992, 47301, 47305, 47307, 47309. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 41016. NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 46071. SUMATRA: LAMPONG: Teysmann s.n. Kebang (H.B. 4321 and 938. a and Utrecht 035927: Holotypes of H. myrtifolia iq.). Hopea myrtifolia Miq. is a form of merawan producing damar mata kuching. It was originally described from sterile, immature material collected in Sumatra and its identity has been obscure: it is here identified with an hitherto unidentified trce which has been collected in Chikus and Bikam forest reserves in Perak, at Kuala Sungei Tahan in Pahang, and in Pasoh Forest Reserve in Negri Sembilan. “Hopea ferruginea Parijs in Fedde Repert. 33: 243 (1938). H. micrantha sensu Dyer in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1: 310 (1874) partim, quoad spec. Maing.; sensu King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 62, pt. 2: 124 (1893) partim, Vol. X..(1989). 350 quoad Maing. 210: sensu Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 70 (1895) partim; sensu Ridi., Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 2837 (1922) partim; sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 2: 167 (1922) in nota, et Mal. For. Rec. 10: 136 (1932) partim; sensu Buckley, Mal. For. Rec. 11: 21 (1932) in nota; non H. micrantha Hook. f. H. myrti- folia sensu Heynes, Nutt. Plant. Ned. Ind. 1107 (1922) in nota (?); sensu Endert in Tectona 28: 248-311 passim (1935); non H. myrtifolia Mig. H. intermedia sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 3: 74 (1927) et Mal. For. Rec. 10: 134 (1932) partim; non H. intermedia King. H. Pierrei sensu Foxw., Mal. For Rec. 10: 133 (1932) quoad Holmb. 820; non H. Pierrei Hance. Plate 17. Branchlets slender, with rather prominent decurrent leaf traces, silvery to ferruginous scurfy-tomentose towards the ends, later becoming glabrous, dark, and ienticellate. Leaves elliptic-lanceolate to subovate, caudate-acuminate at the apex, slightly unequal, acute to rounded and sometimes reflexed at the base, about 6.0 X 2.5 em. but rather variable, glabrous (except for the midrib) on both surfaces but more or less covered with a minute silvery scurf, usually drying dull grey-green or silvery on the upper surface and yellow- or reddish-brown on the lower; midrib elevate and more or less tomentose on the upper surface, slightly keeled and glabrous on the lower ; main nerves 12 to 16 pairs, separated by slightly shorter and hardly less prominent intermediate nerves, almost invisible on the upper surface, faint and hardly elevate on the lower, occasionally with tufted domatia in the axils of nerves near the centre of the leaf; petioles about .6 cm. long, fulvous or ferruginous-tomentose; stipules minute, caducous, Panicles axillary or terminai, tomentose or sparsely minutely hairy, of solitary racemes up to 3.0 cm. long; ultimate branchlets up 9.0 mm. long (usvally about 5.0 mm.), 2 to 7-flowered. Flowers about 1.0 mm. apart, secund, about 3.0 mm. long and ovate-oblong in mature bud; bracteoles caducous; pedicel slender, about 1.0 mm. long, glabrescent. Sepals: two outer subovate, blunt and thickened at the apex. sparsely squamulose to densely squamulose-tomentose at the apex outside, squamulose at the apex inside; three inner subequal in height or slightly taller than the outer ones, broader and thinner, acute or acuminate and sparsely setulose at the apex. Petals linear- oblong, slightly fimbriate at the apex, sericesus on the portions exposed in bud, pale yellow. Stamens 15, arranged in the usual manner fo: this group; filaments broad at the base, narrowing about the middle to the filamentous upper portion; anthers 4-celled, the anterior cells slightly smaller than the posterior; appendage to connective filiform, as long as the filament and anther. Ovary ovate, narrowing Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 17. Hopea ferruginea Parijs we ool at the apex to the style, glabrous but for a ring of setose hairs at the base of the style*, style erect, cylindiical, about as long as the ovary, glabrous but for the setz at the base; stigma minute. Fruit glabrous; stalk prominent, about 1.0 mm. long; two outer calyx-lobes developed into wings, about 4.0 X 0.8 cm., narrow towards the woody base, chartaceous, about 7-nerved; three inner lobes not enlarged peyond the apex of the nut; nut ovate-oblong, about .8 cm. long, surmounted by the thin, usually bent (frequently broken) remnant of the style, sometimes coated with a resinous cement, embraced except on the upper third hy the inner calyx-lobes. The earliest preserved collections of this species appear to be those made by Maingay in Malacca, in 1867. Two collections were made—no. 1203 on 22nd April, and no. 1394 on 25th May—but both were given the Kew Distribution number 2i0. In the Flora of British India (1874) these collections were enumerated under Hopea micrantha Hook. f. which had been previously described from Borneo, and this interpretation has mainly been followed by subsequent authors on the flora of the Malay Peninsula, although there has been much, and varied, confusion of this species with others. In 1893, King incivded Maingay’s collections in his H. micrantha, which is a mixture of H. ferruginea Parijs, H. pedicellata (Brandis) Sym., and H. Dyeri Heim. In 1895, Brandis excluded from H. micrantha most of King’s Peninsular citations, but continued to include Maingay 210, and added Cantley 12, another collection of H. ferruginea made about 1880. Ridley (1922) cited collections of H. ferruqinea made by Maingay, Cantley, and Goodenough, under H. “nicrantha, but included specimens of H. pedicellata (Brandis) Sym. and H. Dyeri Heim along with them. In 19382, Foxworthy cited several additiona! collections of H. ferruginea, some under H. intermedia and some under H. micruntha, both of which, however, include collections of other species. He also cited Holmberg 820 under H. Pierre. Although this tree has never been properly understood botanically, it has aroused the interest of forest oificers from time to time because it produces a high grade damar. It.is mainly to this species that the reference to damar mata kuching in Mal. For. Rec. 2: 167 (1922), 10: 116 and 136 (1932), and 14° 21-(1932) apply. * This setose ring of hairs is very variable: in some specimens it is broad, while in others it is reduced to a few hairs, or may be entirely absent. The condition of the ring does not appear to be dependent upon the age of the flower. Vol. X. (1939). 352 I can find no definite references to the species previous to 1933 in the botanical literature of the Netherlands Indies, but numerous collections have been made by the Forest Department of the Netherlands Indies since 1915. Some of these have been identified in manuscript with H. micrantha Hook. f., H. Pierrei Hance, or H. myrtifolia Mia., and economic notes concerning “‘damar mata kvetjing” in the literature of the Forest Department under these names are probably mainly referable to this species. It was in connection with the chemical study of a damar sample that the species received the name Hopeuw ferruginea Parijs (1933). Endert (1935) has indicated that he considers that Parijs’ species should be reduced to synonymy with H. myrtifolia Mig. With this I do not agree, being of opinion that Parijs has actually described a specics hitherte lacking a legitimate name. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 24609, 28806. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 21979, 47311, 47312, 47313; Ridl. 138206. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 4644, 37315, 38009. NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 702, 1902, 2916, 4254, 4260, 6557, 18883, 18893, 23806, 26602, 43532. MALACCA: Maing. 1203 and 1894 (= K.D. 210; Herb. Lugd. Bat. 902146-375); Alvins 9; Goodenough 1444, 1554; Holmberg 820; Derry 124; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 2011, 2012, 9510, 18275, 252038, 25285. JOHORE: Cantley 12; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 5208, 5846, 5858, 45948. RHIO ARCHIPELAGO: PULAU SuGI: bb. 20386. SUMATRA: JAMBI: bb. 14459 (Holotype or Iso-holotype of H. ferru- ginea Parijs ex Herb. F.R.I. Buitenzorg). PELEMBANG: bb. 187; H.B. 9338.21.62; Field no. 8¢, 193 (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 908353-258), Field No. 14¢, 199 (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 908353-305). BORNEO: SouTH-WEST RESIDENCY: 1803 I (bb. 473; Utrecht 052390), 1803 II (bb. 474), 1871 (H.B. 938.10.87); bb. 13358, 202386, 20410. Hopea ferruginea Parijs is here shown to be the correct botanical name for the form of merawan which appears to be the chief source of damar mata kuching in the Malay Peninsula. The tree is common in the Kuala Pilah district of Negri Sembilan where damar-tapping used to be carried on experimentally and commercially. The identity of the species has never beer fixed with certainty, but it has usually been referred to Hopea micrantha or Hopea inter- media in publications of the F.M.S. Forest Depszrtment. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. SS. Vol. X. Plate 18. eee Hopea Dyeri Heim. Bats) /Hopea Dyeri Heim in Bull. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 972 (1891) ; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 68 (1895) ; Merr., Bib. Enum. Born. Pl. 402 (1921) quoad Becc. 2962; Sym. in Gard. Bull. S.S. 8: 53 (1934) et 9: 323 et 324 (1938) in note. Hopea micrantha sensu Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 239 (1887) partim, quoad Bece. 2504*; sensu King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 62: 124 (1893) partim, quoad King 3525; non Hopea micrantha Hook. ft. Hopea microptera Dyer (Ms. in Herb. Kew) ex Brandis in lc. pro synon. Hancea microptera (Dyer) Pierre, Fl. For. Cochinch. 4 (1891) in nota sub t. 248. Hopea intermedia King in l.c. 126 (1893) partim, quoad Kunstler 3709, et in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 5, pt. 2: 156 (1896) partim, quoad Kunstler 3709; Brandis in l.c. 67 partim, quoad Kunstler 3709; sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 1384 (1932) quoad Forest Dept. F.M.S. 54383. Hopea Pierrei sensu Brandis in l.c. 67 partim, quoad Becc. 2504 et 3050; sensu Ridl., Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 288 (1922) partim; sensu Foxw., l.c. 133 quoad Kunstler 3525; non Hopea Pierrei Hance. Plate 18. Branchlets slender, usually drying dark brown to black, lenticellate, glabrescent. Leaves ovate-lanceolate, caudate- acuminate at the apex, subequal and cuneate at the base, about 6.5 xX 2.6 cm., glabrous on both surfaces, usually drying dark purple-brown and waxy-glaucescent on the upper surface, yellow-brown on the lower; midrib slightly raised on both surfaces; main nerves about 8 pairs, separated by hardly less prominent intermediate nerves, invisible on the upper surface, not elevate but clearly defined on the lower, usually furnished with small domatia in the axils of the lower pairs; petioles slender, about .7 cm. long, giabrescent; stipules minute, caducous. Panicles axillary or terminal, glabrous, of solitary or paired racemes which rarely exceed 2.0 cm. in length; ultimate branchlets about .6 em. long, 3 to 5-flowered. Flowers about 1.0 mm. apart, secund, subtended by minute paired bracteoles which may be semi-persistent, about 3.0 mm. long and ovate-oblong in mature bud; pedicel ebout 1.0 mm. long, glabrous. Sepals glabrous; two outer subovate glandular-papillose towards the apex on both surfaces; three inner about the same height but broader and thinner. Petals linear-oblong, slightly fimbriate at the apex, gericeous on the portions exposed in bud, pale yellow. Stamens 15, arranged in the usual manner for this group, filaments broad at the base, narrow- ing about the middle to the filamentous upper portion; * Burck also cites Becc. 2964, possibly in error for 2962 which is the type of H. Dyeri Heim. Vol. X. (1939). d54 anthers oval, 4-celled, the anterior cells almost as large as the posterior; appendage to connective filiform, about as long as the filament end anther. Ovary and stylopodium of the “hour-glass” type; style short; stigma minute. Fruit glabrous; stalk about 1.0 mm. long, prominent; two outer calyx-lobes developed into wings about 4.0 0.7 em., narrow towards the woody base, chartaceous, about 5-nerved; three inner lobes usually not enlarged beyond the lower half of the nut; nut ovate-conical, apiculate, shining, about .7 cm. long, embraced in the lower half by the calyx-lobes. The earliest collections of this species were made by Beccari in Sarawak [numbers 2504 (fl.), 2962 (immature ft.) and 3050 (ft.)]. In 1887 Burck enumerated Becc. 2504* as Hopeu micrantha Hook. f., but it is improbable that he actually compared the flowers of this collection with those of H. micrantha Hook. f., or he could not have failed to note the marked difference in stylopodium. Dyer examined Becc. 2962 at Kew, giving it the manus- cript name Hopea micicptera. This name was never validly published, although it is mentioned in synonymy by later authors and is the basis of Hancea microptera Pierre. Hance (1891) was the first to publish a name for the species when he based his Hopea Dyeri on Beecc. 2962. In 1895, Brandis enumerated only this one collection under H. Dyeri, failing to identify Becc. 2504 and 3050 with it. Apparently misled by the similar stylopodium he placed these two collections under Hopea Pierrei, where there remained until I suggested their removal in 1938. The earliest collections from the Malay Peninsula were made by Kunstler (3525 and 3709) in Perak in 1882-85. The former of these was referred by King to Hopea micrantha, and the latter was cited under Hopea intermedia by both King and Brandis. Ridley cited Kunstler’s speci- mens under H. Pierrei, and Foxworthy cited no. 3525 under the same name. Subsequent collections from the Peninsula are not numerous, and with the exception of 5433, cited by Foxworthy under H. intermedia, have been neglected in botanical publications. This species is in leaf rather like Hopea dryobalanoides Mig. but it may be distinguished by the typical bottle-shaped ovary and stylopodium seen also in H. Pierrei Hance and H. Beccariana Burck. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PerRAK: Kunstler 3525 (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 902146-376), 3709; Forest Department F.M.S. 14383. * See footnote on p. 353. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. a) i td SO, Ree Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 19. Hopea micrantha Hook.f. 305 TRENGGANU: S’pore Field No. 30142, 30184. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 18248, 48026. NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 1906, 1907, 1923 to 1926, 48018. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 4509, 5433. BORNEO: SARAWAK: Bece. 2504, 2962 (Iso-holotype of Hopea Dyeri Heim in Herb. Kew), 3050. Hopea Dyeri Heim is a smooth-barked, stilt-rooted form of merawan of fairly wide distribution, but not very abundant, in the Peninsula. It is very similar in leaf and other characters to the species producing damar mata kuching, but does noi itself produce globular or stalactitic exudations of damar. Early botanical collections of the species have been confused with others under a variety of names, the species never having been properly understood. ‘erpaed micrantha Hook. f. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 28: 161 (1862) ; Dyer in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. Ind. 1: 310 (1874) partim, quoad spec. Born.; Burek in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 239 (1887) partim, quoad Motley 215; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 70 (1895) partim, quoad Motley 215; Merr., Bib. Enum. Born. PI. 402 (1921) quoad Motley 215; Sym. in Gard. Bull. 8.8. 9: 323-329 passim (1938); non H. micrantha sensu Hance in (Lond.) Journ. Bot. 15, 242 (1876); non sensu King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 62, pt. 2: 124 (1893) ; non sensu Burkill in Journ. Str. Br. R. As. Soc. 81: 58 (1920) et Dict. Econ. Prod. Mal. Penins. 1190 Ciess)-sonon sencu Ridh, Kile Mal: Penins: 1: 237 (1922) ; non sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 2: 167 (1932) in nota, et 10: 1385 (19382). Non Hopea micrantha (Hassk.) Benth. et Hook. f. ex Heim, Rech. Dipteroc. 64 (1892) in obs. Hancea micrantha (Hook. f.) Pierre, Fl. For. Cochinch. 4 (1891) in nota sub t. 248. Plate 19. Branchlets subterete, dark, minutely pale lepidote towards the ends. Leaves minutely lepidote, elliptic-ovate or ovate-lanceolate, caudate-acuminate at the avex, rounded at the base, usually about 7.0 < 3.0 em., glabrous and drying vellowish-grey on the upper surface, glabrescent and dull yellow-brown on the lower; midrib slightly raised on both surfaces; main nerves about 13 pairs with 1 to 3 slightly. less prominent intermediate nerves between each, faintly visible and slightly depressed on the upper surtace, faint and hardly raised on the lower; petioles about 7.0 mm. long, subterete, lepidote. Punicles axillary towards the ends of the branchlets, or terminal; racemes solitary, less than 3.0 cm. long, sparsely furnished with minute waxy scales and hairs; ultimate branchiets about 1.0 cm. long, each with Vou. 2%, (1089)% 356 4 to 6 secund flowered about 1.5 mm. apart. Flowers ovate- oblong in bud, about 4.0 mm. long including the pedicel; pedicel about 1.0 mm. long, drying black, sparsely minutely waxy-lepidote. Sepals drying black, sparsely, minutely waxy-lepidote outside; two outer ovate; three inner rotun- date. Petals linear-oblong, tomentose on the portions exposed in bud. Stamens 15, in three rows of 5, arrayed as in most species of Hopea; filaments broad at the base, narrowing rather abruptly to a long filiform portion; anthers oval, 4-celled, the posterior cells larger than the anterior ; appendage to connective filiform, about as long as the filament and anther. Ovary broadly cylindrical, narrowing to the style, glabrous; style erect, cylindrical, glabrous, about as long as the ovary; stigma minute. Frut* glabrous; pointed at the base; stalk very short; sepals woody at the base, chartaceous above; two large wings about 4.0 < 0.8 cm., blunt at the apex, very slightly constricted in the lower half, but slightly broader and tending to be auriculate at the base, about 7-nerved; three inner wings up to 1.5 cm. long but usually less; nut conical, about .8 cm. long, tapering gradually into the persistent style, coated with a resinous cement, closely appressed by and cemented to the imbricate bases of the sepals. Hopea micrantha was originally described in 1862 from specimens (Nos. 215 and 100) collected by Motley in Labuan. Both specimens appear to have been considered in drawing up the description, but it is mainly based on no. 215 which bears flowers. No. 100 is sterile, and differs from 215 in the more ovate end inequilateral, cuneate leaves. I do not think it is the same species and am therefore restric- ting Hooker’s name to Motley 215. Motley 100 may be Hopea sulcata Sym. (see p. 359). In 1874, Dyer recorded an extension of distribution of H, micrantha to the Malay Peninsula, citing “Malacca, Maingay”. Presumakiy these are the sheets preserved under the Hopea micrantha cover at Kew with the Kew Distribution Number 210. Two separate. collections are included under K.D. 210. (1) Field No. 1203, April 22nd 1867, and (2) Field No. 1394, May 25th 1867. In my opinion neither is Hopea micrantha Hook. f. Both sheets have flowers with ovaries and styles similar in shape to H. micrantha Hook. f., but the leaves and general facies is rather distinct. I consider them to be H. ferruginea Parijs (vide p. 351). Dyer amplified Hooker’s description with a brief description of the fruits. I do not know upon what collec- tion his observations of fruits are based, but from the fact « The only known fruiting collection (Sarawak 00322) has slightly immature fruits. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. oot that he says “‘bases of fruiting calyx-segments 14 in. long with two gibbosities at the bottom’, one might suspect a collection of H. sulcata Sym. There have been many subsequent misinterpretations of the species. In 1876, Hance referred a Cambodian collection coubtfully to H. micrantha, but in the same year, realizing that it was distinct, he described it as a new species, Hopea Pierre. In 1897, Burck excluded the Malay Peninsula specimens referred to H. micrantha by Dyer, but included Beccari 2504 and 2964 from Bornes. Beccari 2504 is, in my opinion, H. Dyeri Heim. Bece. 2964 I have not seen, unless this number has been cited in error for 2962 which is the type of H. Dyeri Heim. King, in 1893, retained the Malacca collections of Maingay under H. micrantha and added Kunstler 3525, which I considered to ke H. Dyeri Heim, and three collections of Curtis (167, 266, 1397) and Kunstler 8170, which I consider to be H. pedicellata (Brandis) Sym. It is evident that King had mainly what we now call H. pedicellata in mind as 4. micrantha. Brandis removed some of King’s citations under H. micrantha, but retained the Maingay collections from Malacca and added Cantley 12, which is also H. ferruginea Parijs. Ridley’s H. micrantha is mainly a mixture of H. ferru- ginea Parijs and H. pedicellata (Brandis) Svm., while Foxworthy’s includes specimens of H. sulcata Sym., H. dryobalanoides Mig., H. ferruginea Parijs, and H. sangal Korth. Numerous collections of Hopea, now preserved in the herbaria at Utrecht, Leiden, and Buitenzorg, have been wrongly identified as Hf. micrantha by other Dutch botanists, but I cannot find any attempt by them to elucidate the identity of H. micrantha in published works. The confusion which exists is, of course, due to the very close similarity of many species in the Dryobalanoides section of Hopea. Of all the specimens cited from time to time under the name of H. micrantha, I consider that Motley 215 from Labuan (the original specimen) is the only one correctly piaced in that species. I have only seen three other collections, which I feel can be referred to Hooker’s species in the strict sense. I would have preferred to have awaited additional coliections from the type locality before venturing even to say that these are identical with Motley 215, but as examination of the only remaining patch of jungie on the Island of Labuan failed to reveal any Hopea, the prospect of ever obtaining such collections is negligible. Vol. X. (1939). ' 358 Collections examined :— BORNEO: LABUAN: Motley 215 (Lectotype, sec. Sym. of H. micrantha Hook. f. in Herb. Kew). BILITON: ? Biliton Herb. No. 91 (Herb. Lugd. Bat. No. 90923-676). BRUNEI: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30551. SARAWAK: Egon 00322 (Sarawak 356) Hopea micrantha is a form of merawan described originally from Labuan. Many other species, mainly from Borneo and the Malay Peninsula, have from time to time been referred to H. micrantha in error. Among these is the tree known as mercwan meranti in Selangor, which is described in this paper as Hopea sulcata. An attempt is here made to describe the true H. micrantha more fully, and the opinion is expressed that it does not occur in the Malay Peninsula. J Hopea sulcata Symington, sp. nov. H. micrantha sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 135 (1982) partim; non H. micrantha Hook. f. sensu stricto. Plate 20. H. micranthae Hook. f. (sensu stricto) valde affinis sed foliis basi cuneatis, paniculis laxioribus distincta. Branchlets pale, minutely waxy lepidote and sparsely stellate-hairy towards the ends, decurrent leaf traces rather prominent. Leaves ovate- to elliptic-lanceolate, caudate- acuminate at the apex (acumen up to 1.5 cm. long, blunt), slightly unequal and usually cuneate at the base, usually about 7.0 < 4.0 cm. but considerably variable, minutely waxy lepidote, glabrous but for a few tufted domatia on the lower surface, usually drying a dull grey-green on the upper surface, yellow-brown on the lower; midrib slightly raised on both surfaces; main nerves about 10 pairs, almost invisible on the upper surface, distinct on the lower and frequently with small pore-like or tufted domatia in their axils; intermediate nerves hardly less prominent than the main nerves; reticulations invisible to the naked eye; petioles about .7 cm. long, subterete, dark or waxy-lepidote; stipules minute, caducous. Panicles axillary or terminal, of solitary or paired racemes, rather lax, up to 7.0 cm. long, puberulous; rachis slightly flattened; branchlets 10.0 to 17.0 mm. long, each bearing about 4 to 7 secund flowers about 1.5mm. apart. Flowers ovate-oblong in bud, ahout 4.5 mm. long including the pedicel; pedicel 1.5 mm. long, glabrescent, drying black. Sepals subovate, waxy outside, sparsely . Ciliate along the apical margins; two outer obtuse; three inner usually shortly acuminate. Petals oblong, fimbriate at the apex, tomentcse on the portion exposed in bud. Stamens 15 arranged in the usual manner in this group; filaments broad at the base, filiform in the upper half; Gardens Bulletin, SS. Plate 20. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Br aS -Hopea sulcata Sym. , 399 anthers oblong, 4-celled, the anterior cells slightly smaller than the posterior; apnendage to connective filiform, twice as long as the anther, sparsely papillose towards the base. Ovary ovate-conical, glabrous, tapering into an erect, cylindrical, glabrous style which is slightly longer than the ovary; stigma minute. Frwit glabrous; stalk about 1.5 mm. long, attached to the slight concavity formed by the enlarged sepal bases; sepals chartaceous except for the thickened, woody bases, blunt at the apex; two outer sepals about 6.0 < 1.0 cm. or slightly less, linear-oblong, auriculate at the base and slightly constricted above the auricles, about 7-nerved ; three inner sepals short, usually less than 1.0 cm. long, subequal or with one considerably larger than the other two; nut ovate-conical, frequently slightly oblique, about 1.2 < 0.7 cm., glabrous, shining, minutely apiculate or crowned by the awn-like remnant of the style, closely embraced in the lower half by the imbricate sepal bases. This species, although collected by members of the forest department and communicated to the Singapore Botanic Gardens as early as 1916, does not appear to have been considered in the Flora of the Malay Peninsula. The first specimens to be cited in botanical literature are referred by Foxworthy to Hopea micrantha. Hopea micrantha Hook. f. was originally described from two specimens, Motley 215 (flower) and Motley 100 (sterile). As I have stated on p. 356, I consider that these differ, and am restricting the name H. micrantha to the flowering specimen. It is probable that the species under discussion is conspecific with Motley 100, but I am satisfied that it is distinct from Motley 215 and cannot be referred to H. micrantha sensu stricto. The most obvious differences are the laxer inflorescence, more prominently auriculate fruits, and cuneate leaf bases of H. sulcata. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 16208, 30347 to 30350 inclusive, 39172, 39197, 40614, 45151, 45152, 45217. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 730 (Type of H. sulcata Sym.) ; leg. ?; Sungei Lalang Forest Reserve, Kajang, Selangor; 10th June, 1916; flower. Also-—Yeop s.n. (tree No. 113; 5th June, 1917); Forest Dept. F.M.S. 7907, 1048, 138022, 22068, 22856,- 24058, 26251, 26258, 26259, 26260 to 26265 inclusive, 26272 to 26278 inclusive, 26285, 26288, 26291 to 26294 inclusive, 26355, 26356, 26358, 26360 to 26365 inclusive, 26389, 263890 to 26398 inclusive, 26480, 26482 to 26486 inclusive, 45062, 45834, 47109. JOHORE: S’pore Field No. 30988. BORNEO: LABUAN: ? Motley 100 (Syntype of H. micrantha Hook. f. in Herb. Kew). Vol. X. (19389). 360 Hopea sulcata is the name here given to a form of merawan with deeply fissured bark. It has for long been known to be abundant in the south of Sungei Lalang Forest Reserve in Selangor where it is known as merawan meranti. Formerly the species was thought to be identical with a Bornean species called Hopea micrantha. ‘Hopea latifolia Symington, sp. nov. H. intermedia sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 184 (1932) partim; non H. intermedia King. H. Beccariana sensu Sym. in Gard. Bull. S.S. 938: 325 (1936) partim; non H. Beccariana Burck. H. Beccarianae Burck habitu similis, sed foliis latiori- bus, basi saepissime rotundatis, acumine (breviore, fructus stylis persistentibus gracilioribus distincta. Flores ignoti. Branchlets glabrous, drying with a silvery tinge. Leaves broadly elliptical, shortly blunt-acuminate at the apex, rounded or sometimes cuneate at the base, frequently slightly reflexed along the margins, about 5.0 * 2.75 cm. to 8.0 < 4.5 cm., entirely glabrous, drying light yellow- brown or greenish-yellow on both surfaces; midrib elevate on both surfaces ; main nerves about 8 to 10 pairs, separated by shghtly shorter and hardly less prominent intermediate nerves, slightly depressed and almost invisible on the upper surface, faint and not raised on the lower; petioles slender, about 1.5 cm. long, glabrous. Panicles terminal or axillary towards the ends of the branchlets, glabrous, of solitary or paired racemes not exceeding 3.0 cm. in length; branchlets up to 9.0 mm. long, 2 to 5-flowered. Flowers unknown. Fruits glabrous; stalk short and stout, about 1.5 mm. long; two outer calyx-lobes developed into wings, about 4.0 X 0.9 cm., narrow towards the woody base, about 7-nerved; three inner lobes broad, not enlarged beyond the lower half of the ripe nut; nut ovate, pointed, about 1.0 em. long, surmounted by the thin, frequently reflexed, remnant of the style (some- times broken off), embraced by and sometimes cemented to the sepals on the lower half. This species is rather rare and collections are few, fruiting material only being known. The leaves very closely resemble those of the species which Foxworthy called H. intermedia and I consider to be H. Beccariana Burck, and we have both erroneously cited collections of H. latifolia under these names. The specimens Forest Dept. F.M.S. 8149, 41552, 5852, and 5863 should be removed from my list of collections examined on page 327 of Gard. Bull. S.S. 9 (1938), and enumerated here. I have compared this species to H. Beccariana because in leaf venation and length of petiole they are very alike. When flowers are available, however, it is probable that Gardens Bulletin, S.S. j . 561 H. latifolia will be found to have a stylopodium of the Hopea micrantha type, i.e. with a long slender style, and not one of the H. Beccariana, “hour-glass’, type. The stylar remnant on the fruits of H. latifolia is typical of that which develops from flowers with a slender style. Coliections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 8149 (Type of Hopea latifolia Sym.) ; Forest Guard Mahamud; Telok Siseh, Kuantan, flat land; 15th January, 1928; fruit. Field notes—“vern. name, merawan batu; tree 60 ft high, 4 ft girth; fruits green”. Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 49838 MALACCA: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 41552. JOHORE: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 5852, 5863. Hopea latifolia Sym. is a merawan of the smooth-barked type which has been recorded from Kuantan in Pahang, Malacca, and Johore. In leaf it is very like H. Beccariana (merawan batu) with which it has been confused. The species is here described for the first time. Hopea mengarawan Migq., Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 492 (1860) ; Scheffer in Nat. Tijdscr. Ned. Ind.: 351 (1870) ; Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 240 (1887) pro majore parte, excl. var. cernua; King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 62, pt. 2: 125 (18938) in obs. sub H. micrantha; Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 81: 70 (1895) pro majore parte; Ridl., Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 238 (1922); Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 137 (1982). Hopea mengarawan, although described by Miquel in 1860 from sterile material, has been subject to less confusion than any of the other early collections of the Dryobalanoides group of Hopea. The sterile type collection from Palem- bang is cited as “Sumatra orient prope Muara-duwa (Teysmann)”. Among the Buitenzorg, Leiden, and Utrecht sheets of Hopea, which presumably contain the type speci- men, there is none with this annotation, but there is a collection of Teysmann’s from “Muara-enim” which bears the name Hopea mengarawan in Miquel’s handwriting. In 1870 Scheffer added two collections from Bangka, and one from the river Tarabangi in Lampong Province. From the last he drew a brief floral description, but errone- ously stated that the stamens are 10 in number. In 1887 Burck added another collection by Teysmann, ~ and transferred to H. mengarawan a collection from Sungei Pagu which Miquel had included in his H. dryobalanoides. I think this was unjustified (see my notes under H. dry- obalanoides, p. 346). From Borneo, Burck cited Becc. 2545 which is, in my opinion, A. cernua Teysm. et Binn., a species considered by Burck to be only a variety of Hopea mengarawan. In this he has not been supported by Brandis Vol. X. (1939). 362 or any subsequent author: I consider the two species quite distinct, although they have a similar ovary and style. Brandis added the first Malay Peninsula collections, made by Cantley in Johore and Ridley in Singapore. But he wrongly included under H. mengarawan, King 8170, which is H. pediceliata (Brandis) Sym. and Goodenough 1447, which I consider to be H. Beccariana Burck. He cited another Sumatran collection, Forbes 3210, which has remarkably large flowers but closely resembles H. menga- rawan in floral structure and leaf texture, and is probably correctly referable to it. Ridley and Foxworthy later added more collections from the Malay Peninsula, all of which I have seen and agree are referable to this species. The Malay Peninsula speci- mens vary somewhat among themseives and differ from the Dutch collections in having broader, or more leatiiery leaves, but they are identical in flower structure, having the broad hairy ring at the base of the long style which may be seen in Teysmann’s Lampong collection. Collections examined :— SUMATRA: PALEMBANG: Teysmann s.n., “Muara-enim” (H.B. 4022 and 9938.12.10; Utrecht 035930) (? Holotype of Hopea mengarawan Miq.); s.v., leg.? (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 9083538-255 and 299). LAMPONG: Teysmann, “ad f. Tarabangi” (H.B. 9358.12.12; Utrecht 035929). LOCALITY UNCERTAIN: Korthals s.n. (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 902146-348); Teysmann sm. (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 902146-341; perhaps a duplicate of H.B. 938.12.10) ; Forbes 3210a (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 908140-1910 and 908146—226). BANGKA: Teysmann s.n., “prope Djeboes” (H.B. 3225 and 938.12.9); Teysmann s.n., “Belienjoe” (H.B. 938.12.13) ; s.n., leg.?, (Herb. Lugd. Bat. 908154-37 det. Tristania obovata). BILITON: Teysmann s.n. (H.B. 11059 and 938.12.11); van Rossum 61 (Utrecht 029954). MALAY PENINSULA: PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 0721, 0734, 0735, 2638, 4621, 5481, 5742, 6540, 7941, 10015, 10554, 10572, 15636, 17145, 17238, 17245, 17249, 17261, 29556, 29608, 29978, 31679, 36039, 37324, 38010, 40675. SELANGOR: (Cult.) Forest Dept. F.M.S. 14855. NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 1883, 43518. Mauacca: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 45902. JOHORE: Cantley 205; S’pore Field No. 26139; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 6021. SINGAPORE: Ridl. 5094, 5848, 10733, s.n. (Bukit Timah), s.n. (Grange Road); Gardens No. 2002 (H.B. 9838.10.49 and 50). Hopea mengarawan is a well-known form of merawan in lowlying parts of Pahang and Johore. Investigation shows that our conception of the species is correct. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 21. SSS ee Shorea atrinervosa Sym. 363 “Shorea atrinervosa Symington, sp. nov. V. Sl. ex Merr., Plant. Elmer. Born. 203 (1929) in nota sub S. malibato Foxw. Shorea collina sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 173 (1932) partim; non S. collina Ridl. “Shorea ? inappendiculata”’ Sym. ex Desch, Mal. For. Rec. 12: 9 (1936) partim; et Govt. Gazette F.M.S. Vol. 29, No. 26, Not. no. 5994, (List of Botanical and Vernacular Equivalents), p. 2 (1937) partim. Plate 21. S. ciliatae King et S. astylosae Foxw. valde affinis sed omnibus partibus majoribus satis distincta. Branchlets sparsely hairy at the ends, becoming dark, glabrous, and lenticellate. Leaves elliptic or ovate-oblong, shortly blunt-acuminate at the apex, rounded to slightly cuneate and sometimes slightly unequal at the base, about 8.0 x 4.0 em. to 15.0 < 7.3 cm., glabrous and usually drying a dull purple-brown on the upper surface, glabrous and frequently more or less minutely pale (sometimes coppery) lepidote beneath; midrib prominent, usually drying black, slightly elevate on the upper surface, more prominently elevate beneath; main nerves 10 to 14 pairs, inconspicuous on the upper surface, prominent beneath, frequently drying black, and sometimes with small pore-like domatia in their axils on the lower surface; tertiary nerves scalariform, fine but usually visible to the naked eye on both surfaces; petioles 2.0-2.8 cm. long, glabrescent, drying black; stipules caducous (not seen), scars rather prominent. Panicles terminal or axillary towards the ends of the branchlets; racemes solitary, up to 14.0 cm. long, hoary stellate-hairy ; branchlets regularly alternating, distichous, about 1.0 cm. apart, rather lax, up to 3.5 cm. long, hoary stellate-hairy or tomentose, 3 to 10-flowered (usually about 7). Flowers secund, about 3.0 mm. apart, about 15.0 mm. long in mature bud; pedicels short, stellate-tomentose. Sepals densely pale tomentose; three outer ovate, obtuse; two inner broadly ovate, acute. Petals linear, broad at the base, adpressed sericeous outside and minutely pubescent towards the apex inside, bright red at the base, pale yellow to white towards the apex (Symington). Stamens 25 to 31 (in flowers examined), of several heights, the innermost row being the tallest; filaments 1 to 3 times as long as the anthers, broad - and flattened at the base, filamentous in the upper portion; anthers elliptical, 4-celled, the posterior cells considerably shorter than the anterior; appendage to connective rather thick, blunt, about half as long as the anther, furnished with 5 to 12 long spreading ciliz. Ovary and stylopodium ovoid- conical, densely sericeous-tomentose except at the base; style short, cylindrical, glabrous, stigma minute. Fruit: stalk short, stout, stellate-hairy; bases of calyx-lobes woody, Vol. X. (19389). 364 sparsely hairy at the foot, closely embracing the lower half of the nut; wings glabrescent or minutely puberulous; the three outer about 8.0 < 1.4 cm., slightly narrowed towards the base, about 9-nerved; the two inner subequal, linear, 2—4 cm. long, about 4-nerved ; nut ovate-orbicular ; pointed, about 2.0 cm. X 1.5 em., pale sericeous-tomentose. This species 1s a typical Hushorea, being very similar, both in leaf texture and in flower structure, to Shorea ciliata King and Shorea astylosa Foxw., but differing in the greater size of all parts. The earliest collections from the Malay Peninsula, Forest Dept. F.M.S. 3565 and 3566, were made in 1923. These were included in Foxworthy’s conception of S. collina. In 1936 I confused this species with one very similar in leaf described in this paper as Shorea lumutensis, and enume- rated them in l.c. under “Shorea ? inappendiculata”. Collections examined :— , MALAY PENINSULA: TRENGGANU: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 26951, 43020. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 31832 (Type of Shorea atrinervosa Sym.); Alwi; Bukit Goh Ferest Reserve, Compt. 10; 24th Oct., 1938; flowers. Field notes— vern. name, balau hitam; tree 100 ft high, 7 ft 8 in. girth; fiower white. Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 3565, 3566, 6829, 17220, 17364, 17365, 17366, 17367, 438129, 49846, 49860, 49862. SUMATRA: ACHIN: bb. 2926, 8871. WEsT Coast: bb. 3762, 5484, 6118, 7040, 7693, 14955, 15465, 15466, 18360, 18600, 18602, 18623, 18711, 18720, 18729, 19320, 19333, 19348, 19389, 19474, 19498, 19501, 19502, 19504, 19623, 19661, 19662, 20306. EAST COAST: bb. 8647. BORNEO: SARAWAK: Forest Dept. Sarawak A. 0587. BRUNEI: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 28711 (?). NorRTH BORNEO: Elmer 21414. -SoutH and East Borneo: bb. 11683. Shorea atrinervosa is the name here given to the hitherto unnamed tree called balau hitam, which occurs in eastern Trengganu and Pahang. In Mai. For. Rec. 12, and in our List of Botanical and Vernacular Equivalents this species was confused with S.-lumutensis, both appearing under the heading “Shorea ? inappendiculata”’. The species appears to be common on the West Coast of Sumatra where it is frequently called resak or some variant of that name. heed lumutensis Symington, sp. nov. “Shorea ? mappen- diculata, Sym. ex Desch, Mal. For. Rec. 12: 9 (1936) partim, et Govt. Gazette F.M.S. Vol. XXIX, No. 26, Not. no. 5884 (List of Botanical and Vernacular Equivalents), p. 2 (1937) partim. Plate 22. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Plate 22. xX Bull. S.S. Vol Gard. Shorea lumutensis Sym. c 565 S. inappendiculatae Burck valde affinis sed _ stylis sericeo-tomentosis, petiolis longioribus differt. Branchlets deciduous stellate-hairy at the ends, later becoming glabrous and dark. Leaves oblong or elliptic- oblong, acuminate at the apex, acute or truncate at the base, margins slightly sinuate, very variable in size from about 7.0 X 2.5 cm. to 29.0 < 7.0 em., glabrous and drying a duli pale purple-brown colour (sometimes sparsely minutely scurfeous) on the upper surface, minutely grey-green scurfy-lepidote (except on the veins) on the lower surface; midrib neither conspicuously sunk nor elevate on the upper surface, prominently elevate, glabrescent, drying dark in colour, on the lower; main nerves 12 to 16 pairs, faint above, prominent and frequently drying black on the lower surface; tertiary nerves scalariform, faintly visible on the upper surface, more prominent beneath; petioles rather slender, about 2.8 in. long on an average-sized leaf, usually scurfy- lepidote on the posterior surface, glabrous and drying dark on the anterior; stipules caducous. Panicles terminal or axillary towards the branch ends; racemes solitary, up to 10.0 cm. long but usually less, hoary tomentose; branchlets usually about 1.0 cm. long and about 5-flowered. Flowers subsecund, about 9.0 mm. long in mature bud, almost sessile. Sepals densely pale tomentose outside; three outer ovoid- deltoid, obtuse; two inner ovoid, acute or shortly acuminate. Petals linear, broad at the base, sericeous-tomentose outside and minutely tomentose towards the apex on the inner surface, pale yellow (C.L. Carrier). Stamens 20 to 24 (in flowers examined), of several heights, the innermost row being the tallest; filaments rather short, the tailest not more than twice as long as the anthers, broad at the base, narrowing at the top, sometimes furnished with a few short bristles on the anterior surface; anthers elliptic-obovate, 4-celled, posterior celis smaller than the anterior, shoulders of anterior cells usually furnished with a few short bristles; appendage to connective a short blunt process usually furnished with 1 to 2 bristles (on the anterior stamens the process is erect and slightly exceeds the shoulders of the anther cells; on the posterior stamens the process is rudi- mentary, or at any rate much shorter, and becomes markedly ~ refiexed as the flower matures). Ovary and stylopodium ovoid-conical, sericeous-tomentose except at the base, tapering gradually into the short, thick, tomentose style; stigma slightly enlarged and obscurely 3-lobed. Fruit sessile; bases of calyx-lobes woody, stellate-hairy, enve- loping the lower third of the nut; wings puberulous; the three outer about 7.0 < 1.5 cm., narrow towards the base, Vol. X. (1939). 366 about 9-nerved; the two inner sublinear, up to 4.0 cm. long, about 5-nerved; nut subovate, tapering to a long curved beak, pale sericeous-tomentose, up to 2.0 em. long including the beak. This species was first detected in the field in 1931, but neither flowers nor fruits were collected until 1938-39. The close resemblances in leaf characters between this and Shorea inappendiculata Burck prompted me to give it the temporary name of “Shorea ? inappendiculata”’. Now that fertile specimens have been procured it appears that the Species is indeed very closely related to S. inappendiculata Burck. The only essential, readily definable difference is that the style of S. lumutensis is hairy, whereas that of S. nappendiculata is glabrous.* Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: DINDINGS (LUMUT): Forest Dept. F.M.S. 34800 (Type of Shorea iumutensis Sym.); C.L. Carrier; Compt. 7, Lumut Forest Reserve; 29th Dec., 1938; flowers. Field notes—‘“vern. name, balau; tree about 70 ft to first branch, 72 in. girth; flower pale yellow; immature fruit pale green’. Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 16808, 16809, 16840 to 16846 inclusive, 27762, 27766, 27772, 34796, 34797, 34803, 47338. Shorea lumutensis is the name here given to a form of hard-wooded Shorea occurring on the coastal hills of the Dindings. In 1931, when it was first discovered, no local vernacular name could be found for it but the name balau bukit seems to have come into use of recent vears. As, however, this name is the “preferred” name for S. Fou- worthyi, it is suggested that we encourage the name balau puteh for S. lumutensis. In Mal. For. Rec. 12 this species was referred to as “Shorea ? inappendiculata because of its possible identity with a Bornean species, Shorea inappendiculata Burck. j “Shorea Meadiana Symington, sp. nov. “Shorea sp. nov.” Sym. ex Desch, Mal. For. Rec. 12: 9 (1936). Plate 23. Inter species peninsulares Sectionis Eushoreae proba- biliter S. sumatranae (V. Sl. ex Foxw.) Sym. maxime affinis, sed foliis minoribus, cetis appendicum paucioribus, fructu longe-alato valde distincta. Branchlets slender, terete, minutely stellate-hairy to softly tomentose towards the ends, drying dull grey- or * The name Shorea inappendiculata as well as the descriptions of Burck, and particularly Brandis, are misleading. The appendages to the connectives are actually larger than in S. lumutensis, while the bristles on the connectives and anther cells, although more numerous than in S. lumutensis, are not at all as figure by Brandis. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 23. iy i ; ‘f Vn 1h eas, Wy hyd NAS Pa pes Uh at F aylsit all tie Serge wil Shorea Meadiana Sym. . fa 367 reddish-brown to black. Leaves ovate-, elliptic-, or oblong- lanceolate, shortly acuminate at the apex, acute or rounded and sometimes slightly unequal at the base, averaging about 8.0 3.4 cm. from mature trees but much larger from immature ones, thin and chartaceous in texture, glabrous and usually drying dull red-brewn on the upper surface, sparsely minutely hairy on the nerves and usually drying dull greenish- or yellow-brown on the lower surface; midrib slightly sunk on the upper surface, rather prominent, striated, and sparsely stellate hairy on the lower surface; main nerves usually 9 pairs, almost invisible on the upper surface, fine but prominent and sparsely stellate-hairy beneath; tertiary nerves joining the main nerves in fine, close, parallel, curved lines, invisible above, faintly visible to the naked eye on the lower surface; petioles 1.0—-1.5 cm. long, slender, slightly thickened in the upper half, minutely stellate-hairy or tomentose; stipules caducous, not seen. Panicles terminal or axillary towards the ends of the branchlets; racemes solitary, about half as long to as long as the leaves, minutely stellate-hairy; ultimate branchlets regularly alternating, about 5.0 mm. apart, 2 to 6-flowered. Flowers about 2.0 mm. apart, secund, about 10.0 mm. long in mature bud; pedicel 2.0 mm. long, tomentose. Sepals broadly ovate, subequal in size, tomentose outside; the three outer usually blunt: the two inner shortly, sharply acumi- nate at the apex. Petals linear, broad at the base, curved inwards along the margins when over-mature, tomentose outside, greenish-yellow (Symington). Stamens 28 to 32 (in flowers examined) ; filaments of several sizes (those of the inner row about twice as tall and 3 times as broad at the base as those of the outer), 2 to 4 times as long as the anthers, broad at the base, filamentous in the upper third; anthers ovate-elliptical, posterior cells slightly smaller than the anterior; appendage to connective slightly shorter than the anther, blunt, furnished at the apex with a solitary (rarely two) long, fine hair. Ovary ovate, surmounted by a thick stylopodium, sericeous-tomentose; style cylindri- cal, short, glabrous; stigma minute. Fruit winged, stalk thin but prominent, about 3.0 mm. long; bases of calyx lobes slightly thickened, embracing the lower half of the nut, puberulous; wings papery, narrow at the base, minutely puberulous; the three outer about 7.0 < 1.0 cm., about 7- nerved; the two inner, linear, up to 5.0 cm. long, 1 to - 8-nerved; nut subrotundate, about 1.0 cm. across, pale sericeous-tomentose, crowned by a long, slightly curved beak about 7.0 mm. long. This species is a typical member of the H'ushorea group of Shorea. In leaf texture and flower structure it is more like S. sumatrana (V. Sl. ex Foxw.) Sym. than any other Vol. X. (1939). 368 species I have examined, but the fruits are of the normal winged Shorea type. The affinity of S. Meadiana with other members of the Eushorea group is entirely supported by the wood anatomy. I have named the species after Mr. J. P. Mead, Director of Forestry, Straits Settlements and Adviser on Forestry, Federated Malay States, since 1929. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 11964, 16283, 21405, 21406, 24467, 24470, 24478, 24519, 24632, 24643, 25415, 25442, 25885, 28969, 28975, 29877, 29904, 29916, 29942, 32162, 33685, 33771, 33772, 40608, 43128. KELANTAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 32820, 33290, 33425, 37844, 37974, 37976. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 49845 (Type of Shorea Meadiana Sym.); C.F. Symington; Bukit Goh Forest Reserve, Kuantan, Pahang; 19th Nov., 1938; flower. Field notes—“Tree 4 ft 6 in. girth; bole and cut typical of a balau, inner bark reddish-brown; petals falling separately, greenish-yellow, broad at base, linear and revolute above, about .75 in, long; fallen flower buds also plentiful beneath tree Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 17224, 31751, 31752, 31761, 31762, 31763, 47138. Shorea Meadiana has been collected in the Peninsula from time to time since 1928, when it was first recognized as one of the species called damar laut kuning in Keledang Saiong Forest Reserve in Perak. Owing to lack of flowers or good fruiting material it has not been possible to describe it until now, but it has been recognized as one of the species producing balau timber, and was referred to by Desch in Mal. For. Rec. 12: 9 (1936) as “Shorea sp. nov.”. We have adopted the preferred vernacular name of balau seng- kawang, for Shorea Meadiana, because the leaves are similar to those of sengkawang, (Shorea sumatrana), but smaller. "A ‘Shorea submontana Symington, nom. nov. Shorea costata King (synon. noy.) in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 62: 119 (1893); Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 81 (1895); Burkill in Journ. Str. Br. R. Asiat. Soc. 81: 67 (1920) et 86: 281 (1922); Ridley, Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 231 (1922) partim; Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 3:67 (1927) et Mal. For. Rec. 10: 176 (1932) partim ; Desch, Mal. For. Rec. 12: 9 (1936); non Shorea (Pterigium) costata (Correa de Serra) J. S. Preslem, Rostlinai 2: 66 (1825). I am here renaming King’s Shorea costata because his name is invalidated by the existence of an earlier homonym, Shorea costata J. S. Presl. (1825). S. costata J. S. Presl. is based on a plant called Pterigium costatum Correa de Gardens Bulletin, S.S. ied 5369 Serra [Ann. Mus. His. Nat. Paris 8: 397 (1806) t. 6, fig. 1] which would appear, from the description, to be a species of Dipterocarpus, with which genus Pterigiuwm* is united by Bentham and Hooker (Gen. Plant 1: 191).In making the combination Shorea costata, Preslem cites Pterigium costatum Corr. and Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn. f. as synonyms. It is obvious that he is wrong in uniting these species and in referring either to Shorea but the name Shorea costata J. S. Presl. is validated by the citation or these validly published names in synonymyy. King founded his species S. costata in 1893, upon a single collection made by Curtis (No. 199) on Penang Hill. Brandis cited only this one collection and added nothing to our information concerning the species, except that he states that the stamens are 20 in number. Ridley cited two specimens from Penang—“Government Hill (Curtis) and Batu Feringhi’.—and modified King’s description. From the fact that he says ‘“‘Petals nearly ovate, white, silky on both sides,, it appears that the Batu Feringhi specimen was a flowering collection of Shorea Maxwelliana; it may even have been a sheet of the collection upon which the species Shorea alba Ridl. (now reduced to S. Maxwelliana King) was founded. In 1927 Foxworthy did not attempt to identify any particular collections with S. costata, but in 1952 he cited “with some doubt” S’pore Field No. 3476, 3495, 4316, and 4324. I agree with these citations with the exception of 3495, which I consider to be a rather large-leaved collection of S. Maxwelliana. The original coliection, upon which King founded his S. costata, bore young fruits and a few fragmentary flowers, concerning which King says—‘‘Stamens 15, all with dilated filaments longer than the ovate anthers, those of the inner row with the apical process of the connective short and glabrous, those of the outer rows with longer ciliate apical connectives”. My examination of a single flower of the same collection shows that the stamens are 20 in number and that ail stamens have curved appendages about half as long as the anthers, each with 1-6 bristles. Brandis also reported 20 stamens. Unfortunately authentic flowering. material has never since been collected, but the original collection is adequate to demonstrate that this species is a . typical Eushorea. Desch’s study of the wood anatomy of the species supports this conclusion. * Wrongly spelt Pterygiwm in some publications. +I am very much indebted to Mr. C. E. C. Fischer of Kew for kindly looking up the references in connection with S. costata Presl. for me. Vol. X. (1939). 370 Until we have more adequate collections of flower and fruit of this species I shall not attempt to draw up a fuller description than that provided by King, modified by my remarks concerning the stamens. Unfortunately most of the specimens cited below are sterile and many consist only of leaves picked from the ground. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PENANG: Curtis 199 (Holotype of S. costata King in Herb. Kew); S’pore Field No. 3476, 4816, 4324, 4591; Forest Dept. F.M.S. 28033, 36635, 37852. PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 16266, 24215, 25426, 25515, 25519, 25745, 25746, 25749, 25820, 28073, 28561, 28584, 28971, 28987, 28988, 29884, 32171, 32172, 32192. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 40770, 40772 to 40777 inclusive. TRENGGANU: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 43079. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 40513. A dipterocarp, found in our high hill dipterocarp forests and producing timber of the balau grade is here considered to be the species described as Shorea costata by King in 1893. Itis shown, however, that the name Shorea costata King is illegitimate according to the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, and a new name Shorea submon- tana is given to the species. J Shorea ovalis (Korth.) Bl., Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2: 33 (1852) ; Miq.,-F 1. Ind. Bat. 1, pt. 2: 503 (1859).; A.DC: in DC. Prodr. 16, pt. 2: 631 (1864); Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 219 (1887); Brandis in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 103 (1895); Merr., Bib. Enum. Born. Pl. 406 (1927). Vatica ovalis Korth. Verh. Nat. Gesch. Bot. 73 (1839-42) ; Walp. Repert 5: 127 (1845). Vatica ? eximia Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 480: (1860). Vatica ? sub-lacunosa Migq., l.c.Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff. (synon. nov.), Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 31: 349 (1870); Burek in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6: 218 (1887) ; King in Journ. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 62, pt. 2: 121 (18938); V. Sl. ex Heyne, Nutt. Plant. Ned. Ind. ed. 2: 1116 (1927); Sym. in Gard. Bull. S.S. 7: 148 (1933) tab. 43. Shorea sublacunosa (Migq.) Scheff., l.c. (1870) 350. ~Shorea fusca Burck (synon. nov.) in L.c.: 207 (1887) ; Brandis in l.c. (1895) 83. Shorea sericea Dyer in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1: 306 (1872): King in lec. (1898) 111; Brandis in l.c. (1895) 101, Bece. 2603 excl.; Ridl. in Agric. Bull. S.S. & F.M.S. 1: 58 (1901), et Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 224 (1922); V. SI. ex Heyne, l.c. ed. 1: 308 (1917) ; Burkill in Journ. Str. Br. R. As. Soc. 81: 73 (1920); Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 1: 80 (1921);. 3: 338.4927), Bz 23 (1930); eee (1932); ? Merr. Bib. Enum. Born. Pl. 406 (1927) Gardens Bulletin, S.S. O71 excl. Becc. 2603; V. Sl. ex Merr., Plant. Elmer. Born. 204 (1929); Edwards, Mal. For. Rec. 9: 147 (1981). Shorea rigida Brandis in Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 2402 (1895) et in Journ. Linn. Soc. (Bot.) 31: 102 (1895) ; Burkill in l.c. 76: 164 (1917) et 81: 73 (1920) ; Ridl. in Agric. Bull. S.S. & F.M.S. 1: 58 (1901) et Fl. Mal. Penins. 1: 223 (1922) ; V. Sl. ex Heyne, l.c. edit. 1: 306 (1917) et edit. 2: 1124 (1927) ; Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 3: 33 (1927). Shorea furfuracea sensu Brandis in l.c. (1895) 98, partim; sensu V. Sl. ex Heyne, l.c. edit. 1: 299 (1917) partim; non S. furfuracea Mig. Dilleniacea ? nervosa in Wall. Cat. 6635 (1828-49). I have already investigated this species in some detail in Gard. Bull. S.S. 7: 143 (1933), under the heading Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff., which appeared at that time to be the legitimate name for it. I have since been fortunate in having the opportunity of examining, along with Dr. van Slooten, some of the early Dutch collections which I had not seen in 1933. This examination revealed that the type specimens of Shorea ovalis (Korth.) Bl. and Shorea fusca Burck are conspecific with Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff. Unfortunately a name-change is involved as Shorea ovalis has priority over Shorea eximia. I have made the necessary adjustments to the synonymy and citations of literature. I should like to record here the fact that, in the Malay Peninsula, two distinct forms of this species occur. The most widely distributed form has distinctly boat-shaped leaves (vide Gard. Bull. S.S. 7, plate 43) and relatively slightly longer petioles than the other form, which is common on Penang island, in the north of Perak, and along the east coast of Trengganu and Pahang. This second form rarely has boat-shaped leaves, is slightly smaller in all parts, and has stipules and stipule scars which are not quite amplexicaul, as they are in the first form. But it is by no means easy to allocate all herbarium specimens to one form or the other, particularly if immature, and in essential floral and fruit characters I can see no difference. It would be helpful if varietal names could be given to these forms, but first it is desirable that the varietal status of the important early collections should be decided. This, | unfortunately, I cannot do at the moment as only a few of these collections are now available to me. It is possible that the variety angustifolia of Shorea sublacunosa, estab- -lished by Scheffer, should be given recognition. What appears to be a third variety, or form, occurs in Brunei. It has very coarsely ferrugineus-hairy branch- lets, but until more complete material is available its status must be doubtful. Vol. X. (1939). 372 Collections examined :—[Additional to those cited in Gard. Bull. S.S. 7: 145 (1933) ]. MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept F.M.S. 16812, 30812, 30822, 34202, 43450. KELANTAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 32714. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 38153, 40946, 40962 to 40965 inclusive, 45838. PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 15622, 30135, 31526, 40316, 40442, 41017, 49847, 49848. Maacca: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 25221. SUMATRA (?): s.x., leg.? (in Herb. Lugd. Bat. (Holotype of Shorea fusca Burck.). BILITONG: Teysmann s.n.; van Rossum No. 66 (341) fl. + fr. JAVA: Cult. in Hort. Bog. ’ VII-C-21. BORNEO: West RESIDENCY: Korthals s.n., Prarawing, ex Herb. Lugd. Bat. (Holotype of Vatica ovalis Korth. and Shorea ovalis Bl.). NoRTH BORNEO: Elmer 21507, 21784. The botanical name of our meranti kepong is here changed from Shorea eximia to Shorea ovalis. The change is necessitated by the discovery that the first collection of the species to receive a name was given the epithet ovalis in 1842, eighteen years before the epithet eximia was applied to another collection of the same species. Shorea rugosa var. uliginosa (Foxw.) Symington, stat. nov. “Shorea sp.’, Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 3: 37 (1927). J Shorea uliginosa Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 210 et 277 (1932). Shorea rugosa sensu Sym. in Gard. Bull. SS. 7: 182 (1933) partim, et tab. XXXV; non Shorea rugosa Heim sensu stricto. In 1933 I investigated the Malay Peninsula species Shorea uliginosa Foxw. and concluded that it was identical with the earlier-described Shorea rugosa Heim, from Borneo. Having since had the opportunity of examining more complete material, both in the herbarium and in the field, I consider that my conclusions require modification. Foxworthy’s S. uliginosa is apparently identical in flower structure and in texture with S. rugosa Heim, but there are these constant differences—S. wuliginosa has slightly larger leaves with relatively longer petioles, and smaller, less hairy fruits. In field characters the two forms are very similar, but S. uliginosa appears to occur only in peaty swamp jungle while S. rugosa may occur on drier land. The most useful diagnostic field character is the cupping of the leaves, which in S. uliginosa is very pro- nounced and in S. rugosa is rarely evident. I think a reasonable and satisfactory way of treating the problem is to consider S. uliginosa Foxw. as a variety of S. rugosa Heim, and I have given the synonymy of S. rugosa var. uliginosa accordingly. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. ~ Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Parashorea densiflora V.Sl.et Sym. BYE) Collections examined :— Shorea rugosa Heim (sensu stricto). BORNEO: SARAWAK: Beccari 2638 and 2890 (Syntypes of Shorea rugosa Heim ex Herb. Beccari; iso-syntypes ex Herb. Kew); Forest Dept. Sarawak No. 00264. Shorea rugosa var. uliginosa (Foxw.) Sym. MALAY PENINSULA: ee. ‘i these cited in Gard. Bull. S.S. 7: 133 1933) ]. PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 27058, 28617, 28618, 31052, 32883 to 32888 inclusive, 34103, 34104, 34105, 34108, 34109, 34155, 38001, 38120, 38131 to 38138 inclusive, 38148, 40847. SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 18123, 13131 to 13134 inclusive, 13140, 17042, 29238, 29244, 29245, 29743, 30265, 41680, 41681, 46309. BANGKA: Grashoff No. 65. JAVA: ? Cult. in Hort. Bog. VII—C—22. BORNEO: SARAWAK: Haviland 2252; Sarawak Museum No. 9 and s.n. (Aug. 1908). The Malay Peninsula tree called meranti bakau was named Shorea uliginosa Foxw. in 1932. In 1933 I considered that our species was identical with the earlier described S. rugosa Heim, but examination of more material has induced me to change my opinion. Our tree is very closely related to the Bornean S. rugosa but there are slight, definable differences; the most satisfactory arrangement seems to be to treat S. uliginosa as a variety of S. rugosa. Thus our merantti bakau becomes Shorea rugosa var. uliginosa (Foxw.) Sym. “Parashorea densiflora van Slooten et Symington, sp. nov. Parashorea aptera sensu Foxw., Mal. For. Rec. 10: 245 (1982) ; non P. aptera V. Sl. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. TY, 8: BTT: (1927) Pate 24. P. apterae V. Si. similis, sed foliis tomentosis, fructus calycis laciniis reflexis satis distincta. Branchlets pale fulvous tomentose towards the ends, later glabrous and dark. Leaves usually elliptic- or oblong- lanceolate, acute or acuminate at the apex, rounded at the base or sometimes unequal, one side being cuneate, about 11.0 X 4.75 cm. but considerably variable, glabrous and drying greenish-yellow on the upper surface, fulvous scabrous stellate-tomentose on the lower; midrib inconspi- cuous above, prominent and stellate-hairy beneath; main . herves about 12 to 16 pairs, faint above, prominent and hairy beneath, joined by conspicuous scalariform reticula- tions; petioles about 12.0 mm. long, rugose, tomentose; stipules caducous (not seen), leaving small triangular scars. Panicles terminal or in the axils of the uppermost leaves, Vol. X. (1939). O74 short and dense (2.0-6.0 cm. long), the branchlets only a few mm. long and few-flowered. Flowers*about 9.0 mm. long, sessile or shortly stalked, subtended by caducous bracteoles; pedicel, calyx, and petals pale tomentose on the exposed portions. Sepals tomentose outside; three outer ovate-oblong, obtuse; two inner slightly smaller and acuminate. Petals rather broad, narrow at base, said to be “yellow outside, purple inside” (Forest Dept., F.M.S. 12680). Stamens 15, in three rows, the inner row slightly taller than the two outer rows which are subequal; filaments short, flattened, broad at base, narrowing abruptly; anthers oblong, about twice as long as the filaments, the outer cells longer than the inner and furnished with a few (sometimes tufted) setae; appendage to connective short and blunt, prolonged slightly beyond the apex of the outer anther cells. Ovary ovate-rotundate, hairy, the apex prolonged into a long, filiform, glabrous style, stigma discoid, apparently ringed with minute hairs, obscurely lobed. Fruit a 5-lobed, globose nut: stalk up to 7.0 mm. long, smooth or sparsely stellate-hairy; calyx-lobes usually 5 (sometimes 6 or 4), valvate, subequal, woody, oblong, up to 12 mm. long, slightly or markedly reflexed, glabrous when mature; nut free, globose, about 3.0 cm. across when mature, minutely apicu- late, verrucose. Seedlings have linear leaves, and saplings large, glabrous, glaucous, long-petioled leaves characteristic of Parashorea. This species, which was first collected in 1925, was referred by Foxworthy, in 1932, to van Slooten’s Parashorea aptera. Undoubtedly it is a close relative of that species, but it differs markedly in the smaller, more tomentose leaves, and the reflexed fruiting calyx-lobes (flowers of P. aptera V. Sl. are not known). Iam indebted to Dr. van Slooten for confirming my suspicion that our species is distinct, and for suggesting the name Parashorea densiflora. In addition to the specimens cited below we have several collections, mainly from eastern Pahang, which differ from typical P. densiflora in the glabrous leaves, and in some other respects. These may represent a separate species, but until adequate herbarium material is available I shal! refer to them as “the glabrous form of P. densiflora’. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: SELANGOR: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 12845, 13302, 18161, 23100, sate 24059, 24172, 29458, 29459, 30056, 30057, 32158, NEGRI SEMBILAN: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 12680 (Type of P. densiflora V.Sl. et Sym.) E. A. Strouts; Senaling Inas Forest Reserve; March 17th, 1927; flower (first consignment) and young fruits (second consignment). Field note—‘“‘flower yellow outside, purple inside’. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 575 iti nacie i seie Dept. F.M.S. 10348, 26620, 42754, PAHANG: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 40422. Parashorea densiflora is the name here given to our meranti pasir. Formerly the species was confused with Parashorea aptera, a closely related species described from Sumatra, but so far not recorded from the Malay Peninsula. »/ ° Parashorea globosa Symington, sp. nov. __P. densiflorae V. Sl. et Sym. probabiliter affinis, sed foliis fructibusque majoribus differt. Branchlets rather coarse, coarsely yellow stellate- tomentose towards the ends. Leaves ovate to elliptic-oblong, rounded or subcordate at the base, bluntly acuminate at the apex, about 12.0 < 7.0 cm. to 20.0 9.0 em., glabrescent and drying a pale yellow or greenish tinge on the upper surface, densely golden tomentose or sparsely hairy and glaucescent beneath; midrib slightly depressed and hairy above, prominent and coarsely stellate-hairy beneath; main nerves 16 to 20 pairs, faint on the upper surface, prominent and _stellate-hairy beneath; reticulations scalariform, prominent and hairy on the lower surface; petioles coarse, rugose, tomentose, thickened above, about 1.5—2.0 cm. long. Inflorescence and flowers unknown. Fruit: stalk stout, 3.0 mm. long; nut globose, verrucose, about 4.0 cm. across, free; calyx lobes 5 (or 6), valvate, subequal, linear-oblong, 1.0— 2.0 cm. long, not reflexed. Seedlings leaves very large, peltate, acuminate, silvery beneath, with long slender petioles. This species is very imperfectly known. Flowers have never been collected, and the only fruits to be found had so rotted on the ground that they broke into fragments shortly after collection. Its leaves are very like those of Parashorea densiflora V. Sl. et Sym., but much larger. They closely resemble those of Parashorea Buchananu (Fischer) Sym. (comb. nov. = Shorea Buchananii Fischer), but they are much more hairy. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: PERAK: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 16823 (Type of P. globosa Sym); D.B. Arnot; Bruas Forest Reserve, flat land | beside swamp; 24th March, 1935; sterile. Field note— a fees sO nish, 9: 1t G6 im. girth”: Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 16272, 16819, 16824, 16825, 24642, 25414, 25645, 48598 (fruit). Parashorea globosa is the name here given to a rather rare tree which is known to occur in valleys on the east of the Keledang Saiong Forest Reserve, and in the north west of Bruas Forest Reserve in Perak. In leaves and Vol. X. (1989). 376 fruits it resembles meranti pasir (Parashorea densiflora) but all parts are larger. No recognized vernacular name is known but the name meranti pasir daun besar has been coined. Shorea leptoclados Symington, sp. nov. Shorea polysperma sensu Keith, N.B. For. Rec. 2 (Prelim. List N.B. Pl. Names) : 238 (19388) ; non S. polysperma (Blco.) Merr. Plate 25. S. polyspermae (Bleo.) Merr. valde affinis sed foliis latioribus basi obtusis differt. Branchlets rather fine, cinereous and minutely stellate- hairy towards the ends, later black and glabrescent. Buds prominently stalked. Leaves elliptical, shortly blunt- acuminate at the apex, rounded at the base, about 9.0 * 4.25 cm. to 16.0 < 8.0 cm., glabrous or sparsely minutely stellate- hairy above, minutely stellate-hairy on the veins on the undersurface, usually drying ash-grey or grey-brown in colour; midrib slightly depressed above, prominent and stellate-hairy beneath; main nerves 9 to 15 pairs, faint above, fine but conspicuous on the lower surface, usually with domatia in the axils of the two lowest pairs; tertiary nerves joining the main nerves in very fine, more or less parallel, wavy lines, usually invisible to the naked eye on the upper surface; petioles slender, about 1.75 cm. long, minutely stellate hairy, drying black or cinereous; stipules linear, up to 2.0 cm. long, caducous, leaving rather promi- nent scars. Panicles terminal or in the axils of the youngest leaves, solitary, slightly shorter than the leaves, very slender, minutely stellate-hairy to cinereous-tomentose towards the ends; branchlets slender, sometimes zig-zag, up to 4.0 cm. long, 3 to 17-flowered (usually about 9), arranged at intervals of about 1.0 cm. and each subtended by linear-oblong, minutely tomentose, subpersistent, stipular bracts. Flowers subtended by ovate, minutely tomentose, slightly imbricate, paired bracteoles, secund, ovate-lanceo- late and about 8.0 mm. long in bud, closely set, “grey” (38841), “yellow ochre” (36724), “white” (38861). Sepals subovate, rounded or subacute at apex, the three outer slightly larger than the two inner, densely pale stellate- tomentose outside, minutely tomentose on the apical portion inside. Petals linear-oblong, sericeous tomentose on the portions exposed in bud. Stamens 15, arranged in three rows in the normal manner; filaments broad and flattened at the base, abruptly narrowing to the filamentous upper half; anthers elliptical-oblong, shorter than the filaments, 4-celled; appendage to connective filiform, as long as the Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Plate 25. oe ft Mi / Uys, ‘ = Zi ZB CN inaaauns ON Zea XY LT SIRE Ta TAT [: x Sd i AA SN ae ens = leptoclados Sym. "a . : 317 filament and anther, sometimes minutely papillose. Ovary subglobose, densely tomentose except at the base; style filiform, erect, about twice as long as the ovary; stigma minute. Fruit 5-winged, (immature specimens only seen) ; almost sessile; bases of accrescent sepals embracing the entire nut, woody, sparsely minutely stellate-hairy; wings thin, puberulous; three outer 6.0—12.0 cm. long by about 1.4 cm. broad, about 10-nerved; two inner wings narrow, up to about 5.0 cm. long; nut ovate, about 1.0 cm. long, cons- tricted near the apex, crowned with the thin stylar remnant, pale sericeous-tomentose. Shorea leptoclados is very closely related to S. pauct- flora King and S. polysperma (Bleo.) Merr. All three are very similar in vegetative characters, while the flower and fruit structure is essentially the same. S. pauciflora is, however, distinguishable from the other two by its minutely setose antherine appendages. S. polysperma differs from S. leptoclados in having more lanceolate leaves, which are frequently scurfy-lepidote, and in the more densely tomen- tose panicle. It seems probable that the most reliable diagnostic character will be revealed after comparison otf the floral bracts, but the material available to me is hardly adequate for definition of the differences. Other related species, less liable to be confused with S. leptoclados, include S. palembanica Miq., S. Kunstlera King, S. platyclados V.SI., S. singkawang Miq., S. inacquila- teralis Sym., and several undescribed Bornean species. These form a natural group which corresponds closely to Heim’s Section Brachyptera. For convenience I shall in future refer to this group as the “Brachyptera Group” as the name Brachyptera will probably eventually have to be adopted, although it is admittedly not very appropriate. Collections examined :— MALAY PENINSULA: JOHORE: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 35758, 35759. BORNEO: BRUNEI: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 305383 (Type of S. leptoclados Sym.); J. S .Smith; Sungei Batu Apoi, river bank; 22nd April, 1985; flower. Field notes—‘‘Vern. name serigawan plandok (Murut); tree 100 ft high, 5 ft © girth; bark purplish, smooth (very variable it seems)”. Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30529, 35672, and 39605. NORTH BORNEO: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 36724 (S.H. 3947), 38776 (S.H. 4400), 38804 (S.H. 4428), 38841 (S.H. 4465), 38861 (S.H. 4485), 39005 (S.H. 4629). The tree here described as Shorea leptoclados is well- ’ known in North Borneo as majau. In Brunei it has been recorded under the name of seringawan plandok, and in the Vol. X. (1939). 378 Malay Peninsula it has recently been located in Panti Forest Reserve where it is given the name meranti pepijat. Botanically it is closely related to tanguile (S. polysperma) of the Philippines, and nemesu (S. paucifiora) which is well- known in the Malay Peninsula. It produces light red meranti timber. In the field it is readily recognizable by its greyish-coloured bole and outer bark shedding in thin papery flakes. Shorea Flemmichii Symington, sp. nov. Plate 26. S. Gysbertsianae Burck et S. stenopterae Burck, inter alia, probabiliter affinis, sed indumento ramulorum folio- rumque scaberrimo, bracteis persistentibus parvis, floribus lanuginosis, omnibus partibus minoribus valde distincta. Branchlets rather thin but coarsely, fulvous, scabrous stellate-hairy. Leaves elliptical or ovate-elliptical, acute or shortly acuminate at the apex, rounded or subcordate at the base, about 8.0 < 3.4 em. to 11.0 < 5.5 cm., margins some- times slightly revolute, deciduous stellate-hairy and drying reddish-brown on the upper surface, scabrous fulvous stellate-tomentose on the lower; midrib slightly depressed and tomentose on the upper surface, prominent and scabrous beneath; main nerves 14 to 20 pairs, very faint above but prominent and scabrous beneath; nervules joining the main nerves in wavy, more or less parallel, lines, almost invisible above, marked by rows of stellate hairs on the lower surface; petioles about 1.5 cm. long, scabrous, fulvous stellate-hairy. Panicles terminal or in the axils of the upper leaves, of solitary racemes up to about 8.0 cm. long, fulvous, scabrous stellate-tomentose; branchlets subtended by 3-fid bracts, up to 2.5 cm. long and rather prominently zig-zag when mature, each bearing 3 to 5 distichous flowers. Flowers subsessile, about 5.0 mm. long in bud, each sub- tended by imbricate, paired bracteoles; bracteoles ovate, acute, irregularly crenate at the margins, about 5.0 mm. long, lanate-hairy on the outer surface, sparsely gland- dotted, persistent. Sepals ovate-linear-oblong, lanate- tomentose, the three outer about twice as long as the two inner. Petals oblong, lanate-tomentose outside, minutely tomentose on the inner surface. Stamens 15, in three rows; filaments broad and flattened at the base, narrow in the upper half, two to three times as long as the anthers; anthers oblong-globulose, the 4 cells subequal; appendage to connective filiform, rather longer than the filament and anther. Ovary and stylopodium ovate-conical, minutely glandular-papillose in the upper portion; style erect, cylin- drical, glabrous, about as long as the ovary and stylopodium ; Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Shorea Flemmichii Sym. = ie Plute 27. Gard. Bull. S.S. Vol. X. Dryobalanops Keithii Sym. 579 stigma minute. Frwit 5-winged; stalk 2.5 mm. long, lanate- hairy; bases of accrescent sepals embracing the lower third of the nut, slightly thickened, sparsely lanate-hairy at the base; wings papery, glabrous; three outer spathulate, obtuse, about 7.0 * 1.7 cm., about 9-nerved; two inner 5.0 to 6.0 em. long, sometimes pointed at the apex, about 7- nerved; nut ovate-conical about 1.7 x< .9 cm., sericeous- tomentose towards the apex which is surmounted by the thin, glabrous style about 2.0 mm. long. I have likened this species to S. Gysbertsiana Burck and S. stenoptera Burck because of certain floral resem- blances, but I do not pretend to believe that there is a very close relationship. Indeed, I have examined no diptero- carp with which S. Flemmichii is obviously closely related, but it belongs to that large heterogeneous group of Shorea, members of which have usually been referred to the section Pinanga Brandis. I have named the species after Mr. C. O. Flemmich who has been State Forest Officer in Brunei since 1936 and has collected a large amount of excellent herbarium material from the trees in his state. Collections examined :— BORNEO: BRUNEI: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 32585 (Type of S. Flemmichit Sym.); C. O. Flemmich; Bukit Ratan, Tenajor, Belait, hill slope; 21st March, 1938; flower buds. Field notes —‘‘vern. name meranti; tree 120 ft high, 15 ft girth; flower immature”’, Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 34576, 35540, 48110. Shorea Flemmichu is the name here given to a new Brunei species which has been collected in hilly jungle at Tenajor, Pak Gabah, at Pangkalan Ran on the Tutong River, and in the Labi Hills Forest Reserve. The species, which is of considerable botanical interest, is remarkable in the field for its very thick, deeply-fissured bark. We were told that the Dyak name for the tree is kayu raya. The timber, as far as may be judged from a small sample, is a superior quality dark red meranti. J Dryobalanops Keithii Symington, sp. nov. Plate 27. A congeneribus foliis multo majoribus valde distincta ; fructibus iis D. fuscae V. Sl. subsimilibus. . Branchlets rather coarse, smooth, drying dark purple- brown, prominently sparsely lenticellate; decurrent leaf traces and triangular stipular scars conspicuous. Leaves oblong, slightly broader towards the apex than at the base, _ about 20.0 X 6.5 em. to 40.0 * 11.0 cm.; apex acuminate, acumen about 1.0 cm. long; base cordate; margins tending Vol. X. (1939). 380 to be recurved at the base; glabrous, drying a light yellow or reddish-brown on both surfaces; midrib sunk on the upper surface, prominent and rounded on the lower; main nerves about 30 pairs, separated by one slightly shorter but hardly less prominent intermediate nerve and several shorter ones, joining to form a prominent intramarginal nerve close to the leaf margin, very faint on the upper surface but prominent on the lower; petioles about 1.0 cm. long, thick, rugose, and dark when dry. Panicles glabrous, apparently of solitary racemes about half as long as the leaves, furnished with caducous bracts and semi-persistent, paired bracteoles which subtend the flowers. Flowers unknown. Fruits (immature) winged, glabrescent; stalk about .5 cm. long; 5 calyx lobes equal, elliptic-obovate, about 4.5 X 2.3 cm., obtuse at the apex, about 14-nerved; nut subglobose, about 1.0 cm. long, sparsely hairy towards the apex, crowned by a tapering style about 0.4 cm. long. Only immature fruits are known, but the species has such large and distinctive leaves that it can be described with confidence. Any further evidence of the generic position of the plant considered necessary is provided by the timber, which Mr. Desch, who has kindly examined it for me, reports to be typical of Dryobalanops. I have named the species after Mr. H. G. Keith, Conservator of Forests, North Borneo, whose botanical collections are well-known to botanists interested in the flora of Borneo. Collections examined :— BORNEO: NoRTH BORNEO: Forest Dept. F.M.S. 44882 (S.H. 9070) (Type of Dryobalanops Keithiti Sym.); H. G. Keith (Kalabakang-Kwamut Expedition); Tiaggau, edge of streams; 6th June, 1938; immature fruits. Field notes —Vern. names mampahit, gempait; tree 40 ft high, 30 in. girth; fruits yellow-green, 5-winged similar to kapur; wood probably sold as keruing, sinking timber.” Also—Forest Dept. F.M.S. 44381 (S.H. 9069). DuTcH SOUTH and EAST BORNEO: bb. 17813, 18159. The species here described as Dryobalanops Keithii appears first to have been collected by collectors of the Netherlands Indies Forest Department in Dutch East Borneo, in 1930, under the name of malampait. The first fertile collection was made in 1938 by Mr. Keith in North Borneo, where the tree is known as gempait or mampahit. Corrigenda Gard. Bull. S.S. 7, pt. 2 (1933), p. 148, under “Collections examined, Borneo’—add Beccari 2960. le., p. 150, top line—“Beccari 2960” should be deleted. On examination of the Milan Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 381 sheet of this collection I see that it is actually S. gibbosa Brandis, although Brandis included it under S. Faguetiana. Heim based S. Faguetiana on Becc. 3039 and 2954 which are the syntypes: Becc. 2566 and 2960 were added later by Brandis. Gard. Bull. S.S. 8, pt. 1 (1934), p. 4, second last line—for Lc., 6 cm.’’, read “*4 to 5 cm.” p. 23, under “Collections examined, Siam”’ —delete C.F. 3761, 3835, 3863, and 3874. These sterile specimens all belong, I think, to Hopea minutiflora Fischer which is closely related to H. sangal Korth. le., p. 26, line 3—delete “Type of young l.¢., | ae é. Trait’ .* p. 26, line 6—for “Type of flower’, read “Type of Hopea semicuneata Sym.”’. p. 36, line 4—after No. 1343, insert “(Type of Vatica dulitensis Sym.)”’. p. 40, second last line—for “drawings of flower parts” etc., substitute “(Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Richards 1343; 2, 18, and 14 on Richards 2548)” Gard. Bull. S.S. 8, pt. 4 (1935), p. 266, middle of page— for “Shorea melaanonan Bl.’”’, read “Shorea malaanonan Bi.” lLe., p. 270, line 3—for “Type of flower’, read “Type (flower)’’. l.c., p. 270, line 6—for “Type’’, read “Para- type’. le., p. 274, line 7—for “Type”, read “Para- typ e” cer. O74, line 8—for “Type of flower’, read “Type (flower)”’. le., p. 278, para. 3, line 3—for “Type of flower’, read “Type’’. le., p. 278, para. 3, second last line—for. Le “Type’”’, read “Paratype’”’. p. 283, para. 3, line 2—for “Type’’, read “Paratype’’. *In some of my earlier descriptions I have been somewhat ambiguous in designating the TYPE SPECIMEN. To avoid such ambiguity in future, I propose to employ, when it seems desirable to do so, the nomenclature of types proposed by Furtado in Gard. Bull. S.S. 9: 285-308 (19387). Vol. X. (1939). G 382 | l.c., p. 283, para 4, line 1—for “Type of | flower’, read “Type’’. l.c., p. 285, para. 3, line 1—for “Type”, read ? “Paratype”. le., p. 285, para. 3,-lme 1—for “Type of flower’, read “‘Type’’. l.e., p. 287, para. 2, line 1—for “Type of flower’, read “Type”. l.e., p. 287, para. 3, line 1—for “Type”, read “Paratype’’. l.c., p. 288, last line—for “Type of flower’, read “Type’’. Gard. Bull. S.S. 9, pt. 4 (1938), p. 344, line 9—for “5.0 em.”, read “5.0 mm.”. EXPLANATION OF PLATES Plate 11. Hopea minima Sym. var. penangiana Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, part of branchlet of panicle with two flower buds. 3, end of branchlet of panicle with expanding flower. 4 and 5, outer sepals. 6, 7, and 8, inner sepals. 9 and 10, petal from mature flower. 11, 12, and 13, stamens. 14, ovary. 15, end of branchlet of panicle showing paired bracteoles. 16, section through ovary. 17, fruiting branchlet. 18, fruit. 19, undersurface of leaf enlarged to show veination. (Drawings based on Curtis 1406). Scale applies to 1 and 17 only. Plate 12. Hopea subalata Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle showing paired bracteoles. 3, flower bud. 4, expanding flower. 5 and 6, outer sepals. 7, 8, and 9, inner sepals. 10 and 11, petal from mature flower. 12, 13, and 14, stamens. 15, ovary. 16, fruiting panicle. 17, enlarged fruit. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 13045; 16 and 17 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 24921). Scale applies to 1 and 16 only. Plate 13. Hopea sublanceolata Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle and flower bud. 3, mature flower. 4, part of branchlet of panicle showing bracteoles. 5 and 6, outer sepals. 7, 8, and 9, inner sepals. 10 and 11, petal from flower bud. 12, stamens. 13, ovary. 14 and 15, fruits. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30808; 14 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 42292; 15 on hostae Dept. F.M.S. 12070). Scale applies to 1, 14, and 15 only. Plate 14. Hopea Griffithii Kurz. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle with flower. 3, flower bud. 4, expanded flower. 5 and 6, outer sepals. 7, 8, and 9, inner sepals. 10 and 11, stamens. 12 and 13, petal from mature bud. 14, ovary. 15, fruiting twig. 16, fruit showing nut. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Ridl. 4738; 15 and 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 17402). Scale applies to 1 and 15 only. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. Plate 15. Plate 16. Plate 17. Plate 18. Plate 19. Plate 20. Plate 21. 383 Hopea dryobalanoides Mig. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle with flowers in three stages. 3 and 4, outer sepals. 5, 6, and 7, inner sepals. 8 and 9, petal from mature, flower. 10, 11, 12, and 13, stamens. 14, ovary. 15, section through ovary. 16, branchlet with immature fruits. 17 and 18, mature fruits. (Drawings of 1, 2, and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 625; 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 23794; 17 and 18 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 17345). Scale applies to 1, 16, 17, and 18 only. Hopea myrtifolia Mig. 1, flowering twig. 2, immature twig. 3, flower bud. 4 and 5, outer sepals. 6, 7, and 8, inner sepals. 9 and 10, petal from mature bud. 11, 12, and 13, stamens. 14, 15, and 16, ovary and stylopo- dium. 17 and 18, mature fruits. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 41016; 2 on Mig. s.n.; 17 and 18 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 41915). Scales applies to 1, 2, 17, and 18 only. Hopea ferruginea Parijs. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle with young flower bud. 3, mature flower bud. 4 and 5, outer sepals. 6, 7, and 8, inner sepals. 9 and 10, petal. 11 and 12, stamens. 13, ovary. 14, end of style and stigma. 15, branchlet with mature fruits. 16, nut of mature fruit. (Drawings of 1, 2, and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 25285; 15 and 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 9510). Scale applies to 1 and 15 only. Hopea Dyeri Heim. 1, flowering twig. 2, flower bud. 3, branchlet of panicle. 4 and 5, outer sepals. 6, 7, and 8, inner sepals. 9 and 10, petals. 11, 12, and 13, stamens. 14, ovary and stylopodium. 15, fruiting twig. 16, nut of mature fruit. (Drawings 1 to 14 based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 48026; 15 and 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 1907). Scale applies to 1 and 15 only. Hopea micrantha Hook. f. 1, flowering twig. 2 and 3, flower buds. 4, 5, and 6, inner sepals. 7 and 8, outer sepals. 9 and 10, petal from flower bud. 11 and 12, stamens. 13, ovary. 14, section through ovary. 15, fruits (slightly immature). 16, fruit with wings removed. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Motley 215; 15 and 16 on Igon 322). Scale applies to 1 and 15 only. Hopea sulcata Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, flower bud. 3 and 4, outer sepals. 5, 6, and 7, inner sepals. 8 and 9, petal from flower bud. 10 and 11, stamens. 12, ovary. 18, section through ovary. 14, branchlet with fruits. 15, mature fruit showing nut. 16, nut from mature fruit. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 730; 14 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 7907; 15 and 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 43359). Scale applies to 1, 14, and 15 only. Shorea atrinervosa Sym. 1, flowering branchlet. 2, end of branchlet of panicle with flowers in different stages. 3 and 4, inner sepals. 5, 6, and 7, outer sepals. 8 and 9, petal from mature flower bud. 10 and 11, stamens. 12, flowers with perianth parts removed to show ovary. 13, section through ovary. 14 and 15, fruits. 16, nut. (Drawings of 1, 2, and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 31832; fruits on Forest Dept. F.MLS. 49862). Scale applies to 1, 14, and 15 only. Vol. X. (1939). 384 Plate 22. Shorea lumutensis Sym. 1, branchlet with flowers and young fruits. 2, flower bud. 3, 4, and 5, outer sepals. 6 and 7, inner sepals. 8 and 9, petal from flower bud. 10, petal from mature flower. 11 and 12, immature stamens. 13 to 16, mature stamens. 17, flower with perianth parts removed. 18, stigma. 19, section through ovary. 20, branchlet with mature fruits. 21, nut. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 34800; 20 and 21 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 47338). Scale applies to 1 and 20 only. Plate 23. Shorea Meadiana Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, branchlet of panicle with flowers. 3, 4 and 5, outer sepals. 6 and 7, inner sepals. 8 and 9, petal from mature flower bud. 10 and 11, stamens. 12, ovary. 13, section through ovary. 14, petal fallen from mature flower. 15, mature fruit. 16, 15 with wings removed. (Drawings of 1, 2, and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 49845; 15 and 16 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 47138). Scale applies to 1 and 15 only. Plate 24. Parashorea densiflora V.Sl. et Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, flower. 3 to7, sepals. 8 and 9, petal. 10, 11, and 12, stamens. 138, ovary. 14, 15 and 16, stigmas. 17, panicle with young fruits. 18 and 19, mature fruits. (Drawings of 1 to 17 based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 12680; 18 and 19 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 10343). Scale applied to 1, 17, 18, and 19 only. Plate 25. Shorea leptoclados Sym. 1, flowering twig. 2, young panicle showing bracts. 3, bract removed from 2. 4, branchlet of young panicle (later stage) showing bracteoles. 5, flower bud. 6, outer sepal. 7, inner sepal. 8 and 9, petals from flower bud. 10, stamens. 11, appendage to connective (much magnified). 12, flower with sepal and petals removed. 13, ovary. 14, upper part of style with stigma. 15 and 16, immature fruits. 17, nut from immature fruit. (Drawings of 1 and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 30533; 2, 8, and 4 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 38776; 15 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 39005; 16 and 17 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 39605). Scales applies to 1 to 4, 15, and 16 only. Plate 26. Shorea Flemmichii Sym. 1, twig with flowers and fruits. 2, young flowering twig. 3, part of young flowering panicle. 4, part of mature panicle from 1. 5, imbricate bracteoles subtending a flower. 6, flower bud. 7, 8, and 9, outer sepals. 10 and 11, inner sepals. 12 and 13, petal from mature bud. 14, 15, and 16 stamens. 17, ovary. 18, mature fruit (wings removed). (Drawings of 1, 4, 18, and flower parts based on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 48110; 2 and 8 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 32585). Scale applies to 1 and 2 only. Plate 27. Dryobalanops Keithii Sym. 1, fruiting branchlet. 2, leaf from young tree. 38, immature fruit (two sepals removed). 4, 3 with all sepals removed. (Drawings of 1, 3, and 4 based on Forest Dept. F.M:S. 44382; 2 on Forest Dept. F.M.S. 44381). Scale applies to 1, 2, and 3 only. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 385 INDEX Names of groups especially considered in this paper are shown Balanocarpus bracteatus (Burck) Merr. 337 Balanocarpus bracteatus sensu Foxw. 337 Balanocarpus Curtisti King 337 Balanocarpus ovalifolius Ridl. 340 Balanocarpus ovalifolius sensu Foxw. 339 Brachyptera Heim (section) 377 Bracteata Sym. (“group”) 338, 341, 342, 344 Dilleniacea ? nervosa Wall. 371 Dipterocarpus Gertn.f. 369 Dryobalanoides Miq. (section) 338 Dryobalanops aromatica Gertn.f. 369 Dryobalanops fusca V.SI. 379 Dryobalanops Keithii Sym. 379, Plate 27 Eushorea Brandis (section) 364, 366, 367 Hancea Griffithti (Kurz) Pierre 343 Hancea micrantha (Hook.f). Pierre 355 Hancea microptera (Dyer) Pierre 353 Hopea Roxb. 337 Hopea Beccariana Burck 340 Hopea Beccariana sensu Sym. 360 Hopea bracteata Burck 338 ee i cernua Teysm. et Binn. 36 Hopea Curtisti King 337 Hopea dryobalanoides Mig. 345, Plate 15 Hopea Dyeri Heim. 353, Plate 18 Hopea ferruginea Parijs. 349, Plate 17 Hopea Griffithii Kurz. 343, ' Plate 14 Hopea Griffithi var. pedicellata Brandis 343 Hopea intermedia King 353 Hopea intermedia sensu Foxw. 350, 353, 360 Hopea latifolia Sym. 360 Vol. X. (1939). in bold type and synonyms in italics. Hopea mengarawan Mig. 361 Hopea mengarawan var. cernua Burck 361 Hopea micrantha Hook.f. 355, Plate 19 Hopea’ micrantha (Hassk.) Benth. et Hook.f. ex Heim 355 Hopea micrantha sensu Brandis 350 Hopea 353 Hopea 355 Hopea 349 Hopea 345, Hopea 355 Hopea 345, Hopea 350, 355 Hopea microptera Dyer ex Brandis 353 Hopea minima Sym. 337 Hopea minima var. penangiana Sym. 338, Plate 10 Hopea minima var. perakensis Sym. 338 Hopea minutiflora Fischer 381 Hopea myrtifolia Mig. 347, Plate 16 2 myrtifolia sensu Endert sensu Burck Burkill micrantha micrantha sensu micrantha sensu Dyer micrantha sensu Foxw. 350, 355, 358 micrantha sensu Hance King Ridl. micrantha sensu 349, 353 micrantha sensu Hopea myrtifolia sensu Heyne 350 Hopea Hopea nervosa King 341, 342 nervosa sensu Foxw. 341 Hopea nigra Burck 338 Hopea pedicellata (Brandis) Sym. 344, 349 Hopea Pierrei Hance 343, 353 Hopea Pierrei sensu Brandis 353 Hopea 353 Hopea 353 Hopea Hopea Hopea Pierrei sensu Foxw. 350 Pierreit sensu Ridl. 343, sangal Korth. 338, 381 sarawakensis Heim 345 semicuneata Sym. 381 386 Hopea subalata Sym. 339, Plate 12 Hopea sublanceolata Sym. 341, Plate 13 Hopea sulcata Sym. 358, Plate 20 Parashorea aptera V.SIl. 373 Parashorea aptera sensu Foxw. 373 Parashorea Buchananii (Fischer) Sym. 375 Parashorea densiflora V.SI. et Sym. 373, Plate 24 Parashorea globosa Sym. 375 Pinanga Brandis (section) 379 Pterigium Correa 369 Pterigium costatum Correa de Serra 369 Shorea Gertn.f. 363 Shorea alba Ridl. 369 Shorea astylosa Foxw. 363 Shorea atrinervosa Sym. 363, Plate 21 Shorea Buchananii Fischer 375 Shorea ciliata King 363 Shorea collina Ridl. 364 Shorea collina sensu Foxw. 363 Shorea costata (Correa de Serra) J.S. Preslem 368 Shorea costata King 368 Shorea eximia (Miq.) Scheff. 370. Shorea Faguetiana Heim 381 Shorea Flemmichii Sym. 378, Plate 26 Shorea Foxworthyi Sym. 366 Shorea furfuracea Miq. 371 Shorea furfuracea sensu Brandis 371 Shorea fusca Burck 370 Shorea gibbosa Brandis 381 Shorea Gysbertsiana Burck 378 Shorea inequilateralis Sym. 377 realy inappendiculata Burck Shorea “? inappendiculata” Sym. 363, 364 Shorea Kunstleri King 377 Shorea leptoclados Sym. 376, Plate 25 Shorea lumutensis Sym. 364, Plate 22 Shorea malaanonan Bl. 381 Shorea malibato Foxw. 363 Shorea Maxwelliana King 340 Shorea Meadiana Sym. 366, Plate 23 Shorea ovalis (Korth.) Bl. 370 Shorea palembanica Mig. 377 Shorea pauciflora King 377 Shorea platyclados V.Sl. ex Foxw. 377 Shorea polysperma (Blco.) Merr. 376 ed ——— te -—. lls a la ea Shorea polysperma sensu Keith 376 Shorea rigida Brandis 371 Shorea rugosa Heim 372 Shorea rugosa sensu Sym. 372 Shorea rugosa var. uliginosa (Foxw.) Sym. 372 Shorea sericea Dyer 370 Shorea stenoptera Burck 378 Shorea sublacunosa (Miq.) Scheff. 370. Shorea sublacunosa var. angusti- folia Scheff. 371 Shorea submontana Sym. 368 Shorea sumatrana (V.SI. ex Foxw.) Sym. 366 Shorea uliginosa Foxw. 372 Vatica dulitensis Sym. 381 Vatica eximia Miq. 370. Vatica ovalis Korth. 370. Vatica sublacunosa Mig. 370. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. THE GARDENS’ BULLETIN, STRAITS SETTLEMENTS INDEX TO VOLUME X ERRATUM :—The figures on page 66 and 67 should be transposed (but not the legends); the figure on p. 66 represents the Chempedak and that on p. 57 the Jack. New Binomials are printed in bold faced type and synonyms in italics. Adenanthera : bicolor, 268. pavonina, 268. dadah MIQ., 282. heterophyllus LAmM., 76. incisus (THUNB.) L.F., 280. species indigenous in Malaya, 268 Adinobotrys atropurpureus (BENTH.) DUNN, 270. Agathis flavescens RIDL., Aglaonema, Index, 235. Aidia cochinchinensis LOUR., 50. Albizzia Lebbek BENTH. : wild in Malaya, 268. Alocasia, Index, 235. Allophyllus : Cobbe (L.) BL. : ties, 40. Cobbe var. glaber CORNER var. nov., 40 & 42. Cobbe var. limosus CORNER var. 2406. Key to varie- nov., 41, 42 & 43. Cobbe var. marinus (CORNER var. mov., 41 & 43. Cobbe var. velutinus CORNER var. nov., 41 & 43. Cobbe var. villosus CORNER Var. nov., 42. scandens RIDL., 43. Alseodaphne ? grandis NEES, 278. Anaxagorea : javanica BL., 12. javanica var. dipetala CORNER var. nov., 12. luzonensis A. GRAY, 12. Scortechinii KING, 11 & 12. Ancistrolobus : brevipes TURCZ., 35. ligustrinus SPACH, 29 & 34. Aracee Malesice II. (Homalo- mena), 183. Artocarpus : Champeden (LOUR.) SPRENG, 73: communis FORST., 280. Vol. X. (1939). integer (THUNB.) MERR. emend. CORNER, 68; photograph of the type, 71. integer var. silvestris CORNER var. nov., 706. integrifolia L.F., 71. Jaca LAM., 71 & 72. Kemando MiQ., 282. lakoocha, 282. Lowi KING, 283. Artocarpus : Maingayi KING, 282. maxima BLANCO., 56. peduncularis KURZ., 283. philippinensis LAM., 70. Polyphema PERS., 73. Azadirachta integrifolia MERR., 200. Baccaurea : Griffthii Hook. F., 289. malayana (JACK) Hook. F., 280. reticulata HOOK. F., 280. sapida MUELL-ARG., 290. Wrayi KING, 290. Balanocarpus, Index, 385. Bombax : Ceiba L., 176 & 181 (footnote). malabarica DC., 177. pentandrum L., 170. Typification of, 173. Conservation of, 176. Bridelia : monoica (LOUR.) MERR., 291. tomentosa BL., 2091. Buchanania : auriculata BL., 253. macrophylla BL., 254. 388 Calla, Index, 235: Canangium : fruticosum CRAIB, 15. odoratum (LAM.) BAILL., 13. odoratum var. fruticosum (CRAIB) CORNER Stat. nov., 15. Scortechinii KING, 15. Capellia multiflora BL., 5. Campnosperma : auriculata (BL.) HOOK. F., 253. auriculata var. Wallichii RIDL., rite Griffithii MARCH., 253 & 254. KEY to the Malayan Species, 25, macrophylla (BL.) Hook. F., 254. minor CORNER spec. noVv., 255. oxyrachis (MIQ.) ENGL., 253. Wallichiit WING, 253. Cerbera : lactaria HAM., 274. manghas L., 274. odollam GAERTN., 273 & 274. Chamecladon, Index, 235. Chempedak, Notes on the Sys- tematy of, 50. Chickrassia tabularis AUCTT., 266 & 267. Cinnamomum : Deschampsii GAMBLE, 270. zeylanicum var. Deschampsii (GAMBLE) CORNER Stat. nov., 276. Claoxylon : indicum HASSK., 292. polot (BURM. F.) MERR., 292-4. Clutia monoica LOUR., 291. CORNER, E.J.H.: A Revision of Ficus, Subgenus Synoecia, 82. CORNER, E.J.H.: Notes on the Systematy and Distribution of Malayan Phanerogams: I, 1; lis, Jil eae CORNER, E.J.H.: Notes on the Systematy of the Jack and the Chempedak, 56. Corrigenda: to Dipterocarpaceze Papers ix tare. ‘Bat. 75.5., VII, VIII & IX, 380. Craspedum tectoriume LOUR., 325. Cratzva : falcata (Lour.) DC., 20. KrEY to Species, 21. lophosperma KURZ, 16 & 21. magna (LouR.) DC., 20 & 21. macrocarpa KURZ, 17 & 21. Roxburghii R. Br., 18 & 21. Cratoxylon : arborescens (VAHL) BL., 22, 31 & 34. arborescens var. Miquelii KING, 22 & 34. biflorum TURCZ., 35. chinense (RETZ.) MERR., 35. cochinchinense (LOUR.) BL., 34. cuneatum MIQ., 34. formosum (JACK) DYER, 23, 28 ee! eee glaucum KORTH., 32. lanceolatum MIQ., 35. ligustrinum (SPACH) BL., 29. Maingayi DYER, 23, 34 & 35. microphyllum MiIqQ., 32 & 36. nerlifolium KURZ 23. polyanthum \KKORTH, 23, 29 & 34. polyanthum var. Wightii DYER, 24 & 34. pruniflorum KURZ, 24. racemosum BL., 24 & 35. SECTIONS of :, 33. sumatranum (JACK) BL., 27 & 35- Wighti BL., 24 & 34. Croton : confusum GAGE, 294. Grifithiti HOOK. F., 2094. levifolium BL., 294. oblongum BURM. F., 204. polot BURM. F., 292-4. Cyrtocladon, Index, 235. Dacrydium : Beccarii PARL., 241. Beccarii var. subelatum CORNER var. noV., 243. Beccarii var. kinabaluense Cor- NER War. noVv., 244. comosum CORNER SP. NOV., 244. elatum (ROXB.) WALL., 240. Gibbsize STAPF., 245. Key to the needle-leafed speties in Malaya, 240. Pracunculus, Index, 233. Dillenia and Wormia: a distinc- tion, 3. Dillenia : Beccariana MARTELLI, 4. Elmeri MERR., 3. excelsa (JACK) GILG, 5. meliosmefolia Hook. F., 3. tomentella (MARTELLI) RIDL., 8. Dilleniacea, Index, 385. Dipterocarpacee V, Notes on Malayan, 336. Dryobalanops : Index, 385. Keithii SyM. sp. nov., 370. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 389 Drypetes : longifolia, 206. macrophylla BL., 296. myrmecophila MERR., 200. pendula RIDL., 2096. Durio: Key to the Malayan species, 302. lanceolatus MAST., 308. Lowianus SCORT., 303. malaccensis MAST., 304. macrophyllus RIDL., 307. oblongus MAST., 305. pinangianus RIDL., 308. singapurensis RIDL., 305. - testudinarum BECC., 306. testudinarum var. macrophyl- lus KING, 307. testudinarum var. pinangianus BEce... 308: Wrayt KING, 303. zibethinus var. roseiflorus Cor- NER Var. noV., 303. Elaocarpus : acmosepalus RIDL., 317. apiculatus MAST., 317. cruciatus CORNER SP. NOV., 310. eriobotryoides RIDL., 318. ferrugineus (JACK) STEUD., 310. ferrugimeus (\VIGHT) BEDD., 319 & 325. floribundus BL., 310. gambir BECC., 327. ganitrus ROXB., 320. grandiflorus SM., 310. hainanensis OLIV., 320. Hulletiw KING, 323. integer MAST., 324. Jackianus KING, 310. KEY to the Malayan Species, 310. KEY to the Malayan Species based on vegetative charac- ters, 314. leptomischus RIDL., 323. leptostachyus WALL., 325. littoralis KURZ, 321. longifolius BL. var. fusiformis CORNER Var. NOV., 322. macrocarpus RIDL., 325. manus CORNER nom. NOV., 300 & 322. nitidus JACK, 323 & 325. palembanicus (MiIQ.) (CORNER comb. nov.?, 323. parvifolius WALL., 323. petiolatus GRAY, 324. petiolatus (JACK) WALL., 324. recurvatus CORNER nom. nov., 300, 319 & 325. Vol, X. (19389). reticulatus RIDL., 322. robustus ROXB., 325. rugosus ROXB., 320. rugosus var. singaporensis RIDL., 326. Scortechinit KING, 327. Sphericus (GAERTN. ) i SCHUM, 326. stipularis BL., 327. subglobosus MERR., 3206. submonoceras MIQ., 322. tahanensis HEND., 328. tectorius (LOUR.) POIR., 325. Wrayi KING, 328. Elodea: formosa JACK, 28 & 34. sumatrana JACK, 27 & 35. Endospermum : Beccarianum Pax et HOFFM., 2906 & 208. borneense MUELL.—ARG., 2096 & 208. chinense var. malayanum PAx et HOFFM., 296 & 207. malaccense MUEL.—ARG., 206. perakense KING = Macaranga Sp., 290. Epipogium, Validation of, 162. Ervatamia coronaria (JACcQ.) STAPF, 276. Erythrina : atrosanguinea RIDL., 268. fusca Lour., 268. indica LAM., 268. Parcelli HOrT., 260. varlegata L., 260. Fagrea fragrans, 50. Ficus : aplocarpa MIQ., go. aurantiaca GRIFF., 148. barba-jovis CORNER SP. NOV., 102. Bordenii MERR., 107. callicarpa and F. punctata, 116. callicarpa MIQ., 100. callicarpa var. angustifolia CORNER Var. nOV., 120. callicarpa var. crassinervia CORNER Var. nov., 118. callicarpac o.var, multinervia CORNER Var. noV., 109. callicarpa var. parvifolia CORNER Var. nov., 1106. Carrii CORNER spec. noVv., 120. Cataupi ELMER, 127. caulocarpa (M1Q.) MIQ., 283. caulocarpa MIQ., 286. classification of the Species of Synecia, 95. 390 cordata RIDL., 285. dens-echini CORNER sp. 130. DISTRIBUTION of the species of the section Synececia, go. EVOLUTION of the species, 80. falcata THUNB., 94. fulva REINW., 286. glabella, 285 & 287. grandifiora CORNER Sp. NOV., 133. nov., hirta VAHL, 285. infectoria ROXB., 285. infectoria var. caulocarpa KING., 284. KEY to the species, 95 & 97. megacarpa MERR., 110. Miquelii KING, 286. patens RIDL., 286. punctata THUNB., 94 & photograph of the specimen, 94. REVISION of the species of the section Synecia, 82. Simiz WINKLER, 145. singalana KING, 146. Scortechinii KING, 286. Scratchleyama KING, 142. stipulosa (MIQ.) MIQ., 283. superba (MIQ.) MIQ., 287. tawensis MERR., 146. teras@nsis HAYATA, 116. timorensis (MI1Q.) MIQ., 284. trachycoma Miq., 148. tulipifera CORNER SP. NOV., 150. Yatesii MERR., 286. FuRTADO, C. X.: Aracee Male- sice, II. Notes on some Indo- Malaysian Homalomena Spe- cies, 183. FURTADO, C. X.: tion of Bombax, & Salmalia, 173. FurtTapo, C. X.: The Typifica- tion of Rhus javanica ¥54330. FurTapo, C. X. Validating Botanical Names ‘by Referring to Invalid Literature, 162. 137; type- The Typifica- Gossampinus Garcinia : Cowa ROXB., 36. Zlobulosa RIDL., 37. Kydia ROXB., 36. nigrolineata ANDERS., 37. parvifolia (M1Q.) MI0Q., 37. Gardenia : elata RIDL., 46. Lobbii CRaIB, 46. resinifera KORTH., 46. speciosa HOOK. F., 46. tubifera WALL., 46. tubifera var. subcearinata Cor- NER var. nov., 48. Gelonium : bifarium ROXB., 299. glomerulatum (BL.) HASSK., 290. Gnetum Gnemon L. wild in Malaya, 247. Goniothalamus malayanus HOOK. Fr. -t. 2. 8S Gossampinus, Typification 173 & 178. Grewia : and Microcos, 262. blattzfolia CORNER SP. NOV., 262. latifolia MAST., 262. Guioa : Key to the Malayan species, 44. an over-specified genus, 43. bijuga (HIERN) RADLK., 44. fuscidula (KURZ) RADLK., 44. pleuropteris (BL.) RADLK., 45. pubescens (ZOLL. et Mor.) RADLK., 45. of, Hancea, Index, 385. Hedycarpus malayanus JACK, 280. Helospora flavescens JACK, 54. Heynea trijuga ROXB., 267. Homalomena : argentea var. purpurascens FURT. var. nov., 188. Carrii FURT. Sp. MOV., 180. confusa FURT. Sp. MOV., 180. Corneri FURT. Sp. MOV., ig1. elliptica var. paucinervia F URT. var. nOoV., 193. ellipticifolia FURT. Sp. NOV., 193. Gillii FURT. Sp. nov., 221. Griffithii var. sumatrana FURT. Var. noV., 108. Hendersonii FURT. Sp. nOV., 108. humilis var. major (HASSK.) FURT. comb. nov., 200. humilis var. major = subvar. coccinea (vy. ALD. v. Ros.) FURT. stat. nov., 201. humilis var. ophirensis (RIDL.) FURT. comb. nov., 203. humilis var pumila (HooK. F.) FURT. comb. nov., 203. INDEX, 235. KEY to sections, 186. Kiahii FURT. sp. mov., 207. kinabaluensis FURT. sp. Mnmov., 222. Korthalsii FURT. nom. nov., 208. mentawiensis FURT. sp. mov., 200. montana FURT. Sp. MOV., 210. sagittifolia var. angustifolia FURT. Var. nOoV., 228. Gardens Bulletin, S.S. 391 Hopea : INDEX, 285. latifolia SyM. Sp. nOV., 360. minima SyM. nom. noVv., 337. minima var. perakensis Sym. var. nov., 337. : : minima var. pinangiana Sym. var. nov., 338. subalata SyM. sp. nOV., 330. sublanceolata SyM. sp. mov., 341. sulcata SyM. spec. nov., 358. Hypericum : arborescens VAHL, 31 & 34. biflorum LAM., 35. chinense RETZ., 34. cochinchinense LouR., 26 & 34. Index : Balanocarpus, 385; Dryobalanops, 385; Homalo- mena, 235; Hopea, 385; Sho- rea, 385; Specimens. cited under Homalomena, 230; Vatica, 385. Inocarpus edulis FORST. probably wild in Malaysia, 2609. Interpretationes nude, 2. Ixora longifolia DON, 52. Jack fruit: the correct botanical name of, 56. Juniperus elata ROXB., 240. Lagerstroemia : flos-reginze RETZ., 272. macrophylla WALL., 272. speciosa (L.) PERS., 272. Laportea amplissima MIQ., 292-4. Leea : gigantea GRIFF., 45. indica (BURM. F.) MERR., 46. sambucina (L.) WILLD., 46. Lindera : lucida (BL.) BOERL., 277. malaccensis (HOOK. F. yetayz: Litsea lucida BU., 277. Lobelia, the typification of, 166. Mapania tumida UNITT. sp. nov., . 182. Melanorrhea : malayana CORNER nom. noVv., 261. pilosa RIDL., non LEC., 261. Wallichii Hook. F., 260. Woodsiana KING, 260. Vol. X. (1939). Melastoma : decemfidum ROXB., 301. imbricatum WALL., 290. Key to the species, 299. malabathricum L., 300. malabathricum var. perakense KING, 301. molle WALL., 300. muticum RIDL., 300. normale DON, 300. perakense RIDL., 301. polyanthum BENTH., 300. sanguineum SIMS, 300. scabrum RIDL., 300. schizocarpa RIDL., 301. Melia excelsa JACK : identifica- tion and amplified description, 263. Meyna pubescens, 55. Microcos : and Grewia, 262. latifolia (MAST.) BURRET, 262. Microstemon : and Pentaspadon: a difference, 261. Curtisit KING, 262. velutina (HOOK. F.) ENGL., 261. Millettia atropurpurea BENTH., 270. Mischocarpus : flexuosus (LOUR.) MERR., 263. fuscescens BL., 263. oppositifolius (LOUR.) MERR., 263. pentapetalus, 263. sumatranus, 263. sundaicus BL., 263. Monocera : ferruginea JACK, 310. ferruginea WiIcut, 319 & 32 palembanicum Mio.. 323. petiolata JACK, 324. Myrtus trinervia LouR., 272. Nerium : indicum MILL., 275. latifolium MILL., 275. odorum SOL., 275. Padebruggea : atropurpurea (BENTH.) CRAIB, 270. pubescens CRAIB, 270. Parashorea : densiflora V. Sit. et SYM. sp. nov., 273. globosa SYM. SP. NOV., 375. INDEX, 386. 392 Pasania : a genus not distinguishable from Quercus, 279. lappacea (ROXB.) GAMBLE, 270. Wrayit (KING) GAMBLE, 270. Pavetta : gracilifilora, 48. indica JL.) 548. naucleiflora DON, 4o. paucifilora RIDL., 48. pilosa CRAIB, 40. tomentosa, 48. Wallichiana, 4o. Pedicellia oppositifolia \.our., 263. Pentaspadon : — Microstemon : difference, 261. Curtisii (KING) CORNER comb. nov., 262. Pheebe : cuneata BL., 278. grandis (NEES) MERR., 278. opaca BL., 278. Piptospatha, Index, 238. Podocarpus : deflexus RIDL.)' 251. imbricatus BL., 251. javanicus sensu MERR., 251. neriifolius DON, 252. Polyphema : Champeden LOurR., 73. Jaca Lour., 76. Polyphragmon compressicaule MiQ., 54. Pterigium, Index, 386. Pterocarpus : Draco Lip validity “oF “97x officinalis JACcQ., validity of, r7t. Valid publication of, 163 & 167. Pterospermum WILLD., * 262. acerifolium Quercus : and Pasania: generic distinc- tions are artificial, 270. lappacea ROXB., 270. Mackiana, 2709. Wrayt KING, 270. Rademachia: incisa THUNB., 280. integra THUNB., 68; photo- graph of the type, 71. Randia : cochinchinensis MERR., 50. densiflora BENTH., 50. (Lour.) dumetorum POIR, 50. eucodon K. SCHUM., 50. oocarpa KIDL., 50. spinosa (THUNB.) PoIR., 50. Rhinostigma parvifolium Mia., 37: Rhizophora, typification of, 166. Rhodamnia trinervia (SM.) BL., 292. Rhus : chinensis MAXIM., 334. javanica L. and its typifica- tion, 330. semialata MURR., 334. Rutidea mollis BL., 40. Salmalia and its typification, 173 & 178. Salmalia malabarica (DC.) SCHOTT et ENDL., 176. Saraca” palembanica (MIQ.) BAKER, 292: triandra BAKER, 272. Shorea : atrinervosa Sym. Flemmichii Sym. INDEX, 386. leptoclados SyM. Sp. nov., 3706. lumutensis SyM. Sp. NOV., 364. Meadiana Sym. Sp. nov., 3606. rugosa var. Uuliginosa (Foxw.) Sp. NOV., 363. sp. nOV., 378. Sym. Stat. nov., 372. submontana SyM. nom. nov., 3608. Sitodium: cauliflorum CGAERTN., 71 & 72. mracrocarpon THUNB., 71 & 72. Sleetia elongata KOORD., 287. Stylocoryne : and Tarenna: between, 51. appressa KING, 51. appressa var. pafillulosa KING, the distinction 51. mollis. 49. SYMINGTON, C.F.: Notes on Malayan Dipterocarpacee V, 330; Corrigenda to the previous papers on _ Dipterocarpacee, 380. Tabernemontana Civaricata (L.) RSs. 276. Tampoi trees, 288-200. Tarenna : and Stylocoryne, 51. appressa (KING) CORNER comb. nov., 5I. grandifolia (HOOK. F.) RIDL., So. hispidula CRAIB, 52. Gardens Bulletin, S.S, 393 hispidula var. brevipes CRAIB, 52. hispidula var. Smithie 52. lancifolia RIDL., 52. longifolia (DON) RIDL., 52. Naftert RIDL., 40. papillosa RIDL., 51. rudis RIDL., 52. salicina RIDL., 48. sumatrana (BOERL.) RIDL., 52. Taxotrophis : ilicifolia VIDAL, 288. macrophylla (BL.) BOERL., 288. Timonius : compressicaulis (MIQ.) BOERL., CRAIB, 54. Finlaysonianus HoOoK. F., 54. flavescens (JACK) BAK., 54. jambosella var. Finlaysoniana KING, 54. peduncularis RIDL., 54. Tridesmis : Billiardieri SPACH, 34. formosa KORTH., 29 & 34. Jacki SPacH, 34. ochnoides SPACH, Tristania : obovata BENN., spathulata RIDL., 29 & 34. UimTienN, H.: A New Mapania from the Salas Peninsula, 182. Urera amplissima BL., 292-4. Urostigma: caulocarpum MIQ., 283. stipulosum MIQ., 283. timorense MIQ., 284. Vangueria spinosa Hook. F. 54. ? Vatica, Index, 386. Vateria flexnosus Louwr., 263. var. mollis “Vol. X. (1939). Vitex : negundo L., 257. negundo var. bicolor H. J. Lam, 258. ovata THUNB., 258. trifolia L., 257. trifolia var. repens RIDL., 258. trifolia var. simplicitfolia CHAM., 258. trifolia var. wnitfoliata SCHA- UER, 258. Webera : grandifolia HOOK. F., 52. Napieri RIDL., 40. sumatrana BOERL., 52. W hitfordiodendron : atropurpureum (BENTH.) DUNN, 270. pubescens (CRAIB) BURKILL, 270. Wormia : albifios RIDL., 4. and Dillenia, 3. Beccariana (MARTELLI) RIDL., x excelsa JACK, 5 & 7. excelsa var. pubescens CORNER var. nov., > excelsa var. ‘tomentella CORNER var. nov., 8. meliosmzfolia KING, 3. oblonga Hook. F. et TH., 5 7- parvifiora RIDL., 3. subsessilis MIQ., 9. subsesstilis Var. borneensis RIDL., o. suffruticosa GRIFF., o. suffruticosa var. 4orneensis RIDL., tomentella MARTELLI, 8. Zanthoxylum rhetsa DC., 38 | TIO! ‘S OF THE BO* SINGAPORE. | nth. Ly" J es 0. 1-1 1901- ee are available, age 50 cents The Sane Bulletin, s. 5. xe -12, July 1918—August. ia 12 August 1 1923—March 192s. = iy s, $7.50) 3 ee he together. 8 are publis e; the prices of a i: ls ch to t Ze. are published at irregular intervals, as mie ba L yAr whe Tr ee ) ms a, . i wht ¢ y Oey i? gun 16 &O 7 i TAQ Me cate peane wry wba ayaa m asin ree sa 6 : sara, eee ye ee yey meee ae ed Aad gs 2 “OTT Pa NE Eo 74 hind | leg hea ve. “ty by aed OO Wipe, tibet a LT o + Seis bede-thbsied waldo bone ce) ee ee ee wees . + yey re ©. evbmetek ’ ie eye pl . * sremhenrtiey : ‘ +O "W/er bows a ere ye Oe O18 ee = > fd * oe ee. * : s* 3 me yniene (MO hayece FPO 1810) Bs Romie ve a/0h9), » on ae sso ‘ P "7 " " a te sprivesthoeet pA bao rms +f ; Stove tensiey fei) - ts 4 . Pdi, Bhd tetiast spoegierersist sehocon nodes Taree wn Saehesetayertgonenen Tes “e r ‘yy 7 Ne Ris | : ; : ‘ ¥t, diy mh b i * a nh ’ 3 : , . 7 vevaedad ‘ ; vomit, oieme ines : aa been eee MU Ete es, " pesbese 6, unre thee 7 * See a reyes rs Pet bea NiO) Ohethaaireticcss " ji hod Sued ee Perm