Fale
wtih he eee doch treo
PENS Hy Pr BGR aes been
Pe GSS How see:
abe beee gute
HAS Bey bie
SY Ay a ete se
SHvIa§ sien eee
aaa ea ee
hon
’ abuia tke)
be yat ten ot
apiuedl
re ere hare a «3 : a Verse
sub eeiapade Se " vietttiee Fey Rehee
Py ae . 4 i. ‘ 7 Art rigs tam =
sta Os Pett ie Be pws far bee Ste en ee ere
PREP TR: Soa.
HO Pert op ee
toler ye
eae! -
F WSs Met ee Bt LNs BSA ON TEER ON 48 Ahn D oP ata aie Ret stat
’ pel “ TST SIRS en re ete HS Men ty oth = eee en ee ee
i nig eh “ . ies : ’ whi 7 ¥ , igh 35 i ‘i i aN tet etyt 5 oe ee TEE SSS SR Sig tata en tig
LE PO Kegrog - - 3 % rg - t
PPR Por - yah >
Sei Sa) Sit a Aastha
hatte Poteet Naty BSA te 8 i teeth eye:
Rae tee te vsti Sts
“~
NaS ok pyr iy -
SN ay So Se tent g he he Cogent S Fe
isan nian et ce nme me ene iene ec rts
Ut a rey be ae
ae aan oe ae ae
stb A ys + 0
“ST vee ~A.
gta tah ahah na Sgt nite r ene es
Day Retegiesi sMeiseer, Pa AS LW hat aH tt
Bon ate Maen these Ben «Tapeh Se 5 tye
Bates
SPS BRD ee
we He Rae Mae Chet AR ae,
uhdai’, eo et $050
PNR bP by wi BGR E
ein ne dt Cee ee ee on
ae ee
gle ee re
ee oe
a ar eo a
Tn eR ath gs VS
; . ~~ peers eer eC ee ener ar a ee ae
PME Pe Pe TR. He From ¥ . ; ae Wee a ~ as ‘
° Sali eb ul the dee te ee a See
She beet type ogee eT ESI Sap asta, on ;
SPY ty ete reat oe w J
A tata t eR ew
isuttceaet eee
Sika ace ee ee
ieee te
See Fle ny
cae a
set deiinlem ian ae ate
Role top bee
ieeesiiemen ae
Aare
ta ee
a
BO Rete mcr Be
: at ay = “~ = . -—~ ~—
° 7. . ee
? , = is ie 7 . - Salm we 7.
‘ i 7 . a oe, - -
. - ae J ~ : My ed : AS -
> a - oe - ~ s < « ne a mats ck ee - “
nn DSi ~ i ‘ Sige wey . - ~ me : ¥
- ae = i ” F ae ? 7 a iy bin = — : ty
- ss | - - :
- ite Se Ti % 7 - ie :
ere = wy . ~N >
iene 7 . - Z ~ :
2 ' :
y Nol fe Q
Y {)
WaTF y y, ae gee
Q () Y
QD ( ~O 0 p y
eM } ( (
la
@
\)
) g
IBRARY
O
Hye)
Hi}
uy)
janae
eT
a eA NE
VAIN ANS
4
i‘ beg .
Mra 1s Maes
\ mi ih
View
4
Pith aN ;
\
(E.D. MERRILL
:
eS ETHNOLO GY.
A VOCABULARY OF THE IGOROT LAN-|
GUAGE AS SPOKEN BY THE
~BONTOC IGOROTS
N e
By WALTER CLAYTON CLAPP
Order No. 408. Paper, 89 pages, $0.75,
postpaid.
The vocabulary is given in Igorot-English
and English-lgorot.
THE NABALOI DIALECT
ie By Otto SCHEERER
Was ree and Anti
THE BATAKS OF PALAWAN
By Epwarp Y. MILLER
“Order No. 403. __ Paper, $0.25; half mo-
rocco, $0.75; postpaid.
-. The. Nabaloi Dialect (65 pages, 29
plates) and the Bataks of Palawan» (7
pages, 6 plates) are bound under one cover.
THE BATAN DIALECT AS A MEMBER
OF THE PHILIPPINE GROUP
OF LANGUAGES
By Orto SCHEERER
and
“Fr? AND “V’ IN PHILIPPINE
LANGUAGES
By CARLos Everett Conant
. Order No. 407:
These two papers are issued under one
cover, 141 pages, paper, $0.60; postpaid.
THE SUBANUNS OF SINDANGAN BAY
By Emerson B. CHRISTIE
Order No. 410. Paper, 121 pages, 1
map, 29 pilates, $1.25, postpaid.
Sindangan Bay is situated on the north-
ern coast of Zamboanga Peninsula. The Su-
banuns of this region were studied by Mr.
Christie during two periods of five and six
weeks, respectively.
_ The 29 plates etnlastrats the Subanuns at
work and at play; their industries, houses,
‘altars, and implements; and the people
themselves.
THE HISTORY OF SULU
By Nasees M. SALEEBY
Order No. 406. Paper, 275. pages, 4
maps, 2 diotaine: $0.75, postpaid.
In the preparation ef his manuscript for
‘The History of Sulu, Doctor Saleeby spent.
much time and effort in gaining access.
to documents in the possession of the Sultan
. of -Sulu. This book is a history of the-
-. Moros in the Philippines from the earligaes.
ae sigiee to the euperinan occupation. ;
‘recorded in five folding diagrams. =~
. gether with ad
Hine. Rabe,
Crder No. 405, anes) 107. ges,
plates, 5 diagrams, sie hal ’
rocco, $0. 75; postpaid. %
- This volume _ deals~ with t
written records of the Moros _ in I
The names of the rulers of Magin
NEGRITOS OF ZAMBALES —
By Wiuuiam ALLAN REED oe
Order No. 402. Paper, 33 pages, pene
plates, $0.25; half morocco, $0.75;
postpaid. : igs ok
Plates from photographs, many of “Alan
‘were taken for this publication, show orna- -
ments, houses, men making fire with bamboo,
bows and arrows, dances, and various nol dua
of the people themselves. f
i
INDUSTRIES
PHILIPPINE HATS _
By C. B. Roainson : eae
Order No. 415. Paper, 66 pages, S
; plates, $0.50 postpaid. Phitie ae a Mt Ree
This paper is a concise rasord of the |
history and present condition of i FORA,
in the Philippine Islands, se
“4
THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN THE
ISLAND OF NEGROS |
By HERBERT s. WALKER
Order No, 412. Paper, 145 pages, 10 mag
plates, L map, $1.25, postpaid. —
Considered from the viewpoint of — pre
tical utility, Mr. Walker’s Sugar — Industry
in the Island of Negros is one of the most
important papers published by the. ‘Bureau |
of Science. This volume is a real contribu-
tion to the subject; it is not a mere com-
pilation, for the author was in the field
undskataniy the conditions Ps whic
writes. 2 sd
Order No, 413,_
In A Manual of PI
actual work
“ae ¢
{
(CY \>
561 lO Mteheuek |
Te Ww fo heee . eames
"AN INTERPRETATION OF
‘RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM
AMBOINENSE -
BY
ED MERRIEL
MANILA
BUREAU OF PRINTING
1917
144971
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
BUREAU OF SCIENCE
MANILA
Publication No. 9
(Actual date of publication, November 1, 1917.)
DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY
OF
CHARLES BUDD ROBINSON, Jr.
Pictou, Nova Scotia, October 26, 1871
+ Amboina, December 5, 1913
CONTENTS
Page.
parE CNS = Syetecs 5. . Meio ee Te UN Oe Ng ae eM or a ae eee 7
ED ee Mea, | Men Re eer od ee he de es ocak Ree es 9
PE SVC ETE Oi RI SR RS OR 1 RT a 11
The importance of the Herbarium Amboinense...........................-2++- 1
Feampnivs ang Nis ‘Work Se Aae see 15
RPA DOINVGLy, <, eae) MMe Wie OR Tenet Ne oo eae tte deeds 18
The genesis of the plan and the botanical exploration of Amboina 20
Errors in the interpretation of Rumphian species........................---- 27
The interpretation of Rumphian species as types.....................--.---- 29
The interpretation of the species described in the Herbarium
Amboinense by VATIOUS AUtMOTS............2..:.cc-ncnscsoccoscossnnancsscossecceeess BL
WemmIeer and StiCKMAN 9.20202 ec lasddcscesvecaseeece accede al
EAE TELCAGISD LLM AIA BO Sao Oe ll CT SANE RS SS On a RT 34
LUV DETTE oTeal Ss FET 070 Lec) 0 Tale a ee pe a 35
CEE STS VG. Teel ype cy aR APO US eae wy Oe nS ae ec 36
ZLAUSS eae aa RE Ip RA ecg 36
The present status of Rumphian species....................2..222-2-¢2eeeeeeeeeeees 38
Difficulties in interpreting Rumphian species............................------.. 40
"ty REC SIGN GE G2 i a a a EU aR ME 43
Mrremoomean MIMNOMIAlS: 1.8. es A6
PamermacICUlomments (8 ae ee Sk She he is 50
PeeUEINEAUTO MONI MER ATION: 2002 o.oo ccccc gh cocucck be oo de le ccccestacecdecubsleseenuvidetaee 53
TE uIEU Gy LS Ae ae cle is SUA SEE aT ls re ACER Pr 100) 53
PR SESTG (0 6) SRSA AV A aa CE Gg eC) et lee OD mvc as 63
MUCHINALOMMViAien Mele Cu ioe ee a Lia eae alent ee 74
SRM OSPerLMiae hit whe Mees. Gye. tie 25) ENN, el ea 74
PUTIPMO SOC TIN ACh iit. erie em ee Lae een bier Co re aa 79
Monocotyledonae Axis. eae Ue Ne oe 79
Dicormledonseyn sirius las, 2 t ateeee ed Le | or ka 179
Species described or mentioned by Rumphius that cannot be
definitely referred to their proper famnilies...........0....00....20cc-20002--+ 504
SEQUENCE OF SPECIES IN RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE WITH
Pei INOMPARWIOGOUIVATENTS 20 511
LOLI), iD) me) 7 Une Meet es en eee 549
TUTTI, aps BNA OR SNS 1 eI PAO 551
ag 2
+ -
eget i <
on
mace ny ee au e u « Beet
*
a f ay »t
: is sed quesayt :
ee 4 :
8.7 Se ee re
is ry ™ a
ae PY & mM fae
: B Bs cf
.
’ \ i ks 4
~ 7% eS
: rs fea Hl :
4 2 ‘ Z :
Sy aed
a ks A a ¥ 2 SAVES ek
é +
ze
e 5
. ‘
: ,
5
j ‘a ue
4 = IP Re Pe +
i¥Es 4 ;
{ So ‘Ce \
Re py eC
. ieee
; gy 4 way Ms ' sn F ‘
< fas Ny
7 bey hy {
+e waht ‘
mh, as
M ag sf Ve iy <
nyc iP, = ;
4} o& be: ’ ‘ef ay "
we ae ~4
- . at af aj —~ '
‘ i a }
7 ny =
r , ¢ Ppa / ;
i
¥ ¥ i
' . t
.
SE
p :
i ™~ :
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATH I. Map, showing Amboina and the surrounding islands.
II. Map of Amboina.
TEXT FIGURE 1. Form of field label.
Ps
PREFACE
It was with considerable diffidence and great regret that I
assumed the task of interpreting the species described in the
Herbarium Amboinense, as it was at my suggestion that Doctor
Robinson undertook this task, in the prosecution of which he
met his untimely death.
Doctor Robinson arrived in Amboina July 15, 1913, and
immediately commenced his field work, which was actively
prosecuted up to the time of his death. On the morning of
December 5, 1913, he departed from the town of Amboina, un-
accompanied, for a botanical excursion through the country south
of the town, passing through Amahoesoe, Eri, Silalei, Latoelahat,
and Aerlo. While on his return trip he was murdered by the
Boetonese residents of a small settlement between Aerlo and
Seri, about 15 kilometers from the town of Amboina. The crime
was wholly due to a local superstition, the ignorant natives
mistaking Doctor Robinson for the notorious potong kapala
(the decapitator), who is currently believed to wander about
during November and December for the purpose of cutting off
human heads.*
When Doctor Robinson left Manila for Amboina in June,
1913, he fully expected to complete the task of interpreting the
species described in the Herbarium Amboinense, but he lived
to finish only a part of the necessary field work. His un-
foreseen death, while he was actively prosecuting his field work,
placed an entirely different aspect on the problem, and in order
that his untimely death might not have been in vain, I felt
constrained to take up the task, at the point where Doctor
Robinson’s labors were ended, and to carry the project to
completion, so far as this could be done from the material and
data available.
The qualifications necessary to obtain the best results in this
special field are exacting. A wide knowledge of the Malayan
flora is essential, as is a thorough understanding of Latin, of
Dutch, and of the native names of plants in the Malay Archi-
pelago, qualifications to which I can lay claim only to a limited
* Merrill, E. D. Charles Budd Robinson, Jr. Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914)
Bot. 191-197.
9
10 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
degree. Under the circumstances the future investigator will
doubtless find in the present work errors both of omission and
of commission. Much remains to be done before all the species
that are typified by the Rumphian descriptions are thoroughly
understood, but a great part of this work will depend on a
continued and comprehensive botanical exploration of Amboina
and of the neighboring islands with special attention to this
object.
The actual working up of the results could best have been
done at one of the large European botanical institutions, where
access could be had to large libraries, to comprehensive collec-
tions of botanical material from all parts of the world, and to
type and authentically named specimens, as well as the oppor-
tunity of consulting specialists in various groups. As a trip to
Europe was impracticable, the work was done in Manila, utilizing
the local library and herbarium.
In the prosecution of the task I have been obliged to interpret
numerous species from their published descriptions, as herbarium
material representing them was not available in Manila. Like-
wise, there are a number of botanical works containing refer-
ences to the Herbarium Amboinense that I have been unable to
consult, as no copies of these were to be had in Manila. This
difficulty has been overcome in part by borrowing certain es-
sential works, and in part by sending to various botanical
institutions for copies of original descriptions, which have gener-
ously been supplied by botanists in the United States and in
Europe. In general, while it is realized that the present inter-
pretation of the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense
is incomplete and imperfect, it is also realized that completeness
and perfection in this difficult task are relative terms and that
many of the species that I have been obliged to enumerate as
of more or less doubtful status could not have been more de-
finitely placed, even if I had had access to all of the botanical
literature and an opportunity to examine all of the extant
botanical material from the Indo-Malayan region. It is felt,
however, that the present treatment of the Rumphian species
meets a real requirement and that, to a very large degree, it
will clear the way for the more intensive study of the problems
in connection with each individual species of doubtful status.
| E. D. MERRILL.
INTRODUCTION
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The Herbarium Amboinense consists of twelve books, published
in six volumes. The purpose of each book is expressly stated,
thus:
Liber primus. Qui -continet arbores, quae fructus esculentos ferunt,
ac culturam humanam requirunt.
Liber secundus. Continens arbores aromaticus, quae aut fructum
aromaticum, corticemve, aut odoratum aliquod praebent lignum.
Liber tertius. Continens arbores, quae Resinam, speciososque dant
Flores, aut noxium aliquod lac fundunt. .
Liber quartus. Arbores continens silvestres, quarum pars aliqua fab-
rilis est.
Liber quintus. De Arboribus agens silvestribus promisque.
Liber sextus. De fruticibus agens tam domesticis, quam silvestribus.
Liber septimus. De funibus agens silvestribus & Fruticibus reptan-
tibus.
Liber octavus. De plantis agens domesticis, tam victui, quam Medi-
cinae, & decori inservientibus.
Liber nonus. De Convolvulis, & Herbis reptantibus.
Liber decimus. De Herbis agens silvestribus promiscue.
Liber undecimus. Agens de reliquis herbis silvestribus.
Liber duodecimus. De arbusculis agens marinis, & plantis saxosis,
seu de Lithodendris & Lithophytis.
To the above should be added the “Auctuarium,”’ cited in this
work as volume seven of the Herbarium Amboinense, which
contains additional notes on species described in the above
twelve books as well as figures and descriptions of plants not
included in them.
The classification is primarily the ancient one of trees, shrubs,
and herbs, with subdivisions according to habitats and uses.
There is no system based on other than the most evident, gross
characters. While the purpose of each book is definitely in-
dicated, it is important to understand the object of the work
as a whole. Rumphius expressly states that it was based, not
on Amboina alone, but on all of the Dutch East Indies. How-
ever, as the work was done on plants or parts of plants either
growing in Amboina, sent to him from other regions, or brought
in from other countries for commercial purposes, he selected the
title Herbarium Amboinense. Numerous species now growing
me
12 -RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
in Amboina are not described in the Herbarium Amboinense,
for Robinson’s collection alone presents more than 350 species
of ferns and flowering plants not considered by Rumphius.*
Some of these have undoubtedly been introduced into Amboina
since Rumphius’s time, but very many of them are indigenous
and were certainly as common there in the seventeenth century
as they are to-day. Some of the species not appearing in the
Herbarium Amboinense are small and might have been ignored
as being of slight importance; but others are large trees, shrubs,
or vines, often with rather showy flowers, and in many cases
they are abundant. Doctor Robinson’s final conclusions as to
the methods used by Rumphius in selecting the species described
are expressed in a letter written early in November, 1913,
as follows:
I think more and more that the Herbarium Amboinense was not at all
a complete flora of Amboina as Rumphius found it and that he selected
on four bases: Economic plants and others that resembled them; plants
that were very different from those he had seen in Europe; plants that
greatly resembled those of Europe; plants regarding which there was
some superstition or legend. A fifth heading might be made for the very
showy plants, but I think that this really belongs under the second group.
The Herbarium Amboinense is a classical work on the Malayan
flora, and one that is absolutely essential to the systematist
to-day. ‘This is not because of any system of classification pro-
posed, for the work follows no definite system, nor on account of
priority of its names, as the work is pre-Linnean, and binomial
names appearing in the text are merely accidental. The great
importance of the work is due to the fact that later authors have
made the Rumphian descriptions and figures the actual “‘types”’
of many binomials. As an original source the Herbarium Am-
boinense stands preéminent among all the early publications on
Malayan botany. In more than 800 original “publications” of |
species of plants under the binomial system from 1753 to
1908 the Rumphian names or figures, or both, are quoted as
synonyms, and in about 350 cases the proposed binomials are
based wholly on data given by Rumphius. In no case is a
species typified by Rumphian figures and descriptions intelligible
without reference to the Herbarium Amboinense. These nu-
merous species not represented by any “type” specimens must, of
course, be interpreted primarily by the data given by Rumphius,
supplemented by a study of botanical specimens from the same
* Merrill, E. D. Reliquiae Robinsonianae. Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916)
Bot. 243-319.
INTRODUCTION 13
general region from which Rumphius secured his material. In
spite of what has been accomplished in the past hundred years on
the Moluccan flora and the intensive field work prosecuted in Am-
boina for four and one-half months by Doctor Robinson, num-
erous species typified by Rumphius’s descriptions and figures
are still of doubtful status and must so remain, until in each
case they are definitely connected with botanical material orig-
inating in the classical locality for each species and agreeing
with the descriptions and figures, the native names, the economic
uses, and the other characters indicated by Rumphius.
The work already prosecuted in Amboina and the neighboring
islands has yielded material by which the essential characters
of very many of the Rumphian species can be definitely deter-
mined, but much remains to be done in this field. In botanical
literature there are scores of species whose only published de-
scriptions are the brief general statements compiled from the
Herbarium Amboinense, from which data alone it is usually im-
possible for the working systematist to gain any definite idea
of the true characters of the species. This is especially true
in such critical genera as Calamus, Elaeocarpus, Citrus, Bambusa,
Canarium, and in many others. Botanists generally have been
content to work on the Malayan flora, describing as new the
various forms that have appeared in current collections, without
making any serious attempt to determine the exact status of
species in the same groups based on Rumphian descriptions.
Stability in nomenclature demands that the status of these early
species be determined as soon as possible, for otherwise many
reductions must be eventually made.
~The Herbarium Amboinense was very extensively cited by Lin-
naeus’s contemporaries and successors, especially by Burman f.,
Loureiro, and others, who wrote on the floras of regions geo-
graphically allied to Amboina, and by all authors of general
works on systematic botany up to the middle of the nineteenth
century. In the more recent works on systematic botany the
Herbarium Amboinense is not so frequently quoted as in older
ones, references to this work being to a large degree those
necessary to explain synonymy. However, binomials based
wholly on the Rumphian descriptions and figures continue to be
proposed, the latest ones observed being Sindora galedupa Prain,
1897, and Calamus acidus Beccari, 1906.
It is by no means certain that the importance of the Her-
‘barium Amboinense is fully appreciated. The number and the
size of the volumes, seven, folio; the number of printed pages,
14 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
over 1,660; and the number of plates, about 695, give but an
inadequate idea of the immense amount of data contained
in this work. Rumphius described in greater or less detail and
named about 1,700 forms. His descriptions, while sometimes
scarcely more than casual mention, are more often very ample,
and to these are often appended discussions of the economic uses
of the various plants described. Few works on Indo-Malayan
botany, published since the Herbarium Amboinense was written,
can compare with it in amount and variety of original data.
When it is fully realized that practically all of the immense
mass of data included in the Herbarium Amboinense represents
the observations and accumulated knowledge of one man, the
great energy and ability displayed by Rumphius in preparing this
monumental work, which was accomplished under very adverse
circumstances, can be more fully appreciated.
The work is immensely more than a discussion of the plants
of Amboina. While it is true that most of the descriptions and
the greater part of the figures were based on Amboina specimens,
copious references are found to other regions, extending from
Madagascar to China and Japan, southeast to New Guinea, and
even to Mexico and South America. It is very evident that
Rumphius’s colleagues and correspondents transmitted material
to him from the whole Orient, and he incorporated his descrip-
tions of this material in the Herbarium Amboinense.
Among Doctor Robinson’s papers were found the following
compiled data, which will give some definite idea of the regions
covered by the work. The most important references to Java
comprise 125 entries; to Celebes, 83; to Ceram, 77; to Bali, 74;
to Banda, 58; to Buru, 42; to the Moluccas proper, including
Ternate, Tidore, Batchian, and Halmaheira or Gilolo, 58; to the
Philippines, 20; to Boeton, 12; to Borneo, 8; to Sumatra, 8;
to Madura, 4; to Manipa, 15; to the Sumbawa-Timor group,
including Sumbawa, Timor, Nussa Radja, Solor, Wetter, and
Rottea, 23; to the Aru Islands, 6; to the Key Islands, 3; to New
Guinea, 4; to the Sula Islands, 8; and to the small islands near
Amboina, 8. There are numerous references to China, but fewer
to Japan, Indo-China, Malacca, Madagascar, southern Africa,
Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. A number of the species figured and
supplied with ample descriptions were based on this extra-
Amboina material, although others are only casually mentioned.
It is at once evident that by no means all the Rumphian species
can be interpreted from Amboina material and data alone.
INTRODUCTION 15
RUMPHIUS AND HIS WORK
George Everhard Rumphius, as the family name Rumpf or
Rumph is Latinized, well named ‘‘the Pliny of the Indies,” was
born in 1627, apparently in Hanau, Hesse Cassel, Germany, and
died in Amboina, June 15, 1702, at the age of 75 years. Detailed
accounts.of his life and work are available in the writings of
numerous authors* so that it is unnecessary to enumerate here
more than the most important facts in connection with the
preparation and publication of his most renowned work, the
Herbarium Amboinense.
Rumphius entered the service of the pabek East India Com-
pany as a young man, proceeded to Batavia, Java, in 1653, and
in the latter part of the same year to Amboina, where he resided
for the remainder of his life. Perhaps for the first two years
of his stay in Amboina he was stationed at Larike, but later he
was transferred to Hila. It is evident that he commenced the
preparation of the Herbarium Amboinense shortly after his
arrival in Amboina, his active work being continued practically
until his death, in spite of the great handicap of blindness after
the year 1670. In 1670, while still stationed at Hila, he had the
work about completed, and it was then his intention to return
to Europe. To make a more definite study and comparison of
all his species, he undertook a final series of journeys along
the coasts and in the hills, and to this he himself attributes his
blindness which followed almost at once. His published works
are manifestly based largely on observations made by him
between 1653 and 1670. The handicap of blindness was some-
what lessened by aid given him by his wife and by assistants
assigned to him by the Dutch East India Company. In 1673
he removed to the town of Amboina and commenced to translate
the original Latin text of the Herbarium Amboinense into Dutch.
In the following year, however, his wife and eldest. child were
killed in the great earthquake of that year, and subsequent to
that date he had less other assistance, some of it of little real
value. The original illustrations for the Herbarium Amboin-
ense were apparently made by Rumphius himself, but on Jan-
uary 11, 1687, Amboina was visited by a disastrous fire, in
which Rumphius’s house was destroyed, including his library,
many of his manuscripts, and the plates of the Herbarium Am-
* See ‘Rouffaer and Muller Me iissraphien. van Ramone in flere:
Eerste proeve van een Rumphius-Bibliographie. Rumphius Gedenkboek
1702-1902 (1902) 176-185.
16 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
boinense. Undaunted by this last catastrophe, he replaced the
destroyed illustrations by new drawings, some made by his son,
P. A. Rumphius, others made by various assistants supplied
by the East India Company. Thus in attempting to interpret
Rumphian species the fact must be constantly kept in mind that
the illustrations were not made from the actual specimens on
which the corresponding descriptions were based. In this con-
nection I venture to give the following translation of Rumphius’s
own statement :*
The plates were drawn. by various artists, some of the figures larger,
some smaller, but each marked with its name, which I myself never saw
[italics mine]; but I have learned from the skilled, and am informed that
they sufficiently agree with the plants themselves, but what ought some-
times to be changed I have marked on the plates themselves or in the text.
However, the reader may take these as sufficiently faithful and pleasing,
while perchance they may be corrected by others, or better ones produced,
for he will readily perceive that in this country I have not been provided
with the best artists, for which reason also I have not been ashamed to
refer him to other works with larger and better plates, especially Rheede,
which has recently been published.
This passage explains much in connection with the Herbarium
Amboinense, such as the very crude execution of some figures and
the excellent reproduction of others; the union, in a few cases,
of the characters of totally different species on a single drawing
such as Pemphis and Aegiceras, and Urena and Triumfetta; the
fact that certain drawings do not conform to the characters
given in the description that they are supposed to represent; the
absence of drawings to illustrate species that are fully described;
why certain species, certainly as common in Amboina in Rumph-
ius’s time as they are to-day, are not mentioned in the work;
and perhaps the rather striking discrepancies in the magnifica-
tions or reductions of parts of various species so evident on
many of the drawings.
In 1690 the manuscript of the first six books was delivered to
the Dutch East India Company, the remaining parts being de-
livered in 1695. The manuscript of the first six books was
forwarded to Holland from Batavia, Java, in 1692 on the Water-
land. This ship was destroyed by the French in transit, and the
manuscript was lost with the ship. Fortunately a copy had been
retained, and thus the fruit of Rumphius’s many years of labor
was not lost. A copy of these six books was finally sent to
Holland in 1696, the manuscript of the remaining six books was
* Herb. Amb. 1 (1741) author’s preface, last page.
INTRODUCTION 17
sent the following year. The manuscript of the “Auctuarium,”’
completed by Rumphius in 1701, a few months before his death,
was copied at Batavia and sent to Holland in 1704. This im-
portant manuscript remained in the archives of the Dutch East
India Company until 1736, when the company granted permis-
sion to Professor J. Burman to prepare it for printing, the six
volumes appearing between 1741 and 1750 and volume seven,
the ‘“‘Auctuarium,” in 1755.
The general title of the published work, taken from volume .
three, is as follows:
Georgii Everhardi Rumphii, | Med. Doct. Hanavensis, Mercatoris Sen-
ioris, & in Amboina Consulis, nomine | Plinii Indici celebris, & Membri
Inlustris Societatis Aca- | demiae Naturae Curiosum Germaniae, | Herba-
rium | Amboinense, | Plurimas complectens Arbores, Frutices, Herbas, Plan-
tas terrestres & aquaticas, | quae in Amboina, | et ajdacentibus reperiuntur
insulis, | Adcuratissime descriptas juxa earum formas, cum diversis denom-
inationibus, | cultura, usu, ac virtutibus. | Quod & insuper exhibit | varia
insectorum animaliumque genera, | Plurima cum naturalibus eorum figuris
depicta. | Omnia magno labore ac studio multos per annos conlecta, | &
duodecem conscripta libris. | Nunc primum in lucem edita, & in Latinum
sermonem versa, | Cura & Studio | Joannis Burmanni, | Med. Doct. et in
Horto Medico Amstelaedamensi Professoris | Botanici, Academiae Caesareae
_ Naturae Curiosum Socii; | Qui varia adjecit Synonyma, suasque Observa-
tiones.*
Volume seven, the Auctuarium, issued five years after volume
six was printed, bears the following title page:
Georgii Everhardi Rumphii | * * * | Herbarii | Amboinensis |
Auctuarium, | Reliquas complectens Arbores, Frutices, ac Plantas, | quae
in Amboina, et adjacentibus demum repertae sunt insulis, | Omnes accu-
ratissime descriptae, & delineatae juxta earum | formas, cum diversis In-
dicis denominationibus, | cultura, usu, ac viribus; | Nunc primum in lucem
editum, & in Latine sermonem versum, | Cura & Studio | Joannis Bur-
manni | * * * | Qui varia adjecit Synonyma, suasque Observationes.f
In the present paper the Auctuarium has been consistently
‘cited as volume seven of the Herbarium Amboinense.
While Rumphius’s fame rests largely on the Herbarium Am-
boinense, this by no means represents all that he accomplished.
*1 (1741)» 1-200, t. 1-82, preface, introduction, ete.; 2 (1741) 1-270,
t. 1-87; 3 (1748) 1-218, t. 1-141; 4 (1748) 1-154, t. 1-82; 5 (1847) 1-492,
t. 1-184; 6 (1750) 1-256, t. 1-90. The title page varies somewhat in the
different volumes and between editions one and two, a second edition, not
essentially different from the first, having been issued in 1750. The Dutch
title page is not here repeated.
7(1755) 1-74, t. 1-29, Index Universalis [1-20]. The Dutch title page
is not here repeated.
1449712
18 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
His Rariteitkamer * is in itself a remarkable book, in which —
are figured and described numerous crustaceans, echinoderms,
starfishes, several hundred mollusks, both univalves and bivalves,
crystals, fossils, and other forms. This work passed through
several editions, and the figures are in general distinctly better
than those in the Herbarium Amboinense. His Amboinische
Historie and Amboinische Land-Beschrijving still remain in
manuscript. His Amboinische Dierboek was planned, accord-
ing to Leupe, to consist of three books, in which the birds, the
land animals, and the marine animals were to be described and
figured, this to supply for the animal kingdom what the
Kruidboek (that is, the Herbarium Amboinense) did for the
plant kingdom. This work, however, was never published as
such, although Valentijn apparently utilized much of Rumphius’s
data, perhaps not always acknowledging its source. His manu-
script reports on the agriculture of Amboina, on the fortifications
of Castle Victoria, description of the Amboina earthquake, a
Malay dictionary, and other writings are still extant. Rumph-
~~ jus’s activities as an investigator other than as a student of —
plants are here briefly mentioned merely to emphasize the ability,
energy, and broad interest of the man, for his record as an inves-
tigator is a most remarkable one, more especially so when we
take into consideration the period in which he lived and worked
and the great handicaps under which he struggled.
AMBOINA
Amboina, Amboyna, or Ambon, as the name is variously
spelled, is a small island situated about 128° east and 4° 40’
south, a short distance south of the western end of Ceram on
the north side of Banda Sea and not far from the western end
of New Guinea. In the history of Malayan botany it is of
preéminent importance, as it is the type locality of several
hundred species, many of which were very imperfectly character-
* D’ Amboinsche | Rariteitkamer, | Behelzende eene beschryvinge van
allerhande | zoo weeke als harde | Schaalvisschen, | te weeten raare |
Krabben, Kreeften, | en diergelyke Zeedieren, | als mede allerhande |
Hoorntjes en Schulpen, | die men in d’ Amboinsche Zee vindt: | Daar bene-
vens zommige | Mineraalen, Gesteenten, | en soorten van Aarde, die in d’
Amboinsche, en zom- | mige omleggende Eilenden govonden worden. | Ver-
deelt in drie Boeken, | En met nodige Printverbeeldingen, alle naar ’t
leven getekent, voorzien. | Beschreven door | Georgius Everhardus Rum-
phius, | van Hanauw, Koopman en Raad in Amboina, mitsgaders Lid van
het Kyzerlyke kweekschool der | onderzookers van de Natuurkuunde in ’t
Duitsche Roomsche Ryk opgerecht onder den naam van | Plinius Indicus |
(1705) XXVIII+1—340 [43], t. 1-60.
INTRODUCTION 19
ized by the early authors. From a botanical standpoint it
owes its great importance almost wholly to the preparation and
publication of Rumphius’s Herbarium Amboinense. (See Plates
I and II.)
During the early colonial period Amboina was of great com-
mercial importance on account of the dominance of the spice
trade, of which it was the center for a long time. It was first
visited by the Portuguese in 1511, who established a factory
there in 1521. The Portuguese were dispossessed by the Dutch
in 1609, who have since retained control of the island except
for the periods 1796-1802 and 1810-1814, when it was occupied
by the British, being finally restored to the Dutch Government
in 1814. The island is only 51 kilometers long and has an area
of approximately 950 square kilometers. Salahoetoe, the highest
mountain on the island, attains an altitude of 1,027 meters.
The flora of Amboina is typically Malayan, although a few
Australian types are present as in other parts of the Malayan
region. Practically all of the species found along the seacoast
are of general distribution from India to Malaya and Polynesia.
Likewise most of the species found in the settled areas at low
and medium altitudes, weeds of cultivation, and the generally
cultivated economic and ornamental plants are the same as those
usually found throughout Malaya, very many of which are now
distributed in all tropical regions. The primeval forest to a
large extent has been destroyed at low and medium altitudes,
at least in those regions best adapted to agricultural pursuits, and
has been replaced over large areas by cultivated or semicultivated
plants, second-growth forests, thickets, and open grasslands
characterized by the dominance of the cogon or lalang grass
(Imperata). In the interior on the slopes of the higher moun-
tains, such as Salahoetoe, some forest still persists.
The island presents a considerable endemic element, but a
thorough botanical exploration of the Moluccas will doubtless
show that most of the species now known only from Amboina
inhabit also the neighboring islands, such as Ceram, Buru,
Boeton, Celebes, Gilolo, western New Guinea, and the numerous
smaller islands of the Moluccas. From the standpoint of en-
demic species most of the neighboring islands are probably of
much greater interest than is Amboina, but from the standpoint
of the history of Malayan botany, no part of the Moluccas can
be compared with it.
No description of the vegetation of Amboina is here attempted,
as I have not personally visited the island, and Doctor Robinson
20 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
left no notes regarding the general character and appearance of
the plant life of Amboina. However, a brief, general description
has been given by Karsten.* The general appearance of the
vegetation is apparently the same as that of similar regions in
the Malay Archipelago and the Philippines, not subject to a
prolonged dry season, where the original vegetation has not
been entirely destroyed by man.
THE GENESIS OF THE PLAN AND THE BOTANICAL EXPLORATION OF
AMBOINA
The logical and simple plan of exploring Amboina with the
special object of collecting and studying the Rumphian species
in their native habitat in connection with all data given by
Rumphius, while perhaps conceived by other botanists, has previ-
ously been carried into effect only by the late Dr. J. G. Boerlage
of the botanic garden at Buitenzorg. In 1900 Doctor Boerlage,
accompanied by Dr. J. J. Smith, made a trip to Amboina for the
explicit purpose of collecting in the classical localities the plants
described by Rumphius, more especially material represent-
ing those species on which binomials of later authors had
been based. Most unfortunately Doctor Boerlage contracted a’
fever while in Amboina, which resulted in his death at Ternate,
August 25, 1900, while returning to Java, with the consequence
that the results of his field work were never made available.
Unquestionably, many botanists who have visited Amboina
and carried on field work there have realized that it was a clas-
sical locality in Malayan botany and that botanical specimens
from that island would be of special value in interpreting Rumph-
lan species, yet no single large collection has ever been made
in Amboina of which the duplicates were given a wide distribu-
tion, so that the general results of previous botanical work in
Amboina have not been available to many botanists who have
had occasion to discuss Rumphian species. While the present
consideration of the species described and figured in the Her-
barium Amboinense is of necessity incomplete, and doubtless
errors in interpretation have been committed both in reference
to Rumphian species and to binomials, yet it is felt that the
work, somewhat in the nature of an innovation in systematic
botany, is a step in advance and that it should prove to be merely
preliminary to more intensive field work in relation to the same
eee
* Morphologische und biologische Untersuchungen tiber einige Epiphy-
tenformen der Molukken. Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg 12 (1895) 117-195,
t. 18-19.
INTRODUCTION 21
general problems not only in reference to the Herbarium
Amboinense, but also to other pre-Linnean works of similar
importance.
Certain post-Linnean works are susceptible of the same general
treatment, especially those, like Blanco’s Flora de Filipinas,
in which the various species described are not represented by
extant botanical material or types, but must be interpreted solely
by the descriptions and data given by the author. In this con-
nection I have in the past four years made an intensive study
of all the Philippine species described by Blanco and have
prepared for distribution to the larger botanical institutions of
the world an extensive exsiccata which I have called “Species
Blancoanae.” The specimens selected for this exsiccata are
those which I have determined to represent the Blancoan species,
and to a large degree these specimens will take the place of
Blanco’s types, none of which were preserved by him. My
Philippine experience in attempting to interpret Blancoan species
logically lead to the application of the same general methods in
reference to those figured and described by Rumphius.
In 1902, on commencing botanical work in the Philippines,
I was immediately confronted with the problem of interpreting
the numerous forms described by Blanco in his Flora de Fili-
pinas,* totaling about 1,130 species and varieties, of which not
_asingle one is represented by type material, for Blanco preserved
no herbarium specimens. Blanco’s species, often very imper-
fectly described and frequently placed in the wrong genus, have
for the most part not been clearly understood by subsequent
authors and as a result very many of them appear in botanical
literature as doubtful or imperfectly known ones. The average
botanist, working in Europe or America from dried specimens
alone, with few or no field notes and with no personal knowledge
of the Philippines and its vegetation, has found it impossible
properly to interpret very many of Blanco’s species. The
clue to the identity of a Blancoan species is frequently found,
not in the description itself, but in the appended economic data,
native names, and other information given by Blanco.
My experience in the interpretation of Blanco’s species con-
vinced me that the same methods, if applied to Amboina in
connection with all the data given by Rumphius in the Herbarium
Amboinense, would certainly yield material by which a high
percentage us the several pundred species proposed by various
t Blahbo M. ‘Fora de. Fikpinas (1837) LXXVIII-+1- 887: da. 2 (1845)
LXIX-+1-619.
29 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
authors from 1753 to date might be elucidated. Rumphius’s
species, like those of Blanco, are not represented by extant
botanical material, although it is manifest that Rumphius pre-
served, at least temporarily, specimens representing some of the
forms that he described.* Thus, in interpreting Rumphian
Species, we must utilize the same general methods as those
devised in securing material and data to locate Blanco’s species.
In the interpretation of many Rumphian species the investigator
has the great advantage of the published figures, but it should
be carefully noted that the figures do not always correspond
with the characters of the species indicated in the descriptions
(see p. 41). In interpreting Blancoan species there is the
distinct advantage of his use of technical terms and the rather
doubtful advantage of the binomial nomenclature; doubtful not
because of the system, but from Blanco’s erroneous interpreta-
tions of so many genera.
At various times, as it became necessary to interpret species
in critical genera by consultation of the Herbarium Amboinense,
the necessity of securing botanical material from Amboina be-
came apparent. The desirability of securing Amboina material
was discussed by Doctor Robinson and myself at various times
during his first tour of duty in the Philippines, 1908-1911. As
work on the Philippine flora progressed, the necessity for a
definite knowledge of the Rumphian species became more and
more evident, until finally the matter was taken up with the
Philippine authorities, approval of the Amboina project secured,
and codperation with the authorities * the botanic garden at
Buitenzorg, Java, arranged.
In preparation for his work in Amboina, Doctor Robinson
made:‘an exhaustive examination of the Herbarium Amboinense,
and compiled on index cards all data that might be of assistance
in his actual field work. He arranged all native names cited
by Rumphius, for he realized that the clue to the identity of
a Rumphian species would often be found in the native name
or names cited. Regions and localities from which Rumphius
secured his material were also classified, so that before com-
mencing field work in Amboina, Doctor Robinson could deter-
mine to a great extent what species he might hope to find in
Amboina and what would have to be sought for in other islands.
* Martelli, U. Le collezioni di Giorgio Everardo Rumpf acquistate dal
Granduca Cosimo III de’Medici, una volta esistenti nel Museu di Fisica e
Storia Naturale di Firenze, estratto da un catalogo manoscritto dal Prof.
Giovanni Targioni-Tozzetti (1903) 1-213.
INTRODUCTION 92
A special field label was prepared for the work, on which he
recorded data of value in connection with the problem of the
determination of Rumphian species and the results of his pre-
FLORA OF THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO
HERBARIUM, BUREAU OF SCIENCE, MANILA, P. I.
@ommon name. Anas WMI Ne ee Dialects ssh kl
Bield Noy vay pe es Herbarium, No 2... 2s02=-
Collector, C. B. Robinson.
(Ae Re. onal a at I RRA LEY
Pec eemmenintie MN eri Ud owieiy oS lalYe
See L AUNTS E MS 3 se EON SAS PR 8 NGG 6a
Altiiide! ahove the sea_..2 224.0050 m.
Tree; shrub; woody vine; herbaceous vine; herb._______---------.
Pee hhapiplantsets | vise...) iid aracie= er ra ee
JEL Gy Pa Bec age ok OT IB IE SCOR «5 pet Ses eae eer a ORM
Fic. 1. Form of field label.
liminary comparison of the actual specimens with the Rumphian
figures and descriptions. This field label is shown in fig. 1.
His material, as collected, was compared with the Rumphian
descriptions, and his conclusions were noted on the field labels.
Specimens that were certainly, probably, or possibly identical
24 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
with forms that Rumphius considered were placed in one series,
and those that could not be referred to Rumphian species were
placed in another. As material was matched with forms named
and described by Rumphius, such species were checked on a
special list. The two series established by Doctor Robinson in
the field have been the basis of the two series into which the
collections were finally divided for purposes of: study. The
specimens that could certainly or with a fair degree of cer-
tainty be referred to Rumphian species were placed in the
series “Plantae Rumphianae Amboinenses,” thus cited in the
present work, while the remainder were placed in the series
“Reliquiae Robinsonianae” and are the basis of a separate re-
port.* Of the Plantae Rumphianae Amboinenses, the labels of
which bear both the Rumphian name and reference and the
binomial as determined by the accepted code of nomenclature,
there are about 600 numbers; of the Reliquiae Robinsonianae,
including the cellular cryptogams, there are about 960 numbers.
In arranging this material and in its critical study, a few speci-
mens have been transferred from one series to the other. In
both series collections made at different dates and with separate
field numbers have been combined when presenting the same
stage of development and unquestionably representing the same
form. The data compiled by Doctor Robinson, as a result of his
field observations and the comparison of the fresh material with
the Rumphian descriptions, has been of immense value in the
preparation of the present work.
During the prosecution of his field work in Amboina, it became
evident to Doctor Robinson that he could not expect to find all
the forms figured and described by Rumphius, nor even <all of
those that were from Amboina. In his progress report, written
from day to day, he frequently mentioned the slow progress
of the work and his disappointment in not being able to locate
this or that species. He commenced his field work with the
idea of taking specimens only from plants found in flower or
in fruit, but he occasionally collected single specimens from
sterile plants for purpose of check. It is evident that he had
located a number of species described by Rumphius of which he
collected no botanical material, but which he was watching in
the hope that he could later find them in flower or in fruit. At
various times he indicated his purpose to collect sterile material
of the species that he could not find in flower or in fruit before
* Merrill, E. D. Reliquiae Robinsonianae. Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916)
Bot. 243-319.
INTRODUCTION 25
his final departure from Amboina, a plan that was never carried
out on account of his sudden and unexpected death. Many of the
very common species, such as the coconut, the betle nut palm, the
papaya, and numerous cultivated ornamentals, are lacking in
the collection chiefly for the reason that the actual preparation
of specimens of these common and well-known plants was pur-
posely deferred until the more important and critical species
had been secured.
In the prosecution of his field work in Amboina, Doctor Rob-
inson was handicapped by the same factors that have hindered
our attempts to secure material in the Philippines to clear up
the status of Blanco’s species. With the increase of population in
Amboina, as in the Philippines, the original vegetation has been
totally destroyed over large areas, the virgin forest being replaced
by grasslands, thickets, and second-growth forests of a type
entirely different from the original vegetation. Many species
definitely mentioned by Rumphius as occurring in specific local-
ities can no longer be found in the indicated places. It is by
no means improbable that many species, common in Amboina in
the seventeenth century, have now become extinct there, or at
least are very rare and local, even as various Philippine species
mentioned by Blanco as occurring in definite localities can no
longer be found within many miles of the respective places
mentioned by him. Native names given by Rumphius have in
many cases become obsolete or are so altered as to be hardly
recognizable, although in many cases the name cited by
Rumphius is still in use and for the same species under which it
was cited by him. Rumphius, like Blanco, secured most of his
material from the settled areas and from the forests at low
altitudes, and it is unfortunately true that, in the Malayan region,
the forest vegetation at low altitudes is the vegetation most
rapidly destroyed by the encroachment of man.
The practical extermination of the original vegetation of those
regions best adapted to agricultural pursuits is a subject that
deserves more consideration than it has received.* Unquestion-
ably, many species of plants have been exterminated in various
parts of the Malayan region within the past century as the
population has increased. The areas devoted to agriculture are
rapidly being enlarged in many parts of this vast region, and the
consequent destruction of primeval forests over large areas is
a strong beta in sande’ of a Piers and intensive botanical
* Merrill, E. D. ee on fhe Ars of Miadilat ath etetial Lapepe hes to
the imroduced element. Philip. Journ. Sct. 7 (1912) Bot. 145-208.
26 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
exploration of Malaya, in order that representatives of tain
elements of the flora shall be secured while they are still av le
or at least easily accessible. A continued and intensive ex a-
tion of the Moluccas is greatly to be desired before the actual
plants that will yield material to clear up various Rumphian
species of doubtful status shall have become extinct or at best
local and of rare occurrence. a.
It was originally planned that ‘Doctor Robinson should pro-
secute his field work for about four months, but as the work
progressed it became increasingly evident to him that this period
of time was altogether too short. On the basis of representations
made by him, Doctor Robinson was authorized to continue his
field work until June, 1914, thus giving him practically a year in
the field. It was planned that he should also extend his field
work to neighboring islands, and at the time of his death he had
made arrangements to visit Buru Island, as for the season he
had secured a high percentage of the Amboina species to be
found in flower or fruit. It was fully realized that his time
could be more profitably spent in exploring neighboring islands,
utilizing the intermediate periods between trips for a reéxamina-
tion of the various parts of Amboina for the purpose of locating
in flower or fruit those species that had not been detected during
his first period, July to December, of intensive field work. His
wholly unexpected death prevented the fulfillment of these plans.
This work has been based on the material and observations
secured in a period of four and one-half months. It is evident
that could the revised plan have been carried out and field work
extended until June, 1914, much more material and data would
have been available for study, with the result that the interpreta-
tion of the Herbarium Amboinense would have been more satis-
factory and more nearly complete than it is.
Botanists and collectors who have actually prosecuted field
work in Amboina* include LaBillardiére, the first naturalist to
visit the island after Rumphius’s death, Christopher Smith, the
younger Roxburgh, Lahaie, Reinwardt, d’Urville, Zippel, Lesson,
Hombron, Forsten, de Vriese, Teysmann, Naumann, Binnendyk,
de Fretes, Beceari, Forbes, Warburg, Karsten, Boerlage, Treub,
J.J. Smith, and Robinson. Some were there but for a few days,
others for longer periods; and their collections, now widely
scattered in different herbaria, comprise several thousand speci-
mens. Were it possible to segregate from the various herbaria
* Warburg, O. Die botanische Erforschung der Molukken seit Rumpf’s
Zeiten. Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 63-78. |
INTRODUCTION oF
all of the Amboina material extant, doubtless many other obscure
poi regarding Rumphius’s species could be elucidated, which
in the following critical consideration I have been obliged to
interpret from published descriptions alone. Doctor Robinson’s
four and one-half months of field work in Amboina were insuf-
ficient in which to secure the necessary material and data to settle
all of the doubtful points im connection with the forms de-
scribed by Rumphius from Amboina material alone, and he had
no opportunity to visit neighboring islands to search for special
material that might serve to determine the status of Rumphius’s
rather numerous extra-Amboina species.
ERRORS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES
The early botanical authors, such as Linnaeus, Burman f., Lour-
eiro, Lamarck, and numerous others, had but a slight conception
of the principles of geographic distribution of plants, and ac-
cordingly their reductions of Rumphius’s species many grave
errors were committed. Very often in the early literature one
finds the illustrations of an Amboina plant quoted as an exact
synonym of a species of Indo-China, when in reality the two are
totally different and not infrequently have been found to repre-
sent different genera. It is not at all certain that in quoting
illustrations of various species as synonyms Linnaeus and his
contemporaries and immediate successors intended them as exact
synonyms; it would seem, in many. cases at least, that the cita-
‘tions of illustrations as synonyms was intended to convey to other
botanists some conception of what the species was like, and not
necessarily to indicate that it was an exact equivalent of the
species under which it was cited.
In the first two or three decades following the death of
Linnaeus systematists were conservative in the matter of describ-
ing new species. There was a very strong tendency to refer
specimens to species already named by Linnaeus, rather than
to describe material, even from distant and relatively unknown
parts of the world, as new. Thus we find Loureiro in his Flora
Cochinchinensis, published in 1790, erroneously referring num-
erous Cochin-China specimens to Linnean species and likewise
attempting to match his Cochin-China material with the Amboina
species described and figured by Rumphius, apparently on the
assumption that if a plant grew in Cochin-China, it should also
grow in Amboina. In Loureiro’s work there are scores of cases
where the Rumphian name and figure are quoted as an exact
Synonym of a Cochin-China species described by him as new.
28 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
In very many cases Lourciro took his specific name from Rumph-
ius, yet in not a single case is a species described by Loureiro
to be interpreted by the reference to Rumphius, as his descrip-
tyjons were not based on data supplied by the Herbarium
Amboinense, but on actual specimens from Cochin-China or
southern China.
We find the same condition in Burman f., Flora Indica (1768),
where Burman’s conception of the species proposed was not
gained from the Rumphian synonym cited, often the only one
given, so much as from actual specimens from Java or from
some other part of the Indo-Malayan region; in few cases are
Burman’s species, as published in his Flora Indica, to be typified
by the Rumphian reference cited. In the early volumes of
Lamarck’s Encyclopédie we find likewise numerous cases where
species actually described from specimens originating in the
Mascarene Islands, in the Philippines, and in other regions
remote from Amboina are supplied with a Rumphian synonym,
which usually has proved to be misplaced. Error after error
has crept into systematic botany by interpretation of species by
a Rumphian synonym, wrongly placed, rather than by consulta-
tion of the actual type specimen. These errors, once published,
have been perpetuated by other authors, sometimes because of
failure to interpret types properly, sometimes because of lack
of interest in problems of nomenclature, sometimes because of
non-accessibility of type specimens for purposes of comparison,
and for other reasons. By way of illustration I need cite only
one or two extreme cases.
The type of Fagara triphylla Lam. is a Philippine specimen
collected by Sonnerat, and a recent examination of it in Lamarck’s
herbarium at the Museum d’histoire Naturelle, Paris, shows
it to be identical with the endemic Philippine Melicope luzonensis
Engl. De Candolle, however, apparently interpreting Fagara tri-
phylla Lam. chiefly from the Rumphian synonym, Ampacus
angustifolius Rumph., cited by Lamarck in the original descrip-
tion, transferred it to Evodia as E'vodia triphylla DC.; and later
authors, also interpreting it from the Rumphian synonym, have
given E'vodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. a range extending from
India to Japan southward through Malaya to New Guinea. In
clearing up this question of synonymy * I have shown that
Fagara triphylla Lam.—Evodia triphylla DC.—Melicope triphylla
Merr. is a species confined to the Philippines; that H'vodia tri-
* On the identity of Evodia triphylla DC. Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912)
Bot. 378-878.
INTRODUCTION 29
phylla of various authors includes at least three distinct species in
two different genera; and now the occurrence of true Ampacus
angustifolius Rumph. in the Amboina collection shows that this
Rumphian species, while a true E'vodia, represents still another
distinct species. E'vodia triphylla DC. as interpreted by various
authors has included at least four distinct species in two different
genera.
Another case is that presented by Ricinus mappa Linn., based
wholly on Holiwum mappae Rumph. This is the basis of Maca-
ranga mappa Muell.-Arg., Mueller extending the range of the
species to the Philippines by the erroneous reduction of Croton
grandifolius Blanco as a synonym. I have shown that Maca-
ranga grandifolia (Blanco) Merr. is a species entirely distinct
from Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., yet Pax and K. Hoffman*
in their recent monograph of this group interpret Macaranga
mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. wholly from Philippine specimens,
erroneously citing Croton grandifolius Blanco, Macaranga por-
teana André, and Macaranga grandifolia Merr. as synonyms,
and even figuring the species from Philippine material. A
casual comparison of Philippine material with Rumphius’s figure,
the type of Ricinus mappa Linn.—Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg.,
shows that two totally different species are involved. The occur-
rence of typical Foliwm mappae Rumph. in Robinson’s Amboina
collections shows conclusively that I was correct in separating
the Philippine form, that Mueller was wrong in reducing Ricinus
grandifolius Blanco to Macaranga mappa, and that Pax and K.
Hoffman were entirely wrong in their interpretation of Maca-
ranga mappa Muell.-Arg. The two species involved are so
entirely different that they belong in distinct sections of the
genus.
THE INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES AS TYPES
In the interpretation of the species of older authors under
which Rumphian names are cited as synonyms one point must
constantly be kept in mind. This is, as to whether the species
was based on an actual specimen in the hands of the author or,
by citation, wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. In
nearly every case it is possible to determine this point merely by
an examination of the description, for even when no specimen is
actually cited, if the species was based on an actual specimen,
data are usually given that could not have been derived from
* Huphorbiaceae-Acalypheae-Mercurialinae. Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914)
320.
30 _ RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
either Rumphius’s description or figure. Even in Linnaeus’s
works descriptions based on actual specimens rather than on
cited synonyms are usually thus determinable. I have already
noted that none of Loureiro’s species, even when the specific
name is taken from Rumphius, are to be interpreted by the
Rumphian synonym cited. The same is true of most of
Burman’s species published in his Flora Indica, many of those
proposed by Lamarck, and those of many other authors.
Where a species was based on an actual specimen supplemented
by a reference to Rumphius, the specimen is manifestly
the type, but it then becomes necessary to determine whether
or not the specimen represents the same species as the Rumphian
synonym cited. In a very high percentage of such cases the
actual specimen described has been found to represent a species
different from the one figured by Rumphius, due to the fact
that the early authors, having little conception of the geographic
distribution of plants, failed to distinguish between the in-
digenous and endemic elements in the Amboina flora and those
species of wide distribution. Among all of the earlier workers
there was a strong tendency to refer the Rumphian illustrations
to species described from actual specimens, even if there was
only a superficial resemblance between the specimen and the
figure. None of them realized the necessity of interpreting
Moluccan species from Moluccan specimens; and, even if the value
of such procedure were realized, no botanical material from
Ambonia was available to European botanists until the close of
the eighteenth century and, even then, only a limited amount.
In the present consideration of the Herbarium Amboinense
those species and their synonyms that were based solely on plants
described and figured, or merely described, by Rumphius have
been indicated by the term “type!” in parentheses following the
citation. The list of such species could doubtless have been
extended if in the course of the preparation of the manuscript,
I had had access to all the literature. As it is, nearly 350 such
“‘types’”’ have been indicated. From the standpoint of taxonomy
then, the Herbarium Amboinense is of relatively very great im-
portance, for its descriptions and figures typify a very large
number of binomials of later authors. Only two other pre-
Linnean works on the Indo-Malayan flora can be compared with
the Herbarium Amboinense in this respect, these being Rheede’s
Hortus Malabaricus and Linnaeus’s Flora Zeylanica, and most of
the actual specimens on which the later work was based are
extant.
INTRODUCTION 31
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIES DESCRIBED IN THE HERBARIUM
AMBOINENSE BY VARIOUS AUTHORS
LINNAEUS AND STICKMAN
Citations of Rumphian synonyms are found in the first pub-
lished work on the binomial system,* but these are few and
of slight importance, as Linnaeus did not secure a copy of the
Herbarium Amboinense until his manuscript was completed:
Upus eximium beati Rumphii cura amplissimi D. Burmanni orbi botanico
redditum, ad me accessit primum absoluto a typographo opere, cujus itaque
synonymia seorsim tradere animus est.+
About nineteen Rumphian synonyms are cited in the first
edition of the Species Plantarum, of which four are in volume
one, the remainder in volume two, but in only four cases are the
Linnean species based wholly on the Rumphian synonyms, and
these are all found in the Appendix. The list is as follows:
Cynometra cauliflora Linn. - Areca catechu Linn.
Cynometra ramifiora Linn. . Caryota urens Linn.
_- Averrhoa carambola Linn. Plukenetia volubilis Linn.
v Averrhoa bilimbi Linn. Hibiscus surattensis Linn.
- Garcinia mangostana Linn. Rubus parvifolius Linn.
Acrostichum siliquosum Linn. Rubus moluccanus Linn.
~ Borassus flabellifer Linn. Convolvulus peltatus Linn.
- Corypha umbraculifera Linn. Quercus molucca Linn.
~Cycas circinalis Linn. Croton variegatus Linn.
» Cocos nucifera Linn.
The last. four are based wholly on Rumphius’s figures and
descriptions. The new genus and species, Rumphia amboinensis
Linn., is not based on Amboina material, contains no reference
to the Herbarium Amboinense, and is the Indian Corda tiliaefolia
(Poir.) Warb.t
Linnaeus realized the great importance of Rumphius’s work
and at once assigned to one of his students, Olaf Stickman, a
study of the Herbarium Amboinense. In the following year,
1754, Stickman’s dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense was
printed, this being probably the first work published following
the binomial system of nomenclature after the system was pro-
posed. Stickman’s publication is discussed below.
In the second edition of the Species Plantarum § Rumphius’s
Herbarium Amboinense is listed among the “‘Auctores Reforma-
* Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum (1753) 1-1200.
+ Linnaeus, C. Op. cit. 1199.
~ Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 78.
§ Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762-63) 1-1684.
32 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
tores” and is placed in the group of ‘“‘Fundadores.” Numerous
reductions of Rumphian species had already been made in Stick-
man’s dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754), in the
1759 reprint of this work,* and in the tenth edition of the Systema
Naturae (1759), most of which are repeated in the second edition ~
of the Species Plantarum; in all there are about 275 references
to the Herbarium Amboinense in this work. Additional refer-
ences are included in Linnaeus’s later works.
The first attempt to interpret the species described and figured
in the Herbarium Amboinense as a whole in terms of the binomial
system of nomenclature was made one year after the system was
proposed. This was nominally the work of Olaf Stickman, one
of Linnaeus’s pupils, but it is manifest that the actual work was
largely that of Linnaeus himself. Stickman’s dissertation,; as
originally published, is a very rare work, and copies of it are
known in but few libraries. Rouffaer and Muller ¢ cite only
two copies, one in the University Library at Upsala, Sweden,
and one in the Kénigliche Hof- und Staatsbibliothek, Munich.
There is a copy in the library of the Linnean Society, London;
one in the library of the British Museum; one in the library of
the New York Botanical Garden; and one in the private library
of Dr. J. H. Barnhart, of the New York Botanical Garden; and I
was so fortunate as to secure a copy from a Kuropean dealer for
our work on the Amboina project. Doubtless other copies will
be found in the older European libraries.
In this work an attempt was made to reduce only those species
figured by Rumphius in volumes one to six of the Herbarium
Amboinense; volume seven, the Auctuarium, was not printed
until the year following the appearance of Stickman’s work and
is, accordingly, not included. The species are arranged in the
Rumphian sequence, giving the Rumphian name, the numbers
of the plates, and the binomial equivalents of the various species
so far as they could be determined. About three hundred of the
forms figured by Rumphius are referred to binomials already
proposed in the first edition of the Species Plantarum of Linnaeus,
*Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 112-148.
+ Herbarium Amboinense, | quod | consens. experient. Facult. Medicae
| in Regia Academia Upsalensi, | sub praesidio | viri nobilissimi atque
experientissimi, | Dn. Doct. Caroli | Linnaei, |... . | publico examini
submittit, | Alumnus Regius | Olavus Stickman, | Smolandus.| In auditorio
Car. Majori d X. Maji, | anno MDCCLIV | Upsaliae |... . (1754)
IV + 1-28.
~ Eerste proeve van eene Rumphius-Bibliographie. Rumphius Gedenk-
boek 1702-1902 (1902) 196.
INTRODUCTION 33
or published for the first time in this dissertation. In addition
to these three hundred specific reductions, many others are
referred to generic names under the Linnean system, about
twenty to species characterized by Rheede in his Hortus Mala-
baricus, and a few are connected with other pre-Linnean names.
As is to be expected many of the proposed reductions have
since been shown to be wrong.
In this work more than twenty binomials appear for the first
time, and these, typified by the Rumphian figures and descrip-
tions, although validly published, were overlooked by the com-
pilers of Index Kewensis and do not appear in that work or, if
included, are credited to later publications. Among these are
the following: |
Garcinia celebica Linn. » Lens phaseoloides Linn.
Psidium cujavus Linn. Menispermum flavum Linn.
Myrtus leucadendra Linn. Adenanthera falcata Linn.
Momordica indica Linn. Hernandia ovigera Linn.
» Plumbago indica Linn. Convallaria fruticosa Linn.
Tragia scandens Linn. Piper decumanum Linn.
Erythrina variegata Linn. Bromelia comosa Linn.
Rhizophora caseolaris Linn. Dolichos pruriens Linn.
Rhizophora corniculata Linn. Momordica trifolia Linn.
Ricinus mappa Linn. Pothos latifolius Linn.
Ricinus tanarius Linn. Pancratium narbonense Linn.
Under modern conditions there would be no question whatever
as to the authority for these names, for unless otherwise stated in
the text the authority would be the author of the Dissertation.
In this case the work was done under Linnaeus’s inspiration and
direction, and the reductions of the Rumphian species must have
been made largely, if not wholly, by him. I have accordingly
quoted Linnaeus as the authority for all new combinations
appearing in Stickman’s dissertation.
In 1759 Stickman’s Dissertation was reprinted under the title
“Herbarium Amboinense, sub praesidio D. D. Car. Linnaei, pro-
posuit Olavus Stickman, Smolandus’* Whatever doubt there
may be as to the actual authorship of the original edition of
Stickman’s work in 1754, the 1759 reprint must certainly be
credited to Linnaeus. This differs from the original edition
notably in that the contents of volume seven of the Herbarium
Amboinense, the Auctuarium, are included, while appended to the
treatment of the Rumphian species is the “Flora Amboinensis,”’
in which the species recognized are arranged under the Linnean
classes Monandria, Diandria, etc., to which in turn an “Appendix”’
* Linnaeus, C. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 112-148.
1449713
34 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
is added to include the Palmae and “‘Singulares.”’ In the treat-
ment of the species figured in volumes one to six of the Herbarium
Amboinense, the 1759 reprint differs from the original edition
in certain respects. Some corrections are made in the indicated ©
binomials, and a few new ones are added. The number of
Rumphian species reduced in this work is about 330, an increase
of about 30 over the original edition, but this includes 12 from
the Auctuarium that were not included in the 1754 edition. As
in the original edition, certain binomials which have not been
listed in Index Kewensis, appear in the 1759 reprint. Among
these are Muntingia bartramia, Phaseolus cylindricus, Panicum
vulpinum, Justicia bivalvis, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Varneria
augusta, Lagerstroemia chinensis, and Canarium indicum. In
the present work Linnaeus has been quoted as the authority for
these binomials, as well as for those appearing in the original,
1754, edition.
BURMAN
Burman, in editing the Herbarium Amboinense, added various
notes on the identity of the Rumphian species and at the end of
volume seven, the Auctuarium (1755), added his ‘‘Index univer-
salis in sex tomos et auctuarium herbarii Amboinensis Cl. Georgii
Everhardi Rumphii,” in which he reduced about 311 of the
Rumphian species to the Linnean binomial system, for the most
part following the reduction proposed by Linnaeus in Stickman’s
dissertation issued the preceding year. Here he also published
a few new binomials typified by Rumphius’s figures, which have
been entirely overlooked by all later authors. Those in the
vegetable kingdom are Mespilus silvestris Burm., Phaseolus
marinus Burm., Pepo indicus Burm., and Aurantium maximum
Burm. This index consists of twenty pages, Unnumbered, the
species being alphabetically arranged under their Rumphian
names with references to the book, the chapter, and the volume
in which they are described.
In 1769 a second edition of this index was issued by Burman,
under the title—
Index alter in omnes tomos Herbarii Amboinensis Cl. G. Everhardi |
Rumphii quem de novo recensuit, auxit et emendavit Joannes Burmannus,
M. D. Botanices Professor, Academiae Caesareae Naturae Curiosum, nec
non Regiae Scientiarum Academiae Upsaliensis membrum.
It consists. of twenty-two unnumbered pages, folio, and is
apparently a rare work. Rouffaer and Muller * in their biblio-
graphy cite an example of it which they examined in the library
* Rumphius Gedenkboek 1702-1902 (1902) 200.
INTRODUCTION 25
of the K. Svenskt Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm, and one in
the private library of Doctor Greshoff, late director of the
Colonial Museum at Haarlem, Holland; they consider it remark-
able that the work is lacking in such libraries as those of Leiden,
Upsala, Halle, and Munich. There are copies in the libraries of
the British Museum; the Linnean Society, London; and the Royal
Botanic Garden, Kew, England; and I have been supplied with a
photostat copy of it by Dr. Walter T. Swingle, of the United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. The
second edition differs from the original chiefly in the additional
reductions included. A total of about 458 binomials appear in
this work, nearly 150 more than in the first edition. The reduc-
tions included are chiefly those indicated in the second and the
third editions of Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum and in the
younger Burman’s Flora Indica, the latter having been published
in 1768. Two new binomials appear, Achyranthes spicifiora
Burm. and Verbesina aquatica Burm., the former, from the
reference given, manifestly a misprint for Acalypha spiciflora
Burm. f.; while of the four published in the first edition in 1755
Aurantium maximum Burm. is eliminated in favor of Citrus
decumana Linn.
BUCHANAN-HAMILTON
Doctor Francis Buchanan-Hamilton commenced a critical con-
sideration of the Rumphian species, which, however, was never
completed or, at least, except for the first two parts, never
published. The first part is entitled A Commentary on the
Herbarium Amboinense, Liber Primus; and the second part,
A Commentary on the Second Book of the Herbarium Am-
boinense.* The work is of considerable interest and value.
Each species described by Rumphius is discussed to a greater
or less length with critical notes on the identity of the individual
species and with reasons for and against the various proposed
reductions. Hamilton was handicapped by lack of knowledge
of the Malayan flora and attempted to interpret the Rumphian
species largely from his experience with the Indian flora. The
various forms actually described from Indian material are usually
specifically distinct from the Rumphian species under which they
were placed; but Hamilton usually does not claim that the
Rumphian species is identical with the one he describes; he
merely says that the two resemble each other or are manifestly
allied. In a few cases, in the first part of his work, he proposed
binomials typified by the Rumphian species, but none of these
*Mem. Wern. Soc. Edinburgh 5 (1826) 307-888; 6 (1832) 286-3388.
26 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
appear in the second part. Unlike his predecessors who had
attempted to interpret the Rumphian species, he did not confine
his comments to the species figured, but also attempted to account
for those described but not figured.
HENSCHEL
Henschel’s * attempt to interpret the species described by
Rumphius is merely an enumeration of the Rumphian species by
volumes in the order in which they appear in the Herbarium
Amboinense, with their binomial equivalents, so far as deter-
mined, in parallel columns. He considers chiefly the species
figured by Rumphius. The enumeration, a mere compilation, is
very faulty and untrustworthy, as is to be expected, for
Henschel was not a botanist and had no personal knowledge of
the Indo-Malayan flora. New binomials, with one or two excep-
tions, do not occur in this work, nor is there any critical discus- .
sion of the various species. The Clavis Herbarii Amboinensis
of Henschel in arrangement compares closely with the sequence
of Rumphian species published in the present work at the end
of the systematic enumeration (p. 511 to 547), except that
through the work of numerous botanists on the Malayan flora
a very much higher percentage of the Rumphian species can now
be placed than Henschel found possible. Henschel’s work is,
in general, of very slight value, so far as it applies to the species
Rumphius described and their binomial equivalents.
HASSKARL
The most pretentious attempt heretofore made to interpret
the species described in the Herbarium Amboinense is that by
Doctor J. K. Hasskarl, entitled Neue Schliissel zu Rumph’s
Herbarium amboinense.t In this work the species are arranged
under the Rumphian names in Rumphius’s sequence, citing the
page and plate numbers for each, the native names, and a
chronological arrangement of the reductions proposed by various
authors, with citations of literature. Hasskarl’s work is scarcely
more than a compilation, but is a remarkable example of patience
and perseverance on the part of the author. The mere matter of
*Henschel, A. G. E. T. Clavis Herbarii Amboinensis pp. 139-202, in his:
Vita G. E. Rumphii, Plinii indici accedunt specimen materiae Rumphianae
medicae clavisque herbarii et thesauri Amboinensis. (1833) XIV+1-216.
+ Abhandlungen der Naturf. Gesellschaft Halle 9 (1866) 145-389; Re-
print (1866) 1-247.
INTRODUCTION 37
searching the literature from 17538 to 1866 for references to the
Herbarium Amboinense must have entailed many months of
exacting labor. Where numerous synonyms are cited, or at least
numerous names are listed, to which a Rumphian species has
been reduced, usually no opinion is expressed as to which is the
correct one. Many of those suggested by Hasskarl himself are
palpably wrong, due perhaps to his lack of knowledge of the
Malayan flora. It is not evident that Hasskarl ever had a very
wide knowledge of the flora of the Malay Archipelago in spite
of his residence in Java and his published botanical contributions.
_ Many of his errors of interpretation were primarily due to the
same factor that caused others to fail in properly interpreting
Rumphius’s species; that is, a lack of botanical material from
Amboina and the neighboring islands. On account of the method
of arranging his data, Hasskarl’s work is difficult to consult,
is entirely unsatisfactory in aiding the botanist to gain a definite
idea of which species are actually included in Rumphius’s work
and which are not, and because of the numerous errors in reduc-
tions is, it is feared, more or less discredited among botanists
familiar with the Malayan flora.
Hasskarl’s work performed one distinct service that his pre-
decessors failed in. Stickman, Linnaeus, Burman, and Henschel
dealt only or largely with the species figured by Rumphius,
ignoring the descriptions to a large extent; Hasskarl, however,
brought out clearly the fact that Rumphius described very many
more forms than he figured. He perhaps went to extremes in
enumerating all the variants of such plants as the coconut palm,
‘Sugar cane, rice, banana, and other cultivated forms, and cer-
tainly went to extremes in attempting to reduce the Rumphian
descriptions of these variants to named forms and varieties
under the binomial system. Several binomials were proposed
by Hasskarl, typified by citation of Rumphius’s descriptions and
figures, in attempting to account for Rumphius’s species. These
were overlooked in compiling Index Kewensis, but invariably
fall as synonyms.
In consulting Hasskarl’s work, it should be noted that the
numerous citations of Loureiro, Flora Cochinchinensis, are of
the second, or Willdenow’s, edition, 1793; that the references
to Linnaeus are not to the original works of this author, but to
Richter’s Codex Botanicus Linneanus (1840) ; while Stickman’s
1754 dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense, and usually also
the 1759 reprint, is not cited.
38 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
THE PRESENT STATUS OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES
Rumphius named and described approximately 1,700 plants
that he considered to represent distinct forms. However, many
of the plants he named and characterized are “forms” or
“varieties” rather than “species” in the generally accepted sense
of these words. Slight variations in the color of the leaves, of
the flowers, or of the stems of plants; equally slight differences
in the size of certain parts; and other trivial characters were
deemed by him to be of sufficient importance to warrant the
characterization of the form and the bestowal of a distinctive
name. Thus, in the case of cultivated plants, such as the coconut,
the betel-nut palm, the sago palm, the sugar cane, taro, rice, and
balsam, both slight and prominent variants were distinguished,
while in wild plants equivalent distinctions were often made.
In terms of the binomial system, as species are understood
to-day, the 1,700 forms named and to a greater or less degree
characterized by Rumphius can be reduced to about 1,200 species,
including those that, while apparently distinct, are of more
or less doubtful status and have not been definitely referred to
any genus. Of these 1,200 species about 930 can be definitely or
fairly definitely referred to binomials, and about 140 additional
ones can be safely placed in their respective genera, leaving
about 130 that from data and material at present available
cannot be definitely located under the binomial system; some of
these cannot be even placed in their proper families. A high
percentage of these doubtful species are those that are very im-
perfectly and briefly described, some being scarcely more than
casually mentioned; few of them are figured.
As already noted, many binomials have been based wholly on
the Rumphian figures and descriptions. In about 800 cases
references to the Herbarium Amboinense are found in the
original descriptions or publications of species, while about 350
binomials have been based wholly on various species more or less
imperfectly characterized by Rumphius. During the past one
hundred and thirty-five years numerous botanists have attempted
with greater or less success to interpret these Rumphian species
by connecting the Rumphian names and descriptions with actual
botanical specimens. Many errors in interpretation and in iden-
tification have been made, but the general results have been such
that to-day a high percentage of the Rumphian species have been
definitely connected with extant botanical material, and their true
status has been determined. As a result of Doctor Robinson’s
INTRODUCTION 39
work in Amboina, the list of doubtful species has been greatly
reduced.
In the present consideration about 930 of the Rumphian species
have been definitely referred to binomials, and of these about
470 are definitely represented by botanical specimens collected
by Doctor Robinson. It should be borne in mind, however, that
many of the species that are not represented by specimens
collected by Doctor Robinson were originally described by
Rumphius from material that did not originate in Amboina,
much of it coming from distant lands (see p. 14).
There are about 45 species, proposed by various authors, that
are known to-day only from the data originally given by
Rumphius; that is, those species that have not been, to my
knowledge, definitely and correctly connected with actual bota-
nical specimens from which in turn their true characters and
relationships can be determined. Among these species of
doubtful status are the following:
Lentinus tuber regium Fries. Polyalthia sp. (Guatteria rumphii
Lentinus djamor Fries. Blume).
Agaricus moschocaryanus Strinz. Goniothalamus sp. (Uvaria tripetala
Polygaster sampadarius Fries. Lam.).
Pachyma tuber regium Fries. Talauma rumphu Blume.
Pachyma hoelen Fries. Mangifera utana Ham.
Pandanus repens Miq. Mangifera tapia Ham.
Pandanus baggea Miq. Dillenia serrata Thunb.
Pandanus terrestris Warb. Sindora galedupa Prain.
Freycinetia graminea Blume. Actinodaphne rumphii Blume.
Bambusa excelsa Miq. Actinodaphne moluccana Blume.
Bambusa (Schizostachyum) longi- Canarium balsamiferum Willd.
nodis Mig. Canarium hirsutum Willd.
Livistona bissula Mart. Canarium zephyrinitum Blume.
Calamus graminosus Blume. Canarium sp. (Canariopsis pauct-
Calamus rumphii Blume. juga Miq.).
Calamus pisicarpus Blume. Canarium sp. (Pimela caryophyllacea
Calamus buroensis Mart. Blume).
Calamus equestris Willd. Osmoxylon umbelliferum Merr.
Calamus cawa Blume. Scheffiera sp. (Brassaia littorea
Calamus acidus Becc. Seem.).
Daemonorops niger Blume. Panax anisum DC.
Alpinia uviformis Horan. Hoya alba Kostel.
Michelia tsiampacca Linn. Hoya elegans Kostel.
Polyalthia sp. (Uvaria ligularis Ipomoea rumphii Miq.
Lam.).
Doubtless some of these species are represented in herbaria
rich in Malayan material, but so far as published records go,
such specimens have never been definitely connected with the
AO RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
published species that they may represent. The importance of
interpreting species based on Rumphius’s descriptions from
actual specimens collected as near the classical locality as possible
cannot be overestimated, and the sooner the above doubtful
species are definitely connected with botanical material by which
their true characters can be determined, the nearer we will be
to the long hoped for stable nomenclature.
DIFFICULTIES IN THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN
SPECIES
The difficulties involved in attempting to interpret the species
described by such an author as Rumphius in terms of the
binomial system are very great. The actual working up of the
Amboina collection has involved two entirely different sets of
identifications, first an identication with the form Rumphius
described or described and figured; and, second, a further identi-
fication of the same specimen to its proper genus and species
under the binomial system. Neither task has been an easy one,
for very obvious reasons.
In dealing with the Rumphian descriptions, many difficulties
are encountered. While often very long, the descriptions are
nontechnical, and measurements are largely approximate or com-
parative. The parts of the flowers are not described in detail,
and often they are not even mentioned. The plants described.
in a single chapter under a “generic” term may belong to a single
genus, as the term is understood to-day, or may belong in entirely
different genera in distinct or even unrelated families. Many
forms are only casually described, sometimes scarcely more
than mentioned, while of others the description is reduced to
a general description of the wood only. Very many of these
casually described species were not based on Amboina material,
but on specimens transmitted to Rumphius from various parts
of Asia and Malaya. To a certain degree we have succeeded
definitely in placing a high percentage of the species that are
amply described and figured and a fair percentage of those that
are but casually mentioned, but much remains to be done on
this subject.
Another factor that has rendered identifications difficult or
uncertain is the figures themselves. While many of them are
excellent and can be unmistakably referred to their proper species
in the binomial system from an examination of the figures alone,
others are very crude; some are imperfect in that they delineate
only leaf specimens; some are manifestly based on material origi-
nating from entirely distinct species or even from representatives
INTRODUCTION Al
of different genera and families, and some do not agree at all
with the descriptions to which they are ascribed. As already
noted the artist has frequently depicted the leaves on one scale
and the attached inflorescences, flowers, or fruits, as the case
may be, on an entirely different scale. Very frequently the
leaves are reduced in size, while the other parts may be greatly
enlarged. In consulting the Herbarium Amboinense, it should
be borne in mind that Rumphius himself never saw the figures,
which were drawn by various artists after he became blind (see
p. 16).
Rumphius’s idea of the species was not at all that of the species
as understood to-day, nor can his chapter heads be considered
as corresponding to the modern conception of the genus. As
noted by Doctor Robinson in one of his letters to me:
Rumphius imbibed the native ideas on the relationships of plants, and
did his best to improve on them. Now the natives here to-day, and I
think certainly also in his time, base their opinions largely on habit and
leaf characters, or perhaps on habitat; thus mangi-mangi covers the whole
mangrove family (Rhizophoraceae) with Sonneratia thrown in. Also to
the characters utilized by the natives in making identifications should be
added wood characters, latex if any, taste and smell of leaves, flowers, and
fruit. Neither he nor they appreciate the primary value of flowers or fruit
or of compound leaves. Again the methods of distinguishing species that
we use were entirely unknown to him, as they are to the natives here to-day.
We are so accustomed to putting emphasis on simple versus compound and
opposite versus alternate leaves; superior versus inferior ovary; and apet-
alous, polypetalous, and gamopetalous flowers and the number of their
parts, that it is difficult to follow a man who took no count of any of these
characters, except as to the compound leaves, while his opposite leaves are
often opposite leaflets. He says in one place that a menispermaceous
plant “maxime convenit” with what proves to be Derris uliginosa of the
Leguminosae; what then about some of the other plants he described that
“maxime convenit,’ when there is no illustration to suggest the identity
of the species involved? Take the case of Ternstroemia, Ichthyoctonos
montana of Rumphius. It is most excellently described and the illustration
is fair, yet in this chapter he describes three forms which differ in the color
of the wood and of the roots. It is incredible that in an island of this
size that there can be three species of this small and characteristic genus
to each of which the description can correspond so far as it goes and yet
_ be worthy of being interpreted as three distinct species of Ternstroemia.
There are two possible conclusions regarding it, and many other similar
cases, first, that there is really only one species of Ternstroemia and that the
differences are merely superficial; and, second, that he had in mind three
really different species, not unlikely in as many different families of plants,
but that the detailed description applies to one only; the other two forms
briefly mentioned in this chapter are inextricable with certainty. Even if
a sufficiently perfect knowledge of all the plants found in Amboina did
enable us correctly to guess what was intended by the second and third
forms of Ichthyoctonos, there is nothing in Rumphius’s statements by
42 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
which the correctness of the interpretation could be checked. Again Ma-
cuerus is divided into “mas” and femina;” one is a Cyrtandra, of the
Gesneriaceae, and the other is a Pellionia, of the Urticaceae, but he almost
certainly included in the latter an equally common Elatostema. Conoceph-
alus, of the Moraceae, and Medinilla, of the Melastomataceae, are placed
together. It will take much critical work certainly to distinguish in the
Herbarium Amboinense such dissimilar plants as Pipturus, of the Urti-
caceae, Zizyphus, of the Rhamnaceae, other melastomataceous plants in-
cluding some species of Medinilla, Celtis, of the Ulmaceae, and even
Strychnos, of the Loganiaceae.
Very many similar cases could be added, but the above state-
ment clearly indicates one particular phase of the difficulties
involved in the interpretation of Rumphian species.
The difficulties involved in identifying material under the
binomial system have been very real. The herbarium of the
Bureau of Science contains only such material as could be
accumulated by actual field work and by exchanges in the past
fifteen years, and while it contains a very fine series of Philippine
species and much valuable material from the Indo-Malayan
region generally, many species that I should like to have seen are
lacking. Identifications, other than of those species already
familiar to me, have been largely made by comparisons with the
published descriptions, and very many such descriptions are
entirely inadequate, especially those of the early authors. When-
ever possible the original descriptions have been examined, but
a number of works that it has been desirable or essential to
examine in the course of the preparation of this manuscript are
not available in Manila. In very numerous cases resource has
been had to transcriptions or photographic reproductions of
essential descriptions, and such data have been supplied by
various botanists in Europe and America. In one form or
another I have thus been able to examine nearly all of the
references to Rumphius cited in this work.
In the present consideration of the Rumphian species I have
departed radically from the works of previous authors. In
order to make the work more generally available to botanists,
the Rumphian species, so far as they can be reduced at present,
are cited aS synonyms under the various species and genera to
which they refer, these again being arranged by families and
genera in the sequence of Engler and Prantl’s Natiirlichen
Pflanzenfamilien. Appended to this systematic treatment of
the Rumphian species is a list under the Rumphian names
arranged in the sequence of the Herbarium Amboinense, giving
references to the volume, the page, and the figure under each
and, so far as determinable, their binomial equivalents.
INTRODUCTION 43
NOMENCLATURE
In nomenclature the rules of the Vienna Botanical Congress *
have been closely followed, including the list of nomina conser-
vanda as well as the supplementary list adopted by the Brussels
Botanical Congress. The sole exception in the list of nomina
conservanda is the adoption of the generic name Taetsia in place
of Cordyline for what are considered to be entirely valid reasons.
Up to the close of the last century comparatively little attention
was given to the question of priority in the names of plants,
and many authors accepted or changed generic and specific
names at will. It is true that in a majority of cases names
well established were generally accepted, but changes were often
made for the most trivial reasons. In work prosecuted under
these lax but easy methods of selecting names for plants, the
exact identity of obscure species was a matter of relatively
slight importance.
With the establishment and general acceptance of the prin-
ciple of priority in selecting the names of species, it has become
important, from the viewpoint of stability of nomenclature, to
determine so far as possible the exact status of the species
proposed by the older authors. It would admittedly be con-
venient if many of the names proposed by early authors could
be discarded, but if we ignore the species of one author, any
botanist at any time would be justified in likewise ignoring
species proposed by any other author, which would result in
a veritable chaotic condition in nomenclature. We can no
longer look on the work of this or that author, no matter how
incomplete or imperfect, as unworthy of consideration, nor can
we accept Hooker’s t dictum, regarding species proposed by
such authors as Blanco, that it was undesirable to devote time
to their identification.
Regarding species based on such pre-Linnean works as
Rheede’s Hortus Malabaricus and Rumphius’s Herbarium Am-
boinense, Hooker f. commends the work of Blume for the good
service he has performed to the antiquarian branch of botany
in interpreting Rumphian species. The general adoption of the
principle of priority has emphasized the great importance of
what Hooker f. characterized as the antiquarian branch of
* Briquet, J. Regles internationales de la Nomenclature botanique
adoptées par le Congres International de Botanique de Vienne 1905 (1906)
1-99.
y+ Actes du III ™* Congres International de Botanique, Bruxelles, 1910 1
(1910) 112-116.
~ Hooker f. & Thomson. Flora Indica 1 (1855) Introductory Essay 56.
44 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
botany, and while investigations of the status of binomials
proposed by the early authors will lead to necessary changes
in nomenclature, and changes in the accepted names of plants
are always to be regretted, yet a strict interpretation of species
from a historical standpoint will correct numerous current
misapplications of names and lead to the assignment of these
names to the forms for which their original authors intended
them.
The strict application of the rule of priority as to the specific
names has resulted in many changes in nomenclature, but
these changes are unavoidable, if the international code be
followed. Considering the distinctly basic position occupied
by the Herbarium Amboinense in Malayan botany, the fact that
so many binomials based wholly on Rumphius’s work have been
published by various authors, and the further fact that a high
percentage of the “‘species”’ so established have been unintelligible
to most botanists and have hence frequently been redescribed
under other names, it is rather surprising that more changes in
nomenclature have not been found necessary. The conservative
botanist will be shocked to learn that as a result of the present
investigation of the Herbarium Amboinense such common, widely
distributed, and well-known species as the pineapple, the soy bean,
the cow pea, and the pomelo must receive new specific names;
that such names as Vigna luteola Sw., Canavalia turgida Grah.,
Pongamia glabra Vent., and others equally well known for the
last hundred years or more fall as synonyms; and that in the true
mangrove trees (Ithizophoraceae) the specific names in current
use for most species are wrongly applied.
In proposing changes in nomenclature, I have not hesitated
even when such well-known species as Glycine hispida, Ananas
sativus, Citrus decumana, and Phaseolus unguiculatus are in-
volved. While objections may be voiced to the changes in
nomenclature herein proposed, while individual botanists may
refuse to adopt the proposed changes, and while exceptions may
be taken to some of my interpretations, I cannot understand why
logically the changes proposed should not be generally adopted.
Each case has been critically worked out from a _ historical
standpoint, and the accepted name is that indicated by the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature now generally
accepted by most botanists. To those botanists who make their
own rules and in the matter of accepting or rejecting specific
names are a law unto themselves, no appeal is made, for appeal
is useless. I am firmly of the opinion, however, that stability in
INTRODUCTION A5
nomenclature can come only by adhering to definite rules and
by critically working out the proper name for each species in
conformity with those rules.
In one matter affecting generic nomenclature I have definitely
gone on record in a previous publication.* This is that the
generic name should be maintained for the group for which it
was intended by its original author, not applied to representatives
of a group that was wholly unknown to the author of the generic
name. Nauclea of Linnaeus serves as an illustration of the idea.
As Nauclea is currently interpreted, it contains nothing that was
originally placed there by Linnaeus. I have proposed to apply
Nauclea in its original sense; that is, to the species currently
placed in Sarcocephalus and have proposed the new name
Neonauclea for Nauclea auctt., not of Linnaeus. It is to me
inconceivable that a genus proposed by one author should be
interpreted by others with every original species excluded. The
application of this principle to some of the older genera will
involve an adjustment in such a case as Alpinia, for the type and
sole species cited in the original description of Alpinia is a
Renealmia.
As a natural consequence of the acceptance of the International
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, the numerous Rumphian names
adopted by O. Kuntze + as substitutes for more “recent” generic
names of other authors have been wholly ignored. It is perfectly
evident that Rumphius had no idea of the “‘genus,’’ and his names
cannot be interpreted in a generic sense. Even in the Auctuar-
ium, which was published after the binomial system was
established, the “generic”? names certainly cannot be considered
as the equivalent of the genus as understood by contemporary
botanists. The binomials that appear in the Auctuarium (1755)
are merely accidental and cannot be considered as properly
“published” binomial names; Burman in his added notes oc-
casionally cites the first edition of Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum,
but he never cites the Linnean binomial, merely the descriptive
sentence. It is perfectly clear that he had no intention of pub-
lishing the Rumphian accidental binomials as binomials in the
Linnean sense. It is only in his Index Universalis that he rec-
ognized the Linnean system. In this he reduced to binomials
those Rumphian species whose status had been determined by
Linnaeus and by Stickman and proposed a few new binomials. .
* On the application of the generic name Nauclea of Linnaeus. Journ.
Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 530-642.
y+ Rev. Gen. Pl. (1891-93) CLV+41-1011.
46 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
OVERLOOKED BINOMIALS
During the course of my work on this project I have detected
an unusually large number of binomials, over one hundred,
that while validly published were overlooked in compiling
the data for Index Kewensis and do not appear in that
work or in any of its supplements. Some of these binomials
appear in works that were never indexed, such as Stickman’s
Dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754); and in
various other works based on the Herbarium Amboinense, such
as those of Henschel and of Hasskarl; while others appear in
works that were indexed, but for one reason or another certain
species were overlooked. The list has been deemed to be of
sufficient importance to warrant publication and is accordingly
here presented.
Achyranthes chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 205=? A.
aspera Linn.
Achyranthes spiciflora Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [5]—Acalypha
amentacea Roxb.
Afzelia rhomboidea F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 72=Pahudia
rhomboidea Prain.
Allaeanthus luzonicus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 198. No com-
bination in ‘Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. III. 361.”
Allophylus grossedentatus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 51 (Schmi-
delia grossedentata Turcz.).
Alpinia rufa Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 226 (Hellenia rufa Presl).
Alpinia scabra Naves Novis. App. FI. Filip. (1880) 226 (Hellenia scabra
Blume).
Amomum hatuanum Naves Novis. App. FI. Filip. (1880) 224=? Amomum
aculeatum Roxb.
Anona sariffa Roxb. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 142=Diospyros kaki
Linn. f.
Artocarpus fretisii Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 189.
Aurantium maximum Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755)
[16]=Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr. (C. decwmana Linn.).
Bombax aculeatum Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1141=Ceiba pentandra
Gaertn.
Breweria alsinoides F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 143=Jacque-
montia paniculata Hallier f.
Briza elegans Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 246=? Hragrostis
elegantula Steud.
Bromelia comosa Linn. in Stickman. Herb. Amb. (1754) 21; Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1830=Ananas comosus (Linn.) Merr. (A. sativus
Schult. f.).
Bulbophyllum carinatum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 285 (Epiden-
drum carinatum Linn.). |
Bulbophyllum purpureum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 234 (Sarco-
podium purpureum Reichb. f.).
INTRODUCTION A7
Bursera ? nitida F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 41 (Marignia nitida
Turcez.) =Glycosmis cochinchinensis Pierre.
Cadamba nocturna Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 157=Nauclea
undulata Roxb.
Caesalpinia jayabo Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 19 (1890) 234.
Canarium indicum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 184 p. p.=Canarium
commune Linn.
Canarium zephyrinum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 217.
Caryophyllus silvestris Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle
9 (1866) 167=Hugenia caryophyllata Thunb.
Caryota javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 270=Ceratolobus
javanicus (Osbeck) Merr. (C. glaucescens Blume).
Cassumbium spinosum Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 143—Schlei-
chera oleosa (Lour.) Merr.
Catesbaea ? javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 92=Cleroden-
dron commersonu Spreng.
Citrus grandis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 98=Citrus maxima
(Burm.) Merr. (C. decumana Linn.).
Citrus limonia Osbeck Reise Ostind. China (1765) 250 (C. limonium
Risso).
Citrus sinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 250.
Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (18382) 680.
Columnea chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 230=Limnophila
chinensis (Osbeck) Merr. (L. hirsuta Benth.).
Commelina chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 242—Commelina
nudijiora Linn.
Convallaria chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 219=Scilla
chinensis Benth.
Convolvulus indicus Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [6]=
Ipomoea indica (Burm.) Merr. (I. congesta R. Br.).
Cordia tiliaefolia Warb. in Rumphius Gedenkboek (1902) 78 (Rumphia
amboinensis Linn., R. tiliaefolia Poir.).
Costus ananassae Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 333=
Tapeiochilus ananassae K. Schum.
Cryptanthus chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 277 (quid?).
Cucumis rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 280=
Cucumis sativus Linn.
Curculigo rumphiana Schultes Syst. 7 (18380) 757=Curculigo orchoides
Gaertn.
Cycas pectinata Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 322.
Dehaasia borneensis F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 179 (Haasia
borneensis Meisn.).
Desmodium cumingianum F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 61 (Den-
drolobium cumingianum Benth.
Dioscorea nummularifolia Henschel Vita Rump. (1833) 183 sphalm=D.
nummularia Lam.
Donax canniformis K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 15 (18938) 440.
Eleocharis dulcis Trin. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 186.
Erndlia subpersonata Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 252=Curcuma
longa Linn.
Eroteum lanigerum Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 440=Trichospermum lani-
gerum (Blanco) Merr. (T. trivalve Merr.).
48 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Eugenia longiflora F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 86 (Syzygium
longiflorum Presl).
Fimbristylis cumingii F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1882) 308=Bulbostylis
barbata Kunth.
Flindersia radulifera Spreng. Gesch. Bot. 2 (1818) 76 ex Hassk. in Abh.
Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 206=Flindersia amboinensis Poir.
Govantesia malulucban Llanos in Rev. Progr. Cienc. 15 (1865) 191=
Champereia manillana (Blume) Merr.
Guatteria rumphii Blume ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 153=Polyal-
thia sp.
Habenaria cordata Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 250, non R.
Br.,=Habenaria diphylla Dalz.
Hapaloceras ? arupa Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866)
193=Payena leerti Kurz.
Hibiscus convoivulaceus Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866)
74= Hibiscus surattensis Linn.
Hibiscus haenkeanus F.-Vill. Novis. App. FI. Filip. (1880) 25=Abelmoschus
haenkeanus Presl.
Homalium aranga Vidal ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 94, in
syn.=Homalium luzonicum F.-Vill.
Hypoestes cumingiana F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 157. No
combination in “Benth, et Hook. f. Gen. II. 122.”
Ichnocarpus acuminatus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 131=
Aganosma acuminata G. Don.
Ichnocarpus macrocarpus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 131=Aga-
nosma macrocarpa A. DC.
Ichnocarpus velutinus F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 131=Aganosma
velutina A. DC.
Lagerstroemia chinensis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 137=Lagerstroemia
indica Linn. ;
Lagurus paniculatus Linn. ex Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 30=Andropogon
nardus Linn.
Legnotis lanceolata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 445—=Decaspermum panicu-
latum Kurz.
Macanea arborea Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 481—=Alphonsea arborea
(Blanco) Merr. (A. philippinensis Merr.).
Macrolobium amboinense Teysm. ex Hassk in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 189=IJntsia bijuga O. Kuntze.
Mangifera utana Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 326.
Medinilla lagunae Vidal ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 89, descr.
Melaleuca trinervis Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 145=Mela-
leuca leucadendra Linn.
Melia parasitica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 277=? Lansium
domesticum Correa.
Mespilus sylvestris Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [14]=?
Carissa carandas Linn. |
Mespilus sylvestris Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. (1755) [18]=
Flacourtia indica (Burm.) Merr.
Milium zonatum Llanos Frag. Pl. Filip. (1851) 24=Hriochloa ramosa O.
Kuntze.
Melochia indica A. Gray ex F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 29=
Melochia umbellata Stapf.
INTRODUCTION AD
Mimosa chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 2383=Albizzia
chinensis (Osbeck) Merr. (A. stipulata Boiv.).
Momordica indica Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 182=Momordica charantia Linn.
Monarda chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 240 (quid?).
Moringa domestica Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 268, 371=Moringa
oleifera Lam.
Muntingia bartramia Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124—=Commersonia
bartramia (Linn.) Merr. (C. platyphylla Anders.).
Murraya scandens Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866)
233=M. paniculata Jack.
Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 100=Anthocephalus macrophyllus Havil.
Negretia pruriens Blanco FI. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 441—=Mucuna pruriens DC.
Oberonia ancipita Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 230 (sphalm! O.
anceps Lindl.).
Octomeles moluccana Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 208=Octomeles sumatrana Miq.
Orchis lanigera Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 671=Rhynchosia retusa Blume.
Osmelia philippica F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 93 (Stachycrater
philippinus Turcz., Osmelia philippinensis Benth.).
Panax rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 78=
Nothopanax tricochleatum Miq.
Pancratium narbonense Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28=EHury-
cles amboinensis Lindl.
Panicum philippinum F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1882) 312=Azonopus
semialatus Hook. f.
Panicum tuberosum Llanos Frag. Pl. Filip. (1851) 41—Panicum repens
Linn.
Panicum vulpinum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134=Setaria flava Kunth.
Pepo indicus Burm. Index Univers. Herb. Amb. Auct. 7 (1755) [6]=Cucur-
bita pepo Linn.
Phaseolus cylindricus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132—Vigna cylindrica
(Linn.) Merr.
Pholidocarpus rumphii Meisn. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle
9 (1866) 12=Pholidocarpus ihur Blume.
Phytolacca ? javanica Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 276=Term-
nalia catappa Linn.
Pimelandra disticha F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 123=Ardisia
disticha A. DC.
Platanthera horsfieldii Naves Novis. App. FI. Filip. (1880) 251 (Peristylus
gracilis Blume).
Plumbago indica Linn. in Stickman Herb. vat (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 188 (P. rosea Linn., 1762).
Polyscias cumingiana F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filp. (1880) 102 (Paratropia
cumingiana Presl).
Pterocaulon redolens F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 116.
Pycnanthemum decurrens Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 333=Hyptis
capitata Jacq.
Randia racemosa F.-Vill. ‘Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 108 (Stylocoryne
racemosa Cav.).
Ratonia montana F. Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 52=Arytera
montana Blume.
1449714
50 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Ratonia rufescens F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 52 (Zygolepis
rufescens Turcz.) =Arytera litoralis Blume.
Rhizophora longissima Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 278=R. mucronata Lam.
Ricinus ruber Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1” (1858) 390=Ricinus communis Linn.
Samyda trivalvis Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 374=Casearia.
Sarcochilus centipeda Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 238 (Tne
mum centipeda Lour.).
Sarcochilus tenuifolius Naves Novis. App. FI. HEM (1880) 238 (EH piden-
drum tenuifolitum Linn.).
Saurauia elegans F.-Vill. Novis. App. FI. Filip. (1880) 19 (Scapha elegans
Choisy, Saurauia rugosa Turcz.).
Solidago chinensis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 241=Wedelia
calendulacea Less.
Spermacoce discolor F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 113 (Borreria
discolor DC.).
Tapeinochilus ananassae K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 27 (1899) 249.
Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 93=Erythrina
andica Lam. |
Timonius nitidus F.-Vill. Novis. App. FI]. Filip. (1880) 109 (Petesia nitida
Bartl.).
Timonius ternifolius F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 109 (Petesia
ternifolia Bartl.).
Torenia glabra Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 210 (Torenia bentham-
dana Hance).
Tragia scandens Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 128=Tetracera scandens (Linn.) Merr. (Tetracera sarmen-
tosa Vahl.
Tylophora bifida F.-Vill. Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 1384 (Oxgasetae
bifidum Llanos).
Vallisneria sphaerocarpa Blanco FI. Filip. (1887) 780=EHnhalus acoroides
Steud.
Varneria augusta Linn. Amoen. 4 (1759) 186=Gardenia augusta (Linn.)
Merr. (G. florida Linn.).
Verbesina aquatica Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [18]—Wedelia
biflora DC.
Zizyphus littorea Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9
(1866) 176=Xiwmenia americana Linn.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are under great obligations to the Dutch colonial officials
for various courtesies extended to Doctor Robinson, but more
especially are we indebted to Dr. J. C. Koningsberger, director
of the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and to Dr. J. J.
Smith of the same institution for their interest in the Amboina
project and their hearty codperation. Through their interest
Doctor Robinson was supplied with a copy of the Herbarium
Amboinense for his use during the period of his field work —
in Amboina, with a portion of his field equipment, and with
the services of the mantri Mardjoeki, a Javanese assistant,
who aided in the field work and had general oversight of the
\
INTRODUCTION 51
drying of all material collected. I am also indebted to Doctor
Koningsberger for the original map of Amboina, on which the
one presented herewith was based, and for numerous specimens
representing species not available in Manila, but which it was
desirable to examine.
Assistance has been had from several specialists in the pre-
paration of this report. The treatment of the Marantaceae,
of the Zingiberaceae, and of Heliconia, in the Musaceae, as
presented in this work, is that of Doctor Th. Valeton; the
Orchidaceae is the work of Doctor J. J. Smith. The other
groups have been worked up by me, but I have had the assistance
of various specialists in certain families. The Pteridophyta
have been determined by Captain C. R. W. K. van Alderwereldt
van Rosenburg, of Buitenzorg.* The Pandanaceae were deter-
mined by Doctor U. Martelli, Florence, Italy; the Palmae by
Doctor O. Beccari, Florence, Italy; the Bambusae by J. Sykes
Gamble, esq., East Liss, England; the Piperaccae by Mr. C. de
Candolle, Geneva, Switzerland; and the Sapindaceae by Doctor
L. Radlkofer, Munich, Germany. Doctor Th. Valeton has
assisted me in the identification of the Rubiaceae, while Mr.
F. S. Collins, North Eastham, Massachusetts, has identified the
algae and has kindly supplied me with extracts from books
not available in Manila regarding the Rumphian species of
this group. Mr. I. H. Burkill, director of the Botanic Garden,
Singapore, has supplied me with critical notes regarding Dios-
coreaceae. To Doctor Walter T. Swingle, Washington, D. C.,
I am indebted for a photostat copy of Burman’s “Index alter,”
a work not available in Manila and of which I was unable to
secure a copy; to Mr. F. V. Coville, Mr. P. L. Richer, and Mr.
S. C. Stuntz, of the United States Department of Agriculture,
I am indebted for typewritten or photostat copies of numerous
original descriptions not available in Manila; to Doctor George
T. Moore, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis,
Missouri, for the loan of certain books; to Sir David Prain and
Mr. A. W. Hill, of the Kew gardens, London, England, and to
Doctor A. B. Rendle, of the British Museum, for copies of de-
scriptions and for critical notes on various type specimens. To
all of these gentlemen I wish to express my thanks for assistance
rendered, without which the present consideration of the
Rumphian species must of necessity have been less complete and
more inexact than it is.
* The Amboina Pteridophyta collected by C. B. Robinson. Philip. Journ.
Sei. 11 (1916) Bot. 101-123, t. 5, 6.
SYSTEMATIC ENUMERATION
THALLOPHYTA
Rumphius described a small number of thallophytes, and
fortunately but few of the forms he described and figured
have been made the types of species under the binomial system.
The algae are represented by some of the more prominent forms,
such as Sargassum, Turbinaria, and a few of the Rhodophyceae,
but, in all, Rumphius characterized and named only about a dozen
species of this group; none of these have been made the types
of species under the binomial system. Of the fungi more num-
erous forms were described and figured, about twenty-five being
characterized. Some of these are wholly unrecognizable from
the descriptions alone, while the identity of others is perfectly
evident. About ten of the forms Rumphius described have been
made the types of species under the binomial system, most of
these binomials typified by Rumphius’s figures and descriptions
being proposed by Fries. In the lichens but two forms were
described; both are apparently referable to Usnea.
In the Bryophyta not a single species was described, unless
some of the pendant epiphytic mosses and hepatics were in-
cluded in the rather generalized description of Muscus capillaris
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 89, ¢. 40, f. 2; the figure, and the descrip-
tion at least for the most part, refers to Usnea rather than to
any of the bryophytes.
ALGAE *
CHLOROPHYCEAE
CHAETOMORPHA Kiitzing
CHAETOMORPHA JAVANICA Kiitz.
Capillus nympharum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90, 179.
Rumphius’s description applies to Chaetomorpha, but the form
he had might be either C. javanica Kiitz. or the allied C.
brachygona Harv. (Ayer putri, Rel. Robins. 2393, locally known
as lumu-lumu), which Doctor Robinson states is “not unlikely
Capillus nympharum.” Martens states that it is an “Algen aus
*In the following consideration of the algae described by Rumphius, the
reductions in general follow G. von Martens in Die Preussische Expedition
nach Ost-Asien. Botanische Theil. Die Tange (1866-68) 1-152, t. 1-8. I
am indebted to Mr. F. S. Collins, of North Eastham, Massachusetts, for
copies of passages in Martens’s work pertaining to the Herbarium Amboin-
ense and for identifying the Amboina algae collected by Doctor Robinson.
53
5A RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
der Familie Conferven. und, der Localitit nach zu schleissen,
zunacht Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz., welche mein Sohn an
der angegebene Stelle weider gesamelt hat.”
RHODOPHYCEAE
GELIDIUM Lamouroux
GELIDIUM AMANSII Kiitz.
Muscus gelatinus japponensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90.
In the text, page 88, t. 40, f. 3, is referred to Muscus gelatinus
japponensis, and this figure is placed with the description by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167; to me the figure looks
distinctly like Gracilaria lichenoides (Linn.) Harv. Martens
refers the figure to Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz., where it
certainly does not belong. Henschel referred the description
and the figure to Sphaerococcus gelatinus Ag., while Hasskarl
suggested that both might be referable to Hucheuma spinosum
Ag. Martens states that the species, as described, “ist sicher
das von Siebold aus Japan mitgebracht Gelidium Amansii Kiitz.,
aber Rumph. scheint verschiedene andere heterogene Gegen-
stande nicht gehorig davon zu unterscheiden.”
HIMANTHALIA Lyngbye
HIMANTHALIA LOREA (Linn.) Lyngb.
Bodelha altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187.
This is scarcely more than mentioned by Rumphius as growing
on the coasts of Spain and Portugal. The reduction follows
Martens. |
GRACILARIA Greville
GRACILARIA LICHENOIDES (Linn.) Harv.
Sphaerococcus lichenoides Ag.
Alga coralloides | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 181, t. 74, f. 3, t. 76, f. A-C.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 573, November 5, 1913,
on coral in shallow water.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 686, referred this to Lichen
rocella Lour., which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it,
whatever Loureiro’s species may prove to be. It has been
referred by various authors to Fucus edulis Gmel. and to Sphae-
rococcus lichenoides Agardh, the former a synonym of the latter.
Martens considers it to be Sphaerococcus lichenoides Agardh=
Gracilaria lichenoides Harv. The illustration given on t. 40,
f. 3, referred in the text to Muscus gelatinus japponensis, and by
Martens referred to Capillus nympharum Rumph.=Chaeto-
morpha javanica Kiitz., very much better agrees with named
PHAEOPHYCEAE 55
specimens of Gracilaria lichenoides (Linn.) Harv., than do the
figures cited above, t. 74, f. 3, t. 76, f. A-C.
PHAEOPHYCEAE
SARGASSUM Agardh
SARGASSUM POLYCYSTUM J. Ag.
Acetabulum marinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 185, t. 76, f. 1.
This was referred by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 239, to Fucus
natans Linn., where it manifestly does not belong; Henschel
referred it to Sargassum amboinicum “Rumph.”; and Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 181, placed it under Sargassum myrio-
cystum J. Ag. The present reduction follows Martens.
SARGASSUM BACCIFERUM Ag.
Sargassum pelagicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 188, t, 76 f. 2.
Linnaeus originally reduced this to Fucus natans Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1845; Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 239, placed
it under Fucus granulatus Linn.; and Henschel placed it under
Sargassum bacciferum Agardh, where it properly belongs. The
only forms of Sargassum collected by Doctor Robinson in
Amboina are referable to S. binderi Sonder.
SARGASSUM AQUIFOLIUM (Turn.) J. Ag.
Agarum III funiculare s. foliatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186.
In the very short description given by Rumphius three distinct
forms are mentioned and casually described. According to
Martens the first one is Carpacanthus herbaceus Kiitz.—Sargas-
sum aquifolium J. Ag. He suggests that the other forms may
be referable to Sargassum granuliferum Agardh.
SARGASSUM FLAVIFOLIUM Kiitz.
Sargasso s. Wier Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 167.
This is briefly mentioned as growing along the coasts of Spain -
and Portugal. The reduction follows Martens.
TURBINARIA Lamouroux
TURBINARIA ORNATA (Turn.) J. Ag.
Acetabulum marinum infundibuliforme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 185.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 576, October 29, 1913,
washed ashore, locally known as arien.
Henschel placed this under Sargassum turbinatum Agardh,
but Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 181, and Martens placed
56 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
it under Turbinaria ornata (Turn.) J. Ag., quoting J. Agardh
Sp. Alg. 1: 266. This is manifestly the correct disposition of it.
TURBINARIA sp.?
Acetabulum marinum e Macassar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186. .
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 181, thought that this might
be referable to Turbinaria vulgaris J. Ag., var conoidea J. Ag.,
but Martens expresses the opinion that it might perhaps be the
same as Chauvinia macrophysa Kiitz.—Caulerpa racemosa var.
clavifera forma macrophysa (Kiitz.) Weber. The description is
very short and indefinite.
FUCUS Linnaeus
FUCUS VESICULOSUS Linn.
Bodelha Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187.
The common rock weed is briefly mentioned by Rumphius as
growing on the coasts of Spain and Portugal.
MASTOCARPUS Kiitzing
MASTOCARPUS KLENZEANUS Kiitz.
Agarum II s. bracteatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186.
Henschel referred this to Fucus bracteatus Ag., where it cer-
tainly does not belong. Martens considers that it is certainly
referable to Mastocarpus klenzeanus Kiitz.
ALGAE OF ENTIRELY DOUBTFUL STATUS
Alga coralloides sinensium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90.
This is scarcely more than casually mentioned, and the identity of the
plant intended is entirely problematical, other than that it is a marine alga.
Agarum lactucarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 186.
The brief description includes several entirely different forms of Rhodo-
phyceae, none of which are certainly determinable. Martens suggests that
the last mentioned may be Hypnea divaricata J. Ag.
Agarum corticosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187.
This is wholly indeterminable from data at present available, and no
author has as yet suggested a possible reduction of it. The description is
very brief and imperfect.
FUNGI
LENTINUS Fries
LENTINUS SAJOR CAJU Fries Epicr. (1836-88) 393 (type!).
Agaricus sajor caju Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 175 (type!).-
Boletus primus infundibuli forma [figura] Rumph. Herb. Amb.
6: 125, t. 56, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 571, September 19, 1913,
on old tree trunks, altitude about 175 meters.
FUNGI Swe
The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of
Lentinus sajor caju Fries, the species apparently having been
generally interpreted correctly, as the figure is quite char-
acteristic. Philippine material referred by Bresadola to Len-
tinus sajor caju differs but slightly from the Amboina specimen
cited above. The form briefly described in the second para-
graph, indicated by Hasskarl as forma altera varietas, while
undoubtedly a Lentinus, may or may not be the same as Lentinus
sajor caju Fries.
LENTINUS TUBER REGIUM Fries Epicr. (1836-88) 392 (type!); Sac-
eardo Syll. Fung. 1 (1887) 604.
Agaricus tuber regium Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 174 (type!).
Tuber regium Rumph, Herb. Amb. 6: 120, t. 57, f. 4 (cf. Pachyma
tuber regium Fries p. 61).
A species imperfectly understood, based wholly on Rumphius’s
figure and description, although perhaps correctly interpreted
by Hennings.* The subterranean portion of Tuber regiwm, as
figured and described by Rumphius, is Pachyma tuber regium
Fries, a species of wholly doubtful status (see p. 61), and
is apparently nothing but a pseudo-sclerotium of Lentinus tuber
regiuum Fries.t
LENTINUS DJAMOR Fries Epicr. (1836-88) 395 (type!).
Agaricus djamor Fries Syst. 1 (1821) 185 (type!).
Boletus Il arboreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 125, ¢. 56, f. 2, 3.
A species known only from Rumphius’s description and rather
crude figures, but probably correctly placed in the genus
Lentinus.
MARASMIUS Fries
MARASMIUS sp.
Cassutha cornea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 52.
Rumphius’s description applies to a plant that can hardly
be other than the mycelium of one of the horsehair blights,
Marasmius sp., for a general consideration of which see Petch.t
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 98, referred it to Cassytha corniculata
Burm. f., a species described and figured from Javan specimens,
and which is perhaps a species of Galeola of the Orchidaceae.
Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 237, repeats Burman’s description
under Cassyta corniculata, the reduction being cited by Loureiro,
Murray, Lamarck, and Willdenow. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1!
* Engl. & Prantl. Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1*: 225; see Lloyd, Myc. Notes 47
(1917) 666, fig. 959.
+ See Petch, T. The Pseudo-sclerotia of Lentinus similis and Lentinus
infundibuliformis. Ann. Bot. Gard. Peradeniya 6 (1915) 1-17, ¢. 1.
{ Horse-hair blights. Ann. Bot. Gard. Peradeniya 6 (1915) 438-68, t. 2-7.
58 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
(1858) 977, correctly excluded Cassytha corniculata Burm. f.
from the Lauraceae. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 191,
states: “Mihi Rhizomorpha aut Mycelium fungi cujusdam esse
videtur.”
GANODERMA Karsten
GANODERMA AMBOINENSE (Lam.) Pat. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 5
(1889) 70. '
Agaricus amboinensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 51 (type!).
Polyporus amboinensis Fries Syst. Mycol. 1 (1821) 854 (type!).
Fomes amboinensis Fries Epicr. (1886-88) 442 (type!).
Fungus elatus cochlearis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t. 57, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 572, altitude about
400 meters.
The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of
all the synonyms cited above. This is not Ganoderma amboin-
ense (Lam.) Pat. as currently interpreted, but is apparently
a form of Ganoderma rugosum (Bl. & Nees) Bres. In this
connection it is to be noted that Rumphius figures Fungus elatus
cochlearis with a long stipe and definitely states regarding it:
“petiolo longo & tenui, spithamam vel pedam circiter longo,”
which includes no character of Ganoderma amboinense as cur-
rently interpreted. The figure shows a specimen with a lateral
pileus, while Ganoderma rugosum Bres. usually has a central
stipe. Of Robinson’s material, cited above, one specimen has:
a central stipe, and one, the pileus injured, has a lateral stipe.
I have little hesitation in interpreting true Ganoderma amboin-
ense (Lam.) Pat. as the form currently known as Ganoderma
rugosum Bres. From this I do not think that Fungus elatus
primus Rumph. and Fungus elatus petasoides Rumph., described in
the preceding paragraph, can be distinguished.
GANODERMA COCHLEAR (Nees) comb. nov.
Polyporus cochlear Nees in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 13: 20, t. 6.
Ganoderma amboinense auct. plur., non Agaricus amboinensis Lam.,
nec Polyporus vel Fomes amboinensis Fries.
Fungus elatus digitatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t. 57, f. 2, 3, et,
SoM, €..0/5 7 - Hee
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 610, August 30, 1918,
on dead trees at low altitudes.
It is very evident from an examination of the original descrip-
tions that Ganoderma amboinense Pat. has been wrongly inter-
preted by recent authors—Patouillard, Murrill, Sydow, and
Bresadola—for the Rumphian figure and description, on which
Ganoderma amboinense is based, is undoubtedly the form
currently known as Ganoderma rugosum Bres. I am of the
FUNGI 59
opinion, however, that t. 57, f. 2, 3, represent juvenile forms
of a Ganoderma, probably G. cochlear as here interpreted, and
that figure #, described by Burman as “tam cochlearis, quam
digitati species est ex utrisque mixta,” belongs with Ganoderma
cochlear (Nees) Merr.; that is, it is Ganoderma amboinense
auct., non (Lam.) Pat. Lamarck considered figures 2 and 3 to
represent a variety of his Agaricus amboinensis. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 694, erroneously reduced these figures to
Helvella mitra Linn., which is a totally different plant. It is not
certain whether or not Polyporus pisachapanni Nees is distinct
from Ganoderma cochlear (Nees) Merr.
FAVOLUS Fries
FAVOLUS sp.
Fungus arboreus II! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128.
The description is unmistakably referable to Favolus or some
very closely allied genus, such as Hexagonia, as indicated by the
brief description of the lower surface as “‘subtus autem in varias
cellulas & tessaras distincta est instar favorum Apium.”’
POLYSTICTUS Fries
POLYSTICTUS SANGUINEUS (Linn.) Nees in Mey. Prim. FI. Esseq.
(1818) 304.
Boletus sanguineus Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1646.
Fungus arboreus II (ruber) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128.
The phrase “utrimque rubra,” together with the few other
characters given in the very short description, definitely refers
the form Rumphius described to the strongly marked Polystictus
sanguineus Nees.
POLYPORUS Micheli
POLYPORUS sp.
Fungus arboreus II (albus) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 128.
The brief description applies to Polyporus or to one of the
very closely allied genera. There is nothing sufficiently definite
in the description to warrant even a guess at its identity.
POLYPORUS sp.
Fungus arboreus | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 127.
Indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius, other than
that it is referable to Polyporus, sensu latiore, or to one of
the very closely allied genera that have been segregated from it.
Both Polyporus lucidus Fries and P. amboinensis Fries=Gano-
derma amboinense Pat. have been suggested for the Rumphian
species. ;
60 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
AGARICUS Linnaeus
AGARICUS MOSCHOCARYANUS Streinz Nomencl. Fung. (1861) 70
(type!).
Boletus moschocaryanus Rosenthal Syn. Pl. Diaphor. (1862) 31
(type!).
Boletus moschocaryanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 124.
From Rumphius’s description this can scarcely be an Agari-
cus, but is more probably a Lentinus. Rumphius describes it
as an edible fungus growing on Myristica trees. Its status as
a species is quite unknown.
HIRNEOLA Fries
HIRNEOLA AURICULA JUDAE (Fries) Berk. Outl. (1860) 289.
Tremella auricula Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 1157.
Exidia auricula judae Fries Syst. 2 (1828) 221.
Boletus V auris murina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126, t. 56, f. 4.
This was placed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 695, under
Peziza auricula Lour. It can scarcely be other than the common
and widely distributed Hirneola auricula judae Berk.
AGARICACEAE sp.
Boletus saguarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 124.
The genus of this is uncertain, but it manifestly belongs in
the Agaricaceae. Rumphius describes it as edible and as grow-
ing on the decaying waste from the trunks of sago palms from
which the sago has been extracted.
AGARICACEAE sp.
Boletus Il umbraculiforma Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126.
All that can be said regarding this form is that it belongs in
the Agaricaceae, possibly in the genus Agaricus. It is one of
the edible forms.
AGARICACEAE sp.
Boletus IV terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 126.
Of wholly doubtful status other than that it belongs in the
Agaricaceae.
AGARICACEAE sp.
Fungus igneus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 180, t. 56, f. 5.
The description is not sufficiently definite to warrant even a
guess as to the genus the plant pertains to, and the figure is very
poor. It is nonedible and is stated by Rumphius to be poisonous.
LYCOPERDON Tournefort
LYCOPERDON sp.
Crepitus lupi verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 131.
FUNGI | 61
Lycoperdon is the suggested reduction of this by Hasskarl,
which may be the correct disposition of it. Fungus arborum tube-
rosus Rumph., Herb. Amb. 6: 130, also may be possibly referable
to the same genus. Beyond a surmise as to the genus, no further
reduction can be suggested from data at present available.
DICTYOPHORA Desvaux
DICTYOPHORA PHALLOIDEA Desv. Journ. Bot. 2 (1809) 88.
Hymenophallus indusiatus Vent. in Mém. Inst. Nat. Sci. 1 (1789)
520.
Phallus daemonum Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1828) 283 (type!).
Hymenophallus daemonum Spreng. Syst. 4 (1827) 498 (type!).
Dictyophora speciosa Klotzsch. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19
(1843) Suppl. 1: 2389, t. 6.
Phallus daemonum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 218; 6: 181, t. 56, f. 7.
The Rumphian figure is the type of Phallus daemonum Fries
and of Hymenophallus daemonum Spreng., and it is certainly the
same as Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 694, erroneously reduced it to Phallus wmpudicus Linn.
Ventenat’s specific name is the oldest one, but no change is here
proposed in the nomenclature of the species.
POLYGASTER Fries
POLYGASTER SAMPADARIUS Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1828) 295 (type!).
Tuber sampadarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 123.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 697, referred Tuber sampa-
darium Rumph. to Lycoperdon glomeratum Lour., a species based
on Cochin-China specimens. There is no evidence that the form
Loureiro described is the same as the one Rumphius considered.
The Rumphian description typifies Polygaster sampadarius Fries,
a species of very doubtful status. Fischer, in Engler & Prantl
Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1'** (1899) 399, places Polygaster as a
doubtful genus under the Plectobasidiineae (Sclerodermineae).
PACHYMA Fries
PACHYMA TUBER REGIUM Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 243 (type!).
Tuber regium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 120, t. 57, f. 4.
The genus Pachyma Fries is one of doubtful status, although ©
there is little doubt that Pachyma tuber regium Fries is nothing
but a pseudo-sclerotium of Lentinus tuber regium Fries (see
Lentinus tuber regium Fries, p. 57).
PACHYMA HOELEN Fries Syst. Mycol. 2 (1823) 248 (type!).
Hoelen Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 122.
62 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Rumphius’s description of Hoelen was based on material
originating in China. It is the whole basis of Pachyma hoelen
Fries and, like Pachyma tuber regium Fries, is of doubtful status.
It is cultivated on pine trees in various parts of China** and
has been referred to Pachyma cocos Fries. Specimens of fulin,
kindly secured for me by Mr. W. J. Tutcher in a Chinese drug
store in Hongkong, agree closely with the excellent figures of
Pachyma cocos Fries given by Currey in Trans. Linn. Soc. 23
(1860) ¢. 10, f. 5, 6, 9. A part of Mr. Tutcher’s specimen was
sent to Dr. W. A. Murrill, of the New York Botanical Garden,
who states that he has sclerotia of the same general type from
different localities in America, but that the only method of
distinguishing them accurately is to develop the fruiting form.
In some cases the fruiting form proves to be species of Polyporus,
in others species of Lentinus. He expresses the opinion that
Pachyma hoelen Fries is distinct from P. cocos Fries.
FUNGUS indet.
Muscus frutescens III] muscagineus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 87.
The description apparently applies to the mycelium of some
fungus, but the status of Muscus frutescens muscagineus is
wholly indeterminable.
LICHENES
USNEA Linnaeus
USNEA sp.
Barba saturni Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 88.
Henschel thought that this might be a species of Lycopodium, —
which is an impossible reduction of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 167, states “Usneae aut gen. aff. Lichenum spec. qua-
edam.”” The form described is probably an Usnea.
USNEA sp.
Muscus capillaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 89, t. 40, f. 2.
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 1385, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 975, erroneously reduced this
to Renealmia usneoides Linn., which is the American Tillandsia
usneoides Linn., of the Bromeliaceae. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
239, cites it under Lichen capillaris Burm. f., of which, however,
it is scarcely the type. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 171, dis-
cusses it under Grammica aphylla Lour.—Cuscuta chinensis Lam.
and definitely refers it, op. cit. 687, to Lichen usnea Linn.
Rumphius’s description perhaps includes more than an Usnea,
* Shaw, N. Chinese Forest Trees and Timber Supply (1914) 39, 295. —
CYATHEACEAE 63
possibly pendant epiphytic mosses and hepatics, but his figure,
and his description at least in most part, apparently refers to
Usnea or to some very closely allied genus. His material was
from the higher mountains of the interior of Amboina.
PI BRIDOPE YI A
The entire Amboina collection of this group, made by Doctor
Robinson, has been critically studied by Capt. C. R. W. K. van
Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh, of Buitenzorg, Java.* In pre-
paring the present consideration of the species described by
Rumphius I have had the benefit of his published work, both as to
the names of the various species under the binomial system, and
as to the identity of the forms Rumphius named and described.
In a few cases I have made changes in nomenclature, but in no
case, except Cyathea, involving new combinations.
CYATHEACEAE
CYATHEA Smith
CYATHEA RUMPHIANA (v. A. v. R.) comb. nov.
Alsophila rumphiana v. A. v. R. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot.
104. }
Palmifilix alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 683.
- AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 468, October 14,
1913, in light forests, altitude about 175 meters.
Doctor Robinson, who had the opportunity of examining this
tree fern in the field and of making a direct comparison with
Rumphius’s description, considers this identification of Palmi-
. fiix alba Rumph. as certain.
CYATHEA AMBOINENSIS (v. A. v. R.) comb. nov.
Alsophila amboinensis v. A. v. R. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot.
103.
Palmifilix nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 638 (¢t. 27?).
AMBOINA, Hatiwe and‘Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 464, 465, August
and September, 1913, in forests, altitude 300 to 400 meters.
The only previously suggested: reduction of Palmifilix nigra
Rumph. is that of Henschel and Pritzel, who referred it to Cya-
thea arborea Sm., a species of tropical America. The reduction
made here is probably the correct disposition of Palmifilix nigra
Rumph. The illustration, however, may belong to any one of
the three forms described in this chapter, the particular one
intended not being indicated by Rumphius.
. * The Amboina Pteridophyta collected by C. B. Robinson. Philip. Journ.
Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 101-128, t. 5, 6.
64 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CYATHEA sp.
Palmifilix postium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 63.
Manifestly one of the tree ferns and probably a Cyathea. Its
exact status cannot be determined from any data at present
available.
POLYPODIACEAE
DRYOPTERIS Adanson
DRYOPTERIS FEROX (Blume) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 2 (1891) 812.
Aspidium ferox Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. (1828) 153.
Filix amboinica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 439, July 23, 1918, on river banks
in the vicinity of the town of Amboina.
This reduction of Filix amboinica mas is certainly correct,
the species being a strongly marked and characteristic one and
Rumphius’s description agreeing closely with it.
TECTARIA Cavanilles
(Aspidium Swartz)
TECTARIA CRENATA Cav. Descr. (1802) 250.
Aspidium repandum Willd. Sp. Pl. 5 (1810) 216.
Lonchitis amboinica recta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 447, August 2, 19138, altitude
about 250 meters.
This is probably the correct disposition of the plant Rumphius
briefly described. |
STENOSEMIA Presl
STENOSEMIA AURITA (Sw.) Presl Tent. Pterid. (1836) 237.
Acrostichum auritum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1800? (1801) 12.
Filix florida Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 78, t. 35, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Way uri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 444, September 9, 1913,
in river bottoms at low altitudes.
This reduction was made by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 5 (1810) 112,
as Acrostichum auritum Sw. It has been cited under Polybo-
trya aurita Blume and Acrostichum floridum Poir., both of which
are synonyms of Stenosemia aurita Presl.
DAVALLIA Smith
DAVALLIA ELATA (Forst.) Spreng. in Schrad. Journ. 1799’ (1799) 271.
Trichomanes elatum Forst. Prodr. (1786) 85.
Dryopteris. triplex arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 73, t. 32, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 449, July 28, 1918,
on trees at low altitudes.
POLYPODIACEAE 65
Very closely allied to Davallia denticulata (Burm. f.) Mett.,
but considered by van Alderwereldt van Rosenburgh to be speci-
fically distinct; see Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 108.
TAPEINIDIUM C. Christensen
TAPEINIDIUM AMBOYNENSE (Hook.) C. Chr. Ind. Fil. (1906) 6381.
Davallia amboynensis Hook. Sp. Fil. 1 (1846) 178, t. 56.
Dryopteris triplex silvestris | terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 73.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 443, September 9, 1913,
in forests, altitude about 250 meters.
This is probably the correct disposition of the Rumphian spe-
cies. Blume thought it was a species of Aspidiwm, and Hasskarl
placed it with doubt under Davallia patens Sw., to which it cer-
tainly cannot be referred.
ATHYRIUM Roth
ATHYRIUM ESCULENTUM (Retz.) Copel. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 3 (1908)
Bot. 295.
Hemionitis esculenta Retz. Obs. 6 (1791) 38.
Diplazium esculentum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1801’ (1808) 312.
Filix esculenta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 67, t. 25.
This characteristic, widely distributed, and well-known fern
is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian
figure is a good representation of the species and is unmistakably
Athyrium esculentum Copel. Henschel and Pritzel have re-
ferred it to Diplazium malabaricum Spreng., which is a synonym
of Athyrium esculentum Copel.
ASPLENIUM Linnaeus
ASPLENIUM NIDUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1079.
Phyllitis amboinica | arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 82 (haud ft. 37,
jaa) a
Phyllitis amboinica II terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 82 (haud
E87). fo 2).
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 448, July 28, 1918,
epiphytic at low altitudes.
The descriptions given by Rumphius both apply to an Asple-
nium of the nidus group, but perhaps more than one species is in-
cluded. The figures are poor, and the one supposed to represent
Phylitis amboinica II terrestris does not agree at all with the
plant described; it may be some species of Vittaria or Polypo-
dium. The figure supposed to represent Phyllitis amboinica I
arborea is almost equally poor for Asplenium nidus Linn., but
may have been drawn from a straggling specimen. The form
merely mentioned as having fronds much smaller and narrower
144971——_5
66 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
than the above, which Hasskarl indicated as Phyllitis amboinica
III, is indeterminable, but is certainly no Aspleniuwm; it may be a
Vittaria.
BLECHNUM Linnaeus
BLECHNUM ORIENTALE Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1077.
Polypodium simplex Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 235 (type!).
Lonchitis amboinica recta | major rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70,
EGO, sel
Under the name Lonchitis amboinica Rumphius described sev-
eral quite unrelated species, apparently pertaining to as many
different genera as he described forms. The form figured, t. 30,
f. 1, which manifestly is recta I major rubra, is unquestionably
Blechnum orientale Linn. It was reduced by Burman f. to
Polypodium simplex Burm. f., a species apparently typified by
the Rumphian illustration, and one that has remained of uncer-
tain status until the present time. Loureiro erroneously re-
ferred it to Pteris vittata Linn., while Henschel, following Blume,
placed it as an undetermined species of Angiopteris. The red
color of the young pinnae, mentioned by Rumphius, is very char-
acteristic of Blechnum orientale Linn.
STENOCHLAENA J. Smith
STENOCHLAENA PALUSTRIS (Burm. f.) Bedd. Ferns Brit. Ind. Suppl.
(1876) 26.
Polypodium palustre Burm. f. Fl. Ind, (1768) 284.
Lonchitis amboinica II! volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 71, t. 31.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure, how-
ever, unquestionably represents a species of Stenochlaena, and
from the description quite certainly S. palustris (Burm. f.) Bedd.
It has been reduced by Willdenow to Lomaria scandens Willd.,
and by Poiret to Onoclea scandens Sw., both synonyms of Steno-
chlaena palustris Bedd.
CHEILANTHES Swartz
CHEILANTHES TENUIFOLIA (Burm. f.) Sw. Syn. (1806) 129, 332.
Trichomanes tenuifolia Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 237.
Acrostichum tenue Retz. Obs. 6 (1791) 39.
Dryopteris campestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74; t. 34, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 442, August 19, 1913,
terrestrial, altitude about 80 meters.
The Rumphian illustration is unmistakably this species. It
was first reduced by Burman f., in the original description of
Trichomanes tenuifolia Burm f., and has been cited under the
synonyms given above as well as under the additional synonym
Adiantum varians Poir.
POLY PODIACEAE 67
ADIANTUM Linnaeus
ADIANTUM sp. ;
Capillus veneris amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 77, t. 34, f. 1.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure rather
strongly resembles the Philippine Adiantum opacum Copel. Lour-
eiro erroneously referred it to Adiantum capillus veneris Linn.,
while Pritzel placed it with equal error under Adiantum aethio-
picum Thunb. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 165, suggested
that it might be Adiantum pulchellum Blume, but if correctly
drawn the figure represents a species quite different from the
one described by Blume.
ADIANTUM sp.? |
Dryopteris silvestris Ill petraea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 165, has suggested that this
may be Adiantum pulchellum Blume. It is probably not Blume’s
species, but is certainly an Adiantum or a Lindsaya.
POLYPODIUM Linnaeus
POLYPODIUM SINUOSUM Wall. Cat. (1829) no. 2231, nomen nudum;
Hook. Sp. Fil. 5 (1868) 61, t. 284.
Scolopendria I1 minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 84.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 445, October 17, 1918,
on trees in mangrove swamps.
There is some doubt as to whether or not Scolopendria II
minor Rumph. is Polypodium sinuosum Wall. as here interpreted.
It seems probable that more than one species of Polypodium is
included in Rumphius’s description.
POLYPODIUM PHYMATODES Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 306.
Polypodium excavatum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 75 (type!).
Polypodium indicum II minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 80, t. 35, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 441, July 28, 1913,
epiphytic at low altitudes.
The specimen is very typical’ Polypodium phymatodes Linn.
and agrees with Rumphius’s description and figure. Burman
f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 233, referred it to Polypodiwm dissimile Linn.,
a species of doubtful status, based on a figure of Plukenet’s,
drawn from American material. It is the type of Polypodium
excavatum Roxh., as originally published in the Hortus Bengal-
ensis, by citation of the Herbarium Amboinense; see C. B.
Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415. It may not,
however, be the species actually described by Roxburgh under
the same name in Calcutta Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844) 485.
68 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 166, suggested Polypodium
phymatodes Linn. as the proper place for the Rumphian species,
and I consider that this is manifestly the correct disposition
of it.
DRYNARIA (Bory) J. Smith
DRYNARIA SPARSISORA (Desv.) Moore Index Fil. (1862) 348.
Polypodium sparsisorum Desv. in Berl. Mag. 5 (1811) 315.
Polypodium indicum | pilosum s. majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 78,
t. 36.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 450, July 28, 1913,
epiphytic at low altitudes.
This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Polypodium querci-
folium Linn. (=Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm.) in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1325, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 1547, which has been accepted by all
authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian illustra-
tion. There is nothing in the figure by which the Rumphian
species can be distinguished as between Drynaria sparsisora
Moore and D. quercifolia J. Sm., the two being very closely
allied. The Amboina specimens, however, are Drynaria sparsi-
sora Moore, and hence the presumption is that Polypodium
indicum I majus Rumph. pertains to this species rather than to
Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm.
PLATYCERIUM Desvaux
PLATYCERIUM CORONARIUM (Koenig) Desv. Prodr. (1827) 218.
Osmunda coronaria Koenig Naturf. Halle 21 (1785) 107, t. 3.
Simbar majangan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 83.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The plant described is manifestly a Platycerium, and in all
probability it is P. coronarium Desv. Blume reduced it to
Platycerium biforme Bl., which is a synonym of P. coronarium
Desv.
PARKERIACEAE
CERATOPTERIS Brongniart
CERATOPTERIS THALICTROIDES (Linn.) Brongn. in Bull. Soc. Philom.
(1821) 186.
Acrostichum thalictroides Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1070.
Acrostichum siliquosum Linn. 1. c.
Millefolium aquaticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 176, t. 74, f. 1.
This common and widely distributed fern is not represented in
our Amboina collections. Millefolium aquaticum Rumph. was
eee cing
4
GLEICHENIACEAE—SCHIZAEACEAE 69
first reduced by Linnaeus to Acrostichum siliquosum Linn., a
synonym of Ceratopteris thalictroides (Linn.) Brongn., which is
manifestly the correct disposition of it. It has also been cited
under the following synonyms of Ceratopteris thalictroides
Brongn.: Ellobocarpus oleraceus Kaulf. and Pteris thalictroides
Willd.
GLEICHENIACEAE
GLEICHENIA Smith
GLEICHENIA LINEARIS (Burm. f.) Clarke in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1
(1880) 428.
Polypodium lineare Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 285, t. 67, f. 2.
Filix calamaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 85, t. 38.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 446, July 18, 1918,
on rocks at low altitudes, locally known as paku kawa.. |
This reduction of Flix calamaria is certainly correct, for the
figure and description are unmistakable. It has been reduced by
Poiret to Polypodium dichotomum Thunb., by Willdenow to
Mertensia dichotoma Willd., by Blume to Gleichenia hermannii
R. Br., and by Mettenius to Gletchenia dichotoma Hook. var.
alternans Mett.
SCHIZAEACEAE
SCHIZAEA Smith
SCHIZAEA DICHOTOMA (Linn.) Smith in Mém. Acad. Turin 5 (1798)
bi DFA:
Acrostichum dichotomum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1068.
Equisetum silvestre II1 Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92.
AMBOINA, Salahoetoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 460, November, 1913.
This reduction was first made by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 168, following Blume’s reduction of it to the genus
Schizaea, and this is apparently the correct disposition of it.
LYGODIUM Swartz
LYGODIUM CIRCINNATUM (Burm. f.) Sw. Syn. (1806) 153.
Ophioglossum circinnatum Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 228.
Adianthum volubile | polypoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:75, t. 88
(including medium and scriptum).
AMBOINA, Binting and Amahoesoe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 451, 452,
August, 1913, in limestone regions at low altitudes.
Linnaeus originally reduced this, through error, to Ophioglos-
sum flecuosum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (17 54) 26, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 134. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 228, cites it
70 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
as a synonym in the original description of Ophioglossum circin-
natum Burm. f., the species being based primarily on Javan
specimens; it has, since Burman’s species was proposed, been
cited under this name or synonyms of it. The forms described
as medium and scriptum are manifestly referable to Lygodium
circinnatum Sw.
LYGODIUM SCANDENS (Linn.) Sw. in Schrad. Journ. 1800’ (1801) 106.
Ophioglossum scandens Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1063.
Adianthum volubile IIl minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 76, t. 32, f. 2, 3.
AMBOINA, Soja road and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 458, 454, August and October, 1918, in thickets and forests,
altitude 30 to 70 meters, locally known as paku kawa.
The reduction to Ophioglossum scandens Linn. was made
originally by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1318, but it is
to be noted that Linnaeus quotes “Dryopteris triplex’’ as the
name corresponding to ¢t. 32, under Ophioglossum scandens.
The form figured is an excellent representation of Lygodiuwm
scandens (Linn.) Sw. Blume has referred it to Lygodium
microphyllum R. Br., a synonym of L. scandens Sw.
OPHIOGLOSSACEAE
OPHIOGLOSSUM Linnaeus
OPHIOGLOSSUM PENDULUM Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 185, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1518 (type!).
Scolopendria | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 84, t. 37, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 440, August 2, 1918, in
forests at an altitude of 400 meters.
Scolopendria major Rumph. is the whole basis of Ophioglossum
pendulum Linn., this reduction having been accepted by all
authors, although by some placed in another genus, as Ophio-
derma pendula (Linn.) Presl.
OPHIOGLOSSUM PEDUNCULOSUM Desv. in Berl. Mag. 5 (1811) 306.
Ophioglossum simplex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:. 152, t. 88, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Ophioglossum
simplex Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ophio-
glossum vulgatum Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1385, which is. manifestly a wrong
disposition of it. Roxburgh, Calcutta Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844)
475, placed it under Ophioglossum cordifolium Roxb., and
MARATTIACEAE—LYCOPODIACEAE 71
Schlechtendal, Adumbr. (1825) 9, placed it under Ophioglossum
moluccanum Schlecht., both synonyms of Ophioglossum peduncu-
losum Desv.
HELMINTHOSTACHYS Kaulfuss
HELMINTHOSTACHYS ZEYLANICA (Linn.) Hook. Gen. Fil. (1840) t. 47.
Osmunda zeylanica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1068.
Ophioglossum laciniatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 158, t. 68, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 455, October 28, 1918,
in ravines at an altitude of about 70 meters.
The original reduction of Ophioglossum laciniatum was made
by Linnaeus (to Osmunda zeylanica Linn.) in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1318, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1519, which as Helminthostachys
zeylanica Hook. is manifestly the correct disposition of it. By
other authors it has been cited under Botrychium zeylanicum
Willd., and Helminthostachys dulcis Kaulf.—both synonyms of
H. zeylanica Hook.
MARATTIACEAE
ANGIOPTERIS Hoffmann
ANGIOPTERIS AMBOINENSIS DeVr. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 3 (1852)
195, Monogr. Marat. (1853) 32.
Filix aquatica | femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 65, t. 28.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Blume thought
that this might be a species of Marattia, but the size of the plant,
as indicated by Rumphius, makes this suggested reduction an
impossible one. While it is impossible definitely to state that
Filix aquatica Rumph. is identical with Angiopteris amboinensis
DeVr., the presumption is very great that they are the same.
LYCOPODIACEAE
LYCOPODIUM Linnaeus
LYCOPODIUM CERNUUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 1108.
Cingulum terrae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 87, t. 40, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah and Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 457,
July and August, 1913, in rocky places and on grassy hillsides, altitude
15 to 200 meters, locally known as daun rai rai.
Linnaeus originally reduced Cingulum terrae to Lycopodium
canaliculatum Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 135, but later, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1330, placed
it under Lycopodium cernuum Linn., where it manifestly belongs.
[2 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
LYCOPODIUM PHLEGMARIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 1101.
Equisetum amboinicum s. arboreum squamatum Rumph. Herb. Amb.
Geol. py ety ee
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 456, August 18, 19138,
on trees.
This reduction was first made by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1330, and is certainly the correct disposition of it.
LYCOPODIUM NUMMULARIFOLIUM Blume Enum. (1828) 263.
Equisetum amboinicum II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92?
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction is
that suggested by van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh in Philip.
Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 120. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 167, thought that it might be Lycopodium phlegmarioides
Spring.
SELAGINELLACEAE
SELAGINELLA * Spring
SELAGINELLA PLANA (Desv.) Hieron. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflan-
zenfam. 1* (1900) 708.
Lycopodium planum Desv. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1818) 554.
Muscus fruticescens femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 86, t. 39, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 458, July 16, 1913, on
banks at low altitudes.
Undoubtedly this is the correct disposition of Muscus frutices-
cens femina Rumph., and is that suggested by Desvaux in Lam.
Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 538. The only other suggested reduc-
tion is that of Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, who thought
it might be Lycopodium dichotomum Sw.
SELAGINELLA D’URVILLEI A. Br. in Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. (1869) 585.
Muscus fruticescens mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 86, t. 39, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 459, September 4, 1913,
in light woods at low altitudes.
This is in all probability the correct disposition of Muscus
fruticescens mas Rumph.; although, if a number of allied species
should be found in Amboina, it would be difficult or impossible
to determine to which of the forms the Rumphian figure applies.
Desvaux, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 558, thought that it
might be Lycopodium caudatum Desv., and Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 167, thought that it might be Lycopodium
fruticulosum Blume, both of these being species of Selaginella.
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Selaginoides Boehm. (1760), Lyco-
podioides Boehm. (1760), and Stachygynandrium Beauv. (1804) are older.
PSILOTACEAE iGy
PSILOTACEAE
PSILOTUM Swartz
PSILOTUM TRIQUETRUM Sw. Syn. (1806) 117.
Equisetum secundum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Bato Gadjah, and vicinity of the town of Am-
boina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 461, 462, August and September, 1913,
on trees, sea level to an altitude of 150 meters,
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, placed this under Psv-
lotum complanatum Sw., but as the Amboina specimens are all
referable to P. triquetrum Sw., it is assumed that this is the
correct disposition of Hquisetum secundum Rumph.
PTERIDOPHYTA OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Filix aquatica Il mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 66.
Very briefly described in the same chapter with Angiopteris amboinensis
DeVr. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 164, has referred it to Pteris
longipes Don, but without good reason. Its status cannot be determined
from the data given by Rumphius.
Filix urens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69.
This is indeterminable from any data gtiven by Rumphius; perhaps a
Dryopteris.
Lonchitis amboinica recta | major alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70.
Van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh has suggested that this may be Poly-
podium albens Blume.
Lonchitis amboinica recta Il minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 70.
Under this two forms are described, nigra and alba, both indeterminable
from any data at present available. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 5 (1810) 228, re-
ferred the figure, t. 30, f. 2, to Aspidium amboinense Willd., which is supposed
to be the same as Dryopteris parasitica O. Kuntze. The figure certainly does
not represent the latter species, and there is, moreover, no way of deter-
mining which form Rumphius intended it to represent as between the forms
major and minor.
Lonchitis saguaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable.
Lonchitis amara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable.
Lonchitis pilosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable.
Lonchitis muscosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 72. Indeterminable.
The above four forms are briefly described. A more comprehensive
exploration of Amboina may yield data and material by which they can
be eventually determined.
Dryopteris silvestris 11 arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74.
Indeterminable. An epiphytic fern, perhaps belonging in the Davalliae
as suggested by Hasskarl.
74 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Filix lanuginosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 69.
From the description the plant must be Cibotium baranetz J. Sm. or
Dicksonia sorbifolia Sm., as suggested by van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh.
A future exploration of Amboina will doubtless yield material by which its.
status can be definitely determined.
Filix canarina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 64.
Indeterminable from the data and the material at present available.
SPERMATOPHYTA
GYMNOSPERMAE
CYCADACEAE
CYCAS Linnaeus
CYCAS RUMPHII Mig. in Bull. Soc. Phys. Nat. Néerl. (1839) 45.
Olus calappoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 86, t. 22, 23.
Olus calappoides II e Celebes Rumph. |. c. 87, é. 20, 21.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 563, November 29, 1913, in
light forests near sea level, staminate, locally known as sayor kalappa.
The specimen represents Olus calappoides mas Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 1: 99, t. 23. Possibly more than one species is represented
by the plants described and figured by Rumphius, but more
abundant material and a critical study of all the Indo-Malayan
forms allied to Cycas circinalis Linn. will be necessary definitely
to settle this point. The Rumphian illustrations are as follows:
t. 20 represents an oblong-ovoid staminate inflorescence with
leaves, poor; t. 21, a habit sketch of the same; t. 22, a habit sketch
and female inflorescence and infructescence, fairly good; and
i, 23, a habit sketch with an elongated staminate inflorescence.
It is by no means certain that Cycas rumphu Mia. is specifically
distinct from C. circinalis Linn. The latter should be interpreted
by Ceylon and Indian specimens, although in the orginal descrip-
tion Linnaeus gives two references to Amboina figures and de-
scriptions, including Olus calappoides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 86,
t. 22, 23. In Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, and in Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 119, ¢. 21 to 23 are included. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 632, cites all four figures under Cycas inermis
Lour., a species that must be interpreted from specimens from
southern China and Cochin-China; it is supposed to be the same
as Cycas revoluta Thunb., but Loureiro’s description of the leaves
does not conform with Thunberg’s species. Blume, Rumphia 4
(1848) 14, refers Lagolo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 87, t. 22, B, to
Cycas thouarsti R. Br., a species of eastern Africa and Madagas-
TAXACEAE 15
car and manifestly very closely allied to Cycas rumphu Miq.
Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 322, refers Olus calappoides
Rumph., t. 20, 21, to Cycas pectinata Ham., a species described
from Indian specimens, and one not included in Index Kewensis.
Miquel, Comment. Phyt. (1840) 126, refers Olus calappoides
II e Celebes to Cycas celebica Miq., a species apparently to be
interpreted from Rumphius’s description. Doctor Stapf * has
contrasted Cycas thouarsii R. Br., C. rumphi Miq., and C.
circinalis Linn., giving in synoptical form the macroscopic and
microscopic characters by which the three may be distinguished.
Pending a critical revision of the entire genus, it is probably best
to retain the Moluccan form, that is manifestly closely allied to
Cycas circinalis Linn., under the name Cycas rumphiui Miq.
CYCAS REVOLUTA Thunb. Fl. Jap. (1784) 229.
Arbor calappoides sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. i: 92, ¢. 24.
This commonly cultivated species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The Rumphian species is manifestly Cycas
revoluta Thunb. The drawing represents a leaf only, but is
well executed and characteristic of the species.
TAXACEKAE
PODOCARPUS 7; Persoon
PODOCARPUS RUMPHII Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 214.
Lignum emanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 47, t. 26.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road and Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 309, September 30 and October 18, 1913, altitude 250 and 700 meters,
locally known as dammar puti (properly the name for Agathis alba Foxw.,
p. 76).
This specimen is Lignum emanum Rumph., but it may not be
the same as the form on which Blume actually based his descrip-
tion of Podocarpus rumphii. It should be critically compared
with the species commonly known as Podocarpus nerufolius Don.
According to Blume it is Cerbera nereifolia Zipp. in Bijdr. Nat.
Wetensch. 5 (1830) 175, but Podocarpus neriifolius Don is earlier.
Lignum emanum Rumph. is cited by Blume as a synonym of
Podocarpus rumphit.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 38, refers Dammara alba mas
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 175, t. 57, f. A-C, to Podocarpus latifolia
* Cycas Thouarsii. Kew Bull. (1916) 1-8.
+ Retained name, Vienna Code; Nageia Labill. (1806) is older.
716 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Blume=Podocarpus blumei Endl. Of the figures cited, “A” is
a staminate cone of Agathis alba Foxw.; “B” is, according to
Rumphius, a leaf of the true dammar, Agathis alba Foxw.; while
“C” is said by Rumphius to be a branchlet from a young tree
of the female dammar. I can see no reason for considering that
Podocarpus blumei Endl. is included in the description of Dam-
mara alba Rumph. The leaves of young plants of Agathis alba
Foxw. very greatly resemble those of Podocarpus blumei Endl.,
and it is, of course, possible that the two were confused by
Rumphius.
| PINACEAE
AGATHIS * Salisbury
AGATHIS ALBA (Lam.) Foxw. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5A (1910) 173, 6
(1912) Bot. 167.
Dammara alba Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 259 (type!).
Pinus abies Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 579.
Agathis loranthifolia Salisb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 8 (1807) 311.
Abies dammara Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 5 (1817) 35.
Agathis dammara Rich. Comm. Conif. Cyc. (1826) 93, t. 19.
Pinus dammara Lamb. Pin. 1 (1808) 61, t. 38.
Dammara rumphi Presl Epim. Bot. (1851) 236.
Dammara alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 174, t. 57.
AMBOINA, Soija diatas, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 220, locally known
as dammar putt.
Dammara alba Rumph. is the whole basis of Dammara alba
Lam. Lamarck published the species with Rumphius as authority.
It must be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description
and from Amboina specimens, while most of the synonyms
cited above must be interpreted wholly or partly from the same
data. Warburg, Monsunia 1 (1900) 182, in his attempt to
split up the collective species Agathis dammara (Lamb.) Rich.
states: “Diese Art kann nur nach der Beschreibung von Rumph
rekonstruirt werden, da sicheres aus Amboina stammendes Mat-
erial leider nicht vorliegt und die vielfachen in der Litteratur
gegebenen Beschreibungen der Sammeltart nach dem verschie-
densten Material angefertigt sind.” Warburg recognized ten
species of Agathis from the Malayan region, but the status of
these as valid ones is open to grave doubt.
Dammara alba mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 175, t. 57, f. A—C, referred
by Hasskarl, Neue Schtissel (1866) 38, to Podocarpus latifolia Blume,
I consider to be Agathis alba (Lam.) Foxw.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Dammara Lam. (1786) is older.
GNETACEAE 77
Dammara alba femina Rumph. l. c. 175, t. 57, f. D is surely Agathis
alba (Lam.) Foxw.
Dammara celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 179=Dammara alba var.
celebica Hassk., Neue Schliissel (1866) 38, is suggested by Warburg to
be the same as Agathis celebica (Koord.) Warb. Monsunia 1 (1900) 185,
but Doctor Foxworthy, who has examined Celebes specimens collected by
Koorders, considers the species to be a synonym of Agathis alba Foxw.
and reduces likewise Agathis borneensis Warb., A. beccarmii Warb., and
A. macrostachys Warb.
GNETACEAE
GNETUM Linnaeus
GNETUM GNEMON Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 125.
Gnetum ovalifolium Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 810.
Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 181, t. 72.
Gnemon domestica femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:181, ¢. 71.
Gnemon silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 188, t. 73.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 218, August 31, 1913, in
forests at 300 meters altitude (Gnemon silvestris Rumph.); Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 209, October 24, 19138, in light woods, altitude about 250
meters, both locally known as gnemo.
I consider that the three forms described and figured by
Rumphius represent but a single species, this being practically
the opinion of other authors who have considered the status of
the Rumphian species. Gnemon domestica femina Rumph. was
reduced by Linnaeus to Gnetum gnemon Linn. in the original
description of the species, the only deviation from this reduction
presented in botanical literature being Blume’s reference of it
to Gnetum gnemon Linn. var. laurinum Blume Rumphia 4 (1848)
3, together with Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. Gnetum oval-
ifolium Poir. was based on specimens collected in Amboina by
Labillardiére, with an added reference to Gnemon silvestris
Rumph. Blume has reduced it to Gnetum gnemon Linn. as var.
ovalifolium (Poir.) Blume, but I consider it scarcely distinguish-
able from typical Gnetum gnemon Linn. even as a variety.
Gnemon domestica mas Rumph. was reduced by Blume to Gnetum
gnemon Linn., var. lucidum Blume, Rumphia 4 (1848) 4.
GNETUM INDICUM (Lour.) comb. nov.
Abutua indica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 630.
Gnetum funiculare Brongn. in Duperry Voy. Bot. (1829) 12.
Gnetum funiculare Blume Nov. Fam. (1834) 32, Hoev. & DeVriese
Tijdschr. 1 (1834) 162, Ann. Sci. Nat. II 2 (1834) 106.
Gnetum latifolium Blume op. cit. 30, 162, 105.
Gnemon funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 12, t. 8.
73 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Loureiro quotes
Gnemon funicularis Rumph. as a synonym of Abutua indica Lour.
in the original description of that species. Louriero’s type,
in the herbarium of the British Museum, is a leaf specimen,
and according to Doctor Rendie, who has examined it for me, is
apparently the same as Gnetum funiculare Blume. Roxburgh,
Hort. Beng. (1814) 66, based his Gnetum scandens on “H. M.
7. t. 22; H. A. 5. t. 7, 8,” 1. e. the first reference to Rheede
Hortus Malabaricus, and the second to Rumphius Herbarium
Amboinense; I believe that the species should be typified by the
first reference. However, “Ula. Rheed. mal. 7. p. 41. t. 22”
is the whole basis of Thoa edulis Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 477,
so that Gnetum scandens Roxb. becomes a synonym of Gnetum
edule (Willd.) Blume, together with Gnetum ula Brongn. The
plant that Blume actually described as Gnetum edule seems
not to be the same as the Indian Thoa edulis Willd., but the
name must go with the Indian plant. It is by no means clear
that this continental form, which appears in modern literature
as Gnetum scandens Roxb., is specifically distinct from the
Malayan Gnetum indicum (Lour.) Merr., but at any rate,
Loureiro’s specific name is much older than any of the others.
GNETUM GNEMONOIDES Brongn. in Duperry Voy. Bot. (1829) 12
(type!).
Gnetum-rumphianum Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 182.
Gnetum verrucosum Karst. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 11 (1893)
216.
Funis gnemoniformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 12, ft. 8.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Gnetum gne-
monoides Brongn. was based wholly on the Rumphian figure
and description of Funis gnemoniformis. Blume, Fam. Nov.
(18384) 31, Ann. Sci. Nat. II 2 (1834) 106, reduced Funis
gnemoniformis Rumph. to Gnetum edule Blume, a species based
on Thoa edulis Willd. and differing remarkably from Rumphius’s
species, as described, in its fruit characters. Gnetum rumphia-
num Bece. was based on specimens from New Guinea, with
the addition of a reference to Funis gnemoniformis Rumph.
It has seeds 5 to 5.5 cm long, in entire agreement with
Rumphius’s description of the fruits of Funis gnemoniformis
as “tres digitos transversales longi.” Gnetum verrucosum
Karst. was described from specimens originating in Buru, with
fruits 4.5 cm in length, and I have no hesitation in reducing it to
Gnetum gnemonoides Brongn. |
PANDANACEAE 79
ANGIOSPERMAE
(MONOCOTYLEDONS )
PANDANACEAE*
PANDANUS Linnaeus
PANDANUS POLYCEPHALUS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 372 (type!).
Pandanus humilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 148, t. 76.
AMBOINA, Binting and Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 54, July and
August, 1918, in shaded places along streams at low altitudes, and in
forests at an altitude of about 250 meters, locally known as keker and
pandan keker ayer.
Pandanus humilis Rumph. is the whole basis of Pandanus
polycephalus Lam., Lamarck’s species being based wholly on
Rumphius’s figure and description. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790). 603, described Pandanus humilis Lour. from Cochin-
China material and reduced to it Pandanus humilis Rumph.
There is every reason to suppose that the Cochin-China plant
described by Loureiro represents a species entirely different
from that described by Rumphius, and that Warburg was in
error in reducing Pandanus humilis Lour. to Pandanus poly-
cephalus Lam. The type of Loureiro’s species is manifestly
the Cochin-China plant described, not the Rumphian synonym
cited.
PANDANUS ROBINSONII sp. nov. § Keura.
Pandanus spurius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 142, t. 75.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 30 (type), October 29, 1913,
along the seashore, locally known as keker laut.
Arbor circiter 3.5 m alta, ramosa. Folliis circiter 1 m longis,
4.5 em latis, aculeatis, apice longissime tenuiterque caudatis.
Capitulis ellipticis, 10 cm longis vel maturis majoribus, solita-
rlis, subpendulis; drupis numerosis, obconicis, circiter 2.5 cm
longis vel paullo longioribus, apice 1.5 ad 2.5 cm latis, deorsum
angustatis, apice latis, subtruncatis, 5- ad 10-locularis, loculis
apice sulcis circiter 4 mm longis separatis, lobis oblique pyra-
midatis, acutis, brunneis, nitidis, 5 ad 8 mm diametro.
Pandanus spurius Rumph. has been referred to many different
*T am under obligations to Dr. U. Martelli, Florence, Italy, for deter-
minations of the Pandanaceae. For the proposed changes in nomenclature,
however, and for the discussions of the Rumphian species, I am wholly
responsible.
80 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
species under the binomial system, but none of the names are
valid, for which reason I propose to call this plant Pandanus
robinsonu. Doctor Martelli, who has made the determination
of the specimen as Pandanus spurius, would call it Pandanus
spurius Mart., non Miq., but I consider the specific name spurius
to be invalid. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 603, erroneously
referred it to Pandanus odoratissimus Linn. f. Lamarck,
Encycl. 1 (1785) 372, placed it under Pandanus odoratissimus
as var. 6. Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 166, referred the
name Pandanus spurius, but not the figure, to Pandanus fas-
cicularis Lam., erroneously citing plates 80 and 81 as P. spuritus.
Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 597, placed it, with doubt, under Pan-
danus candelabrum Beauv., an African species. Hasskarl,
Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 2:14, referred it to Marquatia globosa
Hassk., a new genus and species based on specimens cultivated
in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, originating in
Mauritius; this Walpers, Ann. 1 (1849) 7538, renamed Hass-
karlia globosa Walp. Both names are synonyms of Pandanus
utilis Bory. Miquel, Anal. Bot. Ind. (1851) 57, Fl. Ind. Bat.
3 (1855) 157, recognizing the fact that Pandanus spurius
Rumph. was not the same as Marquatia globosa Hassk. (Hass-
karlia globosa Walp.), adopted the specific name Pandanus
spurius for the species, after Rumphius, but his description
applies to the species Hasskarl described, and thus it becomes a
synonym of Pandanus utilis Bory.
PANDANUS REPENS Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 165 (type!).
Pandanus repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 152.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. From the de-
scription the plant is probably a variety of Pandanus tectorius
Soland., corresponding to the Philippine form, Pandanus sabotan
Blanco, used for similar purposes, that is, for making mats.
A species of very doubtful status, known only from Rumphius’s
description.
PANDANUS HASSKARLII nom. nov.
Pandanus latifolius Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 2: 13, non Perr.,
nec aliorum.
Pandanus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 146, ¢t. 78.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. There is no
doubt whatever that Hasskarl correctly interpreted Pandanus
latifolius Rumph. I have, however, proposed a new name for
the species, as the name latifolius is preoccupied in the genus.
la Os >
PANDANACEAE 81
PANDANUS TECTORIUS Soland. in Parkins. Voy. H. M. S. Endeavour
(17738) 46.
Pandanus odoratissimus Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 424.
Pandanus verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1389, t. 74.
Folium baggea Rumph. quoad ¢. 31.
This common coastal species is not represented in our Amboina
collections, yet the reduction, originally made by the younger
Linnaeus, is undoubtedly correct; it is to be noted, however, that
he reduced to this species “t. 74 ad 81,” of which the first and
the last are apparently Pandanus tectorius Soland. (P. odoratis-
simus Linn. f.), but the others represent entirely different
species. Zable 74 is exceedingly poor, but the description of
Pandanus verus Rumph. applies unmistakably to Pandanus
tectorius Soland. |
PANDANUS TECTORIUS Soland. var. MOSCHATUS (Miq.).
Pandanus tectorius Soland. var. laevis (Kunth) Warb. in Engl. Pflan-
zenreich 3 (1900) 48.
Pandanus laevis Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 100 (type!), non Lour.
Pandanus moschatus Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 165 (type!).
Pandanus moschatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 147.
I have followed Warburg in the reduction of this Rumphian
species, but differ from him in the selection of the varietal
name, as I consider Pandanus laevis Kunth to be invalidated by
P. laevis Lour. Loureiro reduced Pandanus moschatus Rumph.
to Pandanus laevis Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 604, but
Loureiro’s species is manifestly not the same as the one
Rumphius described and is to be interpreted by Cochin-China
material. All early authors, however, followed Loureiro in this
reduction.
PANDANUS CONOIDEUS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 372 (type!).
Pandanus ceramicus Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 98 (type!).
Pandanus ceramicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 149, t. 79.
This species was reported by Rumphius from Ceram, Buru,
Gilolo, and Ternate, but not from Amboina except as an intro-
duced and rarely cultivated plant. It is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure and description are
the whole basis of both Pandanus conoideus Lam. and P.
ceramicus Kunth; and Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich. 3 (1900)
69, has apparently interpreted the species correctly.
PANDANUS DUBIUS Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 897 (type!).
Folium baggea maritimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 151, t. 80 (non
t. 81!).
AMBOINA, Latoehalat, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 55, September 22,
1913, along the seashore, locally known as haun.
1449716
82 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
This very characteristic species, as I interpret the original
description by Sprengel, is typified by the Rumphian description
and illustration, the reference to the Mascarene Islands being
added because of the doubtful reduction of Pandanus erigens
Thouars (=—Pandanus montanus Bory). The figure of the
single drupe given by Rumphius leaves absolutely no doubt as
to the identity of Pandanus baggea maritimum.
PANDANUS BAGEA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 159 (type!).
Folium baggea verum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 150.
This form was reduced by Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3
(1900) 50, as a synonym of Pandanus dubius Spreng., which is
apparently wrong. According to the description and habitat
given by Rumphius, it cannot possibly be Sprengel’s species. It
is suspected that it may be a form of Pandanus tectorius Soland.,
and it may be the form of Pandanus baggea Rumph. figured on
t. 81, which I have referred to Pandanus tectorius Soland.
PANDANUS AMBOINENSIS Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 88.
Pandanus rumphu Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 84 (type!).
Pandanus montanus Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 161 (type!), non
Bory.
Pandanus ceramicus Kunth var. sylvestris Kunth Enum. 3 (1841)
98 (type!).
Pandanus silvestris (terrestris I1) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 145, t. 77.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 31, September 9, 19138, in
forests, altitude about 350 meters, locally known as keker saun.
Under Pandanus silvestris Rumphius described two entirely
different species, but his illustration manifestly belongs with
Pandanus silvestris terrestris II, which is the type of Pandanus
montanus Mig., P. rumphit Warb., and the variety sylvestris of
Pandanus ceramicus Kunth. The mature cones are about 40
cm long and 8 to 9 cm in diameter. The species is known only
from Amboina. ;
PANDANUS TERRESTRIS Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 84
(type!), excl. syn. Miquel.
Pandanus sylvestris Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 161 (type!), non
Bory.
Pandanus montanus (silvestris |) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 145 (non
£77 ls
Anassa ee Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 230?
Not represented in our Amboina collections, and a species of
very doubtful status. Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900)
84, has erroneously cited the Miquelian synonym, Pandanus mon-
tanus, under Pandanus terrestris Warb., but it properly belongs
with Pandanus amboinensis Warb. (P. rumphii Warb.); the
PANDANACEAE 83
Rumphian figure cannot belong to Pandanus terrestris Warb.
according to Rumphius’s description, but certainly belongs with
Pandanus amboinensis Warb. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
87, has interchanged most of the synonyms cited by him between
terrestris I and terrestris II, citing the plate, with doubt, under
both. The brief description given by Rumphius is the whole
basis of Pandanus sylvestris Miq., non Bory, and P. terrestris
Warb. The form mentioned by Rumphius as Anassa silvestris
is unquestionably a Pandanus and is probably referable here.
No data are given, however, by which its exact status can be
determined.
FREYCINETIA Gaudichaud
FREYCINETIA FUNICULARIS (Savigny) comb. nov.
Pandanus funicularis Savigny in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1798) 735 (type!).
Freycinetia strobilacea Blume Rumphia 1 (1885) 156.
Pandanus funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 158 t. 82.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 29, August 16, 1913,
in forests, altitude about 30 meters, locally known as anapur.
Savigny compiled a description of the species, under the
Rumphian binomial, in Lamarck’s Encyclopédie 4 (1798) 735,
and this manifestly constitutes a valid post-Linnean publication
of the binomial. I have accordingly accepted this specific name
in place of Blume’s. Blume reduced Pandanus funicularis
Rumph. to Freycinetia strobilacea Blume in the original descrip-
tion of that species, the type being from Amboina. The species
is known only from Amboina.
FREYCINETIA GRAMINEA Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 159 (type!).
Carex arborea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21, t. 8, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections unless the sterile
Rel. Robins. 1604 is referable here. Carex arborea Rumph.
is the whole basis of F'reycinetia graminea Blume and is ap-
parently known only from the Rumphian description. Linnaeus,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 865, erroneously referred t. 8, f. 2, to Schoe-
nus secans Linn.—Scleria; but the Rumphian reference is not
the type of the species, and the figure intended by Linnaeus was
manifestly t. 8, f. 1, which is a Scleria.
FREYCINETIA sp.
Adpendix cuscuaria | angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 488.
The form described is manifestly some species of Freycinetia.
This reduction was suggested by Hasskarl, with doubt, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 150. Its further identification is impossible
from the meager data given by Rumphius.
84 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
HYDROCHARITACEAE
ENHALUS Richard
ENHALUS ACOROIDES (Linn. f.) Rich. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1
(1840) 554; Chatin Anat. Pl. Aquat. (1862) 15, #. 6.
Stratiotes acoroides Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 268.
Enhalus koenigu Rich. in Mém. Inst. Paris 2 (1811) 78.
Acorus marinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 191, t. 75, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 474, on tidal flats, October
20, 1918.
Acorus marinus Rumph. is the first reference given by the
younger Linnaeus in the orginal publication of Stratiotes aco-
roides Linn. f.; the actual type, however, was a specimen from
Ceylon, collected by Koenig. This reduction was followed by
Willdenow, Poiret, Persoon, and other authors. Miquel, FI.
Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 287, cites it under E’nhalus koenigu Rich.,
a synonym of EF. acoroides (Linn. f.) Rich.
GRAMINEAE
The comparatively few species of this family considered by
Rumphius are chiefly those of economic value, such as the coarser
forms, the bamboos, etc. As is to be expected in such a difficult
group, it is by no means easy to determine the status’ of some
of the forms considered, this being especially true of the bamboos.
Unfortunately numerous species of Bambusa have been based
wholly on the descriptions or figures given by Rumphius, and
these must be interpreted by the data given by him. Until more
comprehensive collections are made in the Moluccas with special
reference to the descriptions and native names given by
Rumphius, the exact status of several of these species must
remain doubtful.
ZEA Linnaeus
ZEA MAYS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 971.
Frumentum indicum s. turcicum s. saracenicum Rumph. Herb. Amb.
5?) 202:
This is merely mentioned by Burman in a note appended to
the description of Panicum indicum s. botton, i. e. Setaria italica
(Linn.) Kunth. It is cultivated in all parts of the Malay
Archipelago.
COIX Linnaeus
COIX LACHRYMA JOBI Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 972.
Lachryma jobi indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 193, f. 75. |
Lithospermum amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 22, t. 9, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, along the banks of a stream, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 40, August 19, 1918, locally known as buli buli.
—
9
‘
4
GRAMINEAE 85
The plant figured in Volume V of the Herbarium Amboinense
was reduced by Linnaeus to Coix lachryma jobi in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 180, and in the
second edition of his Species Plantarum (1763) 1378, but by
error Linnaeus cites Ova piscium of Rumphius, rather than
Lachryma jobi indica; the two are figured on the same plate,
and the former is referred by Hasskarl to his Saccharum edule.
The two figures given by Rumphius represent fairly good habit
sketches of the common Job’s tears, Coix lachryma jobi Linn.
Lithospermum amboinicum was also reduced by Linnaeus, op.
cit. 25, 1384, to Coix lachryma jobi, but by error t. 8 is cited
instead of t. 9, although the Rumphian name is correctly given.
IMPERATA Cyrillo
IMPERATA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) expl. pl. 5, ,
t. 5, f. 1, var. KOENIGII (Retz.) Benth. ex Pilger in Perk. Frag.
Fl. Philip. (1904) 187.
Saccharum koenigii Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 16.
Gramen caricosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 17, t. 7, f. 2A.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, on barren hillsides, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 39, September 30, 1918.
Gramen caricosum was referred by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 869, to his Saccharum spicatum, but later, Sp. Pl. ed.
2 (1763) 1480, to his Andropogon caricosus. The latter species,
however, was based on Indian specimens and is a true Andro-
pogon. Although the specific name was taken from Rumphius,
the Rumphian figure and description cannot be interpreted as
the type. Saccharum spicatum Linn. is in itself a mixture,
but probably should be interpreted as an Imperata, not as Perotis
latifolia Ait. The erroneous reference of Gramen caricosum to
Andropogon caricosus by Linnaeus was followed by Burman f.,
Fl. Ind. (1768) 218; by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 373; and by
Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4? (1805) 902. Loureiro, FI. Cochinch.
(1790) 53, follows the first Linnean reduction and considers it
under Saccharum spicatum Linn., while Roxburgh, F1]. Ind. ed. 2,
1 (1832) 234, places it under Saccharum cylindricum Linn.
=—Imperata cylindrica Beauv.
MISCANTHUS Andersson
MISCANTHUS SINENSIS Anders. in Oefv. Vet. Akad. Forhandl. Stockii
(1855) 166.
Arundo farcta | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 21.
Arundo farcta Rumph. was referred by Linnaeus, with doubt,
to Andropogon nardus Linn., Mant. 2 (1771) 500, in which dis-
86 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
position of it he was followed by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785)
374. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 30, however, placed it under
Lagurus paniculatus Linn., which species is there properly
published, and which is not included in Index Kewensis; it is,
however, a synonym of Andropogon nardus Linn. The Rumph-
ian plant, however, has nothing to do with Andropogon nardus,
but undoubtedly is a Miscanthus.
MISCANTHUS JAPONICUS (Thunb.) Anders. in Oefv. Vet. Akad. For-
handl. Stockh. (1855) 166.
Saccharum japonicum Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 2 (1794) 328.
Arundo farcta 11 Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 21, t. 6.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, on dry hills, altitude about 50 meters, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 38, October 7, 1918.
The description is short and imperfect, but apparently applies
to this species, which, as currently interpreted, is of very wide
distribution in eastern Asia and Malaya. It is possible that
the species intended by the Rumphian description is Miscanthus
floridulus (Labill.) Warb., which Warburg considers to be speci-
fically distinct from the northern form, typical Miscanthus
japonicus Anders. Rumphius describes the plant as from 10
to 12 feet high, while Arwndo farcta I is described as smaller.
SACCHARUM Linnaeus
SACCHARUM OFFICINARUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 54.
Arundo saccharifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 186, t. 74, f. 1, 2.
Ova piscium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 191, t. 75, f. 1?
The common sugar cane is not represented in our Amboina
collections. Three or four distinct varieties are considered by
Rumphius, under such names as alba, fusca, rotanga, etc. The
reduction of Arundo saccharifera Rumph. to Saccharum offici-
narum was made by Linnaeus in Stickman’s Herb. Amb. (1754)
20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 869, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 79, followed by various authors. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 110, has carried the reduction of the
various forms described by Rumphius to varieties, and considers
Arundo saccharifera III, tabu rottang (expl. pl.) to represent
Saccharum sinense Roxb. However, Hackel, apparently cor-
rectly, reduces Saccharum sinense Roxb. to S. officinarum Linn.
Ova pisctum Rumph., referred by Hasskarl to Saccharum edule
Hassk., is probably a form of Saccharum officnarum Linn. It
was, by error, referred by Linnaeus to Coix lachryma jobi L.,
but Linnaeus manifestly intended figure 2 of plate 75, rather
than figure 1.
GRAMINEAE Q7
ISCHAEMUM Linnaeus
ISCHAEMUM TIMORENSE Kunth Rév. Gram. 1 (1835) 369, t. 98.
Hippogrostis amboinica | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 14, t. 5, f. 2?
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, along ditches, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 47,
July 20, 1918. :
This figure has been confused by some authors with Panicum
colonum Linn., and Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 1538, so
refers it. I am not quite certain that it is referable to Ischae-
mum timorense Kunth., but it surely is not Panicum colonum
-Linn., although Hasskarl was apparently satisfied with this
reference of it.
ANDROPOGON Linnaeus
ANDROPOGON ACICULATUS Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 22.
Rhaphis trivialis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 558.
Gramen aciculatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 18, ft. 5, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, along roadsides, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 45,
August 13, 1913, locally known as rumput gintang.
Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762) 84, erroneously
referred Gramen aciculatum to Panicum colonum Linn., but
while citing the name Gramen aciculatum he gives the figure
as t. 5, f. 3, which is apparently an Oplismenus. Loureiro cites
Gramen aciculatum in his description of Rhaphis trivialis, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 553; Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 338, repeats
Linnaeus’s error in referring it to Panicum colonum, citing the
Rumphian name, but t. 5, f. 3, as does Linnaeus, but later, op. cit.
4? (1805) 906, refers Gramen aciculatum t. 5, f. 1, to Andro-
pogon acicularis Willd.=A. aciculatus Retz. Rumphius’s figure
is an excellent one.
ANDROPOGON SORGHUM (Linn.) Brot. Fl. Lusit. (1804) 89, var.
Holcus sorghum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1047.
Sorghum s. Battari Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 194, t. 75 bis, fig. 1.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The form
described and crudely figured by Rumphius is apparently the
one described by Linnaeus as Holcus saccharatus—Andropogon
sorghum var. saccharatus Hack. It was reduced to Holcus sac-
charatus by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, fol-
lowed in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130 (plate cited as 74 by error),
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1305, followed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 645, and Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4? (1805) 930. Burman f.,
however, Fl. Ind. (1768) 220, refers it to Holcus sorghum Linn.,
in which he is followed by Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 140.
Following Hackel’s classification, it is probably best placed under
88 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Andropogon sorghum Brot., subsp. sativus Hack. var. saccha-
ratus (L.) Hack. Following other authors, it is considered
under the generic name Sorghum, while Hitchcock proposes to
recognize the genus Holcus for the sorghums, and retains the
Linnean names, Holcus sorghum, H. saccharatus, etc.; Holcus
of authors, as typified by the European Holcus lanatus Linn.,
becomes Nothoholcus.
ANDROPOGON AMBOINICUS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Poa amboinica Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 557 (type!).
Poa amboinensis Murr. in Linn. Syst. ed. 18 (1774) 98 (type!).
Eragrostis amboinensis Trin. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 562
(type!).
Phoenix amboinica montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 19, t. 7, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Soja road, on grassy hillsides, altitude 800 meters, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 48, August 1, 1913.
The specimen agrees perfectly with the description given by
Rumphius, and sufficiently well with the figure, which is rather
crude. The species has not been previously recognized, and Poa
ambowica Linn.—Poa amboinensis Murr. is reduced in Index
Kewensis to H'ragrostis amboinensis Trin., this being merely a
transfer of the specific name by Steudel. Poa amboinica Linn.
is based wholly on Rumphius’s description and figure from which
the species must be interpreted. |
Andropogon amboinicus (Linn.) Merr., if interpreted in a
broad sense, is identical with Andropogon serratus Thunb.; and,
if Hackel be followed in considering Thunberg’s species as in-
cluding several varieties, the Linnean specific name will replace
Thunberg’s. However, Andropogon amboinicus is apparently
the form mentioned by Hackel under Andropogon serratus
Thunb. var. genuinus Hack. subvar. major Hack. in DC. Monog.
Phan. 6 (1889) 521. The Amboina specimen differs radically
from typical Andropogon serratus Thunb. in its long-pilose
sheaths and larger spikelets and probably should be considered
specifically distinct.
ANDROPOGON CITRATUS DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 78; Nees in
Allgem. Gartenzeit. 3 (1835) 266.
Cymbopogon citratus Stapf in Kew Bull. (1906) 322, 357, plute.
Schoenanthemum embolinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 181, t. 72, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
For a very full discussion of it the student is referred to Doctor
Stapf’s article.* Schoenanthemum amboinicum has very gen-
erally been confused with Andropogon schoenanthus Linn.; in
* The oil-grasses of India and Ceylon. Kew Bull. (1906) 297-364.
GRAMINEAE &9
fact one year after Andropogon schoenanthus was published,
Linnaeus himself referred to it the Rumphian figure in Stick-
‘man’s dissertation on the Herbarium Amboinense (1754) 20,
which was repeated in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 13804; in Murray’s edition of the Systema Vegeta-
bilium (1774) 758; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 646;
and by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 219; the last author also in
the same work, page 24, erroneously referring it to Panicum
polystachion Linn.
ANDROPOGON EXALTATUS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 202.
Schoenanthemum alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 182?
AMBOINA, Silali, on barren hills, altitude 125 meters, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 46, September 22, 1913, locally known as kusu kusu.
Hasskarl has suggested Andropogon circinnatus Hochst. as
the possible place for this form briefly mentioned by Rumphius.
As what I take to be a form of Andropogon exaltatus R. Br.
occurs in Amboina and as this has fragrant leaves, I merely
make the suggestion that it may be the species intended by
Rumphius. The species has been previously reported only from
Australia and from Thursday Island.
THEMEDA Forskal
THEMEDA FRONDOSA (R. Br.) comb. nov.
Anthistiria frondosa R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 200.
Themeda arguens Hack. in DC. Monog. Phan. 6 (1889) 657, non
Stipa arguens Linn.
Gramen arguens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 15, ¢t. 6, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, in waste places, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 62,
August 16, 1918. CELEBES, Macassar, Rel. Robins. 2452, July 11, 1913.
The type of Stipa arguens Linn. was an Indian specimen,
although the specific name was taken from Rumphius, and
Gramen arguens Rumph. is cited in the original description.
The actual type, in the Linnean herbarium, is the form described
by Hackel as Themeda ciliata (Linn. f.) Hack., to which the
name Themeda arguens must now be applied. The Linnean —
description was manifestly based on the specimen before him, not
on the Rumphian illustration; and, accordingly, the name should
go with the plant he described. The error in referring the
Rumphian illustration to the Indian species was a very natural
one. aia
THEMEDA GIGANTEA (Cav.) Hack. in DC. Monog. Phan. 6 (1889) 670.
Anthistiria gigantea Cav. Ic. 5 (1799) 36, t. 458.
Calamagrostis Rumph. Herb. 6: 16, t. 6, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
90 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
the above disposition of Rumphius’s Calamagrostis is suggested
as its probable true position. Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 65,
referred it to his Schoenus lithospermus=—Scleria lithosperma
Sw., in which he was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
19. Willdenow, however, Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 315, referred it to
Scleria tessellata Willd., in which he has been followed by several
other authors. The plant, as described by Rumphius, has
nothing to do with Scleria, but is manifestly a coarse grass, and
it is certainly Anthistiria gigantea Hack., as suggested above.
The figure is very poor.
DIGITARIA Scopoli
DIGITARIA SANGUINALIS (Linn.) Scop. Fl. Carn. ed. 2, 1 (1772)
52, var. |
Panicum sanguinale Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 57.
Gramen caninum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11.
Gramen supplex Rumph. 1. c. 12?
AMBOINA, in sago swamp near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 50, August 20, 1918.
This is apparently Gramen caninum Rumph., described as
having two spikes. Gramen supplex Rumph. is described as
having three or four spikes. Both appear to be merely forms
of the polymorphous Digitaria sanguinalis (Linn.) Scop.
PANICUM Linnaeus
PANICUM REPTANS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870.
Panicum, prostratum Lam. Ul. 4 “CL791) (171,
Gramen anatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 138.
BoETON, Rel. Robins. 2496, July 138, 1913; not represented in the Am-
boina collection.
In this reduction of Gramen anatum I follow Hasskarl’s sug-
gestion, who refers it with doubt to Panicum prostratum Lam. I
can see no reason for considering the Rumphian plant other
than this species; the Linnean name is, however, the older.
PANICUM STAGNINUM Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 17.
Champeu s. Campee, Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11.
The description is very brief, but probably Panicum stagni-
num Retz. is the form intended. Hasskarl has suggested Pani-
cum limnaeum Steud., but this is very improbable, P. lumnaeum
Steud. being reduced in Index Kewensis to Panicum molle Sw.
The material considered by Rumphius was from Batavia, Java.
Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 1 (1911) 129, gives t7ampea as the
Sundanese name for Panicum stagninum Retz.
GRAMINEAE 91
PANICUM PALMAEFOLIUM Koenig in Naturf. 23 (1788) 208.
Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 115?
The description is rather indefinite, but apparently applies
to Panicum palmaefolium Koenig. The reduction follows Hass-
karl’s suggestion, Neue Schliissel (1866) 171, who thought
that it was either Panicum palmacfolium Koenig or P. nepalense
Spreng.
OPLISMENUS Beauvois
OPLISMENUS COMPOSITUS (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) 54.
Panicum compositum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 57.
Hippogrostis amboinica Il minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 14, ft. 5, f. 3.
Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1383, reduced Hippogrostis
amboinica to Panicum colonum, merely citing the number of
the plate. There are three figures on the plate: one, Andropogon
aciculatus Retz., that manifestly Linnaeus did not intend to refer
to Panicum colonum, two, what I take to be Ischaemum timo-
rense Kunth, and which does not resemble Panicum colonum;
and three, what I take to represent Oplismenus compositus
Beauv., probably the figure that Linnaeus intended to refer to
Panicum colonum. However, it certainly is not this species.
Later, Linnaeus did refer ¢. 6, f. 3, to Panicum patens, Mant. 2
(1771) 3823, apparently following Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
26, but Panicum patens Burm. f. has nothing to do with Panicum
patens Linn. Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1798) 742, refers it to his
Panicum bromoides, which is presumably the same as Oplis-
menus burmannu Beauv. Oplismenus compositus Beauv. does
not appear in our Amboina collections, but O. burmanni Beauv.
is represented by Rel. Robins. 1645, collected in forests at Ayer
putri, July 29, 1913. It does not however, agree with
Rumphius’s description of RECO OS amboinica or with. the
figure cited above.
SETARIA Beauvois
SETARIA FLAVA (Nees) Kunth Rev. Gram. 1 (1829) 46.
Panicum flavum Nees in Mart. Fl. Bras. 2 (1829) 180.
— Panicum polystachion Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 82 (type!), non Setaria polystachya Schrad., nec Scheele.
Panicum vulpinum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 184 (type!), non
Willd., nec Setaria vulpina Beauv.
Gramen vulpinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 18, t. 7, f. 2B.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Lateri, and Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 41,
August, September, 1913.
The Rumphian reference is the whole basis of both Panicum
vulpinum Linn., which does not appear in Index Kewensis, and
92 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Panicum polystachion Linn., the former based on “Gramen cari-
cosum vulpinum” the latter on Vol. VI “t. 7, f. 2B,” and er-
roneously reduced in Index Kewensis to Andropogon caricosum
L. Both Linnean specific names are invalid in Setaria, although
both are much older than Panicum flavum Nees. By Burman
f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 24, it was considered under Panicum poly-
stachion Linn., and it was also so considered by Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 46. The species is very generally considered
to be a synonym of Setaria glauca (Linn.) Beauv., but is ap-
parently distinct.
SETARIA ITALICA (Linn.) Beauv. Agrost. (1812) 51.
Panicum italicum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 56.
Panicum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 202, t. 75 bis, f. 2.
The figure is a good representation of one of the commonly
cultivated forms of this species, with the addition of the panicle
of another form. It was reduced to Panicum italicum by Lin-
naeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, repeated in Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 870, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
83; followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 24, Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 46, Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 336, and other
authors. For a critical botanical consideration of the numerous
varieties and forms of Setaria italica see Hubbard in Am. Journ.
Bot. 2 (1915) 169-198.
THUAREA Persoon
THUAREA INVOLUTA (Forst.) R. Br. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 2 (1841)
682.
Ischaemum involutum Forst. Prodr. (1786) 73.
Thuarea sarmentosa Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 110.
Gramen roris (litoreum) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 18.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, along the strand, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 51,
September 4, 1918.
The description is very short, and the identification has been
made chiefly from the indicated habitat. Hasskarl refers here
Gramen roris as described on page 12 and is perhaps correct
in doing so. R. Brown, Prodr. (1810) 197, does not publish
Thuarea involuta as currently indicated in botanical literature,
but merely indicates that Ischaemum involutum Forst. pertains
to the genus Thuarea.
SPINIFEX Linnaeus
SPINIFEX LITTOREUS (Burm. f.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912)
Bot. 229:
Stipa littorea Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 29.
Stipa spinifex Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 84.
GRAMINEAE 93
Spinifex squarrosus Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 300.
Cyperus littoreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 6, t. 2, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collection. It
is a very widely distributed grass, occurring on sandy beaches
in the Indo-Malayan region, and Rumphius gives a good figure
of the pistillate plant. Cyperus littoreus is, by citation, the type
of Stipa littorea Burm. f., and the specific name is taken from
Rumphius; however, it is perfectly evident that Burman f. also
had actual specimens of the same plant. It is also cited by
Linnaeus in the original publication of Stipa spinifex Linn., Mant.
1 (1767) 34, and under Spinifex squarrosus Linn. by Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 42 (1805) 1129; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 647;
and by other authors.
ORYZA Linnaeus
ORYZA SATIVA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 388.
Oryza vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 196.
Oryza glutinosa Rumph. op. cit. 201.
Rice is not represented in our Amboina collections. Six forms
are described under Oryza vulgaris, and three under Oryza
glutinosa, but all are manifestly cultural forms of the polymor-
phous species Oryza sativa Linn. Oryza communissima Lour.,
O. praecox Lour., O. montana Lour., and O. glutinosa Lour., FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 215, while based primarily on specimens from
China or Cochin-China, all have references to Rumphius.
Linnaeus, by error, refers t. 74 to Oryza, in Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 180. Table 74 is Saccharum officinarum, while table
75 bis, the plate apparently intended by Linnaeus, represents a
form of Andropogon sorghum Linn. and Setaria italica Kunth;
table 75 represents Coix lachryma jobi Linn. and apparently a
form of Saccharum officinarum, probably the species proposed by
Hasskarl as Saccharum edule Hassk. The common rice plant is
not figured by Rumphius.
CYNODON * Persoon
CYNODON DACTYLON (Linn.) Pers. Syn. 1 (1804) 85.
Panicum dactylon Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 58.
Capriola dactylon O. Ktze. Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 764.
Gramen repens minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11.
This common and widely distributed species is not represented
in our Amboina collection. Hasskarl has made this reduction of
Gramen repens minus with doubt, but it is perfectly evident that -
Cynodon dactylon Pers. is the plant described by Rumphius.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Capriola Adans. (1763) is older.
94 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ELEUSINE Gaertner
ELEUSINE INDICA (Linn.) Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 8.
Cynosurus indicus Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 72.
Gramen vaccinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:9, ¢t. 4, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, in ditches and along roadsides, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 48, July 20 and August 15, 1913.
This common and widely distributed grass is well represented
by Rumphius’s figure, which was first referred by Linnaeus, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 106, to Cynosurus indicus, in which he has been
followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 29; by Lamarck, Encycl.
2 (1786) 187; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 59; by Willde-
now, Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 417—all under Cynosurus—and by Hass-
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 152, under Eleusine. The figure
is not cited in modern literature.
ELEUSINE COROCANA (Linn.) Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 8, #. 1.
Cynosurus corocanus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875.
Goddam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 10.
Pinicum gramineum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 208, t. 76, f. 2.
Rumphius figured this species from plants grown in Amboina,
the seeds having been received by him from Ceylon; it is con-
sidered by Hooker f. to be a cultivated form of Hleusine indica
Gaertn. The figure given by Rumphius was first referred to
this species by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875, repeated in his
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 107; followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
29, by Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 187, and by Willdenow, Sp. PI.
1 (1797) 415—all under Cynosurus corocanus Linn.—and finally
by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 111. Rumphius’s figure is
not generally cited by modern authors. The Javan form very
briefly described by Rumphius as Goddam can scarcely be other
than EHleusine corocana Gaertn.
DACTYLOCTENIUM Willdenow
DACTYLOCTENIUM AEGYPTIUM (Linn.) Richt. Pl. Europ. 1 (1889) 68.
Cynosurus aegyptius Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 72.
Gramen vaccinum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 9, 10, t. 4, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, along roadsides, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 49,
August 15, 1912.
This common grass is fairly well represented by Rumphius’s
figure, although the prolonged rachis is not shown. The habit, |
together with the relatively thick spikes, unquestionably places
the figure cited with Dactyloctenium rather than with Eleusine
indica Gaertn. The figure was first referred here by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
a
\
GRAMINEAE : 95
133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 875; and later by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 59, by Roxburgh, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 344—all under
Cynosurus—and finally by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 152,
as Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum Willd. "The figure is rarely
cited in modern literature. The species usually appears in
literature as Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum Wiild.
PHRAGMITES Trinius
PHRAGMITES VULGARIS (Lam.) Trin. Fund. Agrost. (1820) 134.
Arundo vulgaris Lam. Fl. France. 3 (1778) 615.
Arundo phragmites Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 81.
Canna palustris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 20, ft. 5.
AMBOINA, Wakal, near the beach, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 44, Novem-
ber 5, 1913, known as tebu-tebu.
Rumphius describes Canna palustris as from 12 to 16 feet
high; Robinson notes that his plant, cited above, is from 3 to 4
meters high. Both may be referable to Phragmites karku
(Retz.) Trin., rather than to P. vulgaris Trin. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 54, erroneously considers it under Aira arundi-
nacea Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 71, has reduced
Canna palustris Rumph., with doubt, to Hulalia japonica Trin.
—Miscanthus japonicus Anders.; this suggested reduction is
impossible, however, as the habitat and other data given by
-Rumphius apply to Phragmites, not to Miscanthus. The figure
of Canna palustris is very crude, and the true position of the
species has not before been recognized.
ERAGROSTIS Host
ERAGROSTIS AMABILIS (Linn.) W. & A. in Hook. & Arn. Bot. Beech.
Voy. (1841) 251, excl. descr.
Poa amabilis Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 68.
Poa tenella Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 69.
Eragrostis plumosa Link Hort. Berol. 1 (1827) 192.
Eragrostis tenella R. & S. Syst. 2 (1817) 576.
Gramen fumi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 11, t. 4, f. 3.
BALI, Rel. Robins. 2515, 2582, July 7, 1913, but not represented in the
Amboina collection.
Gramen fumi was reduced by Linnaeus to Poa tenella Linn.,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 101, in which he was followed by Burman
f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 28, Poiret in Lam: Encycl. 5 (1804) 85, and
by various other authors. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832)
307, refers it to Poa plumosa Retz.—Eragrostis plumosa Link
=EHragrostis amabilis (Linn.) W. & A. Poa amabilis Linn. is
identical with the species commonly known as Eragrostis tenella
96 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
R. & S. and EL. plumosa Link. Poa tenella Linn. was based on
specimens from India and is identical with Poa amabilis Linn. ;
see Munro in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 6 (1862) 43. It is to be
noted that in transferring the Linnean specific name to Hragros-
tis, as E. amabilis, Wight and Arnott describe a form that is
totally distinct from Poa amabilis Linn. and is Hragrostis unio-
loides Nees. The specific name amabilis manifestly belongs
with the plant originally described by Linnaeus, not with Hra-
grostis unioloides Nees.
BAMBUSEAE
Under the names Arundo and Arundarbor, Rumphius has
described a number of species and forms of bamboo, which have
been very imperfectly understood by later authors, although
many species have been based, wholly or in part, on Rumphius’s
descriptions. These numerous species, chiefly proposed by
Loureiro, Roemer and Schultes, and Miquel, have remained
doubtful, almost without exception, to the present time. The
Amboinian material presents four distinct species, three of which
were described by Rumphius, and this material has enabled me
to solve several problems in synonymy and definitely to
determine the status of a number of specific names in various
genera that have been based on Rumphius. The others have
been interpreted from the data given by Rumphius, but much
field work is necessary before a sufficient amount of data is
available properly to interpret the numerous forms named by
Rumphius. In this connection it is to be noted that it has
been possible definitely to determine the status of every species
of bamkoo described by Blanco from the Philippines, a total
of eight, from field work in connection with Blanco’s descriptions
and the native names cited by him; yet Blanco’s descriptions,
on the average, are decidedly inferior to those of Rumphius.
Up to 1900 not one of Blanco’s species had been definitely placed,
those that were considered at all appeared in literature as
species of doubtful status. It.is confidently expected that the
status of most of the species based on Rumphius can be definitely
settled by following the policy adopted in the Philippines in
working out the identity of Blanco’s species. The specimens
cited below, with the exception of Bambusa spinosa Roxb., of
which there were no duplicates, have been critically examined
by Mr. J. Sykes Gamble, to whom I am under obligations for
his valuable notes, both in connection with the identity of the
forms with the Rumphian descriptions and with the names in
current use for the several species.
oe tia oi
GRAMINEAE 97
BAMBUSA Schreber
BAMBUSA SPINOSA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25 (type!).
Bambusa spinosa Blume ex Nees in Flora 8 (1825) 580.
Bambusa blumeana Schultes f. Syst. 77 (1830) 13438.
Bambusa teba Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 418 (type!).
Arundarbor spinosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 14, ft. 3.
AMBOINA, back of the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 608,
July 17, 1918, locally known as bambu duri.
There is no question that this is Arwndarbor spinosa of
Rumphius, and that it is identical with the widely distributed
Malayan Bambusa blumeana Schultes f. However, Bambusa
spinosa Roxb. was based wholly on Rumphius in the original
place of publication, Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 25, by citation
of “‘H. A, 4. t. 3;” that is, Herbarium Amboinense Vol. IV, ft. 3.
Robinson,* however, states (p. 418): “Bambusa spinosa Roxb.,
as typified by Herb. Amb. 4: pl. 3, is probably not B. arundinacea
Willd., and there are various points in Rumphius’s description,
which oppose its identification as B. Bluwmeana Schultes f.”
Munro } states under Bambusa blumeana Schultes f.: “Blume
states that this plant is spinous; and there are some traces
of spines on the specimens I have seen; but there is nothing
to indicate that it is as spinous as B. agrestis of Poir. and
Arundarbor spinosa of Rumph. are described to be.” From
an examination of the Amboina specimen, Rumphius’s descrip-
tion, and with a definite knowledge of this plant as it grows
in the field, for it is one of the commonest bamboos in the
Philippines, I am thoroughly convinced that Arundarbor spinosa
is identical with Bambusa blumeana Schultes f., but under our
rules of nomenclature, the oldest valid specific name is Bambusa
spinosa Roxb. The plant is remarkable for the dense thicket
of interlaced, stiff, very spiny branches that surrounds the
lower parts of the culms, and these are well represented by
Rumphius’s figure. Ordinary herbarium specimens, taken from
the upper leafy branches often do not present spines, or at
least only few and greatly reduced ones, which accounts for
Munro’s statement, as he saw only herbarium specimens and
did not know the plant in the field.
By Loureiro Arundarbor spinosa was reduced to his Arundo
agrestis, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 57, but Arundo agrestis Lour. was
based on specimens from Cochin-China,:and apparently is Bam-
* Robinson, C. B. Roxburgh’s Hortus Bengalensis. Philip. Journ. Sci.
7 (1912) Bot. 410-419.
7 Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 102.
0449717
98 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
busa arundinacea Retz., not B. blumeana Schultes f. Loureiro’s
species was transferred to Bambusa as B. agrestis Poir. in Lam.
Encycl. 8 (1808) 704. Munro includes Loureiro’s species in
the synonymy of Bambusa blumeana Schultes f., with doubt;
I am convinced that it should be transferred to Bambusa arun-
dinacea Retz. Bambusa teba Miq. is based wholly on Rumphius,
for Miquel cites as synonyms Arundo agrestis Lour. and Bam-
busa agrestis Poir., specifically excluding all data given by
these authors except the Rumphian synonym, Arundarbor spi-
nosa Rumph.
BAMBUSA ATRA Lindl. in Penny Cyclop. 3 (1885) 357 (type!).
Bambusa prava Lindl. 1. ¢. (type!).
Bambusa picta Lindl. 1. c. (type!).
Leleba alba, nigra, prava, et lineata Rumph. ex R. & S. Syst. 7° (1830)
1345, 1346.
Bambusa tenuis Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1868) 119 (type!).
Teleba rumphiana Kurz Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 20 (type!).
sambusa rumphiana Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39” (1870) 86.
Lambusa lineata Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1868) 118 (type!).
Arundarbor tenuis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4:1, ¢. 1 (incl. alba, nigra,
lineata, et prava).
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 32, August 18, 1913;
Caju poeti, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 33, August 2, 1913; Lateri, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 34, September 5, 1913; all known as leleba.
The synonymy of this species is rather complicated, but Bam-
busa atra Lindl., 1835, based on Leleba nigra, is apparently
the oldest valid specific name. It is to be noted that the several
forms described by Rumphius under the designations Leleba
nigra, prava, picta, lineata, and amahussana are repeated by
Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 7? (1830) 1845, 13846, under the
Rumphian names in a note following Bambusa_ verticillata
Willd. ‘Publication’ was not intended, nor have Roemer and
Schultes’s names been recognized as published.
Regarding the actual specimens cited above, Mr. Gamble writes
as follows: “I make Nos. 32, 33, 34 all Bambusa rumphiana
Kurz. In my Bambuseae of British India* I described this as
Bambusa lineata Munro, but after publication Sir D. Brandis
pointed out to me that Munro’s B. lineata only referred to one
of Rumphius’s varieties, while Kurz’s name included them all.
So I agree with him, but it is best to take Kurz’s name. No.
32, I agree, fits best with Rumphius’s Arundo arbor tenuis
nigra, and No. 33 with A. tenuis alba; so too No. 34, with very
broad leaves, will do for A. tenuis prava.”
* Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 1-188, t. 1-178.
GRAMINEAE 99
Historically, the first reference to Arundo arbor tenuis is
found in Loureiro’s Flora Cochinchinensis (1790) 58, where he
refers it to his Arundo multiplex. However, Arundo multiplex
Lour. was primarily based on specimens from Cochin-China and
of course must be interpreted from Cochin-China material. It
is Bambusa multiplex Raeusch, a species of doubtful status,
which Munro suggests closely approaches Bambusa nutans Wall.
Willdenow erroneously referred the Rumphian species to his
Bambusa verticillata, Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 245, in which he was
followed by many authors. Willdenow’s species, however, was
based on actual specimens, has nothing to do with the Rumphian
plant, and is Gigantochloa verticillata Munro. All of the
synonyms cited above, except Bambusa rumphiana Kurz and
B. lineata Munro, have previously been considered to represent
species of doubtful status.
Var. AMAHUSSANA (Lindl.) comb. nov.
Bambusa amahussana Lindl. in Penny Cycl. 3 (1835) 357 (type!).
Bambusa rumphiana Kurz, var. amahussana Gamble in lit.
Arundarbor amahussana (i. e. Leleba amahussana) Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 4: 3.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 35, July 30, 1918, near
the beach, 2 to 3 m high, often reclining, locally known as bambuw nitu.
Regarding this form Mr. Gamble writes as follows: “No. 35
is identified, with much probability, with Arundarbor tenuis
amahussana. It comes from Amahoesoe and differs from the
others in the small spikelets. It is, I think, quite a distinct
variety, but only a variety, for dissection of the flowers pre-
sents no differential characters. It is characterized by its very
small spikelets.”
In connection with the various forms of this species it is
well to note that Kurz* has enumerated five varieties under
the Malayan names, Leleba dyahat, pootee, ietam, tootool, and
soorat.
BAMBUSA VULGARIS Schrad. in Wendl. Collect. Pl. 2 (1810) 26, t. 47.
Bambusa fera Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!).
Bambusa vasaria Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 122 (type!) ?
Arundarbor fera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16, t. 4.
Arundarbor vasaria s. Bulu Java Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 8?
Arundarbor fera Rumph. is the whole basis of Bambusa fera
Miq., and it seems to be typical Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., a
disposition of it suggested by Miquel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 57, referred it to Arundo mitis Lour., a species typified
* Ind. Forester 1: 341.
100 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
by Cochin-China specimens. Bambusa mitis Poir., in Lam.
Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, is merely a new name for Arundo mitis
Lour. Loureiro’s specimens were from plants cultivated in
Cochin-China, and the species may well be the same as BamUusa ©
vulgaris Schrad., in which case the specific name mitis will have
priority. In proposing Bambusa fera, Miquel explicitly excludes
from the synonyms cited all but the reference to Rumphius.
Arundarbor vasaria s. Bulu Java Rumph. is the whole basis
of Bambusa vasaria Munro and is probably the same as Bam-
busa vulgaris Schrad. Munro suggested that it might be the
same as Bambusa balcooa Roxb., but the distribution of the
latter, known only from India, makes this reduction an impos-
sible one. Schultes quotes it under Bambusa arundinacea Retz.,
Loureiro under Arundo bambos Lour., while Miquel, Fl. Ind.
Bat. 3 (1855) 417, thinks that it may be Bambusa vulgaris
Schrad. Arundarbor vasaria cho Rumph. 4: 10, may also belong
here. Under Arundarbor vasaria Rumphius describes several
other forms, on which, fortunately, subsequent botanists have
based no binomials, either wholly or in part. From the data at
present available it is impossible to determine their status, and
they are accordingly not listed here. The full list is given by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 69-71.
BAMSBUSA VULGARIS Schrad. var. STRIATA (Lodd.) Gamble in Ann.
Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 44.
Bambusa striata Lodd. ex Lindl. Penny Cyclop. 3 (1835) 357.
Arundarbor fera elegantissima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16.
The description given by Rumphius applies unmistakably to
this form of Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., which is widely culti-
vated in the tropics of the Old World for ornamental purposes.
BAMBUSA EXCELSA Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!).
Arundarbor maxima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 12.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 58, referred Arundarbor ma«xt-
ma Rumph. to Arundo maxima Lour., but his description was
based on Cochin-China specimens, which probably represent a
species quite different from the one Rumphius described. Poiret,
in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, transferred it to Bambusa maxima
Poir. Miquel, however, in proposing the name Bambusa ex-
celsa, specifically excludes from the descriptions of Loureiro
and Poiret everything except the references to Rumphius; Me-
locanna excelsa Roep., in Trin. Clav. Agrost. (1822) 105, which
probably goes with Arundarbor maxima Lour., is cited as a
doubtful synonym. Munro has suggested that Bambusa excelsa
|
{
.
GRAMINEAE 101
Miq. is a synonym of Gigantochloa verticillata Munro. The
native names given by Rumphius are bulu sammet, bulu gantang,
bulu want besaar, terin maysele, and tabatiko sammat. I suspect
that it is, at least in part, Dendrocalamus giganteus Munro.
GIGANTOCHLOA Kurz
* GIGANTOCHLOA ASPERA (Schultes) Kurz ex Koord. Exkurs. Fl. Java
1 (1911) 176.
Bambusa aspera Schultes Syst. 7* (1830) 1352 (type!).
Arundarbor aspera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 11, ft. 2.
Munro,* sub Gigantochloa atter Kurz, states: “Kurz, in his
notes, identifies this species [Gigantochloa atter] with Bambusa
aspera and B. bitung Roem. & Sch.” to which Kurz + rejoins:
“T do not understand this interpretation in which I am said to
have identified 2 such species, as those alluded to, which differ
toto coelo! As far as I am aware I have identified B. aspera
with B. Bitung, but surely not these two with B. atter. The one
is (sententia Munroana) a Dendrocalamus, the other a Gigan-
tochloa.” He then adds a diagnosis of Bambusa aspera as he
understands the species, but which is not published under Gigan-
tochloa. The range is given as “Indian Archipelago, from the
Moluccas to Singapore.” Bambusa aspera R. & S. is not men-
tioned by Gamble,t but Bambusa bitung R. & S. is placed as a
probable synonym under Dendrocalamus flagellifer Munro.
Camus § likewise does not mention Bambusa aspera R. & S.,
but follows Munro and Gamble in the disposition of Bambusa
bitung R. & S. I have found no transfer of the species to
Gigantochloa antedating that made by Koorders, cited above.
The species, which is one of doubtful status, may be a
Dendrocalamus.
DINOCHLOA Biise
DINOCHLOA sp.?
Boeloe rottang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 119.
The description manifestly applies to some scandent species
of bamboo, which might be either of the genus Dinochloa or
Schizostachyum. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 102, referred
it with doubt to Dinochloa tjankorreh Biise=D. scandens O.
Ktze., but in the absence of material from Amboina representing
any scandent bamboo, all reductions of Boeloe rottang must be
uncertain.
* Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1870) 125.
7 Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39% (1870) 87.
~ Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 1-138, t. 1-118.
§ Les Bambusées (1913) 1-215.
oF
102 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
SCHIZOSTACHYUM Nees ~
SCHIZOSTACHYUM BRACHYCLADUM Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng.
39’ (1870) 89.
- Arundarbor cratium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 5.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 36, August 11, 1913;
Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 37, August 26, 1918, locally known as
bulu jawa and bulu seru, in dense clumps, culms from 5 to 10 meters high,
the internodes 35 to 90 cm in length.
In regard to the numbers cited, Mr. Gamble writes as fol-
lows: “I think that you have correctly identified these with
Arundarbor cratwm. The specimens are quite good ones of
Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz, and agree with a series
of specimens from Java and the Philippines as well as with
specimens from cultivated plants in the Calcutta garden.”
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 58, referred Arundarbor cratium
to Arundo fax Lour., a species based on Cochin-China specimens
and probably not the same as the Amboina form. Melocanna
humilis Roep., ex Trin Clav. Agrost. (1822) 105, is merely
a new name for Arundo fax Lour. Beesha humilis Kunth,
Enum. 1 (1838) 434, and Beesha fax R. & S., Syst. 7? (1830)
1336, are also synonyms of Arundo fax Lour. and like Loureiro’s
species are not to be interpreted by the latter’s erroneous reduc-
tion of Arundarbor crattum Rumph. Rumphius briefly describes
six forms following Arundarbor cratium, but the descriptions
are not sufficiently definite to warrant the reduction of any
of them. They may or may not be variants of Schizostachyum
brachycladum Kurz. See also under Schizostachyum sp.
(Bambusa longinodis Miq.).
SCHIZOSTACHYUM sp.
Bambusa longinodis Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!).
Arundarbor spiculorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 7.
Miquel’s species was based wholly on Rumphius, as he speci-
fically includes from Bambusa tabacaria Poir. (Arundo taba-
caria Lour.) only the reference to Rumphius. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 68, quotes Rumphius’s species as a synonym
of Arundo tabacaria Lour., a species based on Cochin-China
specimens undoubtedly different from the Amboina plant; Bam-
busa tabacaria Poir. is merely a new name for Loureiro’s species
and must be interpreted from Loureiro’s description, not from
Rumphius. Bambusa longinodis Miq. is unquestionably a
species of Schizostachyum closely allied to the Philippine
Schizostachyum lima (Blanco) Merr. (S. halliert Gamble) and
CYPERACEAE 103
to Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz. It is barely possible
that the Lateri specimen, cited above under Schizostachyum
brachycladum Kurz (Pl. Rumph. Amb. 37) and described by
Doctor Robinson as having internodes 60 to 90 cm in length,
may be Arundarbor spiculorum Rumph. In Pl. Rumph. Amb.
86, also cited under Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz, the
internodes are from 35 to 40 cm in length, but the branches,
leaves, inflorescence, and spikelets are identical in both
specimens.
BAMBUSEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
The following forms of bamboo described by Rumphius are undetermin-
able, and fortunately, with possibly one exception, they have not been made
the basis of binomials by subsequent authors:
Arundarbor fera silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16.
This is probably the same as Bambusa spinosa Roxb.
Arundarbor ferae adf. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18.
Arundarbor fera nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18.
This may be Bambusa nigra Lodd., where it has been placed by several
authors.
Arundarbor fera s. cha Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18.
Arundarbor fera s. bulu tsjatjar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18.
Arundarbor fera s. Arundo japanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 18.
CYPERACEAE
KYLLINGA Rottboell
KYLLINGA MONOCEPHALA Rottb. Descr. et Ic. Pl. (1773) 18, t. 4, f. 4.
Gramen capitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 8, t. 3, f. 2.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 429,
July 25, 1913, in meadows near sea level, associated with Kyllinga brevi-
folia Rottb. (Rel. Robins. 1897).
The figure presents a good habit sketch of what might be
either Kyllinga monocephala Rottb. or K. brevifolia Rottb., but
as the inflorescence is described as white, I have referred the
Rumphian figure and description to Kyllinga monocephala; the
inflorescence of K. brevifolia Rottb. is usually, if not always,
green instead of white. Historically, the Rumphian figure was
first considered by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1383, where it is erroneously reduced
to Scirpus glomeratus Linn. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 18,
and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 41, erroneously refer it to
Schoenus coloratus Linn. Lamark, however, Encycl. 3 (1789)
366, correctly reduced it to Kyllinga monocephala Rotthb., this
reduction being very generally accepted by subsequent authors.
104 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
REMIREA Aublet
REMIREA MARITIMA Aubl. Pl. Guin. (1775) 45, t. 16.
Cyperus longus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 5, t. 2, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 436, September 4, 1913,
growing on the strand.
The specimen agrees entirely with Rumphius’s description and
with the excellent figure given by him. The identity of Cyperus
longus with Remirea maritima has not been previously sug-
gested. By Kunth, Enum. 2 (1837) 94, it was erroneously
reduced to Cyperus kyllingioides Vahl, following Roemer and
Schultes, Mant. 2 (1824) 98, who, however, cite by error Rheede’s
Hortus Malabaricus, rather than Rumphius. This reduction is
followed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 152.
PYCREUS Beauvois
PYCREUS ODORATUS (Linn.) Urb. Symb. Antil. 2 (1900) 164.
Cyperus odoratus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 46, excl. syn. Sloane.
Pycreus polystachyus Beauv. Fl. Oware et Benin 2 (1807) 48, t. 86,
Vanes
Cyperus polystachyus R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 214.
Cyperus floridus 11 mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 2, t. 1, f. 2.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, along sandy beaches, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 431, August 22, 1913.
Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 151, refers both figures 1
and 2 of table 1 to Cyperus rotundus Linn. Figure 1 is certainly
correctly referred by him, but figure 2 and the description of
Cyperus floridus mas appear to me to agree better with the
common and widely distributed Pycreus odoratus Urb.
CYPERUS Linnaeus
CYPERUS ROTUNDUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 45.
Cyperus rotundus bulbosus sive legitimus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:1,
an ee
This common species is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections, but there is not the slightest doubt as to the correctness
of this reduction, which follows both Kunth and Hasskarl.
ELEOCHARIS R. Brown
ELEOCHARIS DULCIS (Burm. f.) Trin. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833)
186.
Andropogon dulcis Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 219 (type!).
Hippuris indica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 16.
Carex tuberosa Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 365.
Cyperus dulcis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 7, t. 3, f. 1.
CYPERACEAE 105
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but the Rumphian figure unmistakably represents a plant allied
to Hleocharis tuberosa Schultes, which is possibly but a tuber-
bearing form of Eleocharis plantaginoidea (Rotthb.) W. F. Wight
(Scirpus plantaginoides Rottb., Eleocharis plantaginea R. Br.,
Scirpus plantagineus Retz.). Rumphius’s Cyperus dulcis is in
part the basis of Burman’s Andropogon dulcis, this author also
citing a figure in Plukenet. There is no indication that Burman
had actual specimens, the Rumphian reference is the first one
given, and the specific name is taken from Rumphius; therefore,
I have interpreted Cyperus dulcis as the type. In Index
Kewensis Andropogon dulcis Burm. f. is reduced to Sorghum
vulgare. The Malayan form very closely approaches the one
cultivated in southern China, known in Canton as maa tat, that
is, typical Eleocharis tuberosa (Roxb.) Schultes. Loureiro’s
description of Hippuris indica apparently applies to the wild
form of this species, as he describes the tubers as small and
pilose; those of maa tai are smooth and from 2.5 to 4.5 cm in
diameter. Loureiro quotes Cyperus dulcis Rumph. as a synonym
of Hippuris indica Lour. It is to be noted that Eleocharis dulcis
Trin. does not appear in Index Kewensis.
FIMBRISTYLIS Vahl
FIMBRISTYLIS SETACEA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 2 (1848)
239.
Gramen polytrichum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:17, t. 7, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 488, August
12, 1913, along roadsides, altitude about 250 meters.
The figure given by Rumphius presents a good habit sketch
that might with almost equal propriety be referred to Fimbri-
stylis setacea Benth., to F’. polytrichoides R. Br., to F. acuminata
Vahl, or to any similar tufted species with slender leafless
stems and solitary terminal spikelets. As Fimbristylis setacea
Benth. is the only species of this type represented in the Amboina
collection, I have interpreted it as Gramen polytrichum Rumph.
Linnaeus, through error, reduced it to Eriocaulon setacewm
Linn., Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1384, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 880,
followed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 60. Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 295, referred it to Scirpus polytrichoides
Retz.—=Fimbristylis polytrichoides R. Br., which disposition of it
has been followed by various authors. There is nothing in
the Rumphian description to indicate to which of the species
of Fimbristylis discussed above it can be referred; from the
106 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
habitat cited by Rumphius, the indications are that Fimbristylis
setacea Benth., rather than F’. polytrichoides R. Br., is the
correct disposition of it; it is certainly not Fimbristylis acumi-
nata Vahl.
‘ GAHNIA Forster
GAHNIA RAWACENSIS (Kunth) Steud. Syn. Pl. Cyp. (1855) 164?
Lamprocarya rawacensis Kunth Enum. 2 (18387) 338.
Carex culmaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21?
AMBOINA, Amahoesoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 434, September 18,
1913, on hillsides, altitude about 150 meters.
The identity of the specimen with either Gahnia rawacensis
Steud. or Carex culmaris Rumph. is very doubtful. The speci-
mens somewhat resemble Gahnia tristis Nees, but are very much
smaller and differ in various details. They do not, however,
agree entirely with the rather imperfect description of Gahnia
rawacensis Steud., the type of which was from Rawak Island,
in the Moluccas; it has been reduced, apparently erroneously,
to Gahnia aspera Spreng. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
155, refers the Rumphian plant to Gahnia javanica Z. & M.
Doctor Robinson, who suggested the identity of the plant with
Carex culmaris, states: “Identification considered very doubtful,
but so must any identification be.”
HYPOLYTRUM Richard
HYPOLYTRUM LATIFOLIUM Rich. ex Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 70.
Carex laevis minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 21.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 432, August 5, 1918,
near streams, altitude about 150 meters.
This reduction of Carex laevis minor to Hypolytrum latifolium
Rich. has not prevously been suggested. Rumphius’s descrip-
tion applies closely to the species as here interpreted. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, has suggested that it might be a
form of Cyperus polystachyus Rotthb.—Pycreus odoratus Urb.,
but that reduction is an impossible one.
SCIRPIODENDRON Zippel
SCIRPIODENDRON GHAERI (Gaertn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9
(1914) Bot. 268.
Chionanthus ghaeri Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1781) 190, t: 29, f. a-e; Boerl.
in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 31 (1896) 246.
Scirpiodendron costatum Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 38° (1869) 85.
Scirpiodendron pandaniforme Zipp. ex Kurz 1. c¢. |
Scirpiodendron suleatum Mig. Ill. Fl. Archipel. Ind. (1871) 65, ¢. 28.
2
4
CYPERACEAE 107
Pandanus caricosus Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 897 (type!); Kunth
Enum. 3 (1841) 98, non Pandanus caricosus Kurz in Journ. Bot.
5 (1867) 100, t. 62, f. 1-8, nec Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 3
(1900) 88.
Pandanus caricosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 154.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 437, November 25, 1913, along
margins of streams near the beach.
Pandanus caricosus Rumph. is unquestionably a Scirpioden-
dron, although the leaves, as described, are unusually long for
S. ghaert Merr. The description of the infructescence and
fruit, however, is unquestionably Scirpiodendron: “‘Ejus fructus
raro in conspectum venit, atque in peculiari progerminat petiolo,
pedem circiter alto, & supra radicem elevato, qui foliis cingitur
tribus, in triangulo positis, uti in Cypero.” Pandanus caricosus
Spreng. is based absolutely on the Rumphian description, and
the species as described by him, after Rumphius, is repeated
by various other authors. Kurz,* however, described a true
Pandanus, under the name Pandanus caricosus, which was ac-
cepted by Warburg + as a valid species. As Kurz’s name is
invalidated by Pandanus caricosus Spreng., I propose the new
specific designation Pandanus kurzii, for Pandanus caricosus Kurz,
non Spreng.
MAPANIA Aublet
MAPANIA MACROCEPHALA (Gaudich.) K. Sch. ex Warb. in Engl. Bot.
Jahrb. 13 (1891) 265.
Hypolytrum macrocephalum Gaudich. in Freyc. Voy. Bot. (1826) 414.
Lepironia macrocephala Mig. Ill. Fl. Archipel. Ind. (1871) 64, t. 27.
Carex laevis major Rumph. Herb.. Amb. 6: 21.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 430, August 5, 1918,
along streams, altitude about 150 meters.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, has suggested that
Carex laevis major of Rumphius is Pandanophyllum palustre
Hassk., but Rumphius’s description does not agree, especially
in the statement as to the stalk of the inflorescence bearing
two or three long leaves. It is, with very little doubt, Mapania
macrocephala K. Sch.
SCLERIA Bergius
SCLERIA LITHOSPERMA Sw. Prodr. (1788) 18.
Carex amboinica Il minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20.
AMBOINA, Wakeroe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 435, near the seashore,
October 17, 1913. :
* Journ. Bot. 5 (1867) 100, t. 62, f. 1-8.
+ Engl. Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 83.
108 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The identity of Carex amboinica minor Rumph. with Scleria
lithosperma Sw. is very probable. Hasskarl has suggested,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, that it is Scleria trialata Poir., a
species originally described from Madagascar. The specimen
from the Moluccas, determined by Brongniart, in Duperry’s Voy.
Bot. (1829) 165, and referred by Kunth with doubt to Scleria
trialata Poir., is probably Scleria bancana Miq.
SCLERIA BANCANA Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1861) 602.
Carex amboinica | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20, t. 8, f. 1?
AMBOINA, Gelala and Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 433, August,
September, 19138, on barren, grassy hillsides.
The identification follows a suggestion made by Doctor Robin-
son, who considers this plant as probably representing the
Rumphian species. It is to be noted, however, that Rumphius’s
figure and description of Carex amboinica major call for a plant
with pseudoverticillate leaves, while in Scleria bancana Miq. the
leaves are all alternate and distant. It is suspected that the
plant Rumphius intended is Scleria sumatrensis Retz., S. scro-
biculata Nees, or some very closely allied form, such as S.
multifoliata Boeckl. Historically the first reference to Rumphius
is that by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25,
where under t. 8 he includes, by error, with Carex amboinica,
Iithospermum amboinicum and Arundinella; for the latter two
t. 9 was intended, and the same error is repeated in Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 134. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 19, based his
Schoenus paniculatus partly on Carex amboinica Rumph., but
the type was a specimen from Java, and the species must be
interpreted from the Javan specimen. It is supposed to include
both Scleria sumatrensis Retz. and S. alata Thw. The Rumphian
figure and description have been referred by other authors to
Scleria flagellum Sw., S. tessellata Brongn., and S. approximata
Hassk.
CYPERACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Cyperus rotundus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 4 quoad humilior, altior, gramen
bufonum, et III inodorus.
The descriptions of these four forms manifestly pertain to the Cyperaceae,
but the data given are too vague to warrant the definite reduction of them
to any particular genus or species. For the most part, apparently, species of
Cyperus and Fimbristylis are intended.
Carex amboinica II] Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 20.
A coarse sedge from Bali, there known as tallan tallan; probably one of
the large species of Cyperus. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, thought
that it might be Rhynchospora aurea Vahl=R. corymbosa (Linn.) Britt.
PALMAE 109
PALMAE
The Amboina collections made by Doctor Robinson have thrown
comparatively little light on the identity of the numerous species
of palms described by Rumphius, for the reason that very few
palms were secured by him. Probably in no other group of
plants is there more confusion among those species based by
later authors on Rumphius or more species of uncertain status
than in this family. In the genus Calamus numerous species
that were based wholly on the Rumphian descriptions and figures
are quite unrecognizable; their positions within the genus and
their relationships with other forms are quite undeterminable.
In the genus Metroxylon it is impossible to determine, from
material at present available, whether one somewhat polymor-
phous species or several closely allied ones are represented. In
order definitely to settle many cases of uncertain nomenclature
and to determine the true characters of many species that have
been based wholly on Rumphius, a much more extensive
botanical exploration of the Moluccas, especially of Amboina, is
necessary, and in no group of plants is this more important
than in the Palmae.
Beccari has recently given us critical and beautifully illus-
trated monographs of the genera Calamus and Daemonorops,*
yet of the fifteen species belonging in these two genera, described
and for the most part figured by Rumphius, he was able de-
finitely to recognize and to connect with botanical material but
four species. Four, incidentally mentioned in the text, he justly
states can in all probability never be recognized, but the others
he considers to represent characteristic species, which will
eventually be recognized when the Moluccas shall have been
more thoroughly explored botanically.
Numerous questions of nomenclature cannot be determined
from data at present available, and accordingly the following
treatment of the palms described by Rumphius is distinctly un-
satisfactory in many respects. Many of the more characteristic
forms figured by him are readily recognizable, and their status
is certain. Others must await the collection of additional ma-
terial. Under the circumstances it has been considered best
to give a critical enumeration of all the species, according to
their definitely determined or their problematical positions. In
certain cases new names are indicated, but few new combina-
* Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 1-518, t. 1-288; 12* (1911) 1-237,
t. 1-109.
110 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
tions have been proposed in view of the uncertain status of some
of the species.
I am under obligations to Doctor O. Beccari, Florence, Italy,
for identifications of the palms actually collected by eer
Robinson. :
CORYPHA Linnaeus
CORYPHA UTAN Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 131 (type!).
Borassus sylvestris Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 86 (type!).
Taliera sylvestris Blume ex Schultes Syst. 7 (1830) 13807 (type!).
Corypha sylvestris Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 233; Blume
Rumphia 2 (1886) 59 (type!).
Lontarus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 53, t. 11.
Lontarus silvestris Rumph. is the whole basis of Oorepre utan
Lam., which name should be maintained if the species proves to
be a valid one. Borassus sylvestris Giseke, Corypha sylvestris
Mart., and Taliera sylvestris Blume are exact synonyms, being,
like Corypha utan Lam., based on Rumphius.
CORYPHA GEBANGA Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 59, t. 97, 89, 105; Mart.
Hist: Nat. Palm: 3" (1838) 233.
Gembanga rotundifolia Blume ex Nees in Flora 8 (1825) 580, 676.
Taliera gembanga Blume ex Schultes Syst. 7 (1830) 1307.
Lontarus silvestris s. cabang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 55.
In this reduction I have followed Blume and Martius. In view
of the uncertain status of Blume’s species, no attempt is made
to adjust the synonymy. It is manifestly very closely allied to,
if not identical with, Corypha elata Roxb., and it may also prove
to be the same as Corypha utan Lam. |
CORYPHA ELATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25, nomen nudum, F1. Ind.
ed. 2, 2 (18382) 176.
Lontarus silvestris s. yhur e Philippin. Rumph. Herb. ‘Amb. 1: 54.
Among all the palms that occur in the Philippines that yield
a sago-like edible fecula, Rumphius’s discussion of this applies
only to Corypha in ‘“‘trunco tam crasso, ut vir eum brachiis
complecti nequeat.”” Corypha elata Roxb. may prove to be iden-
tical with one or both of the preceding species. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 12, quotes it as a possible synonym of Borassus
sylvestris Gieseke, after Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 140.
LICUALA Thunberg
LICUALA RUMPHI!I Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 41, t. 89, f. 2.
Corypha licuala Lam. Encycl. 2 (1783) 181 (type!).
Licuala arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 44, ft. 9.
The status of this species, as distinct from Licuala spinosa
PALMAE 111
Wurmb, in Verh. Bat. Genoets. 2 (1780) 469, is doubtful, and it
may properly be a synonym of Wurmb’s species. Loureiro, F'.
Cochinch. (1790) 218, placed it under Corypha pilearia Lour.,
which is Licuala pilearia Blume, and perhaps the same as Li-
cuala spinosa Wurmb. It is the whole basis of Corypha licuala
Lam. and in part the basis of Licuala rumphi Blume. Murray,
Giseke, Roxburgh, Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and other au-
thors refer it to Licuala spinosa Thunb., in Vet. Akad. Nya
Handl. (1782) 278, which is antedated by two years by Licuala
spinosa Wurmb. The essential distinctive characters of Licualu
rumphit Blume are very imperfectly known, and a critical revi-
gion of the genus may show that it is a synonym of Licuala
spinosa Wurmb. The figure is poor, but it manifestly represents
a Licuala very similar in appearance to the widely distributed
Licuala spinosa Wurmb.
LiIVISTONA R. Brown
LIVISTONA ROTUNDIFOLIA (Lam.) Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838)
2A.
Corypha rotundifolia Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 131 (type!).
Saribus rotundifolius Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 49.
Licuala rotundifolia Blume ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 7* (1830) 13805.
Saribus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 42, t. 8.
This is one of the few Rumphian species considered by Lin-
naeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753),
where he erroneously reduced it to Corypha umbraculifera Linn., —
page 1187, and later cited it under the same name in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, and Sp. Pl.
ed. 2, (1763) 1657, in whch he was followed by Giseke, Prael.
Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 49. Louriero, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 212,
placed it under Corypha saribus Lour., taking his specific name
from Rumphius. The species he actually described, however,
is not the Amboina form, but is Livistona cochinchinensis Blume.
Saribus Rumph. is the whole basis of Corypha rotundifolia Lam.,
which in turn typifies Livistona rotundifolia Mart.
_ Arbor tsjang Rumph., Herb. Amb. 1: 63, which is very im-
perfectly described, is perhaps a species of Livistona, as sug-
‘gested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 12; it was from
French Indo-China.
LIVISTONA ? BISSULA Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 242 (type!).
Incuala ? bissula Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 57 (type!).
Bissula Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 85.
The status of this species is entirely doubtful. It may be
112 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
neither a Livistona nor a Licuala,; the description of the fruits
is suggestive of Pholidocarpus. Rumphius’s specimens were
from Celebes, where the palm is known as bissula and metsje.
PHOLIDOCARPUS Blume
PHOLIDOCARPUS IHUR (Giseke) Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 90 (type!).
Borassus ? thur Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 87 (type!).
Pholidocarpus rumphii Meisn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesel-
Isch. Halle 9 (1866) 154 (type!).
Lontarus silvestris altera s. ihur Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 56, t. 12.
The Rumphian illustration and description typify Borassus
thur Giseke, Pholidocarpus thur Blume, and Pholidocarpus
rumphii Meisn.; the last does not appear in Index Kewensis.
BORASSUS Linnaeus
BORASSUS FLABELLIFER Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1187.
Borassus flabelliformis Murr. Syst. (1774) 827.
Lontarus domestica Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 21, t. 8.
Lontarus domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 45, ¢. 10.
This was one of the few Rumphian species considered by
Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753),
where, page 1187, he correctly reduced it to Borassus flabellifer
Linn., the reduction being repeated in his later writings, Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1657, and generally accepted by all authors.
Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 21, merely substituted the generic
name Lontarus for the Linnean name Borassus, considering the
species under the new name Lontarus domestica Gaertn.
LODOICEA Commerson
LODOICEA MALDIVICA (Gmel.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 6380.
Cocos maldivica Gmel. Syst. (1791) 569 (maldioica), ed. 2 (1796)
569.
Borassus sonnerati Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 86.
Lodoicea callipyge Comm. ex St. Hil. Expos. 1 (1805) 96.
Lodoicea seychellarum Labill. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 140, t. 13.
Cocus maldivicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 210, ¢. 81.
Rumphius figures only the fruit of this striking palm, and
Gmelin’s specific name, here adopted, is the oldest valid one for.
the species.
METROXYLON Rottboell
METROXYLON SAGU Rottb. in Nye Samml. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skrift.
2 (17838) 527.
Sagus genuina Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 94 (type!).
Metroxylon sagus Koenig in Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 138 (type!).
4
4
i]
—_—
—
iat 0
BADARA |) 113
Sagus rumphii Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 404 (type!).
Metroxylon rumphi Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 213.
Sagus inermis Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68 (type!).
Sagus genuina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 72, t. 17, 18.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 26, October 28, 1913, locally
known as sagu tunt. The inflorescence and fruit from a felled trunk, the
leaves from a neighboring palm. Doctor Beccari, who has examined the
material, thinks that perhaps the fruits belong with Metroxylon micra-
canthum Mart.
The sago palm presents considerable variation, especially in
the presence or absence of spines, and when spines are present,
in their length. It is probable that altogether too many
“species” have been proposed and that most of the plants
described by Rumphius, on which later authors have based
various binomials, are really but forms or varieties of a
single species. No material is available, however, for pur-
poses of comparison, and accordingly the various species that
have been based on Rumphius’s descriptions are listed below
with their proper synonyms. The Rumphian illustrations and
descriptions, cited above, have been quoted under all of the
synonyms above listed, and most of them have been based solely
on Rumphius. I have here adopted what is manifestly the
oldest specific name for the species.
METROXYLON MICRACANTHUM Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215
(type!).
Sagus micracanthus Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 153 (type!).
Sagus genuina Il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75.
This is probably merely a form of Metroxylon sagu Rottb.,
and it is possible that the fruit and spadices of the specimen
cited under the above species belong here.
METROXYLON LONGISPINUM Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215
(type!).
Sagus longispina Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 154 (type!).
Sagus genuina Giseke var. longispina Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl.
(1792) 94 (type!).
Sagus longispina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75.
This is apparently merely a form or variety of the common
sago palm with long spines. However, no material is available
to warrant its definite reduction. The native names cited by
Rumphius are lapia macanaru, lapia macanalo, and lapia maca-
nalun. It was reduced by Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804)
394, to Sagus farinifera (Gaertn.) Lam., which is certainly not
the correct disposition of it.
144971——_8
114 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
METROXYLON INERME Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215.
Sagus laevis Blume Rumphia 2 (18386) 147.
Sagus laevis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 76.
Like the preceding this is probably only a form or variety
of the common sago palm. It has been referred by various
authors to Metroxylon laeve Mart., to Sagus spinosus Roxb., to
Metroxylon hermaphroditum Hassk., and to Metroxylon sagus
Rottb., besides the synonyms cited above. Native names cited
by Rumphius are lapia molat, sagu parampuan, and bulun.
METROXYLON SYLVESTRE Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215
(type!).
Sagus genuina Giseke var. silvestris Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792)
94 (type!).
Sagus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 75.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 27, October 29, 19138, locally
known as sagu thur.
The specimen has fairly long spines on its petioles, undoubtedly
represents Sagus silvestris Rumph., and hence Metroxylon
sylvestre Mart., but in all essential characters it appears to be
identical with Metroxylon sagu Rottb.
PIGAFETTIA Beccari
PIGAFETTIA FILIFERA (Giseke) comb. nov. |
Sagus filifera Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 94 (type!).
Sagus filaris Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 154 (type!).
Metroxylon filare Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 215 (type!).
Pigafettia filaris Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 90, in obs.
Sagus filaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 84, t. 19.
The species is still known only from the Rumphian description
and figure, which are the type of Pigafettia filifera and of all the
synonyms cited above.
PIGAFETTIA ELATA (Reinw.) H. Wendl. in Kerch. Palm. (1878) 258.
Sagus elata Reinw. ex Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 156, t. 128, f. 1.
Metroxylon elatum Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 216.
Wanga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 85.
Wanga, a Celebesian palm, is very briefly described by
Rumphius. Pigafettia elata H. Wendl. seems to be the correct
disposition of it.
ZALACCA Reinwardt
ZALACCA EDULIS Reinw. ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 7’ (1880) 1834.
Salacca edulis Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 3.
Salakka edulis Reinw. ex Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1828) 112.
Calamus zalacca Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 267, t. 139.
PALMAE 115
Zalacca blumeana Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1886-50) 201, t. 123,
B59; fi 9)
Zalacea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 1138, t. 57. f. 2.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh and Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
25, August 28, 1918, locally known as salak.
Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 463, originally reduced this
through error to Calamus rotang Linn. Gaertner, Fruct. 2
(1791) 267, cites it under Calamus zalacca Gaertn.—Zalacca
edulis Reinw. Most authors have cited it under Zalacca (Sa-
lacca) edulis Reinw., but Martius placed it under Zalacca blu-
meana Mart., which is merely a synonym of Reinwardt’s species.
CALAMUS Linnaeus
CALAMUS ALBUS Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 883 (pp. excl. syn. Lour.) (type!) ;
Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 444, t. 199.
Palmijuncus albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 102, t. 52.
_ AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 24, October 14, 1913,
in forests, altitude 200 meters; locally known as rotang tuni.
The specimen cited above has been identified with Calamus
albus Pers. by Doctor Beceari. Palmijuncus albus Rumph. has
been reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn. and
to Calamus rudentum Lour., most of the references in literature
being to the latter species. Loureiro made the reduction to
Calamus rudentum Lour. in the original description of that
species, but the type was a Cochin-China spetimen, and the
species is certainly not the same as the Amboina one. Strictly
following rules of nomenclature, the name Calamus albus Pers.
belongs with Calamus rudentum Lour., as a synonym, but I have
here followed Beccari in applying it to the Amboina plant.
CALAMUS GRAMINOSUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 31 (type!).
Palmijuncus albus graminosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 104.
A species known only from Rumphius’s description; see Bec-
cari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 499. It has been
reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn., C. rudentun
Lour., and C. adspersus Blume, but is manifestly none of these.
It may be a form of Calamus albus Pers.
CALAMUS RUMPHII Blume Rumphia 3 (18387) 38 (type!).
Daemonorops rumphii Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1850) 381.
Palmijuncus verus angustifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 105, t. 54, f. 2.
A species known only from Rumphius’s figure and description ;
see Beccari, in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 400, who
considers it to be allied to Calamus palustris Griff. It has been
erroneously reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang Linn.,
116 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
to C. platyacanthos Mart., to Daemonorops elongatus Blume, and
to D. longipes Griff.
CALAMUS PISICARPUS Blume Rumphia 3 (18387) 31 (type!).
Palmijuncus verus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 106, t. 54, f. 1.
This species is known oniy from Rumphius’s figure and descrip-
tion, but is considered by Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11
(1908) 460, to represent a very distinct species allied to Cala-
mus aruensis Bece. and C. holrungw Becc. By various authors
it has been erroneously reduced to Calamus rotang Linn., to
C. verus Lour., to C. oblongus Reinw., and to C. strictus Blume.
Manifestly Calamus verus Lour., described from Cochin-China
specimens, is a species entirely different from the Amboina plant,
although Loureiro cites Palmijuncus verus Rumph. as a synonym
of his species and takes his specific name from Rumphius.
CALAMUS VIMINALIS Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 203 (type!).
Calamus litoralis Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 48.
Palmijuncus viminalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 108, t. 55, f. 2.
I agree with Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908)
203, 497, that the Rumphian illustration pertains to the Javan
species, not to the form described from Buru (Calamus buroensis
Mart.). Palmijuncus viminalis Rumph. typifies Calamus vimi-
nalis Willd., and it has been erroneously reduced by various
authors to Calamus rotang Linn., to C. fasciculatus Roxb., and
to C. buroensis Mart.
CALAMUS BUROENSIS Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1850) 336 (type!).
Calamus viminalis e Burone Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 109 (non ft. 55,
f. 2).
This is a species of doubtful status, known only from Rumph-
ius’s description; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11
(1908) 497.
CALAMUS EQUESTRIS Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 204 (type!).
Palmijuncus equestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 110, t. 56.
A species known only from Rumphius’s figure and description ;
see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 358. It has
been erroneously reduced by various authors to Calamus rotang
Linn. and to C. dioicus Lour. Willdenow also refers here
t. 57, f. 1, which Beccari places under Calamus cawa Blume.
CALAMUS CAWA Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 31, 62 (type!).
Palmijuncus equestris s. rottang cawa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 112,
ay Aah I
A species known only from Rumphius’s description; see Bec-
PALMAE | 117
eari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 357. It has been
confused by various authors with Calamus equestris Willd., with
C. javensis Blume, and with C. maritimus Blume.
CALAMUS ACIDUS Becc. in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 (1908) 496
(type!).
Palmijuncus acidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119, t. 58, f. 2, E.
A very imperfectly known species, known only from Rumph-
ius’s description and figure. By various authors it has been
erroneously reduced to Calamus barbatus Blume; to Calamus
oblongus “‘Linn.,”” which does not exist [Hasskarl, Neue Schlissel
(1866) 102]; and to Daemonorops barbatus Mart.
CALAMUS sp. |
Palmijuncus aracanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 107.
A form of entirely uncertain status; it was thought by Schultes
to be referable to Calamus oblongus Reinw., and by Kunth to be
Calamus latifolius Roxb.
CALAMUS sp.?
Palmijuncus viminalis s. ua huay Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 109.
Entirely indeterminable from any data given by Rumphius;
it may not be a Calamus at all.
DAEMONOROPS Blume
DAEMONOROPS CALAPPARIUS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 7 (type!).
Calamus calapparius Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1850) 381.
Calamus amboinensis Miq. in Verh. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. 11 (1868)
20.
Palmijuncus calapparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 98, t. 51.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 23, September 5, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as rotang bulu rusa.
The identification of this specimen with both Palmijuncus
calapparius Rumph. and Daemonorops calapparius Blume has
been made by Doctor Beccari, who has given a detailed descrip-
tion of the species from Amboina specimens.* Linnaeus
originally reduced this to Calamus rotang Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 463, in which he was followed by numerous authors.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 209, reduced it to Calamus
petraeus Lour., but the Cochin-China species actually described
by Loureiro is entirely different from the Amboina plant, and
Beccari thinks it probably a species of Korthalsia or Plectocomia.
* Ann. Jard. Bot. Calcutta 12* (1911) 164.
118 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
DAEMONOROPS NIGER (Willd.) Blume Rumphia 3 (1827) 5 (type!).
Calamus niger Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 208 (type!).
Palmijuncus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 101, ¢. 52.
A species known only from the Rumphian figure and descrip-
tion; see Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12‘ (1911) 104.
Palmijuncus niger Rumph. has been reduced by various au-
thors to Calamus rotang Linn., to Calamus rudentum Lour., and
to Daemonorops melanochaetes Blume, but these reductions are
manifestly erroneous.
DAEMONOROPS PALEMBANICUS Blume Rumphia 3 (18387) 20.
Palmijuncus palimbanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 107.
The reduction follows Blume, which is probably the correct
disposition of Rumphius’s species. - .
DAEMONOROPS DRACO (Willd.) Blume Rumphia 3 (1887) 8.
Calamus draco Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 203 (type!).
Palmijuncus draco Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 114, t. 58, f. A, B.
Regarding this species, Beccari, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12?
(1911) 106, states: “Only the Palmijuncus Draco growing at
Palembang, described and figured by Rumphius (1. c.) can be
considered as the true D. Draco,” and again: ‘‘The canes
described by Rumphius * * * figured in plate 58 f. D
* * * and which is there attributed to Palmijzuncus Draco,
are almost certainly those of Calamus Scipionum.”
DAEMONOROPS RUBER Blume Rumphia 3 (1837) 6.
Daemonorops accedens Blume 1. c. 138.
Palmijuncus draco e Bantam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 116.
The Javan material included by Rumphius in his description
of Palmijuncus draco was referred by Blume to Daemonorops
accedens Blume, which is a synonym of D. ruber Blume; see
Beccari in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 12: (1911) 114.
CARYOTA Linnaeus
CARYOTA RUMPHIANA Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (18389) 195 (type!).
Saguaster major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 64, t. 14.
The illustration is an excellent habit sketch of this sufficiently
well-known palm, which extends from the Philippines to the
Moluceas and Java. Saguaster major Rumph. is the whole basis
of Caryota rumphiana Mart., from which Caryota maxima Blume
does not appear to be distinct. Linnaeus originally reduced the
Rumphian species to the Indian Caryota urens Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, and
PALMAE Tr am 119
it is very generally cited as a synonym of the Linnean species
in the early botanical literature. The species is, however, en-
tirely distinct from Caryota urens Linn.
ARENGA * LaBillardiére
ARENGA PINNATA (Wurmb) comb. nov.
Saguerus pinnatus Wurmb in Verh. Bat. Genoots. 1 (1779) 351.
Borassus gomutus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 618.
Arenga saccharifera Labill. in Mém. Inst. Paris 4 (1801) 209.
Gomutus rumphui Corr. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 288.
Saguerus rumphii Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68 (type!).
Saguerus saccharifer Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 128.
Gomutus saccharifer Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 624.
Arenga gamuto Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 63.
Palma indica vinaria I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 57, t. 13.
The common and well-known sugar palm is not represented
in our Amboina collections. The figure and the description
given by Rumphius unmistakably represent the form commonly
known as Arenga saccharifera Labill. The illustration has been
cited under Borassus gomutus Lour., Saguerus rumphiu Roxh.,
Saguerus saccharifer Blume, and Arenga saccharifera Labill.,
all synonyms of Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr.; while Giseke,
Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 90, erroneously reduced it tv
Chamaerops humilis Linn. Wurmb’s specific name is the oldest
valid one for the species. Arenga gamuto Merr. was adopted
on the assumption that “Saguerus gamuto Houtt.” was published
as indicated in Index Kewensis and in the synonymy of Arenga
saccharifera Labill. as given by some authors; no such name
appears in Houttuyn’s work.
CALYPTROCALYX Blume
CALYPTROCALYX SPICATUS (Lam.) Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 103,
Pete late De 118.5161,
Areca spicata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!).
Pinanga silvestris globosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 38, t. 5, f. 1, A.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but it has been minutely described and figured by Blume from
Amboina specimens. The Rumphian description and crude fig-
ure are the whole basis of Areca spicata Lam. Gaertner, Fruct.
1 (1788) 24, referred it to Euterpe globosa Gaertn., in which he
was followed by Giseke, Prael. Ord. Nat.'Pl. (1792) 92, but the
fruit figured by Gaertner is not that of Calyptrocalyx spicatus
Blume. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Saguerus Adans. (1763) is older.
120 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
10, thought that it was a species of Iguanura, while by other
authors it has been placed as an undetermined species of Areca
and of Pinanga.
DRYMOPHLOEUS Zippel
DRYMOPHLOEUS OLIVAEFORMIS (Giseke) Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3
(1849) 314.
Areca olivaeformis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 79 (type!).
Harina rumphii Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 189, ex Kunth. Enum. 3
-(1841) 194.
Seaforthia olwaeformis Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314.
Ptychosperma rumphu Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 119.
Saguaster minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 67, t. 15.
AMBOINA, Lateri and Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 21, 22, August
and September, 1918, in ravines and in forests, altitude 20 to 200 meters,
locally known as pinang utan.
Saguaster minor Rumph. is the basis of Areca olivaeformis —
Giseke, this supplying the oldest valid specific name. Hamilton,
Mem. Wern. Soc. 5 (1826) 316, discusses it under Harina caryo-
toides Ham., which is described from Indian specimens, but
he does not reduce Saguaster minor to this species.
DRYMOPHLOEUS APPENDICULATUS Becc. Malesia 1 (1877) 46.
Areca gracilis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 80 (type!).
Ptychosperma appendiculata Blume Rumphia 2 (1886) 122, t. 84, 119.
Seaforthia jaculatoria Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!).
Drymophloeus jaculatorius Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314
(type!).
Sargile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 68.
Areca gracilis Giseke was based wholly on Rumphius’s descrip-
tion of Sargile. Beccari, Malesia 1 (1877) 46, has excluded it
from the synonymy of Drymophloeus appendiculatus (Blume)
Becc., with all other synonyms based on Rumphius, because of the
fact that Rumphius included in the description more than one
species, and because he based his description largely on data
supplied to him by the natives. SBeccari, op. cit. 98, refers
“Saguaster minor ex Gilolo et Nova-Guinea,” i. e., Sargile
Rumph. p. p., to Drymophloeus jaculatorius Mart., a species of
doubtful status.
DRYMOPHLOEUS sp.
Areca vaginata Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 80 (type!).
Sargile minor || Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 68.
The form described in the last paragraph of chapter fifteen was
made the type of Areca vaginata by Giseke. It may prove to
be a synonym of the preceding species, but its status is now
entirely doubtful.
PALMAE 121
DRYMOPHLOEUS ? sp.
Areca humilis Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 595 (type!).
Seaforthia saxatilis Blume ex Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 186
(type!).
Ptychosperma saxatilis Blume Rumphia 2 (18386) 121 (type!).
Pinanga silvestris saxatilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 42, t. 7.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections;
and, although it has been placed in several different genera, its
proper place is still uncertain. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
619, discusses it under Borassus caudata Lour., but does not
definitely refer it to this species. The Rumphian figure and
description are the whole basis of Areca humilis Willd., which
thus supplies the oldest specific name for the species when once
its proper genus is determined. It is also the whole basis of
Ptychosperma saxatilis Blume and of Seaforthia saxatilis Blume.
“Areca saxatilis Burm.,” Fl. Ind. (1768) 42, quoted by Miquel
and listed in Index Kewensis, does not appear in Burman’s work.
Beccari, Malesia 1 (1877) 47, excludes this from Drymophloeus,
but make no suggestion as to its proper disposition.
ACTINORHYTIS H. Wendland and Drude
ACTINORHYTIS CALAPPARIA (Blume) H. Wendl. & Drude in Linnaea
39 (1875) 184.
Areca calapparia Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 70, t. 100, f. 2.
Seaforthia calapparia Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 313.
Ptychosperma ? calapparia Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 20.
Pinanga calapparia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 28.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction made by Blume and followed by Miquel and by
Martius is apparently the correct disposition of Pinanga calap-
paria Rumph.
MISCHOPHLOEUS Scheffer
MISCHOPHLOEUS VESTIARIA (Giseke) comb. nov.
Areca vestiaria Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 78 (type!).
Seaforthia vestiaria Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 313 (type!).
Ptychosperma vestiaria Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 31 (type!).
Ptychosperma paniculata Mig. in Verh. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. 11
(1868) 3.
Areca paniculata Scheff. in Naturk. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 32 (1872)
168.
Mischophloeus paniculata Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876)
152.
Pinanga silvestris e Buro Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 41.
I have here adopted what is apparently the oldest specific
name for this species, as Areca vestiaria Giseke was based wholly
122 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
on Rumphius’s description, as were Seaforthia vestiaria Mart. ¥
and Ptychosperma vestiaria Mig. There seems to be no doubt
that Mischophloeus paniculata (Miq.) Scheff. is the same species
as the plant Rumphius described.
PINANGA Blume
PINANGA PUNICEA (Blume) comb. nov.
Areca punicea Blume Rumphia 2 (1826) 72 (type!).
Seaforthia rumphiana Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!).
Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314
(type!).
Ptychosperma punicea Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 31 (type!).
Pinanga ternatensis Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 149.
Pinanga silvestris glandiformis Il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 39.
Areca punicea Blume is based wholly on Rumphius’s descrip-
tion of Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II, as are the brief de-
scriptions of Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. (Seaforthia
rumphiana Mart.) and Ptychosperma punicea Mig. The species
is undoubtedly a Pinanga and is probably the species described
by Scheffer as Pinanga ternatensis. Ihave here adopted Blume’s
specific name, it being the oldest valid one. Sarasuac Camell,
cited by Blume as a synonym of Areca punicea Blume, Rumphia
2 (1836) 73, is Heterospathe elata Scheff., a species originally
described from Amboina material, and one that I cannot connect
with any form described by Rumphius.
PINANGA GLOBULIFERA (Lam.) comb. nov.
Areca globulifera Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 241 (type!).
Areca oryzaeformis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. Pl. (1792) 76 (type!). :
Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 40, t. 5, f. 2,
Be, Dd.
Nothing resembling the Rumphian species is represented in
our Amboina collections, although the figure apparently repre-
sents a species of Pinanga. Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis
Rumph. is the whole basis of Areca globulifera Lam., which has
been reduced to Pinanga kuhlii Blume, and which, if correctly
placed, supplies a much older specific name for that species.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 568, reduced the Rumphian plant
to Areca sylvestris Lour., but the Cochin-China plant that he
actually described is certainly not the same as the one Rumphius
described and figured. Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 20, referred
it to Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., and the fruit he figured is
probably that of Pinanga kuhlu Blume. Seaforthia oryzaefor-
mis Mart., Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1839) 185, is merely a transfer
ee oes en
PALMAE 123
of Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., to be typified by the plant
Gaertner actually figured rather than by the Rumphian
synonym he cites and from which he took the specific name.
ARECA Linnaeus
ARECA CATECHU Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1189 (err. cathecu).
Pinanga (incl. II alba et Ill nigra) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 26, t. 4.
The common betel-nut palm is not represented in our Amboina
collections. ‘The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, which
has been accepted by all authors, as it is manifestly the correct
disposition of the form figured. Under this species Rumphius
described four forms: namely, J Pinanga calapparia, which is
apparently Actinorhytis calapparia H. Wendl. & Drude; II Pi-
nanga alba and III Pinanga nigra, which are manifestly Areca
catechu Linn.; and IV (unnamed), which I cannot place from
the imperfect description given by him.
ARECA GLANDIFORMIS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!).
Pinanga silvestris glandiformis 11 Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 38, ¢. 6.
The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of
Areca glandiformis Lam. It has been minutely described and
figured by Blume, Rumphia 2 (1836) 73, t. 100, from Moluccan
material.
COcos Linnaeus
COCOS NUCIFERA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1188.
Palma indica nucifera major s. calappa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:1,
HO th, 125. tt..' 18.
Rumphius gives an extensive treatise on the coconut. The
illustrations present a habit sketch, infructescence and infloresc.
ence, details of the structure of the fruit, including germination,
and t. 3 an abnormal form of the palm. He characterizes
thirteen forms, most of which are referred by Blume, Miquel,
and Hasskarl to various named varieties of Coces nucifera
Linn. The reduction of the illustrations was made by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118,
which is manifestly the correct disposition of them, and which
has been accepted by all authors. While many distinct forms
and varieties of the coconut occur, a clear understanding of them
and their relationships is possible only through critical and long-
continued field work, so that little is to be gained in attempting
to reduce the numerous Rumphian forms to named and very
imperfectly described varieties.
124 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
NIPA (NYPA) Wurmb
NIPA (NYPA) FRUTICANS’ Wurmb Verh. Bat. Genoots. 1 (1779) 350.
Nypa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 69, t. 16.
The illustration is an excellent one of the common nipa palm,
and Nypa was reduced by Wurmb in the original publication of
Nipa (Nypa) fruticans Wurmb. This is manifestly the correct
disposition of it and has been accepted by all authors, although
commonly appearing in literature as Nipa fruticans Thunb.
PALMAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
I am unable satisfactorily to determine the status of the few forms
described by Rumphius immediately following Cocus maldivicus. They may
or may not be the seeds or fruits of palms. These doubtful forms are as
follows: ‘
Compar mangae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 216, t. 82, f. 1.
Cocus maldivicus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 218, t. 82, f. 2, 8.
Cocus melindanus veruge Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 219, t. 82, f. 4.
Calapput laut Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 219.
ARACEAE
POTHOS Linnaeus
POTHOS RUMPHII Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 21.
Scindapsus rumphu Presl Epim. (1851) 241.
Adpendix porcellanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 485, t. 182, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 116, 117, October, 19138, on
trees at low altitudes, locally known as tapinawa and tapinawa putt.
The Rumphian figure is cited by Presl, under Scindapsus
rumphi Presl, and presumably is cited by Schott in the original
publication of the species (not seen by me). The species is a
very characteristic and strongly marked one, the specimens cited
above agreeing well with the Rumphian figure and description
and with Pothos rumphu Schott as currently interpreted.
POTHOS LONGIFOLIUS Presl Epim. (1851) 242.
Adpendix duplo folio Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 490, t. 184, f. 1-3.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 118, November, 1913,
on trees, altitude about 50 meters.
Linnaeus originally reduced Adpendix duplo folio Rumph. to
Pothos scandens Linn., which is very closely allied to Pothos
longifolius Presl, and extends from India to Indo-China, Java,
and Borneo. Pothos longifolius Presl is known from the Philip-
Pines, Sumatra, Java, and the Moluccas. The original reduc-
4
sd
i
-
Al
dh
ARACEAE 125
tion was made in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1383, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 13874, which was followed by most of the early authors.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 212, placed it under Flagellaria
repens Lour.—Pothos loureirii Hook. & Arn. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 150, has interpreted the three forms described
and figured by Rumphius as follows: I major=Scindapsus
officinalis Schott, most certainly wrong; II minor—Pothos rox-
burghit DeVriese with question, but most certainly wrong, as
the species is known only from India; and II=P. roxburghu
DeVriese, with doubt. I can see no valid reason for considering
that more than a single species is represented, and that is Pothos
longifolius Pres].
POTHOS LATIFOLIUS Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1754) 13838, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252 (type!).
Pothos tener Schott Aroid. 1 (1853) 24 (type!).
Scindapsus tener Presl Epim. (1851) 241.
Pothos gractlis Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed.'2, 1 (1832) 433.
Adpendix arborum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 488, t. 181, f. 1, 2.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections and is a
species of doubtful status. Pothos latifolius Linn. was based
wholly on Rumphius’s description and figure, the original de-
scription being as follows: “181. Adpendix arborum=Pothos
latifolius, foliis ovatis, petiolo latioribus.” Thus Linnaeus in-
cluded both figures 1 and 2, that is, the forms indicated by
Rumphius as parvifolia and media. To me they both appear to
represent the same species, one in, or immediately following,
anthesis; the other in fruit. Pothos tener Schott was based
wholly on Adpendix arborum I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 483, f.
181, f. 1; and, if I am correct in my surmise that but a single
species is represented by the two figures, it becomes a synonym
of Pothos latifolius Linn. Engler considers that Pothos tener
Schott is apparently the same as the Bornean Pothos barberianus
Schott. Pothos gracilis Roxb. was‘ described from specimens
grown in Calcutta, originating in Amboina, and is probably a
synonym of Pothos latifolius Linn.; Roxburgh states that it
had a great resemblance to Adpendix arborum as figured by
Rumphius. It is not, however, mentioned in the latest mono-
graph of the group, Engl. Pflanzenreich 21 (1905) 21-44, and
is quite certainly not the Penang and Bornean form described
under the name Pothos gracilis Roxb. by Engler in DC. Monog.
Phan. 2 (1879) 91.
126 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
SCINDAPSUS Schott
SCINDAPSUS MARANTIFOLIUS Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 187.
Cuscuaria marantifolia Schott Gen. Aroid. (1858) t. 80.
Cuscuaria rumphii Schott in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863)
130.
Scindapsus cannaeformis Engl. in Bull. Soc. Tose. Ort. 4 (1879)
PATE
Aglaonema cuscuaria Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 217 (type!).
Scindapsus cuscuaria Engl. & Krause in Engl. Pflanzenreich 37
(1908) 68, non Pothos cuscuaria Aubl.
Pothos cuscuaria Gmel. Syst. 1 (1796) 274 (type!), non Aubl. 1775.
Adpendix cuscuaria latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 488, t. 183, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Soja, Way tommo, and near the town of Amboina, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 114, 115, August, 1918, on trees, altitude 7 to 250 meters,
locally known as kelady utan and daun mo.
The specific name cuscuaria is invalid for this species. Pothos
cuscuaria Aubl., Hist. Pl. Guiane Franc. (1775) 840, was based on
specimens from South America with no reference to Rumphius,
although the specific name may have been taken from Rumphius.
Pothos cuscuaria Gmel., Syst. 1 (1796) 274, however, was based
wholly on Rumphius, not on Aublet. Aglaonema cuscuaria Miq.
was based on Pothos cuscuaria Gmel. (non Aubl.) and Cuscua-
ria latifolia Rumph., the latter being, accordingly, its type.
Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 605, follows Gmelin, as do also
Roemer and Schultes, Kunth, and Dietrich.
ACORUS Linnaeus
ACORUS CALAMUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 324.
Acorum palustre et terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 178, t. 72, f. 1.
The common sweet flag, amply described and fairly well
figured by Rumphius, is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections. It is found widely scattered in the Malayan region,
sometimes cultivated, occasionally wild at higher altitudes. It
was first reduced by Linnaeus in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754)
20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, which has very generally been
followed by later authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 208,
placed it under Orontium cochinchinense Lour.=Acorus cochin-
chinensis Schott-=Acorus calamus Linn. Schultes, Syst. 7?
(1829) 174, retains Acorus terrestris Rumph. as.a species dis-
tinct from A. calamus Linn., following Spreng., Syst. 2 (1825)
118, who in turn based Acorus terrestris Spreng. on Acorus
calamus Lour. Engler, DC. Monog. Phan. 2 (1879) 217, cites
the Rumphian figure and description under Acorus calamus
Linn. var. terrestris (Spreng.) Engl.
ARACEAE 127
EPIPREMNUM Schott
EPIPREMNUM PINNATUM (Linn.) Engl. Pflanzenreich 37 (1908) 60.
Pothos pinnata Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 13874 (type!).
Scindapsus pinnatus Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 21.
Adpendix laciniata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 489, t. 183, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri and Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 118,
August, 1913, on trees at low altitudes, locally known as tapinawa.
Pothos pinnata Linn., as originally published, is based wholly
on the description and figure of Rumphius’s Adpendix laciniata.
In addition to the synonyms given above, it has been cited by
some authors under Rhaphidophora lacera Hassk. and Scindapsus
pertusus Schott, both synonyms of Epipremnum pinnatum Engl.
The species extends from India through Malaya to Polynesia.
AMORPHOPHALLUS * Blume
AMORPHOPHALLUS CAMPANULATUS (Roxb.) Blume ex Decne. in
Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 3 (1834) 366.
Arum campanulatum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, nomen nudum, PI.
Coromandel 3 (1819) 69, t. 272, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 509.
Arum rumphu Gaudich. Bot. Freye. Voy. (1826) 427, t. 39.
Amorphophallus sativus Blume Rumphia 1 (1885) 145 (type!).
Conophallus ? sativus Schott Prodr. (1860) 35.
Tacca sativa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 324, t. 112.
Tacca phallifera Rumph. quoad Taccae fungus Rumph. Herb. Amb.
B26, t. 119, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Tacca sativa
Rumph. is perhaps a mixture of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. and
Amorphophallus; Tacca phallifera Rumph. certainly is. The
description of the vegetative characters, however, manifestly
applies to Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume; the figure is
very poor. Linnaeus erroneously reduced Tacca sativa Rumph.
to Dracontium polyphyllum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
300, placed it under Tacca pinnatifida Forst. Roxburgh cor-
rectly placed it under Arum campanulatum Roxb.=Amorpho-
phallus campanulatus, together with the inflorescence described
as Taccae fungus and figured, t. 113, f.2. Amorphophallus sativus
Blume is based wholly on the Rumphian description and figure,
and this species Engler, Pflanzenreich 48 (1911) 109, includes
under species dubiae.
Tacca phallifera Rumph. is made up of Tacca pinnatifida
Forst. and the inflorescence of Amorphophallus campanulatus
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Candarum Reichb. (1832) is older.
123 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Blume, the plate presenting the vegetative parts of Tacca, its
infructescence, and detached fruits, f. 1, a, b; and f. 2 the in-
florescence of Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume, described
by Rumphius as Taccae fungus. The latter figure is cited by
Roxburgh in the original description of Arum campanulatum
and is certainly correctly placed.
HOMALOMENA Schott
HOMALOMENA CORDATA (Houtt.) Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 20.
Dracontium cordatum Houtt. Handleid. 11 (1774-88) 200, t. 71, f. 2.
Dracunculus amboinicus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 322, t. 111,
Pane:
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 111, August 24, 19138,
on shaded banks, altitude about 15 meters.
Dracunculus amboinicus, as figured by Rumphius, was erro-
neously reduced by Linnaeus to Arwm divaricatum Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131.
By Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 532, it was placed with
doubt under Calla occulta Lour., which may be the same as the
closely allied Homalomena aromatica Schott. By other authors
it has been reduced to Homalomena rubescens Kunth, H. rubra
Kunth, and other allied forms. The Amboina specimen cited
above agrees with the figure given by Rumphius, agrees with
the description of Dracunculus amboinicus niger, and agrees
also with Homalomena cordata Schott as recently described by
Engler, Pflanzenreich 55 (1912) 57. Rumphius does not indicate
which of the four forms described under Dracunculus amboinicus
he intended the figure to represent, but I agree with Engler in
referring it to the one first described, namely, Dracunculus
amboinicus niger.
The form described by Rumphius as Dracunculus amboinicus II
albus, is apparently very closely allied to, if not identical with, -
Homalomena cordata (Houtt.) Schott, and may be the same as
Homalomena aromatica (Roxb.) Schott, which is reported from
Amboina by Engler; it can scarcely be Homalomena alba Hassk.,
to which Hasskarl reduced it, Neue Schliissel (1866) 128, because
as far as is known this species is confined to Java. Dracunculus
amboinicus III ruber should be compared with both Homalomena
cordata Schott and H. aromatica Schott. Hasskarl, following
Kunth, reduced it to Homalomena rubescens Kunth, which is
manifestly an error, as this species is not known from the
Malay Archipelago. More comprehensive collections are neces-
ARACEAE 129
sary from Amboina before the exact status of these two forms
can be determined.
SCHISMATOGLOTTIS Zollinger and Moritzi
SCHISMATOGLOTTIS CALYPTRATA (Roxb.) Zoll. & Mor. Syst. Verz.
(1854) 83.
Caila calyptrata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, nomen nudum, F1. Ind.
ed. 2, 3 (1832) 514. |
Homalomena calyptratum Kunth. Enum. 3 (1841) 57.
Schismatoglottis longipes Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 214.
Arisarum esculentum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 821, ¢. 111, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Halong, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 112, September 26, 1918,
river banks at an altitude of 40 meters, locally known as kasisi.
Linnaeus originally reduced Arum esculentum, through error,
to Arum peregrinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131. The type of Calla calyptrata
Roxb. was from Amboina, and Roxburgh cites the Rumphian
figure and description in the original description as representing
his species. Other names involved in the reduction are Colocasia
humilis Hassk. and Schismatoglottis longipes Miq.
AGLAONEMA Schott
AGLAONEMA OBLONGIFOLIUM (Roxb.) Kunth Enum. 3 (1841) 55.
Calla oblongifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 65 (type!); Fl. Ind. ed.
Z, 3 ftoo2). 516.
Aglaonema marantifolium Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 153.
Scindapsus erectus Pres] Epim. (1851) 241 (type!).
Arum aquaticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 812, t. 108.
Adpendix erecta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 487, t. 182, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figures and
the descriptions of both the Rumphian species cited above agree
closely with Aglaonema oblongifoliwm Kunth (A. marantifolium
Blume) as currently interpreted. Arwm aquaticum Rumph. is
the whole basis of Calla oblongifolia Roxb. as originally published
by Roxburgh, Hort. Beng. (1814) 65, by citation of the Rumphian
figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot.
414, 419. The description subsequently published by Roxburgh
was based on specimens cultivated at Calcutta, which originated
in the Moluccas. Adpendix erecta Rumph. is the basis of Scin-
dapsus erectus Presl and was also cited by Blume in the original
description of Aglaonema marantifolium Blume. Linnaeus first
reduced Arum aquaticum Rumph. to Arum ovatum Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131,
meereed, 10. (1759). 1251, Sp. Pi. ed. 2 (1763) 1871, but this
disposition of it was entirely wrong.
1449719
130 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ALOCASIA Necker
ALOCASIA MACRORRHIZA (Linn.) Schott Melet. (1832) 18.
Arum macrorrhizon Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 965.
Arum mucronatum Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 12 (type!)..
Arum silvestre | latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 310.
Arum indicum sativum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 308, t. 106.
_ AMBOINA, Kati-kati and Halong, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 110, Sep-
tember, 1913, near streams, altitude 40 to 70 meters, locally known as
bira and bira putt.
Arum indicum sativum Rumph. was originally reduced by
Linnaeus, with doubt, to Arum arborescens Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, but is
entirely different from this species. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789)
12, made it the type of his Arum mucronatum. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 536, referred it to his Arum indicum, which
is Supposed to be a synonym of Colocasia indica Engl. Forster,
Pl. Esculent. (1768) 58, correctly reduced it to Arum macrorrhi-
zon Linn.—Alocasia macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott. Rumphius
very briefly described three forms; namely, I nigrum, II fuscum,
and III album, the first of which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
126, referred to typical Alocasia indica Schott, and the last
two he referred to Colocasia indica Kunth var. atroviridis Hassk.
and C. indica Kunth var. pallida Hassk., respectively, but Colo-
casia indica Kunth, non Engl., is supposed to be a synonym of
Alocasia indica Schott. The descriptions are so very short that
it is impossible definitely to determine just what forms were
intended, but in all probability they were merely variants of
Alocasia macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott. I can see no valid reason
for considering that Arum silvestre I latifolium Rumph., Herb. Amb.
5: 310 (non ¢t. 107), represents other than a form of Alocasia
macrorrhiza Schott; see Alocasia longiloba Mia.
ALOCASIA LONGILOBA Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 207?
Arum silvestre I| medium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 310, #. 107.
AMBOINA, Soja, in forests, altitude about 400 meters, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 109, August 2, 1918.
The specimen lacks the spathe, but presents the fruiting spadix.
It unquestionably represents the form figured by Rumphius under
Arum silvestre; and I consider that the figure conforms to Arum
silvestre II medium rather than to Arum silvestre I latifolium,
although it has very generally been referred to the latter. Arum
silvestre I latifolium I take to be a form of Alocasia macrorrhiza
Schott, above. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) .126, reduced
Arum silvestre II medium to Alocasia montana Schott, certainly
ARACEAE 131
an erroneous disposition of it. The figure has been referred to
various species—by Linnaeus, through error, to Arum sagitti-
folium Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1753) 22, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251; by Schott, Prodr. (1860)
144, to Alocasia indica Schott; and by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 3
(1857) 207, with doubt to Alocasia longiloba Mig. Alocasia
indica Schott is a species of uncertain status; and, as generally
interpreted, the specific name is probably invalid. It is supposed
to be Arum indicum Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 498, non Arum
indicum Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 5386, but the specific name
should go with Loureiro’s species, which is supposed to be Colo-
casia indica. I have not seen Schott’s original publication of
Alocasia indica. At any rate, the plant figured by Rumphius
as Arum silvestre has little in common with the one described by
Roxburgh as Arwm indicum or with the one described by Loureiro
under the same name.
COLOCASIA Schott
COLOCASIA ESCULENTA (Linn.) Schott Melet. 1 (1832) 18.
Arum esculentum Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 965.
Arum colocasia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 965.
Colocasia antiquorum Schott Melet. 1 (1882) 18.
Arum aegyptium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 818, t. 109.
Caladium aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3818, t. 110, f. 1.
Taro is not represented in our Amboina collections, although
doubtless the plant, in several forms, is still cultivated in Am-
boina as in all parts of the Indo-Malayan region. Like many
widely cultivated plants, the species is enormously variable; and,
being poorly represented in herbaria, no satisfactory arrange-
ment of the numerous forms and varieties has been proposed, nor
is any attempted arrangement of these likely to prove satisfactory
unless based on a comprehensive collection of living plants. Lin-
naeus originally reduced Arum aegyptium Rumph. to Arum colo-
casia Linn., and Caladium aquatile Rumph. to Arum esculentum
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251, and by later authors both
have been referred to the above names and to numerous other
synonyms of the species. What is apparently the oldest valid
specific name for the collective species is here adopted. Various
names involved in the reduction of the forms figured and de-
scribed by Rumphius are Arum peltatum Lam., Colocasia: vera
Hassk., various proposed varieties of Colocasia antiquorum
Schott, Caladium esculentum Vent., Caladium nymphaeifolium
Willd., and Caladium esculentum var. aquatilis Hassk. Under
132 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Arum aegyptium Rumphius describes eight forms or varieties,
and under Caladium aquatile two, all of which are reducible to
Colocasia esculenta Schott, sensu latiore. I cannot agree. with
W. F. Wight, Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 206, in interpret-
ing the genus Caladium as typified by the Rumphian description.
The type of Caladiwm, the plant figured, and the one to which the
description applies, is Caladiwm bicolor Vent.
TYPHONIUM Schott
TYPHONIUM DIVARICATUM (Linn.) Decne. in Nuov. Ann. Mus. Paris
3 (1834) 367; Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 130 var. ROBUSTUM
Kunth. Enum. 3 (1841) 26.
Arum divaricatum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1868) 1369. |
Typhonium javanicum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1857) 198.
Arisarum amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 319, t. 110, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction and synonymy follow Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan.
2 (1879) 612. Linnaeus referred it to Arum trilobum Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
131, and to A. trilobatum Linn., in Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1251, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 13869, in which he was followed by all authors
until Blume placed it under Typhonium divaricatum Decne.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 127, placed Arisarum amboini-
cum as the equivalent of Typhonium divaricatum Decne.; but,
probably through oversight, he did not cite the figure.
PISTIA Linnaeus
PISTIA STRATIOTES Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 963.
Zala asiatica Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 405.
Pistia minor Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 78 (type!).
Plantago aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 177, t. 74, f. 2.
Plantago aquatica II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 177.
This common and well-known species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The reduction to Pistia stratiotes Linn.
was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1249, which has
been followed by practically all authors. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 405, cites it under Zala asiatica Lour., a synonym of Pistia
stratiotes Linn. The form described by Rumphius as Plantago
aquatica II minor is the whole basis of Pistia minor Blume, which
is manifestly only a reduced form of Pistia stratiotes Linn., due
to habitat. The plant is enormously variable in size, depending
on the age of the individuals, habitat, etc., the tendency, where
the plants are very numerous and crowded, being to a great
reduction in size.
'
z
LEMNACEAE—BROMELIACEAE 133
ARACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Two forms very briefly described or mentioned by Rumphius are entirely
indeterminable; these are Erva de Sta Maria Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 326,
and Itelpou Rumph., |. c. 8327. Hasskarl thought that the former might be
a representative of the Araceae, which is probably correct, and that the
latter might be Brachyspatha variabilis Schott=Amorphophallus variabilis
Blume; neither was from Amboina.
LEMNACEAE
LEMNA Linnaeus
LEMNA sp.
Lens palustris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 178.
Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 180, placed this under Lemna
minor Linn., following Miquel. Rumphius gives no description,
and the plant he named may have been any of the Malayan
Lemnaceae of the genus Lemna or the genus Spirodela.
FLAGELLARIACEAE
FLAGELLARIA Linnaeus
FLAGELLARIA INDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 333.
-Palmijuncus laevis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 120, t. 59, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso and Eri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 211, September and
October, 1913, in thickets near the seashore.
The original reduction of Palmijuncus laevis Rumph. to Fla-
gellaria indica was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1753) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 989,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 475, which has been followed by all authors,
and which is certainly the correct disposition of it.
wa
BROMELIACEAE
ANANAS Tournefort
ANANAS COMOSUS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Bromelia ananas Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 285.
Bromelia comosa Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 180 (type!).
Ananas sativus Schultes f. Syst. 7 (1880) 1283.
Ananassa sativa Lindl. Bot. Reg. (1827) sub t. 1068.
Anassa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 227, t. 81.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 382, October 38,
1918, semicultivated, locally known as nanas.
The common pineapple, as described and figured by Rumphius,
is the whole basis of Bromelia comosa Linn. as originally pub-
134 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
lished by Linnaeus in the year 1754. It is thus the oldest
valid specific name for the species. The Rumphian figure, which
is excellent, has very generally been cited by various authors
under one or the other of the synonyms given above. The forms
indicated by Rumphius as mas, femina, and alba are apparently
merely cultural forms of the common pineapple.
COMMELINACEAE
COMMELINA Linnaeus
COMMELINA NUDIFLORA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 41.
Arundinella | minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 28, t. 9, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Soja and Roemah tiga, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 407, July
and August, 1918, locally known as kangkong.
The Rumphian plant has generally been reduced to Commelina
benghalensis Linn., and the description, in part, seems to apply
to that species. The figure is very poor, but the description
is at least sufficiently definite to place the plant Rumphius in-
tended in Commelina. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 16, referred
it to Commelina benghalensis Linn., while Commelina rumphit
Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 1 (1831) 126, may have been
based wholly or in part on Rumphius (publication not seen).
COMMELINA BENGHALENSIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 41.
Arundinella I! major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 24.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 406,
July 22, 1918, locally known as kangkong ayer.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, has suggested Commelina
communis Linn. as the proper disposition of Arundinella II
major, but the description appears to me better to apply to
Commelina benghalensis Linn.
-ANEILEMA R. Brown
ANEILEMA VITIENSE Seem. var. PETIOLATA C. B. Clarke in DC.
Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 220.
Arundinella !V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25.
_ AMBOINA, Soja and Kaju poeti, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 408, August,
1913, along roadsides and in forests.
Whether the plant is the above form or the very closely
allied Anetlema monadelphum Kunth, it is undoubtedly the form
that Rumphius described. Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 155,
expressed the opinion that it was some species of Gramineae, but
the characters indicated by Rumphius for Arundinella IV all
apply to this species of Aneilema.
PONTEDERIACEAE—STEMONACEAE 135
CYANOTIS Don
CYANOTIS MOLUCCANA (Roxb.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907)
Bot. 266.
Commelina moluccana Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 172.
Commelina uniflora Hassk. Commel. Ind. (1870) 104.
Arundinella II] aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 24?
This reduction of Arundinella III aquatica is merely a sugges-
tion. However, it may be merely Commelina obtusifolia Vahl,
as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 155, which
is supposed to be a synonym of Commelina nudiflora Linn.
FLOSCOPA Loureiro
FLOSCOPA SCANDENS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 193.
Arundinella V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25.
AMBOINA, in sago swamps near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 409, July, 1918, locally known as kangkong ayer.
The reduction follows Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 165,
who suggests Floscopa paniculata Hassk. (=F. scandens Lour.),
as the proper disposition of Arundinella V of Rumphius.
PONTEDERIACEAE
MONOCHORIA Presl
MONOCHORIA VAGINALIS (Burm. f.) Pres! Rel. Haenk. 1 (1827) 128.
Pontederia vaginalis Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 80.
Olus palustre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 178, t. 75, f. 1.
AMBOINA, in grassy pools near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 225, July 25, 1913.
Olus palustre was first reduced to Monochoria (Pontederia)
vaginalis by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 222, this certainly being
the correct disposition of it.
Olus palustre femina Rumph., |. c. 178, is probably merely a form
of Monochoria vaginalis Presl, approaching M. vaginalis var.
plantaginea Solms, and possibly represented by Pl. Rumph. Amb.
224 from Amboina, August 28, 1913. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 180, suggests that Olus palustre femina is Monochoria
sagittata Kunth—=M. hastata Presl, but the description hardly
warrants this disposition of it.
STEMONACEAE
STEMONA Loureiro
STEMONA TUBEROSA Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 404.
Roxburghia gloriosoides Roxb. Pl. Coromand. 1 (1795) 29, t. 2.
Ubium polypoides | album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 364, t. 129.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 295, October 29, 1913, climb-
ing over trees along the seashore.
136 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Ubium polypoides Rumph. was correctly reduced to Stemona
tuberosa by Loureiro in the original description of that species,
in which disposition of it later authors have generally concurred,
including C. H. Wright in his paper on the genus Stemona,
Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 22 (1896) 490-496.
STEMONA MOLUCCANA (Blume) C. H. Wright in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot.
22 (1896) 494.
Roxburghia moluccana Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. 1 (1827) 9 (type!).
Ubium polypoides Il nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 365.
This species is figured and fully described by Dr. J. J. Smith,
Ie. Bogor. 8 (1897) 111-114, t. 245, 246. Wright’s and Blume’s
descriptions are entirely inadequate. It is by no means certain
that the two forms described by Rumphius are really distinct,
or that the form figured by him, which I have placed under
Stemona tuberosa Lour., realiy belongs with Loureiro’s species.
Stemona tuberosa Lour. and S. moluccana C. H. Wright are very
closely allied. In this connection it is of interest to note that
Dr. Robinson considered that his specimen represented Ubiwm
polypoides II nigrum Rumph. rather than U. polypoides I album
Rumph. where I have placed it.
LILIACEAE
ALOE Linnaeus
ALOE VERA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 320. |
Sempervivium indicum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 271.
This was apparently correctly placed by Henschel, Vita Rumph.
(1833) 177, who considered it to be Aloe perfoliata Linn. var.
vera Linn. The species is widely cultivated for medicinal pur-
poses in the Malayan region.
DIANELLA Lamarck
DIANELLA ODORATA Blume Enum. 1 (1827) 13.
Gladiolus odoratus indicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 185, t. 72.
AMBOINA, Way tommo and Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 505,
August, 1918, on grassy slopes and barren hills, altitude 50 to 300 meters.
This was reduced by Linnaeus to Dracaena ensifolia Linn. in
the original description of that species, Mant. 1 (1767) 638, but
his description seems to have been based on actual specimens.
At any rate Dianella ensifolia (Linn.) DC., as currently
interpreted, is not the same as the form that Rumphius de-
scribed and figured. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 276, cites it
under Dianella nemorosa, but Dianella nemorosa Lam. was based
on specimens from Bourbon and Isle of France and is a distinct
species. Gladiolus odoratus indicus Rumph. is unquestionably
g
rf
LILIACEAE 137
identical with Dianella odorata Blume, to which it was referred
by Blume, Schultes, Kunth, and other authors; see Hallier f., in
Nova Guinea 8 (1914) 996.
PLEOMELE Salisbury
PLEOMELE ANGUSTIFOLIA (Roxb.) N. E. Br. in Kew Bull. (1914) 277.
Dracaena angustifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 24 (type!), Fl. Ind.
ed. 2, 2. (1882) 155.
Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 81, t. 35.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 506, August 28, 1918,
near the seashore, locally known as chamara.
Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. was originally discussed by
Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 324, under Dracaena reflexa Lam.,
as possibly representing that species. Lamarck’s species, how-
ever, is quite different from Roxburgh’s and is Pleomele reflexa
N. E. Br. Terminalis angustifolia Rumph. is the whole basis
of Dracaena angustifolia Roxb. as originally published, in the
Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 24, by citation of the Rumphian
figure. The description, later published by Roxburgh, based
on an Amboina specimen cultivated in the botanic garden at
Calcutta, unquestionably applies to the same species. Cordyline
rumphi Hook. is also referable here as a synonym, at least in
part.
.TAETSIA Medicus
(Cordyline auct., non Adanson)
TAETSIA FRUTICOSA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Convallaria fruticosa Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126 (type!), Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 984.
Asparagus terminalis Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 450.
Dracaena terminalis Rich. in Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 324.
Calodracon terminalis Planch. Fl. des Serres I 6 (1850-51) 137.
Terminalia fruticosa Goepp. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 25 (1855)
Ba:
Cordyline terminalis Kunth in Abh. Acad. Berlin (1820) 30, Enum.
5 (1850) 25.
Taetsia terminalis W. F. Wight in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905)
382.
Terminalis alba domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 79, t. 34, f. 1.
Terminalis alba silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 80.
Terminalis rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 80, t. 34, f. 2.
Terminalis rubra silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 40, t. 20.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Hoenoet, and Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 507, August and October, 1913, on hills and in light forests, altitude
30 to 150 meters, locally known as pandusti, pandusti puti, and daun
pandusti. ~
The form cited above is exactly Terminalia alba silvestris
138 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Rumph., but there is little or no reason for considering that the
other three forms named by Rumphius represent distinct species.
Taetsia fruticosa is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region
and presents considerable variation in its cultivated forms,
especially in the color of its leaves, which vary from green to
reddish or purple. ‘“Terminalis Rumph. amb. 4 p. 79. t. 34”
is the whole basis of Convallaria fruticosa Linn. (1754), but the
original description of Asparagus terminalis Linn. was mani-
festly based on an actual specimen; Jerminalis Rumph. is cited
asasynonym. On plate 34, two forms are figured by Rumphius,
fig. 1 representing the plant with greenish leaves (T. alba
domestica), and fig. 2, the plant with reddish or purplish
leaves (7. rubra) ; the latter is manifestly only a color variant
of the former. Kunth, Enum. 5 (1850) 25, considered that Ter-
minalis rubra did not belong to Cordyline (Taetsia) or even
in the Liliaceae, but the figure certainly represents the common
and well-known Cordyline terminalis Kunth=Taetsia fructicosa
(Linn.) Merr. I consider Terminalis alba silvestris Rumph.
to be referable to the same species as the other forms described
by Rumphius. The chief objection to the reduction of Termi-
nalis rubra silvestris to Taetsia fruticosa is that the figure re-
presents the nerves of the leaves as altogether too prominent;
but this may be due to an error on the part of the artist.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190, suggested that it was the
same as Cordyline jacquinit Kunth var. rubense Hassk., but
Cordyline jacquinii Kunth is supposed to be a synonym of C.
terminalis.
Taetsia Medic. is here deliberately accepted in place of Cordy-
line as the proper generic name of this plant, as it is manifestly
the oldest valid one for the genus, in spite of the fact that
Cordyline Commers., ex Juss. Gen. (1789) 41, is retained in the
list of nomina conservanda adopted by the Vienna Botanical
Congress in preference to Terminalis Rumph. The Rumphian
designation has no standing as a generic name. Cordyline
Adanson (1763) is the same as Sansevieria Thunb. and ante-
dates Thunberg’s name. In adopting Taetsia, I agree with N.
E. Brown,* who, while retaining Cordyline, states: ‘‘At the
same time, however, my personal view of the case would be
to abolish the use of the name Cordyline altogether, in con-
sequence of the great confusion connected with it, and replace
it by that of Taetsia.”’
*Kew Bull. (1914) 275.
LILIACEAE 139
SMILAX Linnaeus
SMILAX JAVENSIS A. DC. in DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 175.
Pseudochina amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 487, t. 161.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 504, September 18,
1918, in thickets along the seashore, ascending to an altitude of at least
40 meters, locally known as tali baduri.
This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Smilax china Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, but in Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 1383, the reference to Smilax china is excluded, although
Ubium nummularium, t. 162 (=Dioscorea nummularia Lam.!),
is erroneously given as the equivalent of Smilax china Linn. In
his Mantissa 2 (1771) 499, Linnaeus again erroneously referred
Pseudochina amboinensis Rumph. to Smilax zeylanica Linn.,
which was followed by all subsequent authors up to the year
1878, when A. de Candolle suggested that it might be the same as
Smilax javensis A. DC. I know A. de Candolle’s species only by
description, but the description applies very closely to the Am-
boina specimen cited above, so that this is probably the correct
disposition of Pseudochina amboinensis Rumph. However, both
Smilax javensis A. DC. and the Amboina specimen should be
critically compared with the Australian Smilax australis R.
Br., which is a very closely allied and, perhaps, identical form.
SMILAX LEUCOPHYLLA Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. 1 (1827) 18.
Pseudochina nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 489.
AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 503, August 8, 1913,
climbing on trees, altitude about 15 meters, locally known as tali baduri.
This appears to be the correct disposition of Pseudochinu
migra Rumph., although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 144,
considered it to be referable to the Australian S. glycyphylla
Sm., a species known only from Australia, and quite different
from S. leucophylla Blume. The Philippine Smilax vicaria
Kunth is probably not specifically distinct from Blume’s species.
SMILAX LEUCOPHYLLA Blume var. PLATYPHYLLA var. nov.
Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 438?
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 502 (type), September 9,
1913, in forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as tali baduri.
Ramis distanter crasse aculeatis; foliis coriaceis, usque ad
30 cm longis et 16 cm latis.
This may prove to be specifically distinct from Smilax leuco-
phylla Blume when more material is available for study. It
is well characterized by its very large leaves, long petioles, and
140 : RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
long infructescences. The petioles, including the very promi-
nent sheathing base, are 5 to 6 cm in length. The infructes- —
cences are about 20 cm long, with at least four long; pegamees
umbels. Fruits globose, about 1 cm in diameter.
It may or may not be the same as Pseudochina alba latifolia
Rumph., but it is quite certain that the Rumphian plant is not
the same as Smilax villandia Ham.=S. indica Vitm. under which
name it is briefly discussed by Hasskarl.
SMILAX CHINA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1029?
Smilax sarmentis spinulosis etc. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 72, t. 30?
Radix chinae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 441?
The identity of the two Rumphian synonyms cited above can
only be surmised. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 144, con-
siders Radix chinae to be the same as Smilax aspera Linn., and
the other as possibly representing S. bauhinioides Kunth. Plate
80 of the Auctuarium is missing in our copy of the Herbarium
Amboinense.
AMARYLLIDACEAE
CRINUM Linnaeus
CRINUM ASIATICUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 292.
Crinum toxicarium Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 23 (type!), FI. Ind.
ed: 2, 2. (12382), 134.
Radix toxicaria | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 155, t. 69.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 130, August 30, 1918,
along the seashore, locally known as bauang laut.
Radix toxicaria Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to Crinum asiaticum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 976, a reduction
that is certainly correct, and one that has been accepted by
most authors. It is the type of Crinum toxicarium Roxb., which
was based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description, Hort.
Bengal. (1814) 23; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7
(1912) Bot. 413. It was cited later in the very brief description
given in the second edition of the Flora Indica. The species
is very widely distributed along the seashores of the Indo-
Malayan and Polynesian regions; it is exceedingly variable in
size, depending on the age of the plant and on its habitat. The
form very briefly described by Rumphius as Radix toxicaria Il
montana, |. c. 156, from Ceram, is probably merely a dwarfed
form of Crinum asiaticum Linn.
i
AMARYLLIDACEAE 141
CRINUM RUMPHII sp. nov.
Radix toxicaria II terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 156.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 131 (type), October
8, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as pohon tolok.
Planta magna, glabra; foliis ut videtur numerosis, usque ad
70 cm longis et 18 cm latis, chartaceis, acutis, basi angustatis,
petiolo circiter 30 cm longo. Floribus numerosis, breviter pe-
dicellatis, tubo circiter 15 cm longo, segmentis lineari-lanceolatis,
circiter 14 cm longis et 6 mm latis.
A large, entirely glabrous plant. Leaves apparently numer-
ous, when dry dark-olivaceous chartaceous, about 70 cm long
and 18 cm wide, acute, base narrowed, the petiole about 20 cm
long, and when dry and flattened out 2.5 to 3 cm wide. Peduncle
not seen. Flowers numerous, white, at least 20 to each peduncle,
the spathe-valves about 18 cm long and 3 cm wide, narrowed
upward, subacute. Pedicels 1 to 1.5 cm long, the perianth-tube
slender, including the ovary about 15 cm long. Flowers white,
the filaments lilac. Segments linear-lanceolate, about 14 cm
long and 6 mm wide, acute. Fruit not seen.
A species well characterized by its very large leaves and long
slender perianth-tube. It is manifestly in the same group as
Crinum asiaticum Linn., but differs from that species in many
characters, as well as in its entirely different habitat. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 178, thought that Radix toxicaria II
terrestris might be the same as Crinum procerum Carey, which,
however, is a synonym of C. asiaticum Linn.
CRINUM ZEYLANICUM Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 236.
Amaryllis zeylanica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 293.
Amaryllis lineata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 123.
Tulipa javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 306, t. 105.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
although doubtless it is still cultivated in Amboina as it is jn
other parts of Malaya. Rumphius states that it was introduced
into Amboina from Java about 1670. The figure is an excellent
representation of Crinum zeylanicum Linn. It was first reduced
by Linnaeus to Amaryllis zeylanica Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
977, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 421, which as Crinum zeylanicum Linn.
has very generally been accepted as the correct disposition of
Tulipa javana Rumph.
142 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
EURYCLES Salisbury
EURYCLES AMBOINENSIS (Linn.) Lindl. in Loud. Encycl. Pl. (1829)
242.
Pancratium amboinense Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 291.
Pancratium narbonense Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28
(type!).
Amaryllis rotundifolia Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 124.
EFurycles silvestris Salisb. in Trans. Hort. Soc. 1 (1812) 387.
Cepa silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 160, t. 70, f. 1.
This widely distributed, well-known, characteristic species is
not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, first reduced Cepa silvestris Rumph.
to Pancratium narbonense Linn.; this name, apparently a lapsus
calami for P. amboinense, is not listed in Index Kewensis and,
being based wholly on Rumphius, thus becomes a synonym of
Eurycles amboinensis Lindl. In the reprint of Stickman’s
paper, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 976, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 419, it is properly placed under Pancratium
ambowense Linn.—Hurycles amboinensis Lindl. Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 47, cites it under Crinum nervosum L’ Heérit.;
and other authors cite it under Amaryllis rotundifolia Lam.,
Eurycles coronata Salish., #. nervosa Roem., and E. silvestris
Salisb.—all synonyms of #. amboinensis (Linn.) Lindl.
CURCULIGO Gaertner
CURCULIGO ORCHOIDES Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 638, t. 16.
Curculigo rumphiana Schultes Syst. 7” (1830) 757 (type!).
Orchis amboinica major Il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 117, t. 54. f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 128, August 5, 1913,
on open hillsides, altitude about 150 meters.
Orchis amboinica major II, as described and figured by
Rumphius, was cited by Gaertner in the original description of
Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. as a synonym of his species, and
the Amboina specimen cited above agrees with the species as
currently interpreted. Most authors have followed Gaertner
in this reduction, but Schultes, in a discussion following the
description of Curculigo orchoides, considers the Rumphian
plant to represent a distinct species, which he called Curculigo
rumphiana Schultes and which was based wholly on the Rumph-
ian reference cited above. Curculigo rumphiana Schultes is
not listed in Index Kewensis, and I consider it to be merely a
synonym of the much older name, Curculigo orchoides Gaertn.
CURCULIGO CAPITULATA (Lour.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891)
7038.
Leucojum capitulatum Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 199.
AMARYLLIDACEAE 143
Curculigo recurvata Dryander in Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 2 (1811) 258.
Curculigo sumatrana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 24 (type!).
Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre tertium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6:
114, 't. 52.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 129, October 7, 1913,
on banks, altitude about 80 meters.
This was cited by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 13, under
Phyllodes placentaria Lour.—=Phrynium capitatum Willd., a spe-
cies that is entirely different from Curculigo capitulata O.
Kuntze. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 5 (1817) 645, referred
it to Curculigo latifolia Dry., in which he was followed by
numerous authors. Henschel and Pritzel refer it to Curculigo
recurvata Dry. It is the actual type of Curculigo sumatrana
Roxb., as published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 24, by citation of the
Rumphian figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci.
7 (1912) Bot. 418. Curculigo sumatrana Roxb., as actually
described from Sumatran specimens later, Roxburg FI. Ind. ed.
2, 2 (18382) 146, seems to be distinct and is generally cited as a
synonym of Curculigo latifolia Dryand.
PANCRATIUM Dillenius
PANCRATIUM ZEYLANICUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 290.
Lilium indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 161, t. 70, f. 2.
This common and well-known species, excellently figured by
Rumphius, is not represented in our Amboina collections. It
occurs here and there in the vicinity of towns and habitations
throughout the Malayan region. Liliwm indicum Rumph. was
first reduced to Pancratium zeylanicum Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1386, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 417, which is certainly the correct disposition of it,
and which has been accepted by subsequent authors.
The form described by Rumphius, in the same chapter, as
Lilium indicum javanicum, Herb. Amb. 6: 162, a Javan plant with
yellow flowers, is indeterminable from the data at present avail-
able. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 178, has suggested that
it might be Calostemma luteum Sims, but it is entirely im-
probable that this Australian species had been introduced into
Java at the time when Rumphius wrote his account.
POLIANTHES Linnaeus
POLIANTHES TUBEROSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 316.
Amica nocturna Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 285, t. 98.
The tuberose is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but is probably still cultivated in Amboina, as it is in various
144 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
parts of the Malayan region and the Philippines. Amuca noc-
- turna Rumph. was first reduced to Polianthes tuberosa Linn. —
by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 181, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 984, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 453,
which is certainly the correct disposition of it, and which has
been accepted by all subsequent authors.
AGAVE Linnaeus
AGAVE CANTALA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25, nomen nudum.
_ Furcraea cantala Haworth Syn. Pl. Succul. Suppl. (1819) 42.
Agave cantula Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 167.
Agave rumphiu Hassk. in Hoev. & DeVriese Tijdschr. 10 (1848) 121.
Aloe americana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 278, t. 94.
The common maguey plant is not represented in our Amboina
collections. Aloe americana Rumph. was originally reduced by
Linnaeus to Aloe vivipara Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 180, while in the Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
986, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 461, he placed it under Agave vivipara
Linn. in which he was followed by various authors. This,
however, seems to be a different species, originally based on
material from tropical America. Agave cantala Roxb., as
originally used, is a nomen nudum, but the spelling of the specific
name is fixed by Haworth’s publication of Furcraea cantala
in 1819, with a reference to Roxburgh. However, Roxburgh
himself published the name, with a brief description and a
reference to Rumphius, as Agave cantula Roxb. Agave rumphu
Hassk. is apparently typified by Aloe americana Rumph. While
the species is of Mexican origin, having been introduced into the
Philippines at an early date by the Spaniards, the Indo-Malayan
form has not as yet been satisfactorily connected with any
described American species. :
TACCACEAE
TACCA * Forster
TACCA PINNATIFIDA Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 70, t. 35.
Tacca dubia Schultes Syst. 7* (1829) 167 (type!).
Tacca litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 328, t. 114.
Tacca phallifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 326 p. p., t. 118, f. 1, a, 6.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The illustrations given by Rumphius of Tacca litorea, and of T.
phallifera t. 113, f. 1, are both excellent representations of the
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Leontopetaloides Boehm. (1760) is
older.
DIOSCOREACEAE $45
common and well-known Tacca pinnatifida Forst. The species
was confused by Rumphius with Amorphophallus campanulatus
Blume (see p. 127), Tacca phalliifera Rumph. being made up
of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. with the inflorescence of Amorpho-
phallus campanulatus Blume, which was described by Rumphius
as Taccae fungus. Tacca sativa Rumph., 1. c. 5: 324, is also
apparently a mixture of Tacca pinnatifida Forst. and Amorpho-
phallus campanulatus Blume, but the description for the most
part and the figure are Amorphophallus, not Tacca. Tacca
dubia Schultes was based wholly on Tacca phallifera Rumph.,
excluding Taccae fungus and ¢t. 113, f. 2, and is manifestly
nothing but Tacca pinnatifida Forst. Forster apparently took
his generic name from Rumphius, and in the original publication
of the species he cites both Tacca sativa Rumph., t. 112, and
Tacca litorea Rumph., t. 114, as synonyms. The type, however,
was a Polynesian specimen.
TACCA PALMATA Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. 1 (1827) 88.
Tacca montana Schultes Syst. 7* (1829) 168.
are rumphi Schauer in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843) Suppl.
: 442.
sad montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 829, t. 115.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
I consider that both forms described by Rumphius—I minor
and II major—are referable here. The reduction was first made
by Blume. Schultes merely substituted Rumphius’s name for
that proposed by Blume, reducing Tacca palmata Blume as a
synonym. Tacca rumphii Schauer was based on Luzon speci-
mens, manifestly the same as Tacca palmata Blume, with the
addition of a reference to Tacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb.
§: 329, ¢. 115.
DIOSCOREACEAE
DIOSCOREA Linnaeus
Rumphius described and figured a number of forms and
species of Dioscorea, under the general name Ubiwm, which have
been in part more or less misunderstood by subsequent authors.
But two species are represented in our Amboina collections.
These are both common and well-known species, so that the
material available for study hardly assists in clearing up species
of doubtful status so far as those based wholly or partly on
Rumphius’s descriptions and figures are concerned.*
*Prain and Burkill. A synopsis of the Dioscoreas of the Old World,
Africa excluded, with descriptions of new species and of varieties. Journ.
As. Soc. Beng. II 10 (1914) 1-41.
14497110
146 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
DIOSCOREA BULBIFERA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 10383.
Ubium pomiferum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 354, t. 124. =
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. q
The figure, however, unmistakably represents Dioscorea bulbi-
fera Linn. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 181, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 1294, which has been followed by all authors.
Ubium pomiferum silvestre Rumph., |. c. 354, is probably merely a
form of the same species. Mr. Burkill notes that the wild form
mentioned by Rumphius is in all probability Dioscorea bulbifera
Linn. var. vera Prain and Burkill, and that the cultivated forms
may include var. sativa Prain and Burkill and var. swavior Prain
and Burkill.
DIOSCOREA ALATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1033.
Ubium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 346, t. 120.
Ubium digitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 350, t. 121.
Ubium anguinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 351, t. 122.
Ubium ovale Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 356, t. 125.
Ubium draconum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 351, t. 122, f. D, E.
Ubium anniversarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 353, t. 128.
Inhame St. Thome Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 355.
This commonly cultivated yam is not represented in our
Amboina collections. However, I have little doubt that the
six forms figured by Rumphius as Ubium vulgare, U. digitatum,
U. anguinum, U. ovale, U. draconum, and U. anniversarium are
all referable to Dioscorea alata Linn., including the several forms
described under the first, second, and fourth. The species is
enormously variable in the shape, color, and size of its sub-
terranean parts, but is apparently fairly uniform in its vege-
tative and floral characters. The first three were originally and
erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Dioscorea oppositifoha
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, 23, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 131, but later authors have generally cited them as
synonyms of Dioscorea alata Linn., where they properly belong.
Ubium ovale Rumph. has been cited by some authors as a
synonym of Dioscorea bulbifera Linn., but from the figure and
description it is apparently merely the bulbil-bearing form of
Dioscorea alata Linn. Ubium anniversarium Rumph. has been
quoted by Henschel, Hasskarl, Kunth, and Miquel as a possible
synonym of Dioscorea spiculata Blume, but Mr. I. H. Burkill has
called my attention to the fact that it is the same form as the
curious race of Dioscorea alata figured by him in Gard. Bull.
Straits Settl. 1 (1915) 301, figs. 2-6, (1917) 393, pl. 5, 6; and
DIOSCOREACEAE 147
in the Philip. Agr. and Forester 3 (1915) 207, plate 2, figs. 12,
Peels.
In a recent letter to me Mr. Burkill states:
Of the Philippine Dioscorea alata I have in Singapore in a few races the
tuberous roots do not respond to geotropism in the normal way, but ascend
to the surface of the soil where conditions are apt to kill them. If
one continues to protect them by covering them with earth they continue
to grow and may become greatly elongated. The drawings of the yams
on page 30 of Gardens’ Bulletin were made at a time when I had not
discovered how to earth them up. If you will examine the figure of
Rumphius’s Ubium anguinum you will note that what I take to be the same
race is represented. I believe that this type of yam arose and was propa-
gated by planting it in the midden at the back door and that the yams
continued to grow upward with the accumulation of rubbish.
Mr. Burkill calls my attention to the fact that Inhame St.
Thome of Piso is Dioscorea alata Linn., and that Rumphius was
wrong in ascribing it to his Ubiwm pomiferum.
DIOSCOREA ESCULENTA (Lour.) Burkill in Gard. Bull. Straits Settl. 1
(1917) 396.
Oncus esculentus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 194.
Dioscorea combilium Ham. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 51038A.
Dioscorea fasciculata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 72, nomen nudum,
Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 801.
Dioscorea tiliaefolia Kunth Enum. 5 (1840) 401.
Combilium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 357, t. 126.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure, however, unmistakably represents the form commonly
named Dioscorea tiliaefolia Kunth, but for which Prain and
Burkill have recently adopted the name Dioscorea aculeata Linn.
Sir David Prain, however, has discovered that Dioscorea aculeata
Linn. is the valid name for D. wallichit Hook. f. and that Oncus
esculentus Lour. supplies the oldest valid name for the species
under discussion. Linnaeus originally reduced Combilium to
Dioscorea aculeata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1293. Mr.
Burkill, who has called my attention to the necessary change in
the ‘specific name of this species, considers that Combilium is
referable here with the possible exception of Combilium rubrum,
the status of which is uncertain, and C. tsjampadaha, which is
described as if a different species.
DIOSCOREA PENTAPHYLLA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1032.
Ubium quinquefolium Rumph. ‘Herb. Amb. 5: 359, t. 127.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure probably represents the var. malaica Prain & Burkill,
148 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. IJ 10 (1914) 23. The original reduction
of Rumphius’s plant was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. —
Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1293, and has been accepted by most authors. ‘The forms de-
scribed as album, rubrum, and fuscum are probably but variants
of the same species.
DIOSCOREA HISPIDA Dennst. Schliissel Hort. Malabar. (1818) 33.
Dioscorea hirsuta Roth Nov. Pl. Sp. (1821) 370.
Dioscorea daemona Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 72, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 805.
Dioscorea triphylla auctt., non Linn.
Ubium silvestre Rumph.. Herb. Amb. 5: 361, t. 128.
Colot e Philippinis Rumph. 1. c. 364.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 375, November 26, 1918, in
light forests, altitude about 5 meters, locally known as ondo.
Dioscorea triphylla Linn., Sp. Pl. (1754) 1032, typified by
Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 7: 63, t. 33, is merely a form of Dioscorea
pentaphylla Linn. and must be considered as a synonym of that
species. Prain and Burkill, however, propose to cite Dioscorea
triphylla Linn. as published in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, thus typified by the Rumphian
figure, and to retain Dioscorea triphylla Linn. as a valid species.
This usage is inadmissible, and the specific name triphylla Linn.
should be dropped. The oldest valid specific name appears to be
Dioscorea hispida Dennst.
DIOSCOREA NUMMULARIA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 2381 (type!).
Dioscorea nummularifolia Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 183 (type!).
Dioscorea glabra Koord. Meded. Lands Plantent. 19 (1898) 312.
Ubium nummularium frugiferum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 444, ¢. 162.
AMBOINA, Negri lama and Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 374, Sep-
tember 8, 1913, in thickets and on hillsides, altitude 20 to 375 meters,
locally known as ubi utan.
Ubium nummularium Rumph. was originally and erroneously
reduced by Linnaeus to Dioscorea villosa Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1294; but in Amoen. °
Acad. 4 (1759) 133, it was erroneously referred to Smilax china
Linn. by confusion with the preceding plate. It is the whole
basis of Dioscorea nummularia Lam., the Rumphian figure and
description being the type of that species. ‘‘Dioscorea num-
mularifolium Linn.” as quoted by Henschel does not exist
and is a manifest error, the intention being Dioscorea num-
mularia Lam. The species is well known, being widely dis-
tributed in the Philippines and the Moluccas and extending to the
southeast as far as New Guinea and Prince of Wales Island.
MUSACEAE 149
DIOSCOREA sp. aff. D. NUMMULARIA Lam.
Ubium nummularium floriferum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 445, t. 163.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Miquel,
Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1858) 572, cites this plate with the preceding
one under Dioscorea nummularia Lam. MHasskarl, Neue Schliis-
sel (1866) 144, cites the Rumphian name, but not the plate.
The figure presents a plant with oblong-ovate, prominently acu-
minate, 5-nerved leaves, which are rounded at the base, in aspect
somewhat resembling some forms placed under Dioscorea num-
mularia Lam., but with the stems prominently spiny. I have
a single Philippine specimen, Wenzel 1120 from Leyte, that
Burkill has identified as a form of Dioscorea nummularia Lam.,
which has spiny stems, but otherwise all the material of typical
Dioscorea nummularia Lam. that I have seen is entirely un-
armed. In aspect the two forms figured by Rumphius are very
distinct, but the differences may be more apparent than real.
Possibly the differences in the presence or absence of spines on
the stems may be due to the fact that the figure of Ubiwm num-
mularvum frugiferum presents only the upper part of the plant,
while that of Ubiwm nummularium floriferum presents also the
lower part of the plant, the upper part being unarmed. Regard-
ing this form Mr. Burkill writes as follows:
Figure 163 is unrecognizable. It may be a very badly drawn Dioscorea
of the D. nummularia alliance. The type of the inflorescence, the opposite
leaves, and the characters of the underground parts all permit of this view,
in which case we need not suppose that the foliage is that of a Stemona,
but that the artist was very careless in making the drawing. Indeed the
foliage looks as if it were withered when the drawing was made.
MUSACEAE
MUSA Linnaeus
MUSA PARADISIACA Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 1048.
Musa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 125, t. 60.
Musa uranoscopos Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 187, t. 61, f. 2.
Musa alphurica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 188, t. 61, f. 3.
No attempt is here made to refer the numerous forms of the
banana described by Rumphius to the various named varieties
and forms of this species. Under Musa domestica Rumphius
describes sixteen forms, four of which are figured; these for
the most part are indicated by their native names. Rumphius
described as distinct ‘“‘species” Musa uranoscopos and M. alphu-
rica, the former being reduced by Warburg to subsp. troglody- |
tarum (Linn.) Baker, and the latter to subsp. sapientum (Linn.)
O. Kuntze; Musa troglodytarum Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
150 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
1478, is typified by Musa uranoscopos Rumph. Herb. Amb.
5: 137, t. 61, f. 2. From data and material at present available |
no satisfactory arrangement of the various forms of the cul-
tivated and semicultivated bananas is possible, and the definite
characters of the numerous species, subspecies, varieties, and
forms can be determined only by a critical study of ample
living material. No bananas are represented in our Amboina
collections.
MUSA TEXTILIS Née in Ann. Cienc. Nat. 4 (1801) 128.
Musa silvestris mindanauensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 189.
This was described from Mindanao and Sangir material and
is manifestly a form of the abaca plant. It is certain that
Musa textilis Née includes a number of distinct forms or va-
rieties, and perhaps a critical study of living material will show
that some of the forms are worthy of specific rank.
MUSA TEXTILIS Née var. AMBOINENSIS Warb. in Engl. Pflanzenreich
1 (1900) 19.
Musa amboinensis Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1858) 588 (type!).
Musa silvestris amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 139.
The status of this Amboina form is uncertain, and it may
prove to be specifically distinct from Musa textilis Née.
MUSA ACUMINATA Colla in Mém. Acad. Torin. 25 (1820) 338 (Mém.
Gen. Musa 66).
Musa rumphiana Kurz in Journ. Agric. Hort. Soc. India II 5 (1878)
164.
Musa simiarum Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1858) 589.
Musa simiarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 188, ¢. 61, f. 1.
This sylvan species, briefly described by Rumphius, is probably
a valid one, as considered by Warburg, in Engl. Pflanzenreich
1 (1900) 21, under the name Musa acuminata Colla. It has been
referred by various authors to Musa seminifera Lour., M. dis-
color Horan., and M. paradisiaca Linn. var., but these reductions
are certainly erroneous.
HELICONIA * Linnaeus
(By TH. VALETON)
HELICONIA BIHAI Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 211.
Musa bihai Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1048.
Heliconia buccinata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 19 (type!).
Heliconiopsis amboinensis Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1858) 590.
Folium mensarium album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 142, t. 62, f. 2
(sphalm. 1 in explic. p. 148).
This species, a native of tropical America, must have been
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Bihai Adans. (1768) is older.
ZINGIBERACEAE 151
introduced into Amboina at a comparatively early date, probably
by the Portuguese colonists. In literature Folium buccinatum,
figured on the same plate, is confused with Foliwm mensarium.
The reduction to Musa bihai Linn. was made by Burman f., FI.
Ind. (1768) 218, and to Heliconia bihai Linn. by Linnaeus, Mant.
2 (1771) 211. The confusion between F'oliwm mensarium and
Folium buccinatum was apparently occasioned by Burman in
writing the explanation of the plate, who reversed the names
and figures. The latter is Cominsia gigantea (Scheff.) K. Sch.
(see p. 167).
The status of all the forms described in this chapter is now
rather clear. Folium buccinatum asperum Rumph., Herb. Amb.
5: t. 62, f. 1, is Cominsia gigantea ‘(Scheff.) K. Sch.; the figure
has been confused with fig. 2, Heliconia bihai Linn. Folium
mensarium nigrum is, apparently, merely a variant of the preceding.
Folium mensarium rubrum is a species of Cominsia, undescribed
under the binomial system (see p. 168). Folium buccinatum
album is Phacelophrynium robinson Val.
ZINGIBERACEAE
(By TH. VALETON)
ZINGIBER Adanson
ZINGIBER OFFICINALE Rosc. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 7 (1807) 348.
Amomum zingiber Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1.
Zingiber majus album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 156, t. 66, f. 1.
Linnaeus made the first reduction of the Rumphian species
to Amomum zingiber Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 1, which,
as Zingiber officinale Rosc., is manifestly the correct disposition
of it. The form described by Rumphius as Zingiber majus rubrum
is probably merely a variant of the common ginger, Zingiber
officinale Rose.
ZINGIBER OFFICINALE Rosc. var. MINOR Val. var. nov.
Zingiber minus sive gramineum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 161, t. 66,
f. 2.
Dimensione minore et proprietatibus rhizomatis insignis.
Floribus paullum majoribus, labello orbiculari, lobis lateralibus
late rotundato-ovatis basi subcordatis a genuina distinguenda.
This variety is very commonly cultivated in western Java
and occasionally produces flowers, although botanically it is
quite unknown. It is easily identified by the native name suntt,
mentioned by Rumphius and still. in use, as well as by the
152 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
description. Blume was wide of the mark in reducing it to
Zingiber gramineum Blume, Enum. Pl. Jav. (1827) 45. The ©
latter is a rather common wild species of Java and Cochin-China
and is never cultivated.
7
4
.
ZINGIBER ZERUMBET (Linn.) Smith Exot. Bot. 2 (1804) 108, t. 112.
Amomum zerumbet Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1.
Lampujum majus domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 148, t. 64, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Toelehoe, Boerlage 247 in herb. bog., July 16, 1900.
This reduction of Lampujum majus domesticum was first
made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 842, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
1, and is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Rumphius dis-
tinguished a cultivated and a wild form, but he found no dif-
ference between them, only that the latter flowered more
abundantly. Blume did not think this was the genuine Z.
zerumbet and reduced it to Z. amaricans BI.; but his notions
about true Z. zerumbet are not very clear, and specimens from
Amboina (Boerlage 247) in the Buitenzorg herbarium seem
to agree with the type. Zingiber marginatum (Roxb.?) BL,
which is quoted here by some authors, was based partly on
Lampujum silvestre minus Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: t. 64, which
is Globba marantina L., partly on an abnormal form of Z.
zerumbet, with a central inflorescence instead of a lateral one,
occurring sometimes in Java.* Zingiber montanum Link was
based on Amomum montanum Koenig, in Retz. Obs. 3 (1779)
51, quoted here by Koenig, 1. c., but Ridley, Fl. Mal. Penins. 2
(1907) 28, thinks it represents Z. cassumunar Roxb.
ZINGIBER ZERUMBET (L.) Smith. var. AMARICANS Val.
Zingiber amaricans Bl. Enum. Pl. Jav. (1827) 48.
Lampujum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 148.
This reduction is based on Rumphius’s assertion that this
form was a native of Java, and thence brought to Amboina
with the Malayan name lampujum ketjil or wangi. The latter
is still very commonly used in Java for a form that is botanically
not to be distinguished from lampujum patt, described by Blume
as Zingiber amaricans. Blume’s short description agrees wholly —
with the specimens I have examined.
ZINGIBER CASSUMUNAR Roxb. in As. Research. 11 (1810) 347, t. 5.
Bangleum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 154, t. 65, f. 2.
This reduction of Banglewm was apparently first made by
Asics 4 eee oot notre eee nr ie
* See van Zijp, Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerlandais 12 (1915) 346, @. 3.
aie ee
ZINGIBERACEAE 1538
Blume, Enum. Pl. Jav. (1827) 42, which is manifestly the
correct disposition of it. The figure represents a sterile speci-
men only.
ALPINIA Linnaeus
ALPINIA GALANGA (Linn.) Sw. Obs. Bot. (1791) 8.
Maranta galanga Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 3 (type!).
Galanga major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 148, t. 63.
This species is not represented in Robinson’s collection. Ga-
langa major Rumph. is the whole basis of Maranta galanga
Linn., which typifies Alpinia galanga Sw.; the plate is very
generally cited in botanical literature under Alpinia galanga
(Linn.) Sw. All the specimens I have seen from Amboina and
Celebes (Boerlage, Teysmann, Riedel, Koorders) differ from
the cultivated form in having pubescent leaves and inflores-
cences. They probably represent the same form as the wild
Javan one, Alpinia pyramidata Blume, considered by K. Schu-
mann as a variety of Alpina galanga Sw. Galanga minor
Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 144, t. 68, d, may represent a different
species.
ALPINIA GIGANTEA Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. (1827) 59, non aliorum.
Alpinia eremochlamys K. Sch. ex parte (specim. auth. in Herb. Bog.)
in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 362, excl. descr. et fig. 40, 0, citatis.
Globba silvestris minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 141, excl. t. 63 citata
_ (t. 62 et 63 ad Alpinia nutans spectant).
Rumor x‘ Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 141 (staminate),
on a fern-covered hillside, altitude about 250 meters, the whole plant about
6 meters high, locally known as geloba gardamu; Soja, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb, 148 (pistillate) on grassy slopes, altitude 375 meters, plant
about 8 meters high. Collected also in Amboina by Teysmann at Hoetoe-
moeri, and by Boerlage, No. 407, at Latoea, the latter recording the local
names gardamoe oetan and anipa waccang. The Celebes form mentioned
by Rumphius is probably a related but distinct species.
K. Schumann, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 355, regards
the name Alpinia gigantea Blume as invalid on the basis: “nomen
speciei mixtae melius deletur quam ulterius conservatur.” Now
Blume was wrong in referring Globba silvestris major to his
species, but Alpinia gigantea Blume was based on a rather poor
specimen and Reinwardt’s manuscript, and hence it is not to be
interpreted by the Rumphian synonym quoted by him. Robin-
son referred his No. 141 to the form figured by Rumphius,
t. 62, as Blume did, yet considering it as Globba silvestris minor.
It is improbable that Rumphius would have depicted a fruiting
specimen when he professes that this kind never bears fruit,
while the figures distinctly show the withered bracts, which
154 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
occur in Alpinia nutans and are very distinct in ¢t. 63,
fig. B, which I think is merely an almost life-sized branchlet of
the form figured on the plate. According to Rumphius the
racemes of Globba silvestris minor differ from Globba silvestris
major in being longer, sterile, and without bracts, in all of
which characters Robinson 141 agrees; the specimen presents
only staminate flowers, with no vestiges of a gynaecium and no |
bracts. The specimen also agrees with Alpinia gigantea Blume
in having very large pubescent leaves, so that Blume’s species
was not a “species mixta” at all and should be reinstated. The
pistillate racemes of this plant, unknown to Rumphius, were also
collected by Robinson, No. 143, who did not, however, recognize
that this form belonged with the one represented by his 141. In
the Buitenzorg herbarium there are numerous specimens collected
by Boerlage and by Teysmann presenting both pistillate and
staminate flowers. |
ALPINIA NUTANS (Linn.) Rose. in Smith Exot. Bot. 2 (1805) quoad
syn. Linn., excl. t. 160 et descr. quae est A. speciosa K. Sch.
Globba nutans Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 170 (type!).
Alpinia papuana K. Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 355,
p. p., quoad specim. Moluccana.
Alpinia moluccana Gagnep. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 48 (1902) 90.
Alpinia eubractea Val. (non K. Schum.) Ic. Bogor. 3 (1909) #. 300.
Alpinia gigantea Val. (non Blume) Nova Guinea 8 (1913) 948.
Globba silvestris major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 140, t. 62, 63 (in
explicatione tab., t. 68, sphalmate pro Globba silvestris minor dis-
tincta habetur).
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 142, September 5, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 275 meters, locally known as geloba merah. Also
collected by Teysmann in the same locality, and by Boerlage 83 p. p.
This species is widely distributed in the Eastern Archipelago
and has been described under various names, but Globba nutans
Linn., the name-bringing synonym of Alpinia nutans Rosc. was
based wholly on Globba silvestris major Rumph., Alpinia nutans
Rosc. thus being the oldest name for the species. The younger
Linnaeus, Suppl. (1781) 79, followed by Giseke, Prael. Ord.
Nat. Pl. (1792) 251, erroneously referred both of the Rumphian
illustrations to Renealmia exaltata Linn. f., but the plant actually |
described under this name was from South America and is
entirely different from the Moluccan one. By some authors,
Murray, Syst. (1774) 67, and Richter, Codex Bot. Linn. (1840)
42, the figures are erroneously cited as t. 12 and t. 13, instead of
t. 62 and t. 63. Alpinia nutans Rosc., as actually described
and figured, is Alpinia speciosa (Wendl.) K. Schum. Alpinia
nutans K. Schum., non Rose. is Alpinia oceanica Burkill. Al-
ZINGIBERACEAE 155
pinia moluccana Gagnep. is exactly identical with Alpinia nutans
as here interpreted. Alpinia papuana Scheff., in Ann. Jard.
Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 56 (type in Herb. Hort. Bog.), has a
different calyx and much smaller flowers and inflorescences than
the present species. Alpinia eubractea K. Sch. (non Val.) from
Celebes (Sarasin 846), differs conspicuously in its long, narrow,
truncate bracteoles.* Alpinia colossea K. Schum. is the same as
A. papuana Scheff. Alpinia gigantea Blume is definitely refer-
red by K. Schumann to Scheffer’s species, although at the same
time he rebukes Blume for quoting Rumphius’s t. 62 instead of
t. 68 and for describing the leaves as pubescent instead of
glabrous. Following K. Schumann’s interpretation of Blume’s
species, I adopted the latter’s specific name for the wrong species
(Nova Guinea 1.c.). If Blume had meant this species, he surely
would have quoted t. 63 and would also have mentioned the
striking bracts (which are shown, but much less conspicuously,
in t. 62), and he would have described the leaves as glabrous.
Blume’s description certainly applies to a different species; see
above. As already noted, Globba nutans Linn. supplies the
oldest specific name for this species, but which was rejected
by K. Schumann because Linnaeus quoted both ¢t. 62 and t. 68,
which he, K. Schumann, considered to represent distinct species;
yet in this K. Schumann was wrong and Linnaeus was right,
as both figures manifestly apply to but a single species.
ALPINIA MALACCENSIS Rosc. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 8 (1807) 330.
Galanga malaccensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 176, t. 71, f. 1 (incl.
Bangle malacca).
The Rumphian reference cited above was placed by Burman f,,
Fl. Ind. (1768) 2, under Maranta malaccensis Burm. f., which is
the name-bringing synonym of Alpinia malaccensis Rosc.
Roxburgh, Asiat. Res. 11 (1810) 3538, referred to Alpinia
malaccensis material from Chittagong, and his interpretation
has been accepted by most authors. Blume, Enum. (1827) 59,
without mention of Roxburgh’s description, interpreted the
-common Javan form as Burman’s species, and his reduction and
diagnosis have been overlooked by all authors, including K.
Schumann. Ridley, who collected the Javan form in Malacca
denied that it is identical with Roxburgh’s interpretation of
Alpinia malaccensis and redescribed it as Alpinia nobilis Ridl.,
in Journ. Roy. As. Soc. Straits Branch 32 (1899) 169, without
mention of Alpinia malaccensis Rose. It seems to me more
probable that Blume’s interpretation of the Rumphian species is
* See K. Schumann in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) t. 41, f. A.
156 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
the correct one as Rumphius states that the species occurred
most commonly in Java and in Malacca; it is more probable that |
an Amboina species would also occur in Java than in Chittagong.
The Rumphian description agrees. equally well with both forms,
and as this particular one has not been collected in Amboina ~
since Rumphius’s time, 1 cannot determine, with certainty,
whether or not Alpinia malaccensis Rose. is the same as A.
nobilis Ridl. Roscoe’s species will have to remain among those
of uncertain status until Amboina specimens are available for
study.
ALPINIA UVIFORMIS (Linn.) Horan. Monogr. (1862) 35 (type!).
Globba uviformis Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 171 (type!). |
Globba uviformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 188, t. 59, f. 2.
A species of doubtful status, known only from Rumphius’s
figure and description. K. Schumann places it in the section
Cylindrostachys. However, it has every appearance of a
Plagiostachys, and I suspect that it really belongs in this genus,
not in Alpinia. The figure and the description are rather good.
It differs from all known species of Plagiostachys, this genus
extending from Malacca to Banka, Borneo, and the Philippines,
in its much longer, white flowers and tomentose fruits. It is
singular that this species, reported by Rumphius from Amboina
and Celebes and stated by him to be so common in southern
Celebes that the Buginese use it for thatching, has not been
collected by any modern botanist or collector.
ALPINIA sp.
Globba silvestris pada kanka Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 142.
This was described from specimens from eastern Celebes,
there known as padakanka. The characters indicated—terminal
raceme, red flowers, and small globose fruits—point to Alpinia.
Hasskarl thought that it might be near Alpinia pyramidata
Blume.
RIEDELIA Oliver
RIEDELIA LANATA (Scheff.) K. Schum. msc. in Herb. Bog.; Valeton in
Ie. Bogor. 4 (1918) t. 373, Nova Guinea 8: 961.
Hedychium lanatum Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 57.
Riedelia curviflora Oliv. in Hook. Ic. Pl. 15 (1883) #. 1419; K. Sch.
in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 374 p. p.
Thylacophora pogonocheilus Ridl. in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 9 Chee
ZNO. bo-5 yo fb, be Bg Fu oe es
- 2? Globba lawassi Malacca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 189.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 5438, in light forests,
altitude about 85 meters, locally known as globba baubau.
This species has not been previously collected in Amboina,
ZINGIBERACEAE 157
although it is well known in Boeroe (Riedel, Teysmann) and
occurs in New Guinea (Teysmann, Versteeg). I reduce to it
Globba lawassi Malacca of Rumphius, because the fruits agree
with Rumphius’s description, while the seeds have a marked
flavor of cardamon.
AMOMUM sensu Benthamiano *
AMOMUM CARDAMOMUM Willd. (not Linn. which is Elettaria cardamo-
mum) Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 8; Roxb. Pl. Coromandel 3: 22, t. 227, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 37; K. Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904)
238 (Amomum cardamon).
Cardamomum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 152, t. 65, f. 1.
This was reduced by Linnaeus to Amomum cardamomum
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 129, but is entirely different from the Linnean species
as originally published in 1753, which is Hlettaria cardamomum
Maton. It is not represented by botanical specimens from Am-
boina, but occurs in Java, cultivated and spontaneous, and in
Sumatra.
In the same chapter Rumphius briefly mentions two other
species, the fruits of which were considered as kinds of car-
damon. He distinguishes in all three kinds of cardamon, none
of which is a native of Amboina, as follows:
Cardamom majus “the round Cardamom of Java.”
This is, according to Pereira, who compared fruits known by this name
with authentic specimens in Kew, doubtless Amomum maximum Roxb. FI.
Ind. 1 (1820) 41, a native of Java [Pereira Materia medica 2 (1849) 106].
Cardamom medium sive minus=Amomum cardamomum Willd.
This is the only one that was cultivated, though with little success,
in Amboina.
_ Cardamom verum fructibus minimis trigonis=Elettaria cardamomum
Maton.
AMOMUM ROSEUM (Teysm. & Binn.) Benth. & Hook. f. ex Jackson Index
Kewensis (1895) 108, non Roxb.
Donacodes rosea Teysm. & Binn. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 58.
Amomum truncatum Gagnep. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 51 (1903) 164.
Globba crispa II rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 137, t. 60, f. B, C, D,
GL fi Z
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 140, August
23, 1913, locally known as gelobba; Teysmann. CELEBES, Koorders 592c,
196518.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 4, referred this to Amomum
villosum Lour., that is, Globba crispa Rumph. t. 61, but mani-
* This genus in its widest sense contains species placed by different
authors under Elettaria, Geanthus, Donacodes, Phaeomeria, Hornstedtia,
and Amomum.
158 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
festly the Amboina plant is entirely different from the Cochin-
China one that Loureiro described. In this reduction Loureiro
was followed by numerous authors. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 174, thought that it might be Amomum aculeatum Roxb.,
which can scarcely be the correct disposition of it. Donacodes
rosea Teysm. & Binn. was based on Amboina specimens, and
our material agrees closely with the figure given by K. Schumann
in Engler’s Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 280. The Celebes speci-
mens described by Gagnepain as Amomum truncatum Gagnep.
are certainly conspecific with the Amboina ones, although they
have glabrous leaves, while the Amboina specimens have long-
ciliate leaves.
AMOMUM ACRE Val. sp. nov.
Globba acris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 140.
Folia? Flores? Ovarium ellipticum sericeum sublaeve. In-.
florescentia fructifera racemosa simplex elongata densiflora.
Rachis valida 10 ad 12 mm crassa. Bracteae persistentes co-
riaceae oblongae versus basin attenuatae, inferiores 30 ad 35
mm longae 8 ad 10 mm latae valde scariosae versus apicem
racemi sensim minores. Bracteolae binae approximatae prope
basin pedicelli intervallo brevi insertae ovatae acutae concavae
dorso leviter carinatae, valde coriaceae sericeo-tomentosae, 12
ad 15 mm longae 6 ad 8 latae. Pedicelli validi 15 ad 20 mm
longi, 2 ad 3 mm crassi bracteis breviores, sericel. Fructus late
ellipsoidei (30X20 mm) utrinque attenuati, apice breviter
rostrati et in calycem coriaceum persistentem ad basin usque
trifidum, segmentis 10 ad 15 mm longis apice spinulosis, ex-
currentes, pericarpio carnoso-coriaceo spinis compressis e basi
lata acute trigonis I ad 2 mm altis, verticaliter subseriatis haud
densis obsesso, triloculares septis tenuibus seminibus numerosis
arillatis conglutinatis.
This species is very closely allied to Amomum roseum (T. &
B.) Benth. & Hook. f. (see p. 157). The infructescence of the
latter resembles very much that of Amomum acre, but is smaller
in all parts except the bracts, which are longer, not scariose,
and end in a spinous point. Also the spines of the fruit are
much denser near the apex of the fruit. This species is repre-
sented in the Buitenzorg herbarium by fruiting specimens from
Macassar, Celebes, where the plant still bears the Malay name
panas, as cited by Rumphius. It seems to be near Amomum
roseum Benth. & Hook. f. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
175, thought that it might be Amomum uliginosum Koenig;
this is manifestly an erroneous reduction of it.
ZINGIBERACEAE 159
? AMOMUM ACULEATUM Roxb. Asiat. Research. 11 (1810) 344, t. 6;
Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. (1827) 50; K. Sch. in Engl. Pflanzenreich
20 (1904) 240.
Amomum hatuanum Naves Novis. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 224 (type!).
? Globba hatuana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1388.
Amomum aculeatum Roxb. is common in Java, where it grows
both wild and cultivated, and I think that it occurs in various
forms or varieties throughout the Eastern Archipelago.
Among the Papuan forms, which I have described as varieties of
this species, Amomum gymnocarpum Val., Nova Guinea 8: 926,
apparently agrees with Rumphius’s description. Rumphius’s
description is the whole basis of Amomum hatuanum Naves,
a name not listed in Index Kewensis.
Globba longa minor Rumph., Herb. Amb. 6: 136, a native of
Java, is probably Hornstedtia minor (Blume) K. Sch. (Elettaria
minor Blume).
? AMOMUM MAGNIFICUM (Rosc.) Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. Pl. 3 (1883)
644.
Alpinia magnifica Rose. Monandr. Pl. (1828) t. 75.
Phaecomeria magnifica Lindl. Introd. Nat. Syst. ed. 2 (1835) 466.
Nicolaia wmperialis Horan. Monogr. (1862) 382, t. 1.
Hornstedtia imperialis Ridl. in Journ. Roy. As. Soc. Str. Branch 32
(1899) 148.
Nicolaia magnifica K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 27 (1899) 308;
Val. in Bull. Inst. Bot. Buitenz. 20 (1904) 35.
Globba silvestris sulica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 141.
Rumphius’s description applies unmistakably to Nicolaia, and
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 175, considered it to be Nico-
laia speciosa Horan. or an allied species. I have placed it
under Amomum magnificum with doubt, because I suppose the
Celebes specimens collected by Sarasin, cited by K. Schumann
under Nicolaia magnifica K. Schum., to represent Rumphius’s
species, which was from Celebes. Whether the form Rumphius
described is Nicolaia magnifica K. Schum., N. hemisphaerica
Horan., or N. speciosa Horan., I do not venture definitely to
decide. I consider N. speciosa Horan. to be distinct from N.
magnifica K. Schum. on account of the color of the labellum.
AMOMUM RUMPHII Smith in Rees Cyclop. 39 (1819) no. 15 (type!).
Elettaria musacea Horan. Monogr. (1862) 81 (type!).
Donacodes incarnata T. & B. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 380.
Hornstedtia elongata K. Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904)
192 p. p. excl. descriptione, quae refert partim ad Amomum maz-
wmmum Bl.!, partim ad Hornstedtiae spec. incertam.
Globba longa s. vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 134, t. 60.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe and Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 144,
160 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
August and September, 1913, on wooded hillsides and river banks, altitude
20 to 250 meters; Teysmann. Cultivated in the botanic garden at Bui-
tenzorg, from Amboina, under the native name geloba. .
A critical examination of two authentic specimens in the
Buitenzorg herbarium labelled by K. Schumann “‘Bearbeitet fiir
das Pflanzenreich,” both from plants cultivated in the botanic
garden, shows them to be different from each other. One of
them is wrongly labelled “Donacodes minor’ and is apparently
D. elongata T. & B. The other is the type specimen of D.
wncarnata T. & B., a native of Amboina; this is identical with
Robinson’s Amboina material and is easily distinguished from
D. elongata T. & B. by its densely tomentose ligule. Donacodes
elongata T. & B. and D. incarnata T. & B. are nomina nuda,
and the latter is apparently identical with Globba longa Rumph.
Older names are Amomum rumphii Smith and Elettaria musa-
cea Horan., both based on Rumphius. K. Schumann was wrong
in referring Globba longa Rumph. to Amomum roseum (T. &
B.) Benth. & Hook. f.
AMOMUM sp.
Globba crispa | viridis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 187, t. 61, f. 1.
This Rumphian species has not been located, yet the descrip-
tion and figure are so good that it could not readily be overlooked
had a plant presenting its characters appeared in modern collec-
tions from the Moluccas. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 8, after
Koenig, placed the Rumphian species as a synonym of Amomum
echinatum Willd. Willdenow’s species was based on Koenig’s
Amomum 2 or Globba crispa, a native of Malacca; the latter
has tubercied, not aculeate, fruits and a filiform rhizome and
differs totally from Globba crispa Rumph. Amomum echinatum
Baker, of Ceylon, described also by Trimen under this name, is
still another quite different species, with copious curved spines.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 4, referred Globba crispa Rumph.
to Amomum villosum Lour., where it manifestly does not belong.
AMOMUM sp.
Globba silvestris subterranea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 142.
Amomum hochreutinert Val., a species with white subter-
ranean fruits, as described by Rumphius, occurs in the mountains
of western Java. It is allied to Amomum hypoleucum Thw. and
like the latter is characterized by the silvery lower surface of the
leaves; it is assumed that Rumphius would have mentioned this
character had he intended this species. Hasskarl thought that
it might be near Amomum gracile Blume.
ZINGIBERACEAE 161
AMOMUM sp.?
Globba sekala Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 141.
This herb, a native of the eastern coast of Celebes, is said
to resemble Alpinia gigantea in habit, but to be smaller and
with reddish flowers issuing from the rhizome as in Amomum
roseum. The species has not been found again so far as can
be ascertained. It might be Alpinia melichroa K. Schum., in
Engl. Pflanzenr. 20 (1904) 364, collected by Sarasin (No. 871)
in Celebes. Nothing definite can be stated regarding its proper
position.
HEDYCHIUM Koenig
HEDYCHIUM CHRYSOLEUCUM Hook. f. in Curtis’s Bot. Mag. 76 (1850)
t. 4516; K. Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 46.
Gandasulium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 175, t. 69, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 145, August, September, and
October, 19138, from cultivated plants, locally known as gandasuli.
Gandasulium Rumph. was reduced by Koenig to Hedychium
coronarium Koenig in the original description of that species,
and this disposition of it has been accepted by all subsequent
authors. It is not certain, however, that Gandasulium Rumph.
is identical with Hedychium coronarium Koenig, which was
based on Malacca specimens. Koenig’s original description is
not sufficiently detailed to show its exact status. If the Am-
boina material cited above really represents Gandasulium
Rumph., as I suppose it does, it is certainly not the same as
Hedychium coronarium as considered by Roscoe, Monandr. PI.
t. 51, and by K. Schumann, in Eng]. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 44.
It seems to me to agree perfectly with the figure of Hedychium
chrysoleucum Hook. f. quoted above, the drawing having been
made from specimens sent by Roxburgh; it is not impossible
that Roxburgh’s plants came originally from Amboina, although
it seems not to be a native of Amboina. It occurs in Java only
as a cultivated plant.
KAEMPFERIA Linnaeus
KAEMPFERIA GALANGA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 2.
Soncorus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 173, t. 69, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus orig-
inally reduced Soncorus Rumph. to Kaempferia galanga Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 848, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 3, which is
144971——11
162 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
apparently the correct disposition of it and one that has been
accepted by all authors.
KAEMPFERIA PANDURATA Roxb. in As. Research. 11 (1810) 328, t. 2.
Gastrochilus panduratum Ridl. in Journ. As. Soc. Str. Branch 32
(1899) 114.
Zerumbed claviculatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 172, t. 69, f. 1.
Linnaeus originally reduced Zerumbed claviculatum Rumph.
to Kaempferia rotunda Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, which is manifestly an er-
roneous disposition of it. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 18,
placed it under Kaempferia pandurata Roxb., which was de-
scribed from Sumatran specimens. This reduction has been
accepted by Roemer and Schultes, Blume, Dietrich, Miquel, and
Horaninow and is apparently the correct disposition of it.
GLOBBA Linnaeus
GLOBBA MARANTINA Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 170.
Lampujum silvestre minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 150, t. 64, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 145, August, 1913, along
roadsides and on banks, altitude 5 to 400 meters, locally known as kuning
utan.
Rumphius’s figure is a very poor one, but it is certainly refer-
able to Globba marantina Linn. This reduction seems first to
have been made by Roemer and Schultes, Syst. Mant. 1 (1822)
46.
CURCUMA Willdenow
Rumphius described, in all, nine forms of Curcuma, of which
he declares that the first three, considered in chapter sixteen,
belong to the true Curcuma. In the following chapter he deals
with a group of species, which he considered under the “generic”
name Zerumbed, on account of the assertions of the natives, who
deliberately distinguish these forms from the true Curcuma, or
koenjit, uniting them under a proper group name, tommon.
Rumphius confessed, however, that he himself was not able to
find characters by which the two groups could be distinguished.
However, if one compares the native names cited by Rumphius
for the six species mentioned under Zerumbed, with those now
used in Java, one is impressed by the fact that, with a single
exception, all of them are applied to species belonging in the
section H'xantha; while the three species placed by Rumphius
under the name Curcuma, all belong in the section Mesantha.
The clue to Rumphius’s enigma apparently lies in the fact that
ZINGIBERACEAE 163
he had not seen the flowers of most of the species, and hence
did not know of the peculiar distinguishing character of the
inflorescence. This may also explain why t. 68 was placed under
Zerumbed, rather than under Curcuma, where it really belongs.
Of the six species enumerated in chapter seventeen, under
Zerumbed, the first and second are discussed below; the third
(album), fourth (giring), and sixth (manga), all cultivated in Java,
are still undescribed under the binomial system; while the fifth
(frigidum), as regards the name ties, but not the description,
belongs to Curcuma viridiflora Roxb. Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 34, a
species of the section Mesantha. Roxburgh himself reduced
the fourth species to Curcuma viridiflora Roxb., but that was
evidently an error on his part.
CURCUMA LONGA (non Linn. quae est prob. C. aromatica Salishb., vide
Hermann Hort. Acat. Lugd. Bot. Descr. (1687) 208, t. 209) Koenig
in Retz. Obs. 3 (1783) 72, non aliorum. | (
Curcuma domestica minor (et major?) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 164,
t. 67,
Rumphius’s description agrees exactly with our commonly
- eultivated curry plant, as do the Malay names cited by him,
and the form that he described and figured is apparently
identical with that described by Koenig as Curcuma longa. It
is characterized by its central spike, white bracts, and orange
rhizomes. In Java a tall form and a short form occur, but I
cannot detect any notable differences between them. Curcuma
longa Linn., Sp. Pl. (1758) 2, was based wholly on Curcuma
radice longa Herm., which probably is the same as Curcuma
aromatica Salisb. Linnaeus, however, reduced the Rumphian
species, as figured, to Curcuma longa Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
843 ; while in the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762)
3, he erroneously referred it to Curcuwma rotunda Linn., which is
supposed to be the same as Kaempferia pandurata Roxb.
CURCUMA PETIOLATA Roxb. FI. Ind. 1 (1820) 87, sensu latissimo K.
Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 102.
Curcuma agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 164.
This species, in the wide sense that it was interpreted by K.
Schumann, was until recently known only from Pegu and
Moulmein, but has been detected growing also in Java. Rumph-
ius’s description agrees so closely with that of Roxburgh,
that I do not hesitate in reducing Curcuma agrestis Rumph. to
C. petiolata Roxb.
164 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CURCUMA ZEDOARIA (Berg.) Rose. Monandr. Pl. (1828) t. 109.
Amomum zedoaria Berg. Mat. Med. (1788) 41.
Zerumbed majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 168, excl. t. 68 citata (quae
prob. ad C. viridifloram Roxb. pertinet).
Zerumbed of Rumphius was first placed by Linnaeus under
Curcuma rotunda Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 842, but is
manifestly Curcuma zedoaria Rosc., where it was placed by
Willdenow, with doubt (sub Amomum zedoaria Berg.), and
by Roemer and Schultes. It has, by various authors, been placed
under Costus arabicus Linn., Amomum latifolium Lam., Amo-
mum zerumbeth Koenig, Renealmia exaltata Linn., and Curcuma
zerumbet Roxb.
CURCUMA AERUGINOSA Roxb. FI. Ind. 1 (1820) 27; Rose. Monandr.
Pl, (1828) «t.; 106.
Zerumbed nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 169.
This form occurs in Java, cultivated and wild, and, according
to Roxburgh, in Burma. Roxburgh placed Zerumbed nigrum
Rumph. under Curcuma caesia Roxb., but the Javan plant, which
is certainly the same as the one that Rumphius described, agrees
better with Curcuma aeruginosa Roxb.
COSTUS Linnaeus
COSTUS SPECIOSUS (non Smith) Blume Enum. (1827) 61, non Banksia
speciosa Koenig.
Costus speciosus var. glabra K. Sch. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904)
398.
Herba spiralis Il laevis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 143, t. 64, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 147, August 14, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 400 meters, flowers white, fruit red.
COSTUS SPECIOSUS Blume var. HIRSUTUS Blume Enum. (1827) 61;
Val. in Nova Guinea 8: 982.
Costus speciosus var. lasiocalyx K. Sch. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20
(1904) 398.
Costus speciosus var. argyrophyllus Ridl. in Herb. Kds., non Ridl. in
Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. 2 (1907) 24, which is C. sericea Blume.
Herba spiralis | hirsuta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1438, t. 164, f. 1.
This has been collected in Amboina by Boerlage and is known
from Java, Celebes, Key, and New Guinea. Koenig originally
reduced Herba spiralis Rumph. to Costus speciosus Sm., in which
he has been rather uncritically followed by all recent authors.
The Malacca form, typical Costus speciosus Sm., which is com-
monly cultivated in Batavia, but which is not wild in the Archi-
CANNACEAE 165
pelago, has flowers four times as large as the Javan and Amboina
forms, which again differ from each other. Besides Costus
speciosus I think there are two other known species common in
the Malayan region. One is Costus sericeus Blume (argyro-
phyllus Ridl.), the other the form represented by Rumphius’s
figure, which will probably need a distinctive specific name.
TAPEINOCHILUS Miquel
TAPEINOCHILUS ANANASSAE (Hassk.) K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb.
27 (1899) 349; Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) 436.
Costus ? ananassae Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9
(1866) 335 (Neue Schliissel 191) (type!).
Tapeinochilus pungens Miq. in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868-69)
OD te 2. .
Tubu tubu Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 52, t. 22, f. 2.
The original description of the species proposed by Hasskarl
was based entirely on Rumphius. The species was not published
by Hasskarl under Tapeinochilus as indicated by K. Schumann,
but under Costus. Neither of the names appears in Index Kew-
ensis of in its supplements to date.
CANNACEAE
CANNA Linnaeus
CANNA INDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1.
Cannacorus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 177, t. 71, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Roemah tiga and about the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 410, August 15, 1918, along river banks, in sago swamps, etc.,
locally known as tasibe mera.
This is the common, spontaneous, Indo-Malayan form with
small red flowers that is generally placed under Canna indica
Linn. As noted by Kranzlin, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 56 (1912)
59, it is very difficult to determine the exact status of Canna
indica, aS described by Linnaeus. The Linnean species, as
here interpreted, is apparently not the form described by
Kranzlin. Cannacorus was originally reduced by Linnaeus to
Canna angustifolia Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 842, which is
certainly an error; in the second edition of his Species Planta-
rum (1762) 1, however, he placed Cannacorus under Canna
indica Linn., which seems to be the correct disposition of it.
By other authors it has been placed under Canna patens Rosc.,
C. orientalis Rosc., and C. coccinea Ait.
166 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MARANTACEAE
(By TH. VALETON)
DONAX Loureiro
DONAX CANNIFORMIS (Forst.) K. Schum. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 15 (1898)
440; Rolfe in Journ. Bot. 45 (1907) 243.
Thalia cannaeformis Forst. Prodr. (1786) 1.
Actoplanes canniformis K. Schum. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 11 (1902)
34 p. p., excl. syn. Maranta grandis Mig. quae est A. ridleyi K.
Schum.
Arundastrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 22, t. 7.
AMBOINA, Soja and Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 520, August,
19138, along river banks and in forests, altitude 45 to 400 meters; between
Waé and Toelehoe and at Laha, Boerlage 191, 516, in Herb. Bog.
Arundastrum Rumph. was originally reduced to Maranta
arundinacea Linn., as a variety, by Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788)
588, where it manifestly does not belong. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 11, placed it under Donax arundastrum Lour.,
which is a species of Donax distinct from D. canniformis K.
Schum. By Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 18, it was erroneously
placed under the American Maranta tonckat Aubl.—Stromanthe
tonckat Kichl. Roxburgh, FI]. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 2, placed it
under Phrynium dichotomum Roxb., which is Schumannianthus
dichotomus Gagnep.; and Dietrich placed it under Maranta
dichotoma Wall., a synonym of the latter species. The synonymy
of Donax canniformis K. Schum. and of the several species in
the allied genus Schumannianthus is very complicated, but has
been admirably cleared up by Rolfe in Journ. Bot. 45 (1907)
242-244,
PHACELOPHRYNIUM K. Schumann
PHACELOPHRYNIUM ROBINSONII Val. sp. nov.
Folium buccinatum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 142.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 521 (type), August 7,
1918, along small streams, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as
dauri; Waigama, Teysmann sine numero in Herb. Bog. (specim. fructif.).
Herba bimetralis. Caulis florifer 150 ad 450 mm longus.
Folia longissime petiolata (pet. propr. 100 mm, vagina fere
1,200 mm), maxima late oblonga vel elliptica (lamina 400 250,
vel 470 240, vel 500170 mm) apice attenuata vel subrotun-
data breviter (10 mm) apiculata, basi vulgo rotundata ad pe-
tiolum constricta acuta, glaberrima. Inflorescentiae pedunculo
100 ad 200 mm longo, rhachi glabra, singulae foliis 1 ad 2
comitatae subsimplices, haud interruptae, ramis paucis (2 ad
4) e bracteis inferioribus exortis erectis, spicae primariae bre-
viores, internodia inferiora 30 ad 65 mm longa, superiora brevia
MARANTACEAE 167
(5 ad 16 mm), bracteis spicularum densis plus minus occulta.
Bracteae primariae 45 ad 25 mm longae, oblongae mucronatae
superiores minores acutae ad 20 mm longae apice et basi minute
puberulae, erectae. Florum paria 2 vel 3 bracteolis teneris
paucis. Fl. brevipedicellati ad 25 mm longi. Ovarium teres
(3 mm) appresse villosum, triloculare, triovulatum. Sepala
anguste lanceolata apice acuta incurva 7 mm longa. Floris
tubus gracilis elongatus (16 mm longus), petala lineari-oblonga
genitalia superantia circ. medio tubo inserta +10 ad 12 mm
longa. Staminodium exterius singulum valde elongatum lineare
7mm longum, 1.5 mm latum, labellum (std. callosum) elongatum
ellipticum apice dilatatum emarginatum valde concavum, callo
superne tenui glabro, lobulo basali velutino (--6 mm longum).
Cucullum multo brevius, appendicula haud magna, basi auri-
culata munitum, stamen fertile subfiliforme, loculo petaloideo
angusto inconspicuo 4 mm longum. Caryopsis parva (10 mm
longa, 5 mm lata) teres oblonga apice rotundata et calyce
coronata, uni latere concava, pericarpio tenui stramineo appresse
hirsuto, abortu nunc unilocularis indehiscens, monospermus
(teste Rumphius dispermus). Semen teres apice acutum, basi
arillo magno nigro bipartito lobis magnis attenuatis instructum.
Embryo leviter curvatum.
Doctor Robinson’s hypothesis that the specimen of his collec-
tion, cited above, represented Folium buccinatum album Rumph.
was a very ingenious one. Rumphius’s description tallies so
exactly with the specimens that it would be impossible to find
another species that better agrees with it. It is a very fine new
species of Phacelophrynium, differing from the generic diagnosis
in its 1- or 2-celled nuts (instead of 3-celled 3-valved capsules)
and its long corolla-tube. There is, however, only one exterior
staminode, and this character together with the whole habit
of the species, which closely resembles Phacelophrynium inter-
ruptum K. Schum., induces me to place it in Phacelophrynium
rather than to propose for it a new generic name. The fruit
is rather remarkable and is to be compared only with that of
Halopegia K. Schumann.
COMINSIA Hemsley
COMINSIA GIGANTEA (Scheff.) K. Sch. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 11 (1902)
58, f. 10.
Phrynium giganteum Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 58.
Folium buccinatum asperum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 142, t. 62, f. 1
(sphalm. 2).
Not represented in Robinson’s Amboina collections, but col-
168 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
lected in Amboina by Boerlage and known from Halmaheira,
New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands.
Rumphius’s description and figure unmistakably refer to Comin-
sia gigantea K. Sch. Burman f. erred in referring fig. 2, of plate
62 to Folium buccinatum asperum Rumph. in the explanation of
the plate; it is Folium buccinatum Rumph.—Heliconia bihai
Linn., as the description shows. Horaninow thought it might
be a Phrynium, and Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, thought that
it might be a Hellenia (—Alpinia) ; see Heliconia bihat Linn.,
page 150.
COMINSIA RUBRA Val. sp. nov.
Folium mensarium rubrum s. latifollum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 141.
Herba multicaulis, caulibus complanatis e vaginis 4 com-
positis. Folia magna late elliptica (Heliconia Bihai referentia),
antice rotundata acumine convoluto, valde inaequilatera, 600 ad
900 mm longa 180 ad 250 mm.lata consistentia firma, haud ad
latera findentia, supra in vivo glauco-viridia subtus pallide fusca
vel violacea. Nervi laterales circ. 12 ad 15 mm inter se remoti.
Petioli ad 750 mm longi basi cum ligula pubescentes. Herba
florens ad 2.5 metr. alta, 15 mm crassa, pilis bulbillosis densis
scabra, foliis 2, 1,200 mm longis 400 mm latis. Panicula magna
terminalis ad 400 mm longa ramosissima rachi laxe pubescente,
valde densiflora, internodiis denudatis, inferioribus ad 45 mm,
superioribus +10 mm longis. Bracteae vaginantes 35 ad 45
mm longae glabrae. Flores ignoti.
The description is from specimens in the Buitenzorg herb-
arium, collected in Amboina by Botter, and bearing the native
name kokin merah, which is also cited by Rumphius. It is
‘ certainly a species of Cominsia, well characterized by the scabrid
sheaths. It is distinguished by the much denser, pubescent
inflorescence and by the wider leaves, which are purple beneath.
ORCHIDACEAE *
(By J. J. SMITH)
PLATANTHERA L. C. Richard
PLATANTHERA SUSANNAE (Linn.) Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1835) 295.
Orchis susannae Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 939.
* All specimens of Orchidaceae collected by Doctor Robinson in Amboina
were sent me at Leiden. Owing to the abnormal conditions brought about by
the European war, I considered it inadvisable to take the specimens with
me on my return to Buitenzorg, so that it has been impracticable to cite
the numbers collected by Doctor Robinson in this consideration of the Orchid-
aceae described by Rumphius. [J. J. S.]. For citations of Robinson’s
specimens of Orchidaceae, see Addenda, p. 548. [E. D. M.]
ORCHIDACEAE | 169
Orchis gigantea Sm. Exot. Bot. 2 (1804-05) 79, t. 100.
Habenaria gigantea Don Prodr. (1825) 24.
Habenaria susannae R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 312.
Platanthera gigantea Lindl. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 7052.
Flos susannae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 286, t. 99.
I have no doubt that Flos susannae minor Rumph. belongs
with Habenaria rumphiu Lindl.
PERISTYLUS Blume
PERISTYLUS sp.
Orchis amboinica minor altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 118, t. 44, f. 8.
The plant figured by Rumphius is certainly a Peristylus. I
do not know any species like it from Amboina.
HABENARIA Willdenow
HABENARIA RUMPHI!I (Brongn.) Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1885) 320.
Platanthera rumphi Brongn. Bot. Duperrey Voy. (1829) 104, t. 38,
f. A.
Orchis amboinica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287; 6: 118, t. 54, f. 2.
Flos susannae minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287.
ANOECTOCHILUS Blume
ANOECTOCHILUS REINWARDTII Blume FI. Jav. Orch. (1858) 48, t.
Peer te 120; if. 142 J. J. Sm. Orch: Amb. (1905) 12.
Folium petolatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 93.
Folium petolatum femina s. vera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92, t. 41, f. 3.
The flowers of this plant are unknown, so that the determina-
tion is somewhat doubtful. It is certainly not Macodes petola
Lindl.
ZEUXINE Lindley
ZEUXINE AMBOINENSIS J. J. Sm. in Ic. Bog. 2 (1905) 259; Schltr. in
Bull. Herb. Boiss. II 6 (1906) 298.
Haplochilus amboinense J. J. Sm. in Bull. Inst. Bot. Buitenz. 7
(1900) 2.
Folium petolatum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 92, t. 41, f. 2?
This species was not described by Rumphius. The figure,
which presents a sterile plant, doubtless represents a species of
the Physurinae and may belong to Zeuxine ambowmmensis J. J. Sm.
COELOGYNE Lindley
COELOGYNE RUMPHII Lindl. Fol. Orch. Coelogyne (1854) 14 (type!);
J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 16.
Pleione rumphu O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. (1891) 690.
Epidendrum nervosum Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 186 (type!), non Coe-
logyne nervosa Rich.
Coelogyne psittacina Reichb. f. Xen. Orch. 2: 141, t. 153.
Angraecum nervosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 106, t. 48.
170 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CALANTHE * R. Brown
CALANTHE VERATRIFOLIA R. Br. in Bot. Reg. 9 (1823) t. 270.
Limodorum veratrifolium Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 122.
Calanthe furcata Batem. in Bot. Reg. 24 (1838) Misc. 28.
Amblyglottis veratrifolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 370.
Limodorum ventricosum Steud. Nomencl. ed. 1 (1821) 481.
Calanthe triplicata Ames in Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) Bot. 326, non
Orchis triplicata Willem.
Flos triplicatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 115, t. 52, f. 2.
Mr. Oakes Ames f has adopted the name Calanthe triplicata
(Willem.) Ames for the plant usually known as Calanthe verat-
rifolia R. Br. on the supposition that Orchis triplicata Willem.
was the oldest name for the species. From the original descrip-
tion of Orchis triplicata Willem., for a copy of which I am
indebted to Mr. Merrill, this was certainly not based on Flos
triplicatus Rumph., although the Rumphian name was cited as
a synonym, but was based on a Mauritius plant, presumably
Calanthe sylvatica Lindl., so that Calanthe triplicata Ames, not
Orchis triplicata Willem., becomes a synonym of C. veratrifolia
R. Br. Willdenow’s description of Limodorum veratrifolium is
too vague to determine whether it was intended for Calanthe
veratrifola R. Br. or C. sylvatica Lindl. He cites both Flos
triplicatus Rumph. and Orchis triplicata Willem. as synonyms
and gives the distribution as “Ind. Or.” Even if Limodorum
veratrifolium Willd. belongs with Calanthe sylvatica Lindl.,
both Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. and Amblyglottis veratrifolia
Blume go entirely with the Malayan plant. It is generally .
accepted that Calanthe veratrifolia was published by Roxburgh
in Bot. Reg. 7 (1821) sub. t. 573; this is incorrect, as Roxburgh
merely states that the genus Calanthe should be separated from
Limodorum, but makes no new combination. Calanthe veratri-
folia appears first in Bot. Reg. 9 (1823) t. 270. The form
described by Rumphius may eventually prove to belong to a
different species.
PHAJUS Loureiro
PHAJUS AMBOINENSIS Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 180; J. J. Sm. Orch.
Amb. (1905) 21.
Phajus zollingeri Rehb. f. Xenia Orch. 2: 201, Bonplandia 5 (1857) 42.
Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1138, t. 52, f. 1,
NON t2,00) fossa
In the Herbarium Amboinense t. 52, f. 1, is erroneously
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Alismorkis Thou. = Alismorchis Thou.
(1809) is older.
¥ Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) Bot. 326.
ORCHIDACEAE C7r
referred to Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum (Spatho-
glottis plicata Bl.), which was not figured; and t. 50, f. 3, to
Angraecum terrestre alterum (Phajus amboinensis Bl.), with
which t. 52, f. 1, doubtless belongs. Linnaeus and Blume did
not notice these errors, and therefore the two artificial species
Epidendrum terrestre Linn. and Phajus rumphii Blume, both
composed of the characteristics of the two species mentioned
above, originate from this confusion. Linnaeus’s original de-
scription of E'pidendrum terrestre, which was not available in
Buitenzorg, was copied and sent to me by Mr. Merrill. It is
as follows:
Epidendrum terrestre. E. fol. radicalibus lanceolatis nervosis membra-
naceis, scapo vaginato, petalis oblongis, nectario cymbiformi bifido. Rumph.
amb. 6, t. 52, f. 1 [Linnaeus Syst. ed 10 (1759) 1246].
Apart from the characteristics Angraecum terrestre primum
purpureum Rumph. and Angraecum terrestre alterum Rumph.
have in common, that is “foliis lanceolatis nervosis membra-
naceis, scapo vaginato,” the ‘‘folia radicalia’’ occur only in
Spathoglottis, while in Angraecum terrestre alterwm Rumph.
the leaves are placed on an elongated erect stem. The nectary
(ip) is cymbiform only in Angraecum terestre alterum Rumph.
(Herb. Amb. 6: 114), and bifid only in Angraecum terrestre
primum purpureum Rumph. (Herb. Amb. 6: 112).
Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1852, described E'pidendrum
tuberosum as follows:
Epidendrum foliis lato-lanceolatis nervosis membranaceis bulbo innatis,
scapo vaginato, nectario cymbiformi bifido.
Helleborine purpurea, tuberosa radice. Plum. spec. 9. ic. 186. f. 2.
Angraecum terrestre primum. Rumph. amb. 6. p. 112 t. 52. f. 1.
Habitat in Indiis.
This too is a species of doubtful status, but I suppose that it
has the same value as E'pidendrum terrestre Linn. It is cer-
tainly not Helleborine purpurea, tuberosa radice Plum., for
Plumier’s species does not have a bifid nectary, nor can it be
Angraecum terrestre primum Rumph., because the nectary of
Rumphius’s species is not cymbiform. Further it cannot be
Angraecum terrestre alterwm Rumph. as this has no bulbs and
the nectary is not bifid.
PHAJUS GRATUS Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 181.
Iimatodes grata Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 672.
Angraecum terrestre primum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 113,
EVO ibs oe
This species is unknown to me. From Rumphius’s description
172 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
one would think that it referred to a white-flowered form of
Spathoglottis, and, if this suggestion is correct, Blume’s descrip-
tion applies only to the species figured by Rumphius, t. 50, f. 3.
It is to be noted that Blume gives a detailed description of the
lip of Phajus gratus Bl., although he certainly did not see a
specimen, and Rumphius does not describe the lip.
SPATHOGLOTTIS Blume
SPATHOGLOTTIS PLICATA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 401, Tabell. f. 76; J.
J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 24.
Angraecum terrestre primum purpureum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 112.
Rumphius’s description applies to Spathoglottts plicata Blume.
In the Herbarium Amboinense ¢. 52, 7. 1 is erroneously referred
here; it represents Phajus amboinensis Blume.
Phajus rumphi Blume, Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 179, is an artificial
species based on the characters of Angraecum terrestre primum
purpureum Rumph. (Spathoglottis plicata Blume) and An-
graecum terrestre alterum Rumph. (Phajus amboinensis
Blume).
EULOPHIA * R. Brown
? EULOPHIA sp.
Orchis amboinica major radice digitata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 116.
Hasskar! suggests that this plant may be Cyrtoptera ensifor-
mis Lindl. Rumphius’s description applies closely to Eulophia,
but I do not know any species of the genus to which the state-
ment “radix digitata” is applicable.
LIPARIS L. C. Richard
LIPARIS TREUBII J. J. Sm. nom. nov.
Liparis amboinensis J. J. Sm. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 13 (1914) 6,
non Orch. Amb. (1905) 31.
Liparis confusa J. J. Sm. var. amboinensis J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb.
(1905) 35.
Angraecum gajang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108.
There is no doubt that Angraecum gajang Rumph. is a Liparis. :
A careful study of the question of its identity has convinced me
that it is the form I described as Liparis amboinensis, here
called L. treubii; Rumphius’s description agrees entirely with
mine. In raising Liparis confusa var. amboinensis to specific
rank, I unfortunately overlooked the fact that the name was
preoccupied in the genus.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Graptorkis Thou.=Graptorchis Thou.
(1809) is older.
ORCHIDACEAE 173
DENDROBIUM * Swartz
DENDROBIUM CALCEOLUM Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68, nomen nudum,
Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (18382) 488.
Dendrobium roxburghti Lindl. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 3 (1859) 4.
Aporum roxburghiu Griff. in Cale. Journ. Nat. Hist. 5 (1835) 370.
Herba supplex quinta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111, t. 5/1, f. 2.
The citation.of Rumphius by Roxburgh is incomplete, and as
to the figure is erroneous.
DENDROBIUM ACINACIFORME Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 68, nomen
nudum, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 487.
Dendrobium scalpelliforme T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 27
(1864) 17; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 111.
Herba supplex major prima s. Herba supplex femina Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 6: 111.
Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb. and D. scalpelliforme T. & B.
are undoubtedly synonymous, and I think that the reduction of
Herba supplex major prima to Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb.
is the correct disposition of it. The yellow color of the flowers is
a character so uncommon in the group that it serves as a valuable
indication of the identity of the Rumphian species. However,
I have never seen specimens with stems as long as those de-
scribed by Rumphius. It is certainly not Dendrobium calceolum
Roxb., which is Herba supplex quinta. Rumphius’s ¢t. 51, f. 1,
can scarcely belong with the plant described as Herba supplex
prima, as he states that the leaves are in shape similar to those
of Herba supplex minor, while the figure presents a species with
flat, not laterally compressed, leaves; I do not recognize it.
DENDROBIUM PAPILIONIFERUM J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 42.
Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., fl. lilac. Mig. Choix. t. 22, f. 1.
Angraecum crumenatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: ¢t. 47, f. 2.
The figure of Angraecum crumenatum does not represent the
species generally regarded as Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., but
the form with purple flowers figured by Miquel and described
by me as Dendrobium papilioniferum. I have not seen the
original description of Dendrobium crumenatum Sw., but the
common Malayan species currently known as D. crumenatum is
certainly specifically distinct from Dendrobium papilioniferum
J.J. 5m.
In the Herbarium Amboinense, explanation of t. 47, it is stated
that Angraecum crumenatum is described in chapter 57 of the
Auctuarium. The only plant described in this chapter that
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Callista Lour. (1790) is older.
174 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
agrees more or less with Dendrobium crumenatum is Angraecum
angustis crumenis. I have thought that the material Rumphius
described might have presented two species growing together,
but after a careful study of the question I am now convinced
that the plant in question must be an Evia, probably H'ria mo-
luccana Schltr. & J. J. Sm.
DENDROBIUM EPHEMERUM J.J. Sm. comb. nov.
Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. var. ephemerum J. J. Sm. Orch.
Amb. (1905) 465.
Angraecum album minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 99, t. 44, f. 1.
The plant is not a variety of Dendrobium papilioniferum J.
J. Sm. as I formerly supposed, although it is not impossible that
it is a hybrid. The suggestions of Linnaeus, Willdenow, and
Hasskarl, who respectively reduced this form to Epidendrum
spathulatum Linn., Cymbidium ovatum Willd., and Dendrobium
bursigerum Lindl., are certainly incorrect. The other form de-
scribed by Rumphius in this chapter is probably another species
of Dendrobium, certainly not Hysteria veratrifola Reinw., as
Hasskarl! has suggested.
DENDROBIUM RUMPHIANUM T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 24
(1862) 317; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 57.
Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum s. odoratum Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 6: 102.
? Angraecum flavum nonum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104, excl. fig.
It is possible that Dendrobium minax Rechb. f., which I
formerly reduced to D. rumphianum T. & B., may represent some
other species. It is very doubtful whether or not the Bali plant
mentioned by Rumphius belongs with this species. Rumphius’s
description of Angraecum flavum nonum agrees very well with
this species, but the figure closely resembles that of Angraecum
flavum septimum.
DENDROBIUM MIRBELIANUM Gaudich. Bot. Freye. Voy. (1826) 423,
t. 88; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 56.
Dendrobium prionochilum Kranzl. in Osterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 44 (1894)
261 (ex Kranzl.). ,
Dendrobium rosenbergii T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 24 (1862)
Sue
Angraecum flavum septimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108, t. 45; (t.
46; fe Qe):
I cannot distinguish Rumphius’s figure of Angraecum flavum
nonum (t. 46, f. 2) from that of Angraecum flavum septi-
mum (t. 45). The description of the former, however, agrees
very well with Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum Rumph.
—Dendrobium rumphianum T. & B. |
ORCHIDACEAE 175
DENDROBIUM MOLUCCENSE J. J. Sm. in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 13
(1914) 11.
Dendrobium atropurpureum J. J. Sm. (nec Miq.) Orch. Amb. (1905)
54,
Herba supplex minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 110, t. 50, f. 2.
The species of the section Oxystophyllum have been frequently
misunderstood and misinterpreted, partly due to the incomplete
descriptions. Herba supplex minor is neither Dendrobium con-
cinnum Mig. nor D. atropurpureum Maiq.
DENDROBIUM PURPUREUM Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 484.
Dendrobium viridiroseum Rchb. f. in Bonplandia 3 (1855) 226.
Angraecum purpureum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 109. t. 50, f. 1.
There is no doubt as to the correctness of this reduction, which
was made by Roxburgh.
DENDROBIUM ANOSMUM Lindl. in Bot. Reg’. 21 (1844) Misc. 41.
Dendrobium superbum Rechb. f. var. anosmum Rehb. f. in Walp. Ann.
6 (1861) 288.
Dendrobium superbum Rehb. f. in Walp. Ann. 6 (1861) 282.
Dendrobium macrophyllum Lindl. Bot. Reg. 25 (1839) Misc. 36, non
A. Rich.
Dendrobium macranthum Hook. in Curtis’s Bot. Mag. 69 (1848) t.
8870, non A. Rich.
Dendrobium scortechinw Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 5 (1890) 741.
Dendrobium leucorhodum Schltr. Orch. Neu-Guinea (19138) 499.
Angraecum caninum s. undecimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 105, ¢.
ETfe t.
I have seen no specimens of Dendrobium anosmum Lindl., but
as the plant is usually considered to be a mere variety of Dendro-
bium superbum Rchb. f. there is no good reason for replacing
Lindley’s name by the more recent one proposed by Reichen-
bach f. The figure of Dendrobium anosmum Lindl., in Paxt.
Mag. Bot. 15: 97, represents a short-flowered form of Dendro-
bium superbum Rchb.f. Dendrobium anosmum Lindl. is credited
to the Philippine Islands by Lindley, Bot. Reg. 31 (1845) Misc.
32, but is not mentioned by Mr. Ames.
DENDROBIUM sp.
Herba supplex major quarta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111.
The description of the flower is strongly suggestive of Dendro-
bium confusum Schltr., but so far as I know Schlechter’s species
never attains the length noted by Rumphius. Suggested reduc-
tions by other authors are in contradiction with the description.
DENDROBIUM sp.
Angraecum purpureum et nudum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 109, t. 49, f. 2.
Lindley reduced this form to Dendrobium bifariwm Lindl., the
176 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
correctness of which I doubted in my former consideration of the
Amboina Orchidaceae.* Dendrobium bifarium Lindl. was based
on a flowerless specimen from Penang and is now recognized as
a species of the section Distichophyllum with solitary flowers.
Accordingly Angraecum purpureum et nudum Rumph. cannot
possibly belong here. The form described by Rumphius is
apparently a species of Dendrobium, perhaps of the section
Pedilonum.
DENDROBIUM.< sp.
Angraecum jamboe Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108.
In my former treatment of the Orchidaceae of Amboina I
reduced this to Dendrobium pruinosum T. & B., but I now am
of the opinion that that was an erroneous disposition of it. The
leaves are not acute, and the lip is not violet-blue. Doctor Rob-
inson in his field notes suggests that the plant.may be Pseuderia
foliosa Schlitr., but there are so many discrepancies between
Rumphius’s description and the characters of Brongniart’s spe-
cies that it is very doubtful if this suggested disposition of it
is the correct one. I suppose that the plant in question is a
species of Dendrobium of the section Grastidium.
? DENDROBIUM sp.
Herba supplex major tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111.
The status of this plant is doubtful, but it is probably a species
of Dendrobium of the section Rhoplalanthe. It certainly cannot
be referred to Dendrobium atropurpureum Miq. as Hasskarl
suggested.
? DENDROBIUM sp.
Herba supplex major secunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111.
The description is so vague that it is not even certain that the
plant described by Rumphius belongs in the genus Dendrobium.
According to the explanation of t. 51, f. 1, this figure represents
Herba supplex femina s. secunda, not Herba supplex major
secunda.
ERIA + Lindley
ERIA MOLUCCANA Schltr. & J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 74.
Angraecum angustis crumenis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107.
Under Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. I have already
pointed out that this is probably the correct disposition of the |
plant Rumphius described. The data given by Rumphius con-
* Orch. Amb. (1905) 62, 119.
+ Retained name, Vienna Code; Pinalia Buch.-Ham. (1825) is older.
ORCHIDACEAE 177
forms closely with the characters of Eria moluccana Schltr. &
J. J. Sm., the two lateral leafy stems being the inflorescences
with bracts.
ERIA sp.
Angraecum lanuginosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108.
The form described is doubtless an Fria of the section Tricho-
tosia. No species of this section has as yet been described from
Amboina under the binomial system.
BULBOPHYLLUM * Thouars
BULBOPHYLLUM sp.
Angraecum uniflorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107.
The description of this plant in almost every point applies
to Bulbophyllum grandiflorum Blume, but so far as I know
Blume’s species has not been recorded from Amboina.
GRAMMATOPHYLLUM Blume
GRAMMATOPHYLLUM SCRIPTUM (Linn.) Blume Rumphia 4 (1848)
48; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 84.
Grammatophyllum rumphianum Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4
(1869) 219, t. 8, 9.
Grammatophyllum speciosum Lindl. Gen. et. Sp. Orch. (1833) 178, p. p.
Grammatophyllum leopardinum Rchb. f. in Flora 46 (1888) 151.
Grammatophyllum guilelmi II Kranzl. in Gartenfl. 43 (1894) 114.
Gabertia scripta Gaudich. Bot. Freye. Voy. (1826) 425.
Vanda scripta Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 719.
Cymbidium scriptum Sw. in Schrad. Journ. (1799) 218.
Epidendrum scriptum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1851 (type!).
Angraecum scriptum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 95, t. 42.
In addition to the above form Rumphius describes two other
species in this chapter, one growing on Mangifera and other
trees, the other on Cocos. Hasskarl suggests that the first may
be Cymbidium wallichit Lindl., while Blume refers the latter,
from its Portuguese name Fulha alacra, to Arachnis flos aeris
Rehb. f. The suggested reductions of both, however, are con-
tradicted by Rumphius’s descriptions.
PHALAENOPSIS Blume
PHALAENOPSIS AMABILIS (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 294, Tabell. f. 44.
Epidendrum amabile Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 9538.
Cymbidium amabile Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 63.
Phalaenopsis grandiflora Lindl. in Gard. Chron. (1848) 39.
Angraecum album majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 99, t. 42.
Rumphius briefly describes two forms which, without doubt,
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Phyllorkis Thou. ieee Thou.
(1809) is older.
14497112
178 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
are referable to the same species. It is well known that the
flowers of Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume vary considerably in
size, in the form of the sepals, petals, lip, and especially in the
size and markings of the yellow area on the lip. Specimens
with the sepals purplish on the outside are not rare. Rumphius’s
description of the first form does not at all apply to Phalaenopsis
violacea T. & B., to which it was reduced by Hasskarl.
LUISIA Gaudichaud
LUISIA CONFUSA Rchb. f. in Walp. Ann. 6 (1861) 621.
Luisia teretifolia Blume (non Gaudich.) Rumphia 4 (1848) ft. 194, f.
8, t. 197D.
Angraecum decimum et angustifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104.
Luisia teretifolia Gaudich., as formerly interpreted, contained |
several distinct species. I think that Reichenbach was correct
in separating from it the Amboina form under the name Luisia
confusa Rehb. f.
VANDA R. Brown
VANDA FURVA Lindl. (non Blume) Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1833) 215; J.
J. Sm. Orch Amb. (1905) 98.
Cymbidium furvum Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 103.
Epidendrum furvum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1848 (type!), excl.
syn. Rheede.
Angraecum octavum et furvum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 104, t. 46, f. 1.
VANDA sp.
Vanda crassiloba T. & B. (non J. J. Sm.) in Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866)
48, nomen nudum.
Angraecum saxatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107, t. 49, f. 1.
The plant I described in my former treatment of the Orchida-
ceae of Amboina as Vanda crassiloba, is certainly not the same as
the species Teysmann and Binnendijk had in view. The latter
is very similar to Vanda celebica Rolfe and will probably prove
to be a variety of this or a closely allied species when fresh
material from Amboina shall have become available. The spe-
cies of the Vanda hastifera group are in want of revision. It is
evidently quite different from Cymbidium, where it was placed
by Hasskarl.
VANDOPSIS Pfitzer
VANDOPSIS LISSOCHILOIDES (Gaudich.) Pfitz. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. »
Pflanzenfam. 2° (1889) 210, f. 229.
Fieldia lissochiloides Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 424, t. 36.
Vanda lissochiloides Lindl. Gen. et Sp. Orch. (1888) 216.
Vanda batemannu Lindl. in Bot. Reg. (1846) ft. 59.
Stauropsis lissochiloides Benth. ex Pfitz. Vergl. Morph. Orch. (1882)
14,
Angraecum quintum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 102.
CASUARINACEAE 179
RENANTHERA Loureiro
RENANTHERA MOLUCCANA Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 54, t. 198, f.
Oo, t LITE.
Angraecum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 101, t. 44, f. 2.
I do not understand the exact status of the form of this plant
described by Rumphius.
SARCANTHUS Lindley
SARCANTHUS SUBULATUS (Blume) Reichb. f. in Bonplandia 5 (1857)
41; J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 108.
Sarcanthus secundus. Griff. Not. 3 (1851) 362.
Cleisostoma subulatum Blume Bijdr. (1825) 368.
Angraecum pungens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 106.
I have little doubt that the plant described by Rumphius as
Angraecum pungens is the same as Sarcanthus subulatus Rechb.
f. Usually the sepals and petals are light or dark brown with
a pale center, but the specimen I collected in Amboina had very
pale flowers. Schoenorchis juncifolia Blume, to which Hasskar]l
reduced it, is a totally different plant.
ORCHIDACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Angraecum sediforme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107.
Unrecognizable. -
Angraecum taeniosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108.
The plant described by Rumphius evidently belongs in the Sarcanthinae.
Maccabuhay Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287.
It is not at all certain that this plant is an orchid. The material was
from the Philippines; see Tinospora, Menispermaceae.
Satyria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287.
Unrecognizable. Rumphius’s material was from China, the Chinese
name pu sang tjan being quoted by him.
ANGIOSPERMAE
(DICOTYLEDONS)
CASUARINACEAE
CASUARINA Linnaeus
CASUARINA RUMPHIANA Miq. in Flora 48 (1865) 23 (type!), 38.
Casuarina montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 87, t. 58 (excl. f. A).
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 411, October 24, 1918, alti-
tude about 275 meters, locally known as kasuari.
Casuarina montana is the whole basis of Casuarina rumphiana
Miq., as originally published in Flora 48 (1865) 23, but on page
38 of the same volume Miquel amplifies the description from
180 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
specimens collected in Amboina by Teysmann and DeVriese.
In his Revisio critica Casuarinarum (1848) 282 and in his Flora
Indiae Bataviae 1‘ (1858) 873, Miquel erroneously referred Ca-
suarina montana Rumph. to Casuarina nodiflora Forst. The
species is a characteristic one of the mountain forests of the
Philippines and of the Moluccas.
CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143 (type!)
(equisefolia) ; Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 108. t. 52.
Casuarina litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 86, t. 57.
This widely distributed and well-known species is not repre-
sented in our Amboina collections. Rumphius’s figure is an
excellent one, and there is no doubt whatever as to the correctness
of this reduction, which was originally made by Linnaeus; in
fact Casuarina litorea Rumph. is the type of Casuarina equiseti-
folia Linn. as published in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 148, although
the species is usually accredited to Forster (17 76). -
CASUARINA SUMATRANA Jungh. in Hoev. & DeVriese Tijdschr. 11
(1844) 115.
Casuarina celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 87, ¢. 58 f. A.
This disposition of Casuarina celebica follows Miquel and is
certainly correct. The species is well characterized by its re-
latively large fruits.
PIPERACEAE *
PIPER Linnaeus
PIPER ARBORESCENS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 80 (type!), Fl. Ind.
1 (1820) 161, ed. 2, 1 (1882) 159.
Piper miniatum Blume in Verh. Bat. Genoots. 11 (1826) 166.
Sirium arborescens tertium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 46, t. 28, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Soja, Way tommo, Koeda mati, Gelala, Amahoesoe, and Haiong,
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 62, 63, 64, 609, August and September, 1913,
locally known siri seytan and stiri tulak tulak. °
The Rumphian illustration is the whole basis of Piper arbores-
cens Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis
*T am under obligations to Mr. C. de Candolle, Geneva, Switzerland,
for determinations of the Piperaceae collected by Doctor Robinson. In
all but two cases the specimens are here quoted under the binomials indi-
cated by him, the exceptions being Piper decumanum Linn., reported as
P. forstenit C. DC., and Piper arborescens Roxb., reported as P. miniatum
Blume, the specific name adopted by me being accepted as the oldest valid
one in each case. The determinations of the Rumphian species are by
Doctor Robinson and myself.
PIPERACEAE 181
(1814) 80.* The species was later briefly described by Roxburgh
from specimens collected in the Moluccas, the reference to
Rumphius being included in the description. The description
applies to the above specimens in all respects, and is not at all
Thottea dependens Klotzsch, as reduced in Index Kewensis. The
actual Amboina specimens were determined by C. de Candolle
as Piper miniatum Blume, Blume’s species thus becoming a
synonym of Piper arborescens Roxb. In Stickman’s Herb. Amb.
(1754) 19, it is erroneously referred to Piper malamiris L.
PIPER CANINUM Blume in Verh. Bat. Genoots. 11 (1826) 214, var.
GLABRIBRACTEUM C. DC. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot.
459.
Piper caninum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5; 49, t. 28, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Waé and Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 57, August
and November, 1913, on coral rocks and on trees at low altitudes.
Blume was certainly correct in referring this Rumphian
species to Piper caninum Blume. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
30, discussed it under Piper sylvestre Lour., while Roxburgh,
Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 161, reduced it to Piper cubeba; Piper cubebu
Roxb., non Linn., is a synonym of Piper caninum Blume.
PIPER DECUMANUM Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!), Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 41, excl. syn. Plumier.
Piper forstenit C. DC. Prodr. 16* (1869) 348.
Sirium decumanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 45, t. 27.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Batoe merah, and Oerimesseng, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 61, August and September, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 10 to
250 meters. .
Sirium decumanum Rumph. is the whole basis of Piper decu-
manum Linn. as originally published and is hence the type of
the species; Linnaeus took his specific name decumanum from
Rumphius. Later he added also a reference to Plumier, Amer.
59, t. 76, which represents a species totally different from Sirzwm
decumanum. C. de Candolle, Prodr. 161 (1869) 370, interpreted
Piper decumanum Linn. from the reference to Plumier and de-
scribed the Amboina species as Piper forstenit C. DC. Some of
the early authors referred it to Piper methysticum Forst., but
it has nothing to do with Forster’s species. It has also been cited
under Piper majusculum Blume and Chavica majuscula Miq.,
while Miquel referred it to Chavica rumphu Miq. Both Blume’s
and Miquel’s species are apparently different from Piper decu-
manum Linn. (P. forsteni C. DC.) as here interpreted.
eet rere -_—
* See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415.
182 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
PIPER BETLE Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 28.
Siriifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 336, t. 116, f. 2.
The common betel pepper is not represented in our Amboina
collections, yet Piper betle is manifestly the correct disposition
of Sirvifoltum Rumph. Linnaeus reduced it, through error, to
Piper longum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 181, and later, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 41, placed
it under Piper malamiris Linn., which is apparently a synonym of
Piper betle Linn. Radermacher, Loureiro, Roemer and Schultes,
Blume, and other authors cite it under Piper betle Linn., and
Miquel cites it under Chavica betle Miq.
PIPER BETLE Linn. var. SIRIBOA (Linn.) C. DC. Prodr. 16' (1869) 359.
Piper siriboa Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 29.
Siriboa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 340, t. 117.
Siriboa Rumph. was originally reduced to Piper siriboa Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, one year after the publica-
tion of the species, and has been very consistently cited under
this name in subsequent botanical literature. The forms de-
scribed by Rumphius as I alba, II cambing, and III fragrans
are apparently but variants of Piper betle or the variety szriboa.
PIPER AMBOINENSE (Miq.) C. DC. Prodr. 16? (1869) 347.
Chavica amboinensis Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1868-64)
134.
Sirium arborescens tertium alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 48.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Batoe gadjah, and near the town of Amboina, Robin-
son Pl. Rumph. Amb. 58, ascending to an altitude of 250 meters, climbing
on trees, locally known as siri seytan.
The specimen cited above represents a characteristic species
of Piper, and it is probably the form described by Rumphius, here
reduced to Piper amboinense C. DC.
PIPER REINWARDTIANUM (Miq.) C. DC. Prodr. 16* (1869) 354.
Macropiper reinwardtianum Mig. in Linnaea 21 (1848) 481.
Sirium decumanum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 45.
AMBONIA, Waé, Lateri, and Halong, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 60,
August and November, 1918, in light forests, altitude from sea level to
150 meters, locally known as siri utan, siri tallan, and siri tallan perampuan.
The specimen cited here probably represents the form that
Rumphius described. Vahl, Enum. 1 (1804) 334, referred the
Rumphian species to Piper album Vahl, a species based on Javan
specimens and one of doubtful status. There is no particular
reason for believing that the Amboina’ plant is the same as the
Javan one described by Vahl, but it does appear from the descrip-
tion to be referable to Piper reinwardtianum C. DC.
PIPERACEAE 183
PIPER RETROFRACTUM Vahl Enum. 1 (1804) 314.
Piper chaba Hunter in As, Res. 9 (1809) 391.
Chavica officinarum Miq. Syst. Pip. (1844) 256.
Piper officinarum C. DC. Prodr. 16* (1869) 356.
Piper longum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 338, t. 116, f. 1.
Piper longum e Philippinis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 334.
Pharmacum magnum vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42, t. 26, f. 2?
Piper retrofractum Vahl is not represented in our Amboina
collections. The figure of Piper longum Rumph., however,
seems to represent Vahl’s species, this reduction being in agree-
ment with Miquel and with C. de Candolle. The form from the
Philippines I have determined largely from the native name
cited by Rumphius, sabia being the universal name, at least
about Manila, for Piper retrofractum Vahl. I follow Miquel
also in reducing here Pharmacum magnum vulgare Rumph.,
who considered that it represented a form near Chavica officina-
rum Mig. Linnaeus reduced Piper longum Rumph. to Piper
amalago Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
41, which was an entirely erroneous disposition of it, as Piper
amalago Linn. is an American species. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 32, erroneously reduced it to Piper longum Linn.
Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 158, placed it under Piper chaba
Hunter, which is a synonym of P. retrofractum Vahl. Poiret, in
Lamarck Encycl. 5 (1804) 460, erroneously pleced it under Piper
plantagineum Lam., and it has been cited under Chavica
oficinarum Migq. and Piper officinarum C. DC., both synonyms of
Piper retrofractum Vahl.
PIPER CADUCIBRACTEUM C. DC. sp. nov.
Sirium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 342, t. 118, f. 1, 2.
AMBOINA, Halong and Koeda mati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 59 (type!),
August and September, 1913, climbing on trees at low altitudes, locally
known as siri seytan; Teysmann in Herb. Bogor.
Ramulis glabris; foliis breviter petiolatis glabris, limbo ovato-
elliptico basi leviter inaequilaterd utrinque acuto apice acute
acuminato, in mare 5-plinervio, in femine 9-ninervio nervo cen-
trali nervos adscendentes 2 mittente quorum supremus 2 in
mare et 3 in femina a basi solutis quorum externi aliis multo
breviores et tenuiores, petiolo basi ima vaginante; pedunculo
glabro petiolum aequante vel paulo superante, stirpis masc.
spica quam limbus pluries breviore, rhachi hirsuta, bracteae
pelta rotunda glabra centro: pedicellata pedicello hirsuto, stami-
nibus 2 antheris minutis rotundatis 4-valvatis filamenta fere
aequantibus; stirpis fem. spica quam limbus pluries breviore,
184 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
rhachi hirsuta, bracteae pelta glabra elliptica centro pedicellata
decidua pedicello hirsuto, baccis condensis obovatis glabris, stig-
matibus rotundatis minutis.
Dioicum. Ramuli spiciferi in mare 1 mm in femina 1.5 ad 2
mm crassi, collenchyma libriforme in mare in fasciculos discretos
dispositum in femina subcontinuum, fasciculi intramedullares
2-seriati, canalis lysigenus centralis periphericique multi.
Limbo in sicco firme membranacei minute pellucido-punctulati,
superi usque ad 18 cm longi et 8 cm lati. Petioli usque ad limbi
latus longius 10 mm, inter limbi latera 1 mm longi. Spica in
mare subflorens 4 cm longa et 2.25 mm crassa, in femina usque
ad 4.5 cm longa et 3 mm crassa. Rhachis in mare et in femina
canalibus lysigenis periphericis munita, bracteae pelta in mare
1 mm diam., in femina 1 mm longa et 0.75 mm alta, bacca 1.5
mm longa in sicco atrorubens vel nigra.
The above description, based on the two specimens cited above,
has been kindly supplied by Mr. C. de Candolle of Geneva, Swit-
zerland. The identification of Siriuwm silvestre Rumph. with
Piper caducibracteum C. DC. has been made by myself, following
Doctor Robinson’s suggestion that the specimen collected by
him possibly represented Rumphius’s species. Two forms are
described and figured by Rumphius, but I consider that Siriwm
silvestre II, at least as figured, represents merely a juvenile
form of Sirium silvestre I. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856,
referred it to Piper malamiris Linn., where it certainly does not
belong. Miquel thought that both forms described by Rumphius ©
might be the same as Chavica malamiris Miq., which is merely
a synonym of Piper malamiris Linn. C. de Candolle, Prodr. 16?
(1869) 361, cites both figures with doubt under Piper sirium
C. DC., which is essentially a new name for Chavica malamiris
Miq.; only Indian specimens are cited, and it is entirely im-
probable that the Amboina plant cited by Rumphius is the same
as the Indian one described. »
PIPER NIGRUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 28.
Piper album et nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 335.
This reduction follows Miquel, Syst. Piper. (1844) 309, and
is unquestionably the correct disposition of the plant that
Rumphius described.
PIPER SUBPELTATUM Willd. Sp. Pl. 1 (1798) 166 (type!).
Lomba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 138, t. 59, f. 1.
Linnaeus originally reduced Lomba to Piper peltatum Linn.,
an American species to which it does not belong, in Stickman
PIPERACEAE 185
Herb. Amb. (1754) 27, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 42, in which he was followed by Burman f., FI. Ind.
(1768) 15. It is the type of Piper subpeltatum Willd., which
C. de Candolle considers to be a variety of Piper umbellatum
Linn., in Donn.-Sm. Enum. 6:39, Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910)
Bot. 463. Lomba has also been cited by various authors under
the synonyms Peperomia subpeltata Dietr., Peperidia subpeltata
Kostel., and Potemorphe subpeltata Miq.
PIPER SARMENTOSUM Roxb. FI. Ind. 1 (1820) 162.
: Sirium terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 344, t. 119, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 56, July 17, 1918, along roadsides
in the vicinity of the town of Amboina, July 17, 1918, locally known as
sirt rambang.
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1858) 446, thought that Siriwm
terrestre might be Chavica sphaerostachya Miq., but C. de Can-
dolle, Prodr. 161 (1869) 389, definitely excludes it as a synonym
of Miquel’s species, and refers it, 1. c. 860, to Piper arcuatum
Blume. The specimen, however, which certainly represents the
form that Rumphius described and figured, is not at all Piper
arcuatum Blume, but is typical Piper sarmentosum Roxb.
PIPER sp.
Sirium frigidum rotundifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 345, t. 119, f. 2.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Vahl,
Enum. 1 (1804) 333, referred it to Piper diffusum Vahl, a species
based on Ceylon specimens and which is apparently the same
as Piper argyrophyllum Miq.; see Trimen FI]. Ceyl. 3 (1895).
429. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1858) 441, thought that it might
be Piper sarmentosum Roxb., but the other form figured on the
same plate, Sirium terrestre Rumph., is Piper sarmentosum
Roxb. and is different from Siriwm frigidum rotundifolium
Rumph. The form described as Sirium frigidum latifolium Rumph.,
Herb. Amb. 5: 345, is indeterminable. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 131, thought that it was Piper album Vahl, but there is
no reason for considering that this reduction is correct.
PIPER sp.
Pharmacum magnum parvifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42, t. 26,
firk:
Nothing in our Amboina collections matches this figure. The
species is indeterminable from the data at present available.
PIPER sp.
Pharmacum magnum marinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 42.
Indeterminable from data at present available.
186 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
FAGACEAE
QUERCUS Linnaeus
QUERCUS MOLUCCA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1199 (type!).
Quercus molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 85, t. 56.
The Rumphian figure and illustration are the whole basis of
this species, which is one of the few published in the first
edition of the Species Plantarum with references to the Her-
barium Amboinense. The species has been recognized in all
general works, but it is by no means certain that al! of the
botanical material in herbaria under the name Quercus molucca
Linn. is of the same form as that figured and described by
Rumphius. It is to be typified by material from the Sula Islands
from whence Rumphius received his material.
A second form, very briefly described, having oblong inedible
fruits, apparently represents a distinct species of Quercus. To
this Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 54, refers t. 56, but this is
certainly due to a typographical error, as on the preceding page
the plate is properly cited under Quercus molucca.
ULMACEAE
CELTIS Tournefort
CELTIS PHILIPPENSIS Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 197.
Sirifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, t. 36.
Sirifolia litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, t. 27.
Possibly two species are represented by the forms Rumphius
described, but they are at least of the same genus. The figure
representing Sirifolia presents a seedling and a leafy branch
only, but the one representing Sirifolia litorea, a branch in fruit,
is a very good representation of Celtis philippensis Blanco.
Sirifolia was erroneously reduced by Henschel, Vita Rumph.
(1838) 155, to Piper malamiris Linn., while Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 51, thought that it might be Cocculus angusti-
folius Hassk. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in Sole-.
nostigma—Celtis, where it certainly belongs. Sirifolia litorea
Rumph., which more certainly represents Celtis philippensis
Blanco than the preceding, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 51, to be possibly the same as Cocculus lauri-
folius DC., which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it.
Hasskarl also quotes Teysmann’s opinion that it was a species
of Solenostigma=Celtis. If it is not Celtis philippensis Blanco,
which is widely distributed in the Philippines and extends to
northeastern Australia, it at least represents a very closely allied
form.
ULMACEAE . 187
TREMA Loureiro
TREMA AMBOINENSIS (Willd.) Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 61 quoad.
syn., excl. descr.!
Celtis amboinensis Willd. Sp. Pl. 4% (1805) 997.
Sponia amboinensis Decne. in Nuoy. Ann. Mus. Paris 3 (1834) 498.
Trema virgata Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 59.
Sponia virgata Planch. in Ann. Sci. Nat. III 10 (1848) 316.
Cortex piscatorium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 125, t. 61.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 328, November 5,
1913, in light forests, altitude about 100 meters, locally known as rufut.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, suggests that Cortex
piscatorium may be Spona timorensis Decne., which is the only
previously suggested reduction of the Rumphian description and
figure. Sponia timorensis Decne.=Trema timorensis Blume is
manifestly closely allied to Trema virgata Blume=Trema am-
boinensis as here interpreted (not of other authors), which
Lauterbach * confines to Timor Island, with the var. pallida
(Blume) Lauterb. in Amboina. The Rumphian figure and de-
scription are manifestly applicable to Trema virgata Blume, the
figure presenting equilateral leaves which are not cordate at the
base and lax inflorescences, while the description definitely states
that the leaves are: ‘ad tactum rugosa, sed non Lanuginosa.”’
The actual Amboina specimen cited above, presents a form with
rather small leaves, but otherwise agreeing very closely with
the figure.
As to the synonymy given above, it is to be noted that Sponia
amboinensis Decne.=Trema amboinensis Blume was based on
Celtis amboinensis Willd., and Willdenow’s description is very
definitely applicable to Trema virgata Blume, not to Trema am-
boinensis as currently interpreted. The type was a specimen
from Amboina, and the leaves are very definitely described as
“‘scabriuscula”’ with no mention of the indumentum so character-
istic of Trema amboinensis auct., while they are also very de-
finitely described as equilateral at the base; in fact this character
is the one on which the species was primarily distinguished from
its congeners. It is very evident that Trema amboinensis of all
modern authors is not the same as Celtis amboinensis Willd. on
which it was manifestly based, but the type has been consistently
misinterpreted. Trema amboinensis of modern authors should
be reduced to Trema orientalis (Linn.) Blume, at least as a
variety; while Trema virgata Blume, generally recognized as
a valid species, becomes a synonym of the true 27'’rema ambot-
* Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 50 (1918) 317.
188 RUMPHIUS’S. HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE |
nensis (Willd.) Blume (Celtis amboinensis Willd.). Doctor
Lauterbach, in answer to my query regarding the identity of
Celtis amboinensis Willd., writes from Breslau as follows: “Das
Originalexamplar von Celtis amboinensis im Willdenow Herbar
ist von den Herrn Professoren Volkens und Gilg mit Trema
orientalis var. amboinensis Lauterb. verglichen worden. Das-
selbe stimmt mit derselben nicht tiberein, entspricht dagegen
meiner Trema virgata Bl. var. scabra (Bl.) Ltb.”
MORACEAE
MORUS Linnaeus
MORUS ALBA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 986.
Morus indica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 986.
Morus indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 8, ft. 5.
The form described and figured by Rumphius is the one de-
scribed by Linnaeus as Morus indica Linn. and was reduced by
Linnaeus to this species in his Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1266. This
disposition of it has been accepted by all authors who have had
occasion to cite the Rumphian illustration. Morus indica Linn.,
however, does not appear to be specifically distinct from Morus
alba Linn.
‘BROUSSONETIA L’Heéritier
BROUSSONETIA PAPYRIFERA Vent. Tabl. Regn. Veg. 3 (1794) 547.
Frutex lintearius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 114, t. 53.
This reduction was made by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833)
165, and is apparently the correct disposition of Frutex lin-
tearius. The material on which the figure and the description
were based was from Celebes. The figure is poor and presents
only a branch with leaves; the flowers and the fruits are not
described.
TAXOTROPHIS Blume
TAXOTROPHIS ILICIFOLIA Vidal Rev. Pl. Vasc. Filip. (1886) 249.
Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 42* (1873)
BAe te 19:
Taxotrophis triapiculata Gamble Kew Bull. (1918) 188.
Taxotrophis obtusa Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 5 (1918) 1818.
Ulet Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 62, t. 34.
No previous reduction of Ulet has been suggested other than
Hasskarl’s suggestion that it might be an Antidesma. It is,
however, unquestionably a form of Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal,
as shown by the figure and the description. In regard to the
synonymy cited above, Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal was published
MORACEAE 189
independently of Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz. Kurz’s species
has been reported from Celebes by Koorders, and an examination
of Koorders’s specimens at Buitenzorg convinced me that they
were the same as the Philippine Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal,
which lead me to suspect that Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz and
Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal were one and the same thing. I
am indebted to Sir D. Prain, director of the Royal Gardens,
Kew, England, for the following memorandum supplied to me
under date of June 28, 1916:
The material of Balanostreblus ilicifolius Kurz, and Taxotrophis ilici-
folia Vidal has been compared in accordance with your request of May
9th, with the result that your surmise as to their identity is very probably
correct. There is a slight difference in the male catkins which may be of
no importance. In the Philippine plant they are very short, while in
Balanostreblus ilicifolius, even in a young state, they are much longer.
Balanostreblus Kurz, will therefore have to be reduced to Taxotrophis
Blume, the anthers of which appear to be inflexed. I might mention that
Taxotrophis triapiculata Gamble (Kew Bull. 1913, 188) proves to be the
same as Balanostreblus ilicifolius Kurz.
I am now of the opinion that the recently described Taxotro-
phis obtusa Elm. is also a form of T. ilicifolia Vidal.
CUDRANIA Trécul
CUDRANIA JAVANENSIS Tréc. in Ann. Sci. Nat. III 8 (1847) 123.
Trophis spinosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 489, non Roxb.
Batis spinosa Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 71 (type!), non FI. Ind. ed.
2, 2 (18382) ‘762.
Cudranus rumphit Thw. Enum. Pl. Ceyl. (1861) 262.
Maclura amboinensis Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1849) 83.
Cudranus amboinensis Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1859) 290.
Cudranus spinosus O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 2 (1891) 623.
Cudrania spinosa Hochr. in Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 6 (1910) 489.
Cudranus bimanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 22, t. 15, f. 2.
Cudranus amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 22, t. 15, f. 1.
Cudranus amboinicus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 25, t. 16.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The three
“species” described and figured by Rumphius are apparently all
referable to Cudrania javanensis Tréc., which name I interpret
as the oldest valid one for the species. Cudranus bimanus
Rumph. is the type and whole basis of Batis spinosa Roxb. as
published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 71,* but I consider
the name to be invalidated in Cudrania by C. spinosa (Blume)
Hochr. The species later described by Roxburgh under this
name is entirely different from Cudrania javanensis Tréc.
* See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415.
190 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Trophis spinosa Roxb. as published by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4
(1805) 784, to which Cudranus bimanus Rumph. was also re-
duced, is Plecospermum spinosum Tréc. Retzius, Obs. 5 (1789)
30, reduced it to Trophis aspera Retz. with doubt, where it mani-
festly does not belong. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 548,
discussed the form figured on t. 16 under Morella rubra Lour.=
Myrica nagat Thunb., which led Poiret to cite it under Asca-
rina rubra Poir., in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 1 (1810) 475. The
figures given by Rumphius have been cited under one or another
of the various synonyms listed above.
ARTOCARPUS Forster
ARTOCARPUS INTEGRA (Thunb.) comb. nov.
Radermachia integra Thunb. in Vet. Akad. Handl. Stockh. (1776) 254,
Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 412.
Polyphema jaca Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 546.
Artocarpus jaca Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 209.
Soccus (Saccus) arboreus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 104, ¢. 80.
The common jak fruit is well figured by Rumphius. Both
t. 30 and the next species, ¢t. 31, were reduced to Artocarpus
integrifolia Linn. f. in the original description of that species,
which was, however, essentially based on Radermachia integra
Thunb. Following the rule of priority, I have here accepted
Thunberg’s specific name.
ARTOCARPUS CHAMPEDEN (Lour.) Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 804.
Polyphema champeden Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 547.
Artocarpus polyphema Pers. Syn. 2 (1805) 5381.
Soccus (Saccus) arboreus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 107, ¢. 31.
The Rumphian species was cited by Loureiro in the original
description of Polyphema champeden Lour., which is the basis
of both Artocarpus polyphema Pers. and A. champeden Spreng.
The figure has been cited by several authors under Artocarpus
integrifolia Linn. f. or as a variety of that species. The species
commonly called Artocarpus polyphema Pers., here, following
priority, called Artocarpus champeden Spreng., is manifestly the
one intended by Rumphius.
ARTOCARPUS COMMUNIS Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 101.
Radermachia incisa Thunb. in Vet. Akad. Handl. Stokh. (1776) 254.
Artocarpus incisa Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 411.
Soccus lanosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 110, t. 32.
Soccus granosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 112, t. 33.
Soccus lanosus and Soccus granosus are respectively the seed-
less and seeded forms of the breadfruit, corresponding to the
forms described by Blanco as Artocarpus rima Blanco and A.
MORACEAE 191
camansi Blanco. _They are both referable to Artocarpus com-
-munis Forst. as that species is currently interpreted. Both,
together with Soccus silvestris Rumph., were reduced to Arto-
carpus incisa Linn. f. i: the original description of that species,
which is typified by Radermachia incisa Thunb.
ARTOCARPUS ELASTICA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 481.
Soccus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 114, t. 34?
Not represented in our Amboina collections. This has been
reduced to Artocarpus communis Forst. (A. incisa Linn. f.) by
several authors and may be a sylvan form of that species, or
it may prove to be referable to Artocarpus elastica Reinw., where
it was placed by Teysmann as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 16.
ARTOCARPUS RETICULATA Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867)
213.
Novella cinerea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 227?
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 173, November 26, 1913,
along the seashore, locally known as mulewan.
The specimen agrees quite closely with Miquel’s description
of Artocarpus reticulata, but its identity with Novella cinerea
Rumph. is rather problematical.
ARTOCARPUS FRETISSI Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Nuturf.
Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 189 (Neue Schltissel 47) (type!).
Metrosideros spuria |, mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 26. t. 18, f. A.
A species of entirely doubtful status, to be interpreted from
the description and figure given by Rumphius. As published,
Artocarpus fretissti Teysm. & Binn. is typified wholly by the
reference to Rumphius, as no description of the species was
published by Teysmann and Binnendyck; the name does not
appear in Index Kewensis. It is possible that the specimen
intended by Teysmann and Binnendyck to represent the species
is the one collected in Amboina by De Fretes and cited by Miquel,
Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 213, under Artocarpus
lakoocha Roxb.
ARTOCARPUS sp.
Metrosideros spuria Il femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 27, t. 13, f. B.
The description and figure are apparently those of an Arto-
carpus, but a further determination of its status is impossible
at this time from the material and data available.
ARTOCARPUS sp.
Soccus silvestris celebicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 115.
The description is hardly sufficient to warrant an attempt
192 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
at determining the status of this form. Henschel’s suggestion
that it might be Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb. is not tenable.
ARTOCARPUS sp.
Caju bandaa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 109.
As to the reference to Rheede this is Artocarpus hirsuta Lam.,
but the Javan plant discussed must be a different species, and
its status is indeterminable at this time.
ANTIARIS * Leschenault
ANTIARIS TOXICARIA (Pers.) Lesch. in Ann. Mus. Paris 16 (1810) 478.
Ipo toxicaria Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 566.
Arbor toxicaria mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 268, t. 87.
This is the famous upas tree, and it is manifestly the form
commonly known as Antiaris toxicaria Lesch. Arbor toxicaria
Rumph. was reduced to Jpo toxocaria Pers. in the. original
description of the genus and species. 3
The form described by Rumphius as Arbor toxicaria femina is
probably referable here. Blume has placed it under Antiaris
innoxia Bl., which is a synonym of A. toxicaria Lesch.
FICUS Linnaeus
FICUS RACEMIFERA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 66 (type!).
Ficus amboinensis Kostel. Allgem. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 2 (1838) 408
(type!).
Ficus nodosa Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29 (1867)
245.
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 145,
t. 98.
AMBOINA, Gelala and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 181, July and August, 1918, along streams at low altitudes,
locally known as gondal.
The Rumphian species was originally reduced by Linnaeus
through error to Ficus benghalensis Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 665, discusses it under Ficus auriculata Lour.,
which, according to his description, is an entirely different
species. It is the type and whole basis of Ficus racemifera
Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus Bengalensis (1814)
66, by citation of the Rumphian figure, but is not the form later
described by Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (18382) 560 (=Ficus
variegata Blume), where the reference to Rumphius is repeated.
It is also the type of Ficus amboinensis Kostel., which thus
becomes a synonym of Ficus racemifera Roxb. The type of
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Ipo Pers. (1807) is older.
MORACEAE 193
Ficus nodosa Teysm. & Binn. was from Amboina. The figure
given by Rumphius is decidedly poor, and from it alone the
status of the species is indeterminable; in connection with
Amboina material, however, it is clearly the species as here
interpreted.
FICUS MOSELEYANA King in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 144,
POST.
Caprificus aspera tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 181, August 7, 1918,
margins of forests, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as koti and
gohi.
There is some doubt as to the correctness of this reduction of
the Rumphian name, for the form described as Caprificus aspera
III may be properly referable to Ficus wassa Roxb.
FICUS WASSA Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 539.
Caprificus aspera latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 150, t. 94.
Caprificus aspera angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151.
AMBOINA, Soja, Elephant River, and town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 175, 176, 177, July, August, and September, 1913, from sea
level to an altitude of 400 meters, locally known as goht.
Roemer and Schultes erroneously reduced the Rumphian
species to Ficus symphitifolia Lam.; Pritzel erroneously referred
it to Ficus glomerata Roxb.; and Haskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
60, thought that it might be Covella hispida Mig. The type of
Ficus wassa Roxb. was a specimen cultivated in the botanic
garden at Calcutta, originating in the Moluccas, and Roxburgh
states in the original description: ‘““‘Wassa of the Malayas, and
probably Caprificus aspera Rumph. Amb. III t. 94.’ The speci-
mens agree closely with the description of Rumphius and of
Roxburgh, but the plate given by Wight, Ic. t. 666, presents a
specimen with much more prominently toothed leaves than our
Amboina material and, for that matter, than Roxburgh’s
description calls for. The receptacles are both axillary and
solitary and on short tubercle-like racemes on the branches and
trunk. Wassa is one of the native names cited by Rumphius
for this species.
FICUS SEPTICA Burm, f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 226.
Ficus leucantatoma Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 654.
Ficus septica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 158, t. 96.
AMBOINA, Elephant River, near the town of Amboina, and Paso, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 189, July and October, 1913, locally known as siripopa.
The specimen agrees entirely with Rumphius’s figure and
description, and also with Ficus leucantatoma Poir. as currently
14497113 i
194 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
interpreted. Ficus septica Burm. f. has been quite overlooked
by recent authors, but I believe that this name should be adopted
in place of Poiret’s. The Rumphian figure and description have
been cited under Ficus septica Burm. f., by Loureiro, Lamarck,
Vahl, Roemer and Schultes, Henschel, Kosteletzky, Walpers,
Pritzel, and Miquel [FI]. Ind. Bat. 1° (1858) 311], but the name
is not included in the later writings of Miquel on Ficus [Ann.
Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 260-300], nor by King in his
monumental work on the species of Ficus of the Indo-Malayan
region [Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 1-185, ¢. 1-232]. In
the original description Burman f. first cited the Rumphian
synonym, taking his specific name from Rumphius, followed by a
citation of Handur-alu Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 3:77, t. 59, the
citation of the Javanese name sz bipar, and the statement
“Habitat in India;” it seems to be quite evident that he had
a Javan specimen.
FICUS ALTISSIMA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 455.
Varinga latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 127, t. 84 bis.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. It was
originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ficus racemosa Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, where
it certainly does not belong, and later, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1515,
was placed as a variety of Ficus indica Linn., which it certainly
does not represent, no matter whether the latter be interpreted
from the occidental or the oriental references. Several authors
followed Linnaeus in citing Varinga latifolia Rumph. under Ficus
indica Linn., and Roxburgh, FI]. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 539, states
“the figure very bad”’ (i. e. for Ficus indica Linn.). Vahl, Enum.
2 (1805) 189, erroneously places it under F%cus cotoneaefolia
Vahl. The figure is not good, and the data given in the descrip-
tion indicate that it is greatly reduced, so that it somewhat
resembles Ficus gelderi Miq. The description, however, applies
very closely to Ficus altissima Blume and certainly represents
this species or a very closely allied one.
FICUS PUNCTATA Thunb. Ficus (1786) 9.
Crusta arborum minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 84, t. 45.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe and Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
182, August and September, 19138, climbing on trees, altitude 4 to 100
meters, locally known as tali oit.
No previous reduction of this Rumphian species has been sug-
gested, other than Hasskarl’s reference of it to the genus Ficus.
The figure, the description, and the Amboina specimen cited
MORACEAE 195
above, all manifestly represent a form of the widely distributed
Ficus punctata Thunb. The forms described in this chapter as
Crusta arborum II alba, III odorata, and IV minima, with the possible
exception of the last, are species of Ficus, apparently all different
from Ficus punctata Thunb., but their more exact status is
quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius.
FICUS CONORA King in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 1 (1888) 108, t. 181.
Caprificus viridis major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 152, t. 85.
AMBOINA, Way tommo and Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 186,
187, August and October, 1913, in forests, ascending to an altitude of 20
meters, locally known as mussor.
The figure is a good representation of cus conora King, which
is found in the Philippines, Ternate, and New Guinea; and the
specimens agree with the figure, with the description, and also
in the native name as cited by Rumphius. Blume erroneously
reduced it to Fucus ribes Reinw., an allied species with smaller
leaves and very much smaller receptacles. Henschel erroneously
places it under Ficus hispida Blume, while Miquel thought that
it might be Covellia congesta Miq., perhaps from Roxburgh’s dis-
cussion of the Rumphian figure under Ficus congesta Roxb., FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 560.
FICUS RUMPHIiI Blume Bijdr. (1825) 487.
Ficus cordifolia Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 548, non Blume.
Arbor conciliorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 142, ¢. 91, 92.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 180, November 5, 19138,
along the seashore.
Arbor conciliorum Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to the allied Ficus religiosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1315,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1514. Blume, however, placed it under
Ficus rumphu Bl. in the original description of that species,
and Roxburgh likewise cites it in the original description of
Ficus cordifolia Roxb. It was erroneously placed by Roemer
and Schultes under Ficus populnea Willd., an American species.
FICUS BENJAMINA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 129.
Varinga parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 189, t. 90.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 179, October 31, 1918, along
the seashore, locally known as waringin.
Ficus benjamina Linn., as originally published, manifestly
includes more than one species, but I have here followed the
current interpretation of it. Varinga parvifolia Rumph. was
196 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
quoted as a synonym in the original description of the species,
but is not the type.
Two forms are described by Rumphius in this chapter ; nit ee
Varinga parvifolia alta, which is the one figured and here inter-
preted as Ficus benjamina, and Varinga parvifolia II humilis, smaller
in size and with somewhat larger leaves and larger fruits than
the former. Blume thought that this might be Ficus haemato-
carpa Blume, while Hasskarl placed it with doubt under
Urostigma neglectum Miq. Its exact status is indeterminable
from the data and the material at present available for study.
FICUS TREMATOCARPA Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 224.
Grossularia domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 1386, t. 87, 88.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 178, October 7, 1913,
in light forests, altitude about 80 meters, locally known as waringin daun
alus. I am disposed to refer to the same species Rel. Robins. 1680, 1681,
1682, from Waé, Paso, and Batoe gadjah, all indicated as waringin.
Grossularia domestica Rumph. was erroneously referred by
Linnaeus to Ficus racemosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124; the only other suggested
reduction is Miquel’s doubtful reference of it to Ficus altumeraloo
Roxb. The probabilities are very great that it is here correctly
referred to Ficus trematocarpa Miq., the type of which was from
Amboina, although the status of Miquel’s species is doubtful.
King has reduced it with several other species, including the
Philippine Ficus philippinensis Migq., to Ficus decaisneana Miq.,
which disposition of it is perhaps correct; but if King’s concep-
tion of the specific limits be correct, then it is probable that
several other described Philippine forms will have to be reduced,
such as Ficus inaequifolia Elm., F’. confusa Elm., F. driveri Elm.,
F. setibracteata Elm., and F’. magnifica Elm.
FICUS ADENOSPERMA Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 238.
Caprificus viridis minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 152.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, and Roemah tiga, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
184, 185, August, 1915, along streams at low altitudes, locally known as
kaju musor.
The specimens agree fairly well with Rumphius’s description
and perfectly with that of Miquel. The type of Fucus adeno-
sperma Mig. was from Amboina.
FICUS AMPELOS Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 226 p. p.
Folium politorium vulgare fruticosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 128.
t./ 6S.
This particular form is not represented in our Amboina collec-
MORACEAE 197
tions, but the plant figured and described by Rumphius is
apparently the same as the Javan form currently referred to
Ficus ampelos Burm. f. The Rumphian description and figure,
cited by Burman f. in the original description of Ficus ampelos
Burm. f., should probably typify the species. It has been re-
duced to Ficus politoria Lam., but Lamarck’s species, based on
specimens from Madagascar, is certainly distinct from the
Malayan form. It has also been erroneously referred to Fucus
parasitica Roth, and to F’. exasperata Roxb.
FICUS CORONATA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 470.
Ficus obscura Blume 1. c. 474.
Folium politorium arborescens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 128.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 1838, October 18, 1913,
borders of clearings, altitude about 70 meters, locally known as daun plas.
This form, with very scabrid, somewhat inequilateral leaves,
certainly represents Folium politorium arborescens Rumph.
I cannot distinguish it from Ficus coronata Reinw. (F. obscura
Blume). The form described by Rumphius, |. ¢c., as Folium
politorium flagellare is probably referable to one or the other of the
above species with harsh leaves.
FICUS FORSTENII Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 214, 285.
Varinga supa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 1385, t. 86?
Nothing resembling this form occurs in our Amboina collec-
tions. The figure very strongly resembles both Ficus pilosa
Reinw. and F. forsteni Miq., and the form described by
Rumphius is probably referable to one or the other of these
species. Miquel thought that it might represent Urostigma
pilosum Miq.—Ficus pilosa Reinw., but it seems to me that it more
closely resembles Ficus forstenit Mig. Hamilton referred it with
doubt to Fucus gonia Ham., and Henschel quite wrongly refers
it to Ficus citrifolia Willd. The form described by Rumphius as
Varinga pelal, in the same chapter, may be referable to Ficus
forstenu Miq. or may represent a different species.
FICUS sp. aff. F. CALOPHYLLA Blume.
Varinga repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 134, t. 85.
Nothing at all agreeing with Varinga repens Rumph. is
presented by our Amboina collections. The figure and the
description, however, apply closely to the Javan Ficus calophylla
Blume and the Philippine Ficus pachyphylla Merr. and cer-
tainly represent a species very closely allied to both and perhaps
identical with one of them. Varinga repens Rumph. was erro-
neously reduced by Linnaeus to Ficus pumila Linn., in Stickman
198 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1815, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1515. Likewise it was
erroneously reduced by Lamarck, with doubt, to Ficus pyrifolia
Lam.; by Vahl to Ficus rubra Vahl; and by Blume to Ficus
microcarpa Linn. f. var. litoralis Blume. Miquel thought that
it might represent a species allied to Ficus manok Midq.
FICUS RECURVA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 457.
Rudens silvaticus parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 80, t. 43, f. 2.
From the description and figure I have little doubt in referring
this to Ficus recurva Blume. A more comprehensive explora-
tion of Amboina, however, may yield material that will modify
this reduction.
FORMS OF FICUS, DESCRIBED BY RUMPHIUS, OF DOUBTFUL STATUS
Grossularia domestica longifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 136.
Grossularia domestica parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 136.
Both are perhaps forms of Ficus trematocarpa Miq. to which Grossularia
domestica Rumph. pertains.
Varinga funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 137.
Varinga nounouck Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 137 (from Madagascar).
Grossularia silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 138, t. 89.
This form was erroneously placed by Lamarck under Ficus racemosa
Linn., and by Henschel under Ficus tsjela Ham. Miquel thought that it
might be near Ficus albinervia Miq. It is not represented in our Amboina
collections.
Arbor eusanda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 141.
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 146.
Apparently a form allied to Ficus racemifera Roxb., as interpreted above,
and to F. variegata Blume.
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 148.
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta s. hahuol altera Rumph. Herb. Amb.
3: 148.
Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria (amboinensis) Rumph. Herb. Amb.
3: 149.
Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria (javanica) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 149.
Caju djurang (e Java) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 151.
Ficus septica silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 154.
Ficus septica angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 154.
The last two are perhaps merely forms of Ficus septica Burm. f. (Ficus
leucantatoma Poir.) as interpreted above, to which Ficus septica Rumph.
pertains.
Rudens silvaticus latifolilus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 80, ft. 43. f. 1.
A scandent fig, apparently belonging in the group with Ficus recurva
Blume.
Rudens silvaticus rugosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 81.
Manifestly ‘a species of Ficus and apparently belonging in the same group
as the above.
MORACEAE . 199
Rudens silvaticus |!¥V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 80.
Probably a species of Ficws, and perhaps the same plant as that very
briefly described as Gummi susu Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 43.
This list of indeterminable Ficus described by Rumphius, for the most
part comprises those forms that are very inadequately described. Later
some of them may be placed from the study of more specimens and data
than are now available, but the list, from the standpoint of nomenclature
and synonymy, is of no importance.
CONOCEPHALUS Blume
CONOCEPHALUS AMBOINENSIS (Zipp.) Warb. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 18
(1894) 189.
Poikilospermum amboinense Zipp. ex Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat.
1 (1863-64) 208.
Funis muraenarum latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 68, t. 36.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Lateri, and Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 170, 172, August, 19138, climbing over trees at low and medium alti-
tudes; probably referable here also is Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 171, from
Hitoe lama, November 6, 1918, altitude about 75 meters.
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1854) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 129, erroneously referred plate 36, as Funis convolutus
Rumph., to Melastoma octandrum Linn., doubtless by confusion
with the species of Medinilla figured on the preceding plate.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 96, quotes Teysmann’s opinion
that the species figured represents a species of Conocephalus.
I can see no reason for considering it other than Conocephalus
amboinensis Warb., which was originally described by Zippel
from Amboina material as a monotypic genus, Poikilospermum
amboinense Zipp.
CANNABIS Linnaeus
CANNABIS SATIVA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1027.
Cannabis indica Lam. Encyel. 1 (1785) 695.
Cannabis indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 208, t. 77, f. 1.
Cannabis indica tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 211, t. 77, f. 2.
The plant figured and described by Rumphius as Cannabis
indica is manifestly the common hemp. It was reduced by
Linnaeus to Cannabis sativa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, but by several of the
early authors, following Lamarck, was cited under Cannabis
indica Lam., a synonym of C. sativa Linn. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 112, makes Cannabis indica tertia Rumph.
the type of a new variety, Cannabis sativa Linn. var. crispata
Hassk., which, however, is apparently merely a variant of the
common hemp.
200 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
URTICACEAE
LAPORTEA * Gaudichaud
LAPORTEA AMPLISSIMA (Blume) Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1858) 282,
Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1869) 301.
Urera amplissima Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1859) f. 22 (without descrip-
tion).
Folium urens latifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 217, t. 141.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Soja, Negri lama, and Halong, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 310, 811, 312, 318, August and September, 19138, in forests and
along rocky river banks, altitude 175 to 325 meters, locally known as
polat, polot, and polat putt.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 205, referred this to Croton polot
Burm. f., taking his specific name from Rumphius, but de-
scribing the species from Javan material. Burman’s species
has been entirely overlooked by modern botanists and is the
species commonly known as Claoxylon indicum Hassk., which
should now be called Claoxylon polot (Burm. f.) (Croton polot
Burm. f., Claoxylon indicum Hassk.). Henschel, followed by
Pritzel, erroneously referred the Rumphian species to Jatropha
moluccana Linn.—Aleurites moluccana Willd. Hasskarl, Neue
Schltissel (1866) 69, referred it to Laportea crenulata Gaudich..,
where it certainly does not belong, although he was correct as
to the genus. In the original publication of Urera amplissima
Blume no description is given; the name appears on the plate
only. Miquel credits it to Java (Teysmann) and the Moluccas
(Zippel), but in his second consideration of it he cites only
Amboina material collected by Teysmann, Zippel, and De Fretes,
so that the original citation of Teysmann’s specimen, as Javan,
is probably an error. J. J. Smith? states: “De voor Java
opgegeven L. amplissima Miq. is nog niet op Java aangetroffen,
doch waarschijnlijk afkomstig van de Molukken.”’
LAPORTEA sp.
Folium urens angustifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 217.
Folium urens rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 218.
Both descriptions apparently apply to a single species of
Laportea, which, from the data given by Rumphius, is perhaps
distinct from Laportea amplissima Miq. Hasskarl, Neue
Schltissel (1866) 69, thought that Foliwm urens rubrum Rumph.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Urticastrum Fabr. (1759) is older.
+ Koorders & Valeton Bijdr. Boomsoorten Java 12 (1910) 676.
URTICACEAE 901
might be Laportea stimulans Mig. No. 310, cited above under
Laportea amplissima Miq., was considered by Doctor Robinson
certainly to represent Foltwum urens rubrum Rumph., and if
this be correct, then this form described by Rumphius becomes
a synonym of Laportea amplissima Miq. The leaf measure-
ments given by Rumphius for all three forms are matched by
some of the leaves on the specimens cited above.
LAPORTEA DECUMANA (Roxb.) Wedd. Monogr. Urt. (1856) 127.
Urtica decumana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 67, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2,3 (18382) 587.
Urtica rumphii Kostel. Allgem. Med.-Pharm. FI. 2 (1888) 400 (type!).
Urtica decumana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 47, t. 20, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Halong and Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 316, Sep-
tember and October, 1913, along streams and in forests from near sea
level to an altitude of 250 meters, locally known as daun gattal puts and
daun gattal mera.
This was originally reduced by Linnaeus, through error, to
Urtica interrupta Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1384. It has been cited by several
authors under F'leurya interrupta Gaudich., but the figure does
not pertain to this species, and the description only as to Urtica
decumana III vulgaris; see below. Roxburgh cites the Rumphian
description and figure in the original description of Urtica
decumana Roxb., which was based on specimens introduced into
the Calcutta Botanic Garden from the Moluccas. The Rumphian
figure and description are the basis of Urtica rumphii Kostel.
The figure is exceedingly poor, but it manifestly belongs with
this species rather than with Fleurya interrupta Gaudich. I
consider that the forms described by Rumphius as I alba and II
rubra represent Laportea decuwmana (Roxb.) Wedd. as here
interpreted.
FLEURYA Gaudichaud
FLEURYA INTERRUPTA (Linn.) Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 497.
Urtica interrupta Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 985.
Urtica decumana III vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 48.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 319, July 19, 1913, in waste places,
town of Amboina, locally known as daun gattal.
There is very little doubt as to the correctness of this reduction
of Urtica decumana vulgaris Rumph. The other plants de-
scribed in the same chapter, Urtica decumana alba and rubra,
are apparently both Laportea decumana Wedd.
’
202 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
PELLIONIA Gaudichaud
PELLIONIA SINUATA (Blume) Boerl. Handl. Kenn. Fl. Nederl. Ind. 3
(1900) 375.
Procris sinuata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 511.
Elatostema sinuatum Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 79.
Macuerus mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 138, ¢. 58, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 320, July 28, 1913, on
coral rocks at low altitudes.
The only previously suggested identification of Macuerus mas
is Hasskarl’s doubtful reference of it to Hlatostema macro-
phyllum Brongn., Neue Schliissel (1866) 174. It is certainly
not Brongniart’s species, but is Pellionia sinuata Boerl., at
least as that species is interpreted by Robinson, in Philip. Journ.
Sei. 5 (1910) Bot. 497.
BOEHMERIA Jacquin
BOEHMERIA NIVEA (Linn.) Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 499.
Urtica nivea Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 985.
Ramium majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 214, t. 79. f. 1.
The plant figured and described is a form of ramie, probably
typical Boehmeria nivea Gaudich., although possibly the variety
tenacissima (Gaudich.) Mig. It was first reduced by Linnaeus
to Urtica nivea Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 1398, and
has been cited by various authors under Procris nivea Gaudich.
and Boehmeria tenacissima Gaudich., synonyms of Boehmeria
nivea Gaudich. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 197, erroneously
referred it to Urtica aestuans Linn. in which he was followed by
Lamarck, Persoon, and Henschel.
POUZOLZIA Gaudichaud
POUZOLZIA ZEYLANICA (Linn.) Benn. Pl. Jav. Rar. (1838) 67.
Parietaria zeylanica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1052.
Pametaria indica Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 128.
Pouzolzia indica Gaudich. Bot. Freye. Voy. (1826) 508.
Herba memoriae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 29, t. 12, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah and vicinity of the town of Amboina, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 324, 325, July, 1913, in sago swamps and along road-
sides at low altitudes.
Herba memoriae Rumph. is manifestly a form of Pouzolzia
indica (Linn.) Benn. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 221, refers
it to Parietaria indica Burm. f., published independently of P.
indica Linn. It has been cited as a synonym of Pouzolzia indica
Gaudich. by several authors, for example, Presl, Bennett, Blume,
URTICACEAE 203
and Miquel, but is here placed under what is manifestly its
oldest valid specific name, Pouzolzia zeylanica (Linn.) Benn.
Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 588, erroneously cites the
Rumphian illustration under Urtica tuberosa Roxb.—Pouzolzia
tuberosa Wight.
PIPTURUS Weddell
PIPTURUS ARGENTEUS (Forst.) Wedd. in DC. Prodr. 16* (1869) 235”.
Urtica argentea Forst. Prodr. (1786) 65.
Morus paniculata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 67 (type!).
Perlarius | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 120, t. 56.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Batoe merah, and Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 317, 318, July and August, 1918, in forests and thickets on limestone
formations, altitude 20 to 150 meters, locally known as daun kes and
daun kest.
Perlarius as figured and described by Rumphius is the whole
basis of Morus paniculata Roxb. as originally published in the
Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 67 by citation of the Rumphian
figure; see C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot.
414. Roxburgh’s species, later described from material ori-
ginating in the Moluccas, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 599, has been
reduced to Prpturus velutinus Wedd.=P. incanus (Blume)
Wedd., a species difficult to distinguish from P. argenteus
Wedd.; but wherever placed, it will in turn place the synonyms
Pipturus paniculatus Mig. and Botrymorus paniculata Mig. If,
however, a critical revision of the genus should show that the
Amboina material is Pipturus incanus Wedd. rather than P.
argenteus Wedd., then Roxburgh’s specific name will take pre-
cedence over Pipturus incanus Wedd.
Perlarius latifolius, described in this chapter, is Robinson-
zodendron ambiguum Merr. (see p. 204). Perlarius parvifolius
may be a variant of Piptwrus argenteus Wedd. or may refer to
some entirely different genus and species; its status is quite
uncertain.
PIPTURUS REPANDUS (Blume) Wedd. in Arch. Mus. Paris 9 (1857)
448,
Urtica repanda Blume Bijdr. (1825) 501.
Aylaun nya femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah and Batoe merah River, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 321, 322, August, 1918, climbing over trees, ascending to an altitude
of 250 meters.
Ayladun nya femina Rumph. is described in the chapter with
Funis muraenarum—=Medinilla. -The description is poor, but
so far as it goes it applies fairly closely to the specimens here
referred to Pipturus repandus Wedd.
OREOCNIDE Miquel
204 - RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
: a
(Villebrunea Gaudichaud) 1
¢
OREOCNIDE RUBESCENS (Blume) Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4
(1869) 306.
Urtica rubescens Blume Bijdr. (1825) 506.
Villebrunea rubescens Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1856) 167.
Lignum aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1385, t. 70.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah River, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 315, Septem-
ber 24, 1918, on river banks, altitude about 40 meters.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 86, thought that Lignum
aquatile Rumph. might be Oreocnide major Miq. or O. silvatica
Miq.; according to J. J. Smith the former is a synonym of Ville-
brunea rubescens Blume=Oreocnide rubescens Miq., and the
latter is a variety of it. The Amboina specimens, which agree
closely with the figure, but not very well with the description,
appear to be fairly typical of Oreocnide rubescens Miq. Rumph-
ius’s description is short and rather poor and may include more
than this species.
As to the genera Oreocnide Miquel and Villebrunea Gaudi-
chaud, on a strict interpretation the former has priority; see
C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 6 (1911) Bot. 16.
ROBINSONIODENDRON genus novum
Genus Maoutiae affinis, differt perianthium ¢ distincte evolu-
tum, 5-denticulatum.
ROBINSONIODENDRON AMBIGUUM (Wedd.) comb. nov.
Maoutia ambigua Wedd. in Arch. Mus. Paris 8 (1855-56) 482; DC.
Prodr. 16° (1869) 235.
Perlarius | latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 120.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 214, August 24,
1918, on hillsides at low altitudes.
The specimen cited above agrees perfectly with Rumphius’s
description, as well as with that of Maoutia ambigua Wedd., a
species known only from Amboina and anomalous in the genus
by its distinctly developed pistillate perianth. No previous
reduction of Perlarius I latifolius Rumph. has been suggested,
other than Hasskarl’s opinion that it might be a variety of
Perlarius I, that is, Pipturus argenteus Wedd.
In view of the fact that the species is anomalous in Maoutu.,
where it was placed by Weddell, it seems best to establish
another genus for it; in Maoutia the pistillate perianth is
wanting. The generic name I have proposed is selected in
PROTEACEAE—LORANTHACEAE 205
commemoration of Doctor Rebinson’s work in Amboina and
of his critical work on the Philippine representatives of this
difficult family.*
PROTEACEAE
HELICIA Loureiro
HELICIA SERRATA (R. Br.) Blume in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 1 (18384) 215.
Rhopala serrata R. Br. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 10 (1811) 193.
Arbor vespertilionum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 17 (p. p., excl. ¢. 10/).
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 281, October 29, 1913, near
the seashore. ;
Arbor vespertilionum Rumph. was first reduced to Helicia
serrata by Blume, in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 1 (1834) 215. He in-
cluded also t. 10 with the statement “figura male expressa.”
The figure is manifestly no Helicia, refers to Arbor vesperti-
lionum ITI described on page 17 following the description that does
apply to Helicia, and is Schizomeria serrata Hochr. (see p. 244).
LORANTHACEAE
LORANTHUS Linnaeus
LORANTHUS RUMPHII sp. nov. § Heteranthus.
Viscum amboinicum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 60, t. 33.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah and Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 517
(type), August 4, 1913; Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
516, August 23, 1918, parasitic, altitude 50 to 200 meters, locally known
as bunga manumpang and daun manumpang.
Frutex parasiticus glaber, ramis ramulisque tenuibus, tere-
tibus; foliis oppositis, petiolatis, coriaceis, oblongis ad anguste
oblongo-obovatis, obtusis, basi attenuatis, usque ad 8 cm longis.
nervis utrinque 3 vel 4, obscuris vel subobsoletis, adscenden-
tibus ; inflorescentiis axillaribus, solitariis, usque ad 2 cm longis;
floribus cylindraceis, teretibus, gracilis, circiter 2.4 cm longis.
5- vel 6-meris, omnibus sessilibus, in triadibus vel diadibus
breviter pedunculatis racemose dispositis.
A parasitic, entirely glabrous shrub, the branches elongated,
up to at least 70 cm in length, slender, terete, reddish-brown
or dark in color when dry, the younger ones somewhat com-
pressed at the nodes, smooth, the internodes 2 to 4 cm in length.
Leaves opposite, coriaceous, olivaceous and rather dull when dry,
oblong to narrowly oblong-obovate, 5 to 8 cm long, 1.5 to 3 cm
wide, apex rounded to obtuse, base gradually narrowed, attenuate
* Philippine Urticaceae. Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 465-543; 6
(1911) Bot. 1-33, t. 1-8; Philippine Urticaceae II, ibid. 299-314.
206 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
or cuneate; lateral nerves 3 or 4 on each side of the midrib,
ascending, slender, obscure, sometimes nearly obsolete; petioles
about 8 mm long. Inflorescences axillary, solitary, about 2 cm
long, the flowers slender, about 2.4 cm long, cylindric, orange
below, yellowish above, 5- or mostly 6-merous, in racemosely
arranged triads, the rachis slender, the lateral branchlets bearing
the sessile flowers 2 to 4 mm long. Calyx cylindric-ovoid, 2
to 3 mm long, truncate, the subtending bracts broadly ovate,
rounded or obtuse, about 1.2 mm long, all the flowers sessile,
usually in threes, sometimes in pairs at the apex of each short
lateral branch. Petals free to the base, linear, about 1 mm wide,
the refiexed portion above the insertion of the filament linear,
6to 7mm long. Filaments 4 mm long, the anthers continuous,
linear, about 1.2 mm in length. Fruit narrowly ovoid, when
dry black and about 6 mm long.
This species is possibly allied to Loranthus indicus Desr., but
it differs in many characters, notably in its smaller leaves, longer
petioles, and shorter, fewer-flowered inflorescences. The type
of Loranthus indicus Desr. was a specimen collected by Sonnerat
in “lés Indies orientales,’”’ but de Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830) 305,
credits itto Timor. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1’ (1856) 820, thought
that Viscum amboinicum album Rumph. represented a species
of Dendrophthoé (Loranthus) near D. indica (Desr.) Maiq. or
D. incarnata (Jack) Miq., but the Rumphian species is no
Dendrophthoé, as indicated by its entirely free petals.
Viscum amboinicum III Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:62, very briefly
described, is undoubtedly a species of Loranthus, but its status
cannot be definitely determined from any data at present avail-
able. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 95, thought it might
be the same as Macrosolen macrophyllus Miq. (Loranthus ma-
crophyllus Korth.), but this is entirely improbable, as that
species is known only from Sumatra.
ELYTRANTHE Blume
ELYTRANTHE AMBOINENSIS sp. nov.
Viscum amboinicum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 61?
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 515 (type),
September 30, 1918, on Barringtonia trees, altitude about 350 meters,
locally known as manumpang.
Frutex epiphyticus glaber, ramis crassis, ramulisque tere-
tibus; foliis oppositis, coriaceis, nitidis, oblongo-ovatis, usque
ad 18 cm longis, obtuse acuminatis, basi acutis ad subrotundatis,
nervis utrique circiter 8, tenuibus, obscuris;. inflorescentiis
¢
LORANTHACEAE 207
axillaribus, solitariis vel fasciculatis, brevibus, pedunculis 2- ad
4-floris, circiter 5 mm longis; floribus 6-meris, circiter 2.5 cm
longis, corollae tubo sursum prominente 6-angulato, bracteis late
ovatis, circiter 1.5 mm longis, bracteolis paullo minoribus, con-
natis, integris vel retusis.
A stout, parasitic, glabrous shrub, the branches up to at
least 60 cm in length, terete, brownish, somewhat lenticellate,
the branchlets smooth, reddish-brown. Leaves opposite, thickly
coriaceous, rather pale-greenish when dry, shining, oblong-ovate,
or some of the smaller ones oblong-lanceolate, 14 to 18 cm long,
4 to 7 cm wide, base acute to subrounded, apex shortly and
broadly blunt-acuminate; lateral nerves about 8 on each side
of the midrib, slender, anastomosing, more prominent on the
upper than on the lower surface, the reticulations lax; petioles
stout, 1 to 1.5 em long. Inflorescence axillary, of solitary or
fascicled, short peduncles up to 5 mm in length, each peduncle
bearing at its apex from 2 to 4 short-pedicelled flowers, the
peduncles 5 mm long or less, the pedicels about 2 mm in length.
Flowers 6-merous, about 2.5 cm long, dark-red below, each
subtended by one bract which is broadly ovate, acute, about 1.5
mm long, the bracteoles entirely united or slightly retuse at
the apex, nearly as large as the bract. Calyx cylindric, truncate,
about 5mm long. Corolla-tube about 6 mm long, inflated, prom-
inently 6-angled or narrowly 6-winged in the upper one-third,
the lobes 6, about 3 mm wide at the base, abruptly narrowed,
about 14 mm long and 2 mm wide, thick, acute, spreading or
reflexed. Filaments about 6 mm long, attached near the base
of the lobes, the anthers continuous, linear, about 4 mm long.
This species is sufficiently well characterized by its opposite,
shining, rather large leaves, and especially by its axillary, soli-
tary or fascicled, very short, 2- to 4-flowered peduncles. In Ely-
tranthe it is distinguished by its bracteoles being either entirely
connate into a single one nearly as large as the bract, or at
most merely retuse at the apex.
It is by no means certain that the plant here described repre-
sents Viscum amboinense rubrum of Rumphius, as his short
description does not well conform. Rumphius compares his
plant with Viscum amboinicum album = Loranthus rumphit
Merr., with which the present species has little in common.
Viscum amboinense rubrum, moreover, was parasitic on small
trees near the seashore, while Elytranthe amboinensis grows at
an altitude of about 350 meters. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 95, suggests that Viscum amboinicum rubrum may
be the same as Macrosolen evenius (Blume) Miq. = Loranthus
208 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
evenius Blume, but in view of the characters of that species
and its known distribution this proposed reduction is probably
incorrect.
SANTALACEAE
SANTALUM Linnaeus
SANTALUM ALBUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 349.
Sandalum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 42, ¢. 11.
The form described by Rumphius as Sandalum is probably
the true sandal wood, Santalum album Linn., at least for most
part. Sandalum was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1000, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 497, to Santalum album Linn.,
which disposition of it has been very generally accepted by
succeeding authors. Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. 6 (1804) 502,
suggested that it might be Sirium myrtifolium Linn., which is
generally cited as a synonym of Santalum album Linn. Prob-
ably referable here is the form from Celebes indicated by
Rumphius as Sandalum radicis Herb. Amb. 2: 46, but there is less
reason for considering Lignum papuanum IIJ Rumph., 1. c. 58, as
being identical with Santalum album Linn. as Henschel indi-
cates; see Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 28.
EXOCARPUS LabBillardiére
EXOCARPUS EPIPHYLLANTHUS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 1264 (type!), non Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1892.
Xylophylla longifolia Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 221 (type!).
Phyllanthus ceramicus Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 591 (type!).
Exocarpus ceramicus R. Br. ex. Spreng. Gesch. 2 (1818) 77; Hensch.
Vita Rumph. (1883) 201.
Exocarpus phylianthoides Endl. Prodr. Fl. Norfolk. (1833) 46?
Exocarpos ceramica A. DC. Prodr. 14 (1857) 691 (type!).
Xylophyllos ceramica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 19, t. 12.
The present application of Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus Linn.
is entirely contrary to accepted usage, yet it is unquestionably
the correct interpretation of the species. In the Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 136, Linnaeus quotes the Rumphian illustration with
doubt, but in the same year, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1264, he adds a
description which is based wholly on Rumphius, as follows:
“Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus. 2. P. fol. lanceolatis serratis; crenis
floriferis. Rumph. amb. 7. t. 12.” However, in the second edition
of his Species Plantarum (1763) 1392, he discards the Rumphian
Synonym, adds various others, and describes a plant, a true
Phyllanthus, from American material. Still later, Mant. 2
OLACACEAE—ARISTOLOCHIACEAE 209
(1771) 221, apparently recognizing his error, he proposed a
new name for Phyllanthus epiphyllanthus of the second edition
of the Species Plantarum, calling it Xylophylla latifolia Linn.
A. de Candolle, Prodr. 14 (1857) 691, considers that E'xocarpos
ceramica A. DC. is distinct from EH. phyllanthoides Endl., but
apparently saw no specimens of the former. Hxocarpus
rolfeanus (O. Kuntze) Merr., in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1910)
Bot. 352, is certainly very closely allied to EL. epiphyllanthus
(Linn.) Merr. and may have to be reduced to it. Of the names
discussed above, Xylophylla longifolia Linn., Phyllanthus epi-
phyllanthus Linn., as originally published, Phyllanthus ceramicus
Pers., and H'xocarpus ceramicus R. Br. and of A. de Candolle must
all be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description.
OLACACEAE
XIMENIA Linnaeus
XIMENIA AMERICANA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1193.
Zizyphus littorea Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle
9 (1866) 176 (type!).
Vidara littorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 119, t. 37.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 260, October 31, 1913, in
thickets back of the beach.
Vidara littorea Rumph. has not before been definitely placed;
it is unquestionably the widely distributed strand plant, Ximenia
americana Linn. It was reduced by Linnaeus, with doubt, to
Rhamnus napeca Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121. Lour-
eiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 158, discusses it under Rhamnus
soporifer Lour.=Zizyphus soporifera Schultes. Hamilton, Mem.
Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 322, expresses the opinion that it is nearer
to Elaeagnus than to Zizyphus, and Teysmann thought it a
distinct species of Zizyphus which he called Zizyphus littorea,
and which was published by Hasskarl, in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 176 (Neue Schliissel 34). Of the names cited
above, but a single one, Zizyphus littorea Teysm., is typified by
the Rumphian figure, and this name is not listed in Index
Kewensis.
ARISTOLOCHIACEAE
ARISTOLOCHIA Linnaeus
ARISTOLOCHIA RUMPHII Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 2 (1833) 465
(type!).
Radix puluronica (s. Peponaster minor) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 476,
ae a ie
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
144971——-14
210 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Radix puluronica was originally reduced by Linnaeus to A7ris-
tolochia indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 183, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1249, in which he was
followed by Loureiro, Henschel, and Pritzel, and, with doubt,
by Duchartre, in DC. Prodr. 151 (1864) 479; this species,
however, is definitely known only from India and Ceylon. I
have here listed the Rumphian species under Aristolochia
rumphiu Kostel., of which it is the type, as it does not appear
to be referable to any of the well-known Malayan species; such
as Aristolochia tagala Cham., A. timoriensis Decne., A. gaudi-
chaudiu Duch., and A. zollingert Miq.
ARISTOLOCHIA sp.
Peponaster major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 474.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 149, thought that this might
be the same as Aristolochia hastata Jack, but there is little
reason to consider that this reduction is correct, as Jack’s
species is known only from Sumatra. It might be the very
imperfectly described Aristolochia longifolia Roxb. (A. moluc-
cana Duchartre), the type of which was from the Moluccas,
or the very widely distributed Aristolochia tagala Cham. (A.
roxburghiana Klotz.). Its status can be determined only by
a critical study of all the Moluccan species when more abundant
material is available.
POLYGONACEAE
RHEUM Linnaeus
RHEUM RHABARBARUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 872.
Rhabarbarum sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 148.
The rather long discussion seems to apply to this Linnean
species; the plant itself is not described. Hasskarl, Neue Schliis-
sel (1866) 177, referred it to Rheum undulatum Linn., which is
a synonym of R. rhabarbarum Linn.
RUMEX Linnaeus
RUMEX PATIENTIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 388.
Lapathum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 277.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 120, suggests that this is
Rumex patientia Linn., which is probably the correct disposition
of it. The plant is not described by Rumphius, who merely
states that it was the same as the European form called Acetosa
hispanica, Pathic, or Patientia, that it was cultivated and used
in cooking, and that it was known to the Malays as sayor assam.
CHENOPODIACEAE—AMARANTHACEAE P11
CHENOPODIACEAE
CHENOPODIUM Linnaeus
CHENOPODIUM QUINOA Willd. Sp. Pl. 1 (1799) 1301.
Blitum peruvianum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 282.
This South American species is briefly discussed. The reduc-
tion, made by Hasskarl, to Chenopodiwm quinoa Willd., is prob-
ably correct. Rumphius quotes the common name quinua for
the species he discussed.
SALICORNIA Tournefort
SALICORNIA HERBACEA Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 5.
Crithmus indicus II] Kaly articulatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166.
This reduction follows Hasskarl, which is unquestionably the
correct disposition of the European plant that Rumphius briefly
- discussed.
AMARANTHACEAE
DEERINGIA R. Brown
DEERINGIA AMARANTHOIDES (Lam.) comb. nov.
Achyranthes amaranthoides Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 548.
Celosia baccata Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 23.
Deeringia celosioides R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 413.
Deeringia baccata Mog. in DC. Prodr. 13” (1849) 286.
Blitum frutescens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 235, t. 83, f. 2.
This widely distributed and well-known species is not repre-
sented in our Amboina collections, but Rumphius’s excellent
figure is unmistakably the form commonly known as Deeringia
celosioides R. Br. and as D. baccata Mogq., but for which Achy-
ranthes amaranthoides Lam. supplies an older name. Linnaeus,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 295, reduced Blitum frutescens Rumph. to
Achyranthes muricata Linn.—Digera muricata (Linn.) Mart.
The first and only citation in the original place of publication
is the one to Rumphius, and this might by some authors be
interpreted as the type of the species. However, the Linnean
species is manifestly based primarily on an actual specimen and
is hence not to be interpreted by the Rumphian reference.
Lamarck, realizing that Linnaeus had confused two distinct
species under Achyranthes muricata, proposed the name Achy-
ranmthes amaranthoides for what is now known as Deeringia
baccata Moq., basing his description on specimens collected by
Sonnerat, with the reduction of Blitum frutescens Rumph. The
description applies unmistakably to Deeringia, not to Digera,
although Lamarck’s species has long been referred to Digera
QV? RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
arvensis Forsk.—D. muricata (Linn.) Mart. Other names in-
volved in the reduction of Blitum frutescens Rumph. are Clado-
stachys arborescens Don, Cladostachys muricata Mogq., and C.
frutescens Don; the first two are synonyms of Digera muricata
(Linn.) Mart., the last is a synonym of Deeringia amaranthoides
(Lam.) Merr.
CELOSIA Linnaeus
CELOSIA ARGENTEA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 205.
Amarantus caudatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 237.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh and town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 183, August, 19138, in waste places at low altitudes, locally known as
bayam blanda.
This reduction was first suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 115, and I consider it to be the correct disposition of
Amarantus caudatus Rumph.
CELOSIA CRISTATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 205.
Amarantus japonicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 236, t. 8&4.
Amarantus vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 236.
This commonly cultivated species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. Amarantus japonicus Rumph. was orig-
inally reduced by Linnaeus to Celosia cristata Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 493, in which he was followed by numerous
authors, and which is certainly the correct disposition of it.
In the second edition of the Species Plantarum, however, (1762)
297, he referred it to Celosia castrensis Linn., a synonym of
Celosia cristata Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 114,
refers Amarantus japonicus Rumph. to Celosia cristata Linn.
var. splendens Moq., and Amarantus vulgaris to Celosia cristata
Linn. var. exaltata Hassk.
AMARANTHUS Linnaeus
AMARANTHUS VIRIDIS Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1405.
Blitum indicum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231, t. 82, f. 1.
Blitum indicum | album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 281.
Blitum indicum Il maculosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231.
Blitum indicum Il maculosum amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 231.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 139, August 20, 1913, in waste
places, locally known as bayang. Also Rel. Robins. 2518, 2514 from Bali,
July 7, 1918.
Blitum indicum Rumph., including both forms figured by
Rumphius on plate 82, was reduced by Linnaeus to Amaranthus
tristis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad.
AMARANTHACEAE 913
4 (1759) 180, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1268, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1404, in which he was followed by various authors—Lamarck,
Loureiro, Willdenow, Burman f., and others. The form de-
scribed and figured appears to me to be Amaranthus viridis
Linn. Blitwm indicum I album Rumph. has also been reduced
to Amaranthus polygamus Linn. by numerous authors, to Ama-
ranthus oleraceus Linn., and to Huxolus polygamus Moq.
AMARANTHUS GANGETICUS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1268.
Blitum indicum IV terrestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 232, t. 82, f. 2?
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 136, August 16, 1918,
locally known as baya.
The specimen cited appears to represent a dwarfed form of
Amaranthus gangeticus Linn. and agrees fairly well with the
figure cited. Blitum indicum IV terrestre Rumph. has been very
generally reduced to Amaranthus tristis Linn.
AMARANTHUS SPINOSUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 991.
Blitum spinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 234, t. 88, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 187, 1388, August, September, 1913,
along road sides at low altitudes.
The form cited above certainly represents Blitum spinosum
Rumph., but is not typical Amaranthus spinosus Linn., differing
from it in its smaller flowers and in its few, scattered, short
spines. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1269, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1407, which disposition of
it has been accepted by all authors. The figure is poor and is
very greatly reduced in size.
The form from Macassar, Celebes, very briefly described as
Blitum spinosum e Macassar Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 234, is prob-
ably the typical, robust form of Amaranthus spinosus Linn.
AMARANTHUS TRICOLOR Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 989.
Amarantus versicolor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 237.
Blitum indicum III rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 232?
The description of Amarantus versicolor applies unmistakably
to the rather robust form with variegated and variously colored
leaves found in cultivation in many typical countries. The
species has been reduced by various authors to Amaranthus
gangeticus Linn. and to A. melancholicus Linn., but Amaranthus
tricolor Linn. has priority. The reduction of the form that
Rumphius described was first made by Henschel. The form
foliis obscure rubentibus described in this chapter by Rumphius
probably also belongs here.
214 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CYATHULA Loureiro
CYATHULA PROSTRATA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 549.
Achyranthes prostrata Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 296.
Cyathula geniculata Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 102.
Auris canina | femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 26, t. 11.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 185, near the town of Amboina
in a sago swamp at low altitude.
Auris canina I femina Rumph. was originally reduced by
Linnaeus to Achyranthes lappacea Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 942, but recognizing his error, he later, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 296, cites it in the original description of Achyranthes
prostrata Linn.=Cyathula prostrata Blume. This is certainl:
the correct disposition of it. Other names involved in the
reduction are Cyathula geniculata Lour., Desmochaete prostrata
R. & S., and Pupalia prostrata Mart., all synonyms of Cyathula
prostrata (Linn.) Blume.
AERVA * Forskal
AERVA SANGUINOLENTA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 547.
Achyranthes sanguinolenta Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 294.
Illecebrum sanguinolentum Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 344.
Verbena rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 60, t. 27, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Verbena rubra Rumph. is cited by Linnaeus in the original
description of Achyranthes sanguinolenta Linn., but the species
was manifestly based on an actual specimen, because of the
description added; Verbena rubra Rumph., therefore, cannot be
interpreted as the type of the species. This reduction of Ver-
bena rubra Rumph. is certainly the correct disposition of it, and
under one or the other of the above synonyms has been accepted
by all authors.
ACHYRANTHES Linnaeus
ACHYRANTHES ASPERA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 204.
Auris canina Il mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 27, t. 12, f. 1.
This common and well-known weed is not represented in our
Amboina collections. Awris canina II mas was originally
reduced by Linnaeus to Achyranthes aspera Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Mant. 2
(1771) 344, which is undoubtedly the correct disposition of it.
Other authors, however, have referred it as follows: Lamarck
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Comacum Adans. (1763) is older.
NYCTAGINACEAE 215
to Achyranthes fruticosa Lam.; Hasskarl to Achyranthes biden-
tata Blume var. elongata Hassk. and to Achyranthes javanica
Mog. |
ALTERNANTHERA Forskal
ALTERNANTHERA SESSILIS (Linn.) R. Br. ex R. & S. Syst. 5 (1819)
554.
Gomphrena sessilis Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 225.
Illecebrum sessile Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 300.
Olus squillarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 37, t. 15, f. 1 (incl. I majus
et IJ minus). |
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 184, near the town of Amboina,
July and August, 1913, in ditches and in sago swamps at low altitudes.
Linnaeus originally reduced Olus squillarum Rumph. to Gom-
phrena sessilis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 184, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 950, which,
as Alternanthera sessilis (Linn.) R. Br., is surely the correct
disposition of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 158, thought
that the description agreed better with Alternanthera nodiflora
R. Br. than with A. sessilis R. Br. and that Olus squillarum II
minus Rumph. was referable to Alternanthera nodiflora R. Br.
var. linearifolia Mog. Alternanthera sessilis R. Br. is not
published in the Prodromus (1810) 417, as currently indicated
in botanical literature.
GOMPHRENA Linnaeus
GOMPHRENA GLOBOSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 224.
Flos globosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 289, ¢. 100, f. 2.
Flos globosus albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 290.
* AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 182, September 8,
1918, in fields at low altitudes, locally known as knop.
This reduction of Flos globosus Rumph. was originally made
by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 131, is certainly the correct disposition of it, and has
been universally accepted by authors who have had occasion
to cite Rumphius’s illustration and description.
NYCTAGINACEAE
MIRABILIS Rivinus
MIRABILIS JALAPA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 177.
Mirabilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 2538, t. 89.
This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The figure given by Rumphius is an ex-
cellent representation of this well-known species. The reduc-
216 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
tion was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 252. Seven
color forms are included by Rumphius; Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel
(1866) 117, refers one of these to Mirabilis dichotoma Linn.
and the others to several varieties of Mirabilis jalapa Linn.
PISONIA Plumier
PISONIA ALBA Spanoghe in Linnaea 15 (1841) 342.
Olus album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 191, t. 78.
This commonly cultivated tree is not represented in our Am-
boina collections. The reduction was apparently first suggested
by Spanoghe in the original publication of Pisonia alba (not seen
by me) ; repeated by Choisy, in DC. Prodr. 13? (1849) 446, as
a doubtful synonym; by Hasskar] referred with doubt to Pisonia
morindaefolia R. Br.; and in Retzia, 1 (1855) 6, as apparently
representing Pisonia sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. The plant de-
scribed by Rumphius is unmistakably the common and widely
cultivated Malayan form with very pale-green or sometimes
yellowish-white leaves and is typical Pisonia alba Spanoghe.
Whether or not Pisonia alba Spanoghe is specifically distinct
from P. sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. is uncertain, but the proba-
bilities are that it is a derived form of P. sylvestris or of a
closely allied species, which, through long cultivation, rarely
produces flowers or fruits. In the Philippines it is generally
known as coles moluco, certainly indicating that it was intro-
duced into the Archipelago from the Moluccas.
PISONIA GRANDIS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 422.
Olus album insulare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 190, t¢. 79, f. 1 (excl.
fig. A, et descr. fruct.).
No Pisonia, other than the very characteristic P. cauliflora
Scheff., is represented in our Amboina collections, but the
description given by Rumphius, excluding that of the fruit, is
unmistakably applicable to the very large Pisonia that is fre-
quently gregarious on small uninhabited islands in the Malayan
and Polynesian regions, especially those frequented by birds,
which has been described as Pisonia grandis R. Br. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 24, suggests that it may be Prsonia
sylvestris Teysm. & Binn. which Heimer] considers to be a syn-
onym of Pisonia grandis R. Br.
PISONIA ACULEATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1026.
Limonellus funicularis montanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 25.
This reduction follows Hasskarl’s suggestion, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 91, the only objection being that the leaves, as described
AIZOACEAE—PORTULACACEAE Zit
by Rumphius, are decidedly larger than is the case with Pisonia
aculeata. Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 735, places it under his Pisonia
limonella and takes the specific name from Rumphius, but the
actual type was a Javan plant; this is considered by all recent
authors to be a synonym of Pisonia aculeata Linn. Choisy, in
DC. Prodr. 18? (1849) 446, cites the Rumphian name under
Pisonia limonellus Blume, but t. 16, also cited by him, does not
belong with Limonellus funicularis montanus, but with Cudra-
nus amboinensis sylvestris and is a Cudrania.
AIZOACEAE
SESUVIUM Linnaeus
SESUVIUM PORTULACASTRUM Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1058, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 136.
Portulaca portulacastrum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 446.
Crithmus indicus | ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 165, t. 72, f. 1.
Crithmus indicus il albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 165.
This widely distributed strand plant is not represented in
our Amboina collections. The reduction of Crithmus indicus
was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
28, as Portulaca portulacastrum Linn., which as Sesuvium por-
tulacastrum is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Many
authors, however, have quoted it under Sesuvium repens Rottl.,
a synonym of S. portulacastrum Linn.
The form mentioned as Crithmus indicus III kaly articulatum
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166, is manifestly the European Salicov-
nia herbacea Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 179. The form described as Crithmus indicus IV portulaca
arenosa in the same chapter is apparently Portulaca quadrifida
Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, I. c.
PORTULACACEAE
PORTULACA Linnaeus
PORTULACA OLERACEA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 4465.
Portulaca indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 268 (incl. J major sativa,
II rubra).
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Rel. Robins. 228, September 3,
1913, locally known as rumput gelang mera.
The identification of the Rumphian species was made by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 119, and is certainly the correct
disposition of it. It is a widely distributed weed in all warm
countries. |
218 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
PORTULACA QUADRIFIDA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 73.
Portulaca indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 268 (incl. JJJ minima, IV
litorea).
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 119, has reduced both of
the above-mentioned forms, Portulaca indica III and IV, to
P. quadrifida Linn. <A single specimen of the latter occurs in
our Amboina collection, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 222, from coral rocks
at Silali, September 22, 1913. This may be the correct disposi-
tion of the Rumphian plants, or they may have been merely
forms of the commoner and variable Portulaca oleracea Linn.
BASELLACEAE
BASELLA Linnaeus
BASELLA RUBRA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 272.
Basella alba Linn. 1. c.
Gandola | alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 417.
Gandola Il rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 417, t. 154, f. 2.
The form figured by Rumphius was originally reduced by
Linnaeus to Basella rubra Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, which has been accepted by
all authors except Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 183, who
called it Basella nigra Lour.; the latter is manifestly a synonym
of B. rubra Linn. The form described by Rumphius as Gandola
alba was placed by Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1752) 390, under
Basella alba Linn., which has very generally been followed by
succeeding authors; it is manifestly the form described by Lin-
naeus as Basella alba Linn., but which is now reduced to B.
rubra Linn., it being manifestly only a variant of that species.
NYMPHAEACEAE
NELUMBIUM Jussieu
NELUMBIUM NELUMBO (Linn.) Druce Bot. Exch. Club (1914) 421.
Nymphaea nelumbo Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 511.
Nelumbium speciosum Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 1258.
Nelumbo javanica Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1798) 454.
Nymphaea indica major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 168, t. 78.
Rumphius gives a good figure of the common lotus, this being
first reduced by Linnaeus to Nymphaea nelumbo Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 1074, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 730. It has been
also cited under Nelumbiwm speciosum Willd., the commonly
accepted name for the species, and Nelumbo javanica Poir.,
a synonym of Nelumbium nelumbo (Linn.) Druce. The several
MENISPERMACEAE 219
color forms mentioned on page 169 probably do not pertain to
the lotus, but to the genus Nymphaea.
NYMPHAEA Linnaeus
NYMPHAEA PUBESCENS Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 1154.
Castalia pubescens Blume Bijdr. (1825) 48.
Nymphaea indica minor | vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 172 p. p.
Nymphaea indica minor III buronica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 173.
There is no representative of this genus in our Amboina
collections. The color forms of Nymphaea indica major Rumph.
are apparently not Nelumbium nelumbo (Linn.) Druce, but are
referable here or in part to Nymphaea stellata Willd. Nymphaea
indica I vulgaris has been referred by various authors to Nym-
phaea lotus Linn., N. pubescens Willd., N. rubra Roxb., and N.
stellata Linn. The description apparently includes both Nym-
phaea pubescens Willd. and N. stellata Willd. Nymphaea indica
II ceramica, the form figured, is Limnanthemum indicum Griseb.
In regard to Nymphaea lotus Linn., the type is manifestly the
African form, the original specimen still existing in the Linnean
herbarium * where it was examined by Conard.; Fl. Zeyl. 194
was wrongly placed here by Linnaeus as a synonym, and is
Nymphaea pubescens Willd.
NYMPHAEA STELLATA Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 1153.
Castalia stellata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 49.
Nymphaea indica minor | vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 172, p. p.
The color forms mentioned by Rumphius, for the most part,
are apparently referable to Nymphaea stellata Willd. rather than
to Nymphaea lotus Linn. As to the propriety of the use of
Nymphaea instead of Castalia as the generic name for the water
lilies, see Conard in Rhodora 18 (1916) 161.
MENISPERMACEAE
PERICAMPYLUS Miers
PERICAMPYLUS GLAUCUS (Lam.) comb. nov.
Menispermum glaucum Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 100 (type!).
Cocculus glaucus DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 521 (type!).
Cocculus incanus Colebr. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 13 (1822) 57, t. 17.
Pericampylus incanus Miers in Ann. Nat. Hist. II 7 (1851) 40; Diels
in Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 217, cum syn.
Folium lunatum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 40, t. 25, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 486, October 18, 1913,
climbing on trees, altitude 200 meters, locally known as binkuang.
* Jackson, B. D. Index to the Linnean Herbarium (1912) 108.
+ Conard, H. S. The water lilies, a monograph of the genus Nymphaea.
Carnegie Inst. Publ. 4 (1905) 194.
220) | RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Linnaeus originally reduced Foliwm lunatum minus Rumph. to
Menispermum carolinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992,
which is a wholly erroneus disposition of it. Willdenow, Sp.
Pl. 42 (1805) 825, with equal error, placed it under Menispermum
cocculus Linn. Lamarck made it the type of Menispermum
glaucum, this species being based wholly on Rumphius’s
description and figure, so that in turn it becomes the type of
Cocculus glaucus DC. and Pericampylus glaucus Merr. Diels
placed Folium lunatum minus Rumph.—Cocculus glaucus. DC.
—Menispermum glaucum Lam. as a probable synonym of Peri-
campylus iwncanus (Colebr.) Miers; Engl. Pflanzenreich 46
(1910) 217. After a careful study of the original description,
figure, and the Amboina material cited above, I am able definitely
to affirm that this is the correct disposition of the above names,
but Lamarck’s specific name being much the oldest is here
adepted.
STEPHANIA Loureiro
STEPHANIA FORSTERI (DC.) A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped.
(1854) 386.
Cocculus forsteri DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 517.
Convolvulus laevis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 482.
AMBOINA, Paso and near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 487, July and October, 1913, in thickets along the seashore.
The identification of Convolvulus laevis III has been made
largely by exclusion, although Rumphius’s description, as far
as it goes, applies unmistakably to the specimen cited above.
Moreover, the species has been previously collected in Amboina
by Dolleschal, and extends from Java to the Philippines, northern
Australia, and Polynesia. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
143, thought that Convolvulus laevis III might be Cyclea peltata
Hook. f. & Th.—Cyclea wallichw Diels, a species extending from
India to the Nicobar and Andaman Islands.
TINOSPORA Miers
TINOSPORA RUMPHII Boerl. in Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1901) 116, excl.
syn. Menispermum crispum Linn. et Cocculus crispus DC.
Funis felleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82, t. 44, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
According to Rumphius’s statement it was an introduced plant
there, perhaps originating in Java. Funis felleus is cited by
Linnaeus in the original description of Menispermum crispum
Linn.=Cocculus crispus DC.=Tinospora crispa Miers; but, while
the plate and figure are quoted correctly, the name is erroneously
MENISPERMACEAE 2?)
cited as Funis quadrangularis, which is the name of the other
species figured on the same plate and which is Cissus quadran-
gularis Linn. The Linnean type was a specimen from Bengal
and is apparently the form described by Diels as Tinospora
crispa.* The form figured by Rumphius differs notably from
the Asiatic one in its orbicular-ovate, prominently cordate leaves,
and Rumphius’s figure agrees perfectly with material derived
from the type plant of Boerlage’s Tinospora rumphi, a specimen
cultivated in the botanical garden at Buitenzorg, Java. I con-
sider that Boerlage was wrong in quoting as synonyms of his
species Menispermum crispum Linn. and Cocculus crispus DC.,
and I am disposed to disagree with Diels in his reduction here
of Tinospora thorelu Gagnep., a cotype of which is before me.
The authority for Tinospora crispa should manifestly be
Miers, the combination being first published by him in Hooker
f. and Thomson’s Flora Indica 1 (1855) 183, not in Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist. II 7 (1851) 38, as frequently cited, and is typified
by Menispermum crispum Linn. Menispermum tuberculatum
Lam., to which Lamarck reduced F'unis felleus Rumph. is pri-
marily only a new name for Menispermum crispum Linn., and
the description was based on a specimen collected by Sonnerat.
If the Linnean species be typified by the reference to Rumphius,
the only literature reference cited, then the name for this broad
and prominently cordate leaved form should be Menispermum
crispum (Linn.) Miers, but if the Linnean species be typified
by the Bengal plant cited, then apparently Boerlage’s name must
be maintained for the Malayan form.
Maccabuhay e Manila Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 287, as to the name,
but not the description, is a species of Tinospora, either T. reticu-
lata Miers or the form characterized by Boerlage as T. rumphit.
The name macabuhay is universally applied in the Philippines
to two forms of Tinospora, but properly to the one with broad,
deeply cordate leaves that has a very bitter principle in its
stems. Rumphius’s descripticn of Maccabuhay e Manila ap-
parently applies to a terrestrial orchid.
ANAMIRTA Colebrooke
ANAMIRTA COCCULUS (Linn.) Wight & Arn. Prodr. 1 (1834) 446.
Menispermum cocculus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 340.
Menispermum lacunosum Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 98 (type!).
Cocculus lacunosus DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 519 (type!).
Tuba baccifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 35, t. 22.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus ori-
* Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 135.
299) RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ginally reduced Tuba baccifera Rumph. to Menispermum
cocculus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1468, which, as Anamirta cocculus (Linn.) W. & A., is certainly
the correct disposition of it. Lamarck made it the type of
Menispermum lacunosum, and in turn it thus became the type
of Cocculus lacunosus DC. The species, a very characteristic
one, is the sole known representative of the genus and extends
from India to the Philippines and southward to New Guinea.
ARCANGELISIA Beccari
ARCANGELISIA FLAVA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Menispermum flavum Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 992 (type!).
Menispermum flavescens Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 98 (type!).
Anamirta flavescens Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 17 (1858) 79 (type!).
Cocculus flavescens DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 520 (type!).
Arcangelisia inclyta Becc. in Malesia 1 (1877) 147.
Anamirta lemniscata Miers in Ann. Nat. Hist. III 14 (1864) 51.
Arcangelisia leminscata Becc. in Malesia 1 (1877) 147; Diels in Engl.
Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 106, f. 38.
Tuba flava Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 38, ¢. 24.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Tuba
flava Rumph. has been confused in recent botanical literature
with Anamirta cocculus Wight & Arn., and several of the above
names are cited as synonyms of Anamirta cocculus (Linn.)
Wight & Arn. in the most recent monograph of the family; *
Menispermum flavum Linn. is not accounted for in this mono-
graph. The first four names cited above are based absolutely
and wholly on Tuba flava Rumph. That Arcangelisia and not
Anamirta is the proper disposition of it is proved by the original
description, leaves 5-nerved at the base, ‘‘autem cordiformia
sed inferius non excavata;’’ by the fruit, size, and other charac-
ters; and especially by the color of the woody tissue, “interne
eleganter flavescunt;” this last character alone being one by
which Arcangelisia can always be distinguished from Anamirta.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 626, cites Tuba flava Rumph. as
a synonym of Fibraurea tinctoria Lour., a valid species, the
type of the genus Fibraura, but one that has little in common
with Arcangelisia. Arcangelisia flava extends from Java to
Luzon and New Guinea, and was collected in Amboina by
Teysmann.
* Diels in Engl. Pflanzenreich 46 (1910) 108.
MAGNOLIACEAE 992
MAGNOLIACEAE
MICHELIA Linnaeus
MICHELIA CHAMPACA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 586.
Michelia suaveolens Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 94.
Michelia parviflora DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449? (type!).
Michelia caerulea DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449? (type!).
Michelia blumei Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 2 (1841) 139.
Michelia euonymoides Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 124, p. p.
Sampacca domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 199, t. 67.
Sampacca II parviflora Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200?
Sampacca III coerulea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200?
The common champaca is not represented in our Amboina
collections. Sampacca domestica was described and figured by
Rumphius from cultivated specimens and is certainly typical
Michelia champaca Linn. It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121;
while in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1082, Sampacca silvestris
Rumph., Il. c. t. 68, is added; see below under Michelia tsiampacca
Linn. Michelia suaveolens Pers. is merely a new name for M.
champaca Linn., while M. blumez Steud. was proposed as a new
name for Michelia champaca Blume, which, however, is typical
M. champaca Linn. The doubtful synonyms mentioned above,
both of de Candolle and of Rumphius, must await further
exploration of the Malayan region before they can be definitely
placed. Michelia parviflora DC. was based wholly on Sampacca
parviflora Rumph., which is very briefly described by Rumphius
from Ternate specimens as being similar to his Sampacca
domestica, but with smaller flowers; it is probably merely a form
of M. champaca Linn. Michelia caerulea DC. was based wholly
on Sampacca coerulea Rumph., also very briefly described from
Javan specimens similar to Sampacca domestica, but with bluish
flowers; the Javan name cited is tsjampacca biru, and it is
probably merely a form of the common Michelia champaca Linn.
MICHELIA ALBA DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 449 (type!).
Michelia longifolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 7.
Sampacca domestica IV alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 200.
Michelia alba DC. was based wholly on Sampacca alba Rumph.,
which in turn was described from the white-flowered cultivated
form known in Java as tsjampacca puti. Michelia longtfoliu
Blume is unquestionably the same form, but de Candolle’s name
is the older and is here retained.
224 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MICHELIA TSIAMPAGCA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 78 (type!).
Sampacca silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 202. t. 68.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
It was described by Rumphius from sylvan specimens growing
in Amboina, having white flowers. It is probably allied to
Michelia montana Blume. The Rumphian reference seems to be
the basis of Michelia tsiampacca Linn., but the plate was origin-
ally referred by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082, to Michelia
champaca Linn. By other authors it has been referred to
Michelia suaveolens Pers., M. sericea Pers., and M. euonymoides
Burm. f., all of which appear to be synonyms of Michelia cham-
paca Linn. The native Amboinese name cited by Rumphius is
tsjampacca utan or tsyampacca puti, and botanical material from
Amboina will be necessary before the exact status of the species
can be determined.
TALAUMA Jussieu
TALAUMA RUMPHII Blume Bijdr. (1825) 10 (type!).
Liriodendron lilufera Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 755 (type!) non
Talauma liluifera Kurz.
Sampacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 204, t. 69 haud Arbor
violaria Rumph. 1. c. 203!
Not represented in our Amboina collections, but manifestly
a Talauma. Sampacca montana Rumph. is the whole basis of
Liriodendron -lilifera Linn., but Talauma lilufera Kurz was
based on Liriodendron lilufera Roxb., non Linn., so that the
Linnean specific name is invalid in Talauma. The Rumphian
plant is also the whole basis of Talauma rumphi Blume, but
the species, as yet not represented by any botanical material
definitely known to represent the Rumphian plant, is one of
doubtful status. Sampacca montana was referred, with doubt,
to Magnolia pumila Andr. by de Candolle, Syst. 1 (1818) 458,
and it certainly is not this species, nor is it Magnolia inodora
DC. 1. c. 459, which was based on Liriodendron lilufera Lour.,
Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 346; Loureiro’s species ‘was based on
specimens from Canton, China, to which he added a reference
to Sampacca montana Rumph.
Arbor violaria Rumph., Herb. Amb. 2: 203, as described, is
entirely different from Sampacca montana Rumph. 1. ce. 204,
t. 69, as described and figured; the plate goes with Sampacca
montana, not with Arbor violaria Rumph. It has been assumed
by some that the descriptions applied to the same plant, but
Arbor violaria was described from cultivated specimens from
Banda Island, while Sampacca montana was described from
y
;
ANNONACEAE 295
sylvan specimens collected in Amboina. The descriptions apply
to totally different plants, and I am unable to suggest the proper
position of Arbor violaria.
ANNONACEAE
UVARIA Linnaeus
UVARIA MUSARIA (Dunal). DC. Mém. Anon. (1882) 29 (type!).
Unona musaria Dunal Monogr. Anon. (1817) 100 (type!).
Uvaria moluccana Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5 (18386) 1707
(type!).
Funis musarius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 78, ¢. 42.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe and Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 79,
September and October, 1913, in flower, growing in forests, altitude 60 to
200 meters; Liang, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 479, November 29, 1913,
in thickets at sea level, with nearly full-grown but immature fruits.
Uvaria musaria (Dunal) DC. has been previously known only
from the Rumphian figure and description, this being the whole
basis of Unona musaria Dunal, Uvaria musaria DC., and Uvaria
moluccana Kostel. In vegetative and floral characters it closely
approximates Uvaria rosenbergiana Scheff., of New Guinea.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 124, followed by Lamarck, Willdenow,
Persoon, Poiret, and Pritzel, erroneously reduced Funis musarius
latifolius Rumph. to Uvaria zeylanica Linn.; Blume, Fl. Jav.
1 (1828) Anon. 22, equally in error, placed it under Uvaria
hirsuta Blume; and Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 9, placed
it under Uvaria macrophylla Roxb. Uvaria musaria (Dunal)
DC. seems to be a perfectly valid species, in the alliance with
Uvaria rosenbergiana Scheff., U. littoralis Blume, and U. ovali-
folia Blume, differing radically, however, in its slightly pubescent
leaves and in its elongated puberulent fruits. Uvaria pilosa
Roxb., type from the Moluccas, should be critically compared.
UVARIA sp.
Funis musarius angustifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 78.
The exact status of this form is indeterminable without ma-
terial from Amboina. Dunal, Monog. Anon. (1817) 99, reduced
it, with doubt, to Unona narum Dunal, a species typified by
Narum-panel Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 2:11, ¢. 9. Blume, FI.
Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 24, thought that it might be Uvaria argen-
tea Blume, while Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 9, placed it,
with doubt, under Uvaria grandiflora Roxb.
UVARIA sp.
Funis dentarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 79.
Like the preceding, this cannot be definitely placed within
144971——15
296 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
the genus Uvaria without additional material from Amboina.
It is undoubtedly a species of Uvaria, and it has been suggested
as a possible synonym of Uvaria littoralis Blume or U. latifolia
Blume; see Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 97. The form very
briefly mentioned by Rumphius as Funis dentarius niger, Herb.
Amb. 5: 79, represents either the same species as Funis dentarius
Rumph. or a closely allied one.
CANANGIUM Baillon
CANANGIUM ODORATUM (Lam.) Baill. ex King in Journ. As. Soe.
Beng. 61° (1892) 41.
Uvaria odorata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 595.
Unona odorata Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 108.
Cananga odorata Hook. f. & Th. Fl. Ind. 1 (1855) 180.
Cananga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 195, t. 65.
AMBOINA, Elephant River, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 80, July 19, 1918,
locally known as bunga kanangan.
Lamarck’s original description was primarily based on speci-
mens collected by Sonnerat, Cananga Rumph. being reduced as
a synonym. In this reduction, as Canangium odoratum Baill.,
certainly the correct disposition of it, he was followed by
Willdenow, Persoon, Blume, Spanoghe, and Roxburgh. Dunal
cites Cananga as a synonym of Unona odorata Dun. in transfer-
ring the species to that genus. Cananga Hook. f.:& Thomson
(1855), the generic name from Rumphius, is invalidated by
Cananga Aubl. (1775), for which reason Baillon has proposed
the new generic name Canangium, Hist. Pl. 1 (1868) 213, but
Baillon did not actually transfer the species to this genus, this
being apparently first accomplished by King. In the more recent
literature Cananga Rumph. is generally cited under the name
Canangium odoratum Baill., in the somewhat older literature,
after the year 1855, under Cananga odorata Hook. f. & Th.
Pritzel and Burman f. are wrong in referring it to Uvaria zey-
lanica Linn., which is a true Uvaria, known only from India and
Ceylon. |
POLYALTHIA Blume
POLYALTHIA sp.
Uvaria ligularis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 597 (type!).
Unona ligularis Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 110 (type!).
Cananga silvestris I] angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 197, t. 66,
fi:
Nothing remotely resembling this occurs in our Amboina collec-
tions. The figure and the description apply very closely to
ANNONACEAE 997
Polyalthia lateriflora (Blume) King, a species originally de-
scribed from Javan material, now known from the Malay
Peninsula and Java, and the very closely allied Polyalthia
zamboangensis Merr., of Mindanao. Cananga silvestris II angus-
tifolia Rumph. is the whole basis of Uvaria ligularis Lam. and
of Unona ligularis Dunal, and Lamarck’s specific name may
prove to be the oldest for the plant now known as Polyalthia
lateriflora King. In the absence of material from Amboina re-
presenting Rumphius’s species, however, it is considered advis-
able to defer the actual transfer of Uvaria ligularis Lam. to —
Polyalthia, although the species manifestly belongs in the latter
genus. Linnaeus reduced it, by error, to Uvaria zeylanica Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
121, including also Cananga silvestris I trifolia, which is figured
on the same plate, but neither of which remotely resembles
Uvaria zeylanica Linn., a species known only from India and
Ceylon.
POLYALTHIA sp.
Guatteria rumphi Blume ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 153
(type!).
Arbor nigra parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 10, 11, t. 4, f. 2; t. 5.
The plant figured and described is certainly a Polyalthia, but
its status cannot be definitely settled without material from Am-
boina. It is the whole basis of Guatteria rumphu Blume as
published by Henschel, by citation of Rumphius, as indicated
above, a name that has been entirely overlooked, and one that
is not included in Index Kewensis. Linnaeus reduced, with
doubt, both ¢. 4 and t. 5 to Uvaria zeylanica Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 11, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, but neither
figure presents anything in common with this species. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 46, quotes Teysmann’s opinion that Arbor ,
nigra parvifolia Rumph. represented Artabotrys suaveolens
Blume, a species with which neither the description nor the
figure agrees.
Arbor nigra maculosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 12, t. 4, f. 1, is
probably one of the Annonaceae, possibly a species of Polyalthia.
It is certainly not Artabotrys odoratissimus Blume, where it
was placed by Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 153.
Arbor nigra latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 12, is probably some
annonaceous plant, but its status must await a more exhaustive
botanical exploration of Amboina. No reduction of it has ever
been suggested.
228 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
GONIOTHALAMUS Hooker f. and Thomson
GONIOTHALAMUS sp.
Uvaria tripetala Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 597 (type!).
Unona tripetaloidea Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 104 (type!).
Unona tripetala DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 90 (type!).
Cananga silvestris | trifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 197, t. 66, f. 1.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
species, as described and figured by Rumphius, is apparently
a very characteristic one, and Amboina material representing
it, when collected, should be connected with it with little dif-
ficulty. Cananga silvestris I trifolia Rumph. is the whole basis
of the three names Uvaria tripetala Lam., Unona tripetaloidea
Dunal, and U. tripetala DC. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808)
187, referred it to Unona discolor Dunal=Desmos chinensis
Lour., an impossible reduction; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 40, thought that it might be a species of Artabotrys,
also an impossible reduction. As the three inner petals are de-
scribed as much smaller than the outer three and as surrounding
or covering the stamens, it is probable that Goniothalamus is its
correct genus, as here tentatively suggested. However, no
actual transfer is here made, as the exact status of the species
must await further botanical exploration of Amboina.
ARTABOTRYS R. Brown
ARTABOTRYS SUAVEOLENS Blume FI. Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 62.
Spina vaccarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 21, t. 14.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Spina vaccarum Rumph. was reduced by Blume to Artabotrys
suaveolens Blume in the original description of that species,
and the figure is apparently a good representation of it as
currently interpreted. All authors have followed Blume in this
“reduction, the species being one of very wide distribution in
the Malayan region. When Amboina material is available for
study, however, it should be critically compared with Artabotrys
inodorus Zipp. of New Guinea.
MELODORUM Hooker f. and Thomson
MELODORUM LATIFOLIUM (Dunal) Hook. f. & Th. Fl. Ind. (1855) 115,
saltem quoad syn.
Unona latifolia Dunal Monog. Anon. (1817) 115 (type!).
Uvaria latifolia Blume Fl. Jav. 1 (1828) Anon. 37.
Cananga silvestris III latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 198.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Unona
latifolia Dunal, as originally published, was based wholly on
MYRISTICACEAE 229
Rumphius’s description of Cananga silvestris III latifolia, and
Blume redescribed it from Javan material as Uvaria latifolia
Blume, followed by Hooker f. and Thomson, Miquel, and King,
as Melodorum latifoliwm (Dunal) Hook. f. & Th. It is probable
that Melodorum latifoliwm Hook. f. & Th., as described in
modern botanical literature, is the same as the form described by
Rumphius, the original basis of the species; yet no botanical
material from Amboina representing the species as it is at
present understood seems to be extant, and the exact status of
Unona latifolia Dunal must await further botanical exploration
of Amboina.
~ ANNONA Linnaeus
ANNONA RETICULATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 587.
Anona Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 186, t. 45.
This commonly cultivated fruit tree is not represented in our
Amboina collections, but like the next, it doubtless still occurs
there, as both are widely distributed in the Malayan region.
Anona Rumph. was first reduced to Annona reticulata Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1083, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 757, which is
certainly the correct disposition of it. De Candolle, Syst. 1
(1818) 474, placed it under Annona mucosa Aubl.=Rollinia mu-
cosa Baill., in this erroneous reduction being followed by Don,
Henschel, Dietrich, and Pritzel.
ANNONA SQUAMOSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 537.
Anona tuberosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 188, t. 46.
Like the above, this commonly cultivated plant is not repre-
sented in our Amboina collections. Anona tuberosa Rumph.
was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119; this reduction has been con-
sistently followed by most authors and is certainly the correct
disposition of the species.
MYRISTICACEAE
MYRISTICA * Linnaeus
MYRISTICA FRAGRANS Houtt. Handleid. 2° (1774) 388.
Myristica officinalis Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 265.
Myristica moschata Thunb. Act. Holm. (1782) 45.
Myristica aromatica Lam. Act. Paris (1788) 155.
Nux myristica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 14, t. 4.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati and Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 245,
246, August and October, 1913, from cultivated plants, altitude 50 to 60
meters, locally known as pala.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Quret Adans. (1768) is older.
230 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Nux myristica Rumph. has been cited by various authors under
all of the names listed above. Rumphius described five forms,
all apparently merely variants of the common nutmeg, although
Miquel referred Pala radja Rumph. to Myristica radja Miq.,
Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1864) 206. Warburg, Nov. Act.
Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 4538, considers the plant that Miquel
described to be Myristica speciosa Warb., not M. fragrans
Houtt.
MYRISTICA FATUA Houtt. Handleid 2° (1774) 337.
Myristica tomentosa Thunb. Act. Holm. (1782) 46.
Myristica spadicea Blume Bijdr. (1825) 577.
Myristica macrophylla Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 846.
Nux myristica mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 24, ft. 5.
Nothing resembling Myristica fatua Houtt., as currently
interpreted, occurs in our Amboina collections. Nux myristica
mas has been referred by various authors to Myristica fatua
Houtt., M. tomentosa Thunb., M. officinalis Gaertn., M. philip-
pensis Lam., M. malabarica Lam., and M. moschata Thunb., the
reductions in all but the two cases first cited being erroneous.
The species is a well-known one, occurring in Banda, Amboina,
Tidore, and (?) Buru, and is cultivated in the botanic garden
at Buitenzorg, Java.
HORSFIELDIA Willdenow
HORSFIELDIA SYLVESTRIS (Houtt.) Warb. in Nov. Act. Acad. Naturf.
68 (1897) 337, t. 12, f. 1-6.
Myristica sylvestris Houtt. Handl. 2° (1774) 326.
Myristica salicifolia Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 871.
Myristica pinnaeformis Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2 (1865) 49.
Palala secunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 26, t. 6 (poor).
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph Amb. 235, November 1,
1918, in forested ravines, altitude about 100 meters.
The Rumphian figure and description are perhaps the type of
Myristica sylvestris Houtt. (original publication not seen by me) ;
Myristica salicifolia Willd. is merely a new name for M. sylves-
tris Houtt.
HORSFIELDIA CANARIFORMIS (Blume) comb. nov.
Myristica canariformis Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 190 (type!).
Horsfieldia roxburghii Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897)
DT ME poets 122.
Palala quarta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 27, t. 8.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 240, November 1,
1913, in forests, altitude about 175 meters.
MYRISTICACEAE 2b
Palala quarta Rumph. is the whole basis of Myristica canari-
formis Blume, which Warburg thought was a possible synonym
of Horsfieldia nesophila (Miq.) Warb. I am of the opinion,
however, that it is identical with the Amboina form described by
Warburg as Horsfieldia roxburghii and accordingly have here
adopted Blume’s specific name. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4 (1805)
871, considered that it represented a variety of Myristica micro-
carpa Willd., whatever that species may be, but it is certainly
not properly placed here.
HORSFIELDIA sp.
Myristica tingens Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 190 (type!).
Palala tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 27, t. 7.
According to Rumphius’s description and figure this is a very
characteristic species, but nothing in our Amboina collections
can be referred to it. Palala tertia Rumph. is the whole basis of
Myristica tingens Blume, but no new combination is here made
in view of the uncertain status of that species. Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 871, referred it to Myristica microcarpa Willd.,
which is perhaps the oldest valid specific name for the species.
Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 391, placed it with doubt under
Myristica uviformis Lam., but Lamarck’s species is not a myris-
ticaceous plant, and Warburg has suggested that it belongs in
the Huphorbiaceae. The status of Myristica microcarpa Willd.
is entirely doubtful, for I cannot agree with Warburg that it
is a synonym of Knema cinerea Warb. Incidentally the type of
Knema cinerea (Poir.) Warb. certainly did not come from the
Philippines as Warburg states, for LaBillardiére never visited
the Archipelago. Buton, as spelled by him, and Bouton, as
spelled by Poiret in the original description, probably refer to
Boeton Island, near the southern end of Celebes.
HORSFIELDIA sp.
Myristica aruana Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 191 (type!).
Palala aruana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 56, t. 24, f. 2.
A species of doubtful status, probably, however, a Horsfieldia.
Myristica aruana Blume was based wholly on Palala aruana
Rumph. and accordingly must be interpreted solely from Rumph-
ius’s description and crude figure. If Warburg is correct in
reducing Myristica aruana Blume to Horsfieldia novo-guineensis
Warb., then Blume’s specific name should be adopted for the
Species unless one considers it invalidated by the distinct Hors-
fieldia aruensis Warb.
232 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
GYMNACRANTHERA Warburg
GYMNACRANTHERA ZIPPELIANA (Miq.) Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad.
Naturf. 68 (1897) 372.
Myristica zippeliana Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2 (1865) 50.
Palala quinta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 28, ft. 9.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 289, October 18,
1918, in forests, altitude about 450 meters, locally known as palala utan.
Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 871, considered Palala quinta
Rumph. to be a variety of Myristica microcarpa Willd., while
Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 388, placed it with doubt under
Myristica globularia Lam. Lamarck’s species was based on
specimens collected by Sonnerat and is Knema globularia Warb.
There is little doubt that the specimen cited above represents
Palala quinta Rumph., and it is certainly a Gymnacranthera,
probably G. zippeliana Warb., although this species has not been
previously reported from Amboina.
KNEMA Loureiro
KNEMA TOMENTELLA Warb. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 68 (1897) 588,
$125. of. 152.
Palala sexta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 28.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Waé, and Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 236,
237, 288, September to November, 1913, in forests, altitude 20 to 350
meters, locally known as palala utan.
Palala sexta Rumph. is, with little doubt, the same as Knema
tomentella Warb. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 26, sug-
gested that it might be the same as Myristica corticosa Hook. f.
& Th., which Warburg interprets as being composed of Knema
angustifolia Warb., K. glauca Warb., and K. missionis Warb.
LAURACEAE
CINNAMOMUM Linnaeus
CINNAMOMUM CULILAWAN Blume Bijdr. (1825) 571, Rumphia 1 (1835)
26.4. 9.4.1. 7
Laurus culitlawan Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 120 (type!).
Laurus culilaban Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 237 (type!).
Cortex caryophylloides albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 65, t. 14.
Culit Lawan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65.
The Rumphian figure and description of Cortex caryophy-
lloides albus are the whole basis of both Laurus culitlawan Linn.
and L. culilaban Linn., but Cinnamomum culilawan Blume was
published independently of the Linnean binomials. Blume gives
an ample description and figures from Amboina material;
LAURACEAE 933
however, he definitely excludes the figure of the inflorescence as
given by Rumphius, which he apparently thought went with
Cinnamomum caryophylloides ruber Rumph.
CINNAMOMUM CULILAWAN Blume var. RUBRUM (Blume) Meissn. in
DC. Prodr. 15* (1864) 14.
Cinnamomum rubrum Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 29.
Cinnamomum caryophylloides ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 66.
Blume based his description of Cinnamomum rubrum partly on
the form described by Rumphius above cited, which Meisner
considers to be a variety of Cinnamomum culilawan Blume.
CINNAMOMUM XANTHONEURUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1825) 33.
Culitlawan ex Papuanis et Moluccis insulis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 66.
This follows Blume’s reduction of the form Rumphius de-
scribed, which is probably the correct disposition of it.
CINNAMOMUM JAVANICUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 42.
Sindoc Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 69.
The reduction of Sindoc follows Blume’s disposition of it. The
form Rumphius described was placed by Burman f. under Laurus
malabathrum Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 92, based in part on
a species figured and described by Rheede, and in part on Sindoc
of Rumphius, to be typified by the former. Miquel placed it
under Cinnamomum sulphuratum Nees; Henschel placed it under
Cinnamomum sintoc Blume; and Nees followed Blume in re-
ducing it to Cinnamomum javanicum Blume.
CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA (Linn.) T. Nees & Eberm. Handb. Med.-
Pharm. Bot. 2 (1831) 480.
Laurus camphora Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 369.
Arbor camphorifera | vera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65, 68.
The general discussion is manifestly in part applicable to
the true camphor tree, Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees & Eberm.
CINNAMOMUM spp. indet.
Laurus japanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64.
Cinnamomum japanicum I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64.
Cinnamomum zeylanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64.
These three forms, imperfectly described, are manifestly ref-
erable to the genus Cinnamomum, but it is impossible to deter-
mine just which species were intended. The first was placed by
Henschel under Laurus soncaurium Ham.=Cinnamomum tamala
T. Nees & Eberm., of the Himalayan region, certainly a wrong
disposition of it; the second was thought by Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 192, to be possibly referable to Cinnamomum
dulce Nees; and the third was placed by Hasskarl under Cinna-
234 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
momum zeylanicum Nees, which is perhaps the correct disposi-
tion of it.
DEHAASIA Blume
DEHAASIA MEDIA Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 163, t. 45.
Haasia media Nees Syst. Laur. (1886) 375.
Machilus l1! media Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 70, t. 41.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Blume’s
ample description and figure were based on Amboina material,
and his disposition of Machilus media Rumph. is doubtless cor-
rect, Rumphius’s description and figure being cited in the orig-
inal description of the species. Nees, Syst. Laur. (1836) 1285,
thought that it might be Persea peduncularis Nees, and it was
cited by Henschel as Machilus peduncularis Nees.
MACHILUS Nees
MACHILUS sp.?
Machilus 1V minima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 70, t. 42.
Nothing resembling the plant figured and described is pre-
sented by our Amboina collections, but a species of Machilus,
as interpreted by Meisner, is probably intended. The generic
name Machilus of Nees is taken from Rumphius. Loureiro,
Fl]. Cochinch. (1790) 258, referred Machilus minima with doubt
to Laurus indica Linn., an entirely wrong disposition of it. Nees
thought that the figure represented Machilus odoratissima Nees,
Syst. Laur. (1836) 172, and repeated the reduction in DC. Prodr.
15' (1864) 40. It is certainly not Machilus odoratissima Nees
and may ultimately prove to belong to some other genus. It is
possibly a species of Phoebe rather than of Machilus.
EUSIDEROXYLON Teysmann and Binnindyck
EUSIDEROXYLON ZWAGERI Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl.
Ind. 25 (18638) 292.
Lontaro simile lignum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 52.
Rumphius includes only a brief description of the Bornean
wood which he calls caju boelian; the identification has been
made from the native name cited, billian being the common name
for this important Bornean timber tree.
LITSEA* Lamarck
LITSEA RUMPHI!I (Blume) F.-Vill. Noviss. App. Fl. Filip. (1880) 180.
Tetranthera rumphii Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 382.
Lignum leve alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 72, t. 45.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Malapoenna Adans. (1763) and Tomex
Thumb. (1788) are older.
LAURACEAE 235
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The reduction
was made by Blume in the original description of T'etranthera
rumphu Blume, and this is presumably the correct disposition
of the Rumphian species; Blume apparently had a specimen from
Amboina, judging from his short and imperfect description.
Nees thought that it was a species of Tetranthera near T. mono-
petala Roxb.
LITSEA sp.
Glabraria tersa Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 276, quoad syn. Rumph.
Lignum leve angustifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 71, t. 44.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The plant that
Rumphius figured and described is manifestly a species of Litsea,
apparently in the group with Litsea fulva F.-Vill. and Litsea
luzonica F.-Vill. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 3838, placed it
as a possible synonym of Tetranthera forstenii Blume—Litsea
forstenui Boerl. Its exact status, however, cannot be determined
without Amboina material. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 276,
quoted Lignum leve angustifolium Rumph. as a synonym of
Intsea tersa Linn. in the original description of that species.
It is clearly manifest, however, from the description, that he had
an actual specimen, and it is equally manifest that the plant he
described is not the same as the one figured and described by
Rumphius. The specimen in the Linnean herbarium has been
examined for me by Mr. Gamble, who writes under date of June
17, 1917, that it is a polypetalous plant, probably belonging
in the Bombacaceae near the genus Boschia Korth. Glabraria
Linnaeus must, accordingly, be eliminated as a synonym of
Litsea. Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 4, following Linnaeus’s errone-
ous reduction of Lignum leve angustifolium, quotes it as a
synonym of Litsea glabraria Pers., as does Nees under Tetran-
thera glabraria Nees; these names, however, go with Litsea gluti-
nosa (Lour.) C. B. Rob. (L. chinensis Lam., L. sebifera Pers.),
as does Litsea tersa Merr. (non Glabraria tersa Linn.).
LITSEA STICKMANII sp. nov.
Lignum leve latifolium Rumph..Herb. Amb. 3: 71, t. 43.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen and Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 470, 471
(type), November 1 and 25, 1918, in forests and along roadsides, altitude
3 to 200 meters, locally known as halaor pantey.
Arbor 10 ad 12 m alta, inflorescentiis exceptis glabra; foliis ©
oblongis, firme chartaceis, usque ad 20 cm longis, utrinque
aequaliter angustatis, basi acutis, apice acutis vel obscure acu-
minatis, supra subolivaceis, subtus pallidis, nervis utrinque
circiter 8, subtus prominentibus, curvato-adscendentibus, re-
ticulis distinctis; inflorescentiis axillaribus, fasciculatis, umbel-
236 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
lulis circiter 6-floris, longe graciliterque pedunculatis, floribus
pubescentibus.
A tree 10 to 12 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence.
Branches and branchlets brownish, the latter more or less angled.
Leaves alternate, oblong, firmly chartaceous, 12 to 20 cm long,
3.5 to 5.5 cm wide, equally narrowed to the acute base and
to the acute or obscurely acuminate apex, the upper surface more
or less olivaceous when dry, smooth and shining, the lower pale;
lateral nerves about 8 on each side of the midrib, prominent on
the lower surface, curved-ascending, obscurely anastomosing,
the ultimate reticulations fine, rather close; petioles about 1
em long. -Flowers axillary, the umbellules fascicled, their pe-
duncles slender, slightly pubescent, about 1 cm long, each about
6-flowered. Bracts obovate to elliptic-obovate, rounded, con-
cave, pubescent, 3.5 to 4 mm long. Flowers appressed-pubes-
cent, their pedicels 2 to 3 mm long, the lobes oblong, 2 mm in
length. Fruit unknown, when very young one to three on
each peduncle.
This species is apparently allied to the form Blume described -
as Tetranthera ambigua Blume (not Litsea ambigua Nees), but
differs in its smaller leaves, glabrous branchlets, and other
characters. It certainly represents Lignum leve latifoliwm
Rumph. It is dedicated to O. Stickman, author of the first
publication on the Herbarium Amboinense.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 471, erroneously referred Lig-
num leve latifolium Rumph. to Glabraria tersa Linn., followed
by Blume’s reference of it to Tetranthera laurifolia Jacq. var.
tersa (Linn.) Blume, with which it has nothing in common.
Nees, in DC. Prodr. 15: (1864) 180, placed it, with doubt, under
Tetranthera laurifolia Jacq. var. saligna Nees, where it certainly
does not belong.
LITSEA sp.
Machilus I! femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 69, t. 40, f. B.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 469, September
30, 1913, in forests, altitude about 300 meters.
The specimen cited certainly represents the form described
by Rumphius, of which he figures a single leaf. There is nothing
in the figure by which Machilus I mas can be distinguished from
Machilus femina, and it certainly represents a species of Litsea
perhaps not distinct from the one here considered. The only
previous suggestion as to the identity of Machilus I mas Rumph.,
Herb. Amb. 3: 68, t. 40, is Teysmann’s opinion, quoted by Hass-
LAURACEAE 927
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, that it belongs in the Lauraceae,
and of Machilus II femina Rumph. that it might be a species of
Haasia, which is certainly a wrong disposition of it.
NEOLITSEA Merrill
NEOLITSEA AMBOINENSIS sp. nov.
Machilus angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 60, ¢. 27, f. 1.
AMBOINA, between Soja and Hatalai, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 606
(type), October 24, 1918, in light forests, altitude about 350 meters.
Arbor circiter 9 m alta, ramulis junioribus inflorescentiisque
pubescentibus; foliis verticillatis vel subverticillatis, glabris,
oblongo-lanceolatis ad oblongo-ellipticis, usque ad 12 cm longis,
utrinque subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis, vix triplinervis,
apice tenuiter acuminatis, nervis utrinque circiter 5, curvato-
adscendentibus, subtus prominentibus; fructibus junioribus
ovoideis, in siccitate nigris, nitidis, circiter 6 mm diametro.
A tree about 9 m high, the young branchlets and inflorescences
pubescent. Branches slender, terete, grayish, the younger ones
reddish-brown, smooth, glabrous, tips of the branchlets rather
densely appressed-pubescent. Leaves coriaceous, subverticillate
or verticillate at the ends of the branchlets, oblong-lanceolate
to oblong-elliptic, 7 to 12 cm long, 2.5 to 3.5 em wide, subequally
narrowed to the acute base and to the rather slenderly and
sharply acuminate apex, the upper surface subolivaceous, smooth
and shining, the lower slightly paler, sometimes somewhat
glaucous, glabrous, or the midrib sometimes sparingly pubescent,
the base scarcely triplinerved; lateral nerves about 5 on each
side of the midrib, curved-ascending, scarcely anastomosing,
prominent on the lower surface, the ultimate reticulations close.
rather indistinct; petioles more or less pubescent, 5 to 7 mm
long. Flowers not seen. Infructescences in the axils of fallen
leaves, fascicled, the pedicels and persistent calyx ferruginous-
villous, the pedicels rather stout, about 5 mm long. Young fruit
ovoid, about € mm in diameter, glabrous, black and shining
when dry.
A species in the group with Neolitsea triplinervia (Blume)
(Litsea triplinervia Blume), and Neolitsea cassiaefolia (Blume)
Litsea cassiaefolia Blume), but the leaves not prominently tri-
plinerved as in these two Javan species, in fact they are strictly
penninerved, the lower pair being no longer than the next pair
above.
The species is, with very little doubt, Machilus angustifolia
Rumph. Rumphius’s description applies closely, but the figure
938 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
is poor and presents the leaves relatively much narrower than in
the species as here interpreted. Henschel and Pritzel erro-
neously reduced Machilus angustifolia Rumph. to Tetranthera
angustifolia Wall.—Actinodaphne angustifolia Nees.
ACTINODAPHNE Nees
ACTINODAPHNE RUMPHI!I Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 344.
Arbor spiculorum aeruginea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 167, t. 106.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Blume made this reduction of the Rumphian illustration in the
original description of Actinodaphne rumphu Blume, which was
based on material from the Moluccas, probably Amboina. He
cites the Rumphian name as Arbor spiculorum angustifolia, but
the figure manifestly goes with the form called by Rumphius
Arbor spiculorum aeruginea.
ACTINODAPHNE MOLUCCANA Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1851) 344 (type!).
Arbor spiculorum latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 167.
A species of very doubtful status, based wholly on Rumphius’s
description. The third form described by Rumphius in this
chapter as Arbor spiculorum angustifolia brevifolia is entirely
doubtful, but is probably a lauraceous plant.
CRYPTOCARYA R. Brown
CRYPTOCARYA sp.?
Lauraster amboinensis maxima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 70, t. 15.
Nothing resembling this is presented in our Amboina collec-
tions. The species described and figured by Rumphius is cer-
tainly a lauraceous plant and is probably a Cryptocarya, judging
from the rather crude figure. Local names cited by Rumphius
are leytun, hiber, hiyr, ittir, ayhoo-ittil, and ley itir, so that
it is very probable that the species can later be located through
one of the above names. The form described in the same
chapter as Lauraster amboinensis minor probably represents an
entirely different species, possibly also a Cryptocarya,; its status
is quite uncertain and cannot be determined from data at present
available.
MASSOIA Beccari
MASSOIA AROMATICA Becc. in d’Albertis New Guinea 2 (1880) 398.
Cortex oninius s. massoy Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 62.
The reduction has been made from the characters given by
Rumphius and the name massoy cited by him. The status of.
HERNANDIACEAE 239
Massoia as a genus is very uncertain. The form described by
Rumphius as Cortex oninius II may or may not be the same as
Massoia aromatica Becc.; Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 28,
cites it under Cinnamomum kaimis Nees.
CASSYTHA Linnaeus
CASSYTHA FILIFORMIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 365.
Calodium cochinchinensis Lour. Fl]. Cochinch. (1790) 247.
Cussuta s. cussutha indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 491, t. 184, f. 4.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 472, September 4, 1913,
along the seashore.
This reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 138, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
862, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 531, and this is manifestly the correct
disposition of Cussutha indica Rumph. Calodiwm cochinchin-
ensis Lour., under which Loureiro cited the Rumphian descrip-
tion and illustration, is a synonym of Cassytha jfiiformis Linn.
HERNANDIACEAE
HERNANDIA Plumier
HERNANDIA OVIGERA Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1264, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768)
1392 (type!).
Arbor ovigera femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 198, t. 122.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 476, a single specimen separated
from No. 477, Hernandia peltata Meisn.
This represents the form figured by Rumphius and the one
described as Arbor ovigera femina. The Linnean species is
typified by the Rumphian figure and description, Hernandia
ovigera Linn. being based wholly on Arbor ovigera t. 122.
HERNANDIA PELTATA Meisn. in DC. Prodr. 15* (1864) 268.
Arbor ovigera mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 198.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 477, August 8, 1913, along the
seashore near the town of Amboina, locally known as mata ipang or mata
tkang.
The form described by Rumphius as Arbor ovigera mas is un-
mistakably Hernandia peltata Meisn., the leaves being definitely
described as peltate. It is strongly suspected that Hernandia
peltata Meisn. is not specifically distinct from Hernandia ovigera
Linn., but is merely a form with peltate leaves. It is assumed
that the specimen cited under Hernandia ovigera Linn. and the
one cited under H. peltata Meisn. came from the same tree.
PAOD RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CRUCIFERAE
NASTURTIUM * R. Brown
NASTURTIUM INDICUM (Linn.) DC. Syst. 2 (1821) 199.
Sisymbrium indicum Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 98.
Sinapi indigenum s. amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 282.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 268,
July 19, 1913, in and near ditches.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 121, has suggested that this
is a species of Sinapis; but from Rumphius’s brief description,
the indicated habitat, and the note that it has no economic use,
it is evident that Nasturtium is the plant intended.
BRASSICA (Tourn.) Linnaeus
BRASSICA JUNCEA (Linn.) Coss. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 6 (1859) 609.
Sinapis juncea Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 668.
Sinapi sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 282.
AMBOINA, Titauuku, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 405, October 8, 1918,
in cleared places, altitude about 120 meters, locally known as susawi
ambon and rumput china blanda.
This specimen I take to be typical Brassica juncea Coss., the
ordinary form that is widely distributed in the Malay Archipel-
ago. The plant, or plants, actually described by Rumphius, are,
however, the cultivated forms of Chinese origin, which appear
to be forms of Brassica pekinensis (Lour.) Skeels (Sinapis
pekinensis Lour.). Rumphius indicates two forms, under the
names album and nigrum. It seems very probable that this
commonly cultivated Chinese form is but a horticultural variety
of Brassica juncea Coss.
CAPPARIDACEAE
POLANISIA Rafinesque
POLANISIA VISCOSA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 242.
Cleome viscosa Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 672.
Lagansa alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 280, t. 96, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Liang, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 412, November 29, 1913,
along roadsides, at low altitudes, locally known as lagansa.
This common weed was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Cardaminium Moench (1794), and
Baeumerta Gaertn. (1800) are older.
Sa -
MORINGACEAE PAL
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 180,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1187, to Cleome icosandra Linn., but the
plant described as Lagansa alba is manifestly the form com-
monly known as Polanisia viscosa (Linn.) DC. In the descrip-
tion of the plate figure 2 is connected with Lagansa alba, but
it is apparent that the figures are reversed between Lagansa
alba and Lagansa rubra.
GYNANDROPSIS * de Candolle
GYNANDROPSIS PENTAPHYLLA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 238.
Cleome pentaphylla Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 938.
Lagansa rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 53280, 2: 96, f. 2.
The common and well-known Gynandropsis pentaphylla DC.
is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian
description, however, applies well to this species. In the descrip-
tion of the plate the explanations of Lagansa alba and Lagansa
rubra are transposed.
MORINGACEAE
MORINGA Burman f.
MORINGA OLEIFERA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 398.
Guilandina moringa Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 381.
Moringa pterygosperma Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 314.
Morunga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 184, t. 74.
Morunga femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 185, t. 75.
AMBOINA, in cultivation, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 255, September 13, 1918, locally known as kelor.
The reduction of Morunga, t. 74, was first made by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
120; and in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1018, he also reduced
Morunga femina, t. 75. Both figures manifestly represent the
same species, and both are unmistakably the common and well-
known Moringa oleifera Lam. Other names, all synonyms, to
which the Rumphian figures have been referred by various au-
thors are: Hyperanthera moringa Vahl, Moringa zeylanica Willd.,
Moringa domestica Ham., Anoma moringa Lour., A. morunga
Lour., and Moringa polygona DC.; some of these are to be inter-
preted in part by the Rumphian figures. Moringa domestica
Ham., in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5? (1826) 368, 371, does not appear
in Index Kewensis. |
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Pedicellaria Schrank (1790) is older.
14497116
2492 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
NEPENTHACEAE
NEPENTHES Linnaeus
NEPENTHES MIRABILIS (Lour.) Merr. comb. nov.
Phyllamphora mirabilis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 606.
Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd. Sp. Pl. 4* (1805) 874.
Cantharifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 121, t. 59, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 256, July 31, 1913, on
a fern-covered hillside along the river at an altitude of from 10 to 50
meters; Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 257, August 5, 1918, on
grassy hillsides at an altitude of about 150 meters.
Cantharifera was erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Nepen-
thes distillatoria Linn., the type of the genus, and a species
confined to Ceylon, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 20, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1247, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 1854, in which he was followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind.
(1768) 190. Loureiro, however, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 606,
described a Cochin-China specimen as Phyllamphora mirabilis
Lour., and under it he discussed Cantharifera Rumph., stating
that it differed from his plant in its prostrate stems and scandent
branches. The species, as described by Loureiro, must be inter-
preted from Cochin-China specimens, but in all probability is
the same as the widely distributed species commonly known as
Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd., which is definitely known from
low altitudes from southern China to the Philippines, Borneo,
Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Amboina, the Caroline Islands, and
New Guinea. Nepenthes phyllamphora Willd. was based wholly
on Loureiro’s species, but Willdenow definitely refers here Can-
tharifera Rumph. Under the accepted code of botanical nomen-
clature the above new combination is necessary for this
well-known and widely distributed species; both names, Phyllam-
phora mirabilis and Nepenthes phyllamphora, must be inter-
preted by the plant Loureiro described.
NEPENTHES MAXIMA Reinw. ex Nees in Ann. Sci. Nat. I 3 (1824) 369,
£5.20, Fe Se
Cantharifera alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 122.
AMBOINA, Salahoetoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 413, November 27, 1913,
terrestrial and climbing, chiefly at an altitude of about 900 meters, locally
known as tampayan utan.
The identification of Cantharifera alba with Nepenthes maxi-
ma Reinw. was suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
103, and there is but very little doubt that this is the correct
disposition of it. It was described by Rumphius from specimens
received from the neighboring island of Little Ceram and was
CRASSULACEAE—PITTOSPORACEAE 948
not recorded by him as being from Amboina. Macfarlane *
definitely records Nepenthes maxima Reinw. from Amboina,
New Guinea, Celebes, and Borneo.
CRASSULACEAE
KALANCHOE Adanson
KALANCHOE LACINIATA (Linn.) DC. Pl. Grass. (1799-1829) t. 100,
Prodr. 3 (1828) 395.
Cotyledon laciniata Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 430.
Planta anatis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 275, t. 95.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure is poor, but the description, at least in most part,
applies to this widely distributed species. It may, in part,
apply also to Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Kurz (B. calycinum
Salisb.), but the description of the flowers as 5-merous and yellow
indicates a Kalanchoe not a Bryophyllum. The reduction of
Planta anatis to Cotyledon laciniata Linn. was made by Lin-
naeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1036, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 615, in which he has been followed by all later authors,
either under Cotyledon, Kalanchoe, or Verrea.
Bryophyllum pinnatum (Lam.) Kurz. (B. calycinum Salish.)
occurs in our Amboina collections (Roemah tiga, Rel. Robins.
1819, July 30,.1918) and, as noted above, may be included in the
Rumphian description of Planta anatis. Primarily, however,
Planta anatis is certainly Kalanchoe laciniata (Linn.) DC.
PITTOSPORACEAE
PITTOSPORUM Banks
PITTOSPORUM MOLUCCANUM (Lam.) Mig. Ill. Fl. Arch. Ind. (1871) 76.
Anasser moluccana Lam. Ill. 2 (1797) 40 (type!).
Anassera moluccana Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 265 (type!).
Pittosporum ferrugineum Ait. var. filariwm DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 347
(type!).
Pittosporum rumphii Putterl. Syn. Pitt. (1839) 7 (type).
Cortex foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, ft. 7.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but Miquel, |. c., cites Amboina material collected by Zippel
and by Teysmann, on which his sufficiently ample description is
based. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole
basis of Anasser moluccana Lam., Anassera moluccana Pers.,
and de Candolle’s variety of Pittosporum ferrugineum cited
above (erroneously cited as Cortex filiarius, but the page and
* Engl. Pflanzenreich 36 (1908) 76.
244 ’RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
plate numbers are correct), and apparently Putterlick’s Pit-
tosporum rumphu. It differs from Pittosporum ferruginewm
Ait. notably in its larger fruits and leaves.
PITTOSPORUM sp.?
Cortex igneus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 10, t. 6, f. 1.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, thought that this might
be a species of Pittosporum, following Teysmann’s suggestion.
It was not from Amboina, but from the Aru Islands or from
others in the same general region. Native names cited are culit
api, eyk, and mockulhiulo. There is little in the description to
indicate that it is a Pittosporum, and its status is quite unde-
terminable from the data and the material at present available.
CUNONIACEAE
WEINMANNIA * Linnaeus
WEINMANNIA FRAXINEA Sm. ex D. Don in Edinb. New Philos. Journ. 9
(1880) 98.
Pterophylla fraxinea D. Don 1. ec.
Cortex papetarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 212, t. 137.
The type of Weinmannia fraxinea Sm. was from the Moluccas,
so that the probabilities are that Teysmann was correct in his
reduction of Cortex papetarius Rumph. to Smith’s species.
Rumphius’s figure is an excellent one and is unmistakably a
Wemmannia. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 510, erroneously
reduced it to Dialum indum Linn., in which he was followed by
numerous authors. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 12, considered
that it represented a variety of Dialum javanicum Burm. f.,
which is a synonym of D. indum Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 68, thought that it might be an Otonychium=—Harpullia
(Sapindaceae), with which it has nothing in common, and at
the same time quotes Teysmann’s opinion that it is Weinmannia
fraxinea Sm.
SCHIZOMERIA D. Don
SCHIZOMERIA SERRATA Hochr. in Ann. Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genéve 10
(1907) 118.
Acronychia serrata Hochr. Pl. Bogor. Exsice. (1904) 49.
Tanarius major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 192, t. 122.
Arbor vespertilionum I! oppositifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 17, t. 10.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 608, without definite locality or date.
The specimen is a good match for the figure of Tanarius major
Rumph. and agrees with the description even better than with
the figure. Tanarius major Rumph. was discussed by Loureiro,
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Windmannia P. Br. (1756) is older.
HAMAMELIDACEAE—ROSACEAE 245
Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 231, under Jambolifera resinosa Lour.,
and has been cited by Don, Henschel, and de Candolle under
Cyminosma resinosa Don, but has nothing to do with the species
that Loureiro described. The specimen also agrees perfectly
with the figure of Arbor vespertiionum Rumph. and with the
short description of the second plant included in the descrip-
tion. The major part of the description of Arbor vespertilio-
num Rumph., that is, the first form described in this chapter,
is Helicia serrata R. Br. (see p. 205), and the figure has
been referred to Helicia, where it manifestly does not belong.
Schizomeria serrata Hochr. is known only from Amboina, was
originally described from specimens cultivated in the botanic
garden at Buitenzorg, Java, and is very closely allied to the
Australian species Schizomeria ovata D. Don, the only other
known species of the genus. This is one of the few cases in
which Rumphius described and figured the same species twice
under entirely different names.
HAMAMELIDACEAE
ALTINGIA Noronha
ALTINGIA EXCELSA Noronha in Verh. Batav. Genootsch. 57 (1795) 9.
Lignum papuanum | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 57?
Persoon, Syn. 2 (1807) 579, reduced this to Altingia excelsa
Noronha, apparently after Noronha, and Blume reduced it to
Liquidamber altingia Bl.=L. altingiana Blume, both synonyms of
- Altingia excelsa Noronha. It is probable that Rumphius in-
cluded more than this one species under Lignum papuanum IT,
especially in view of the fact that Altingia excelsa Noronha does
not appear to be definitely known from so far to the east as
New Guinea. The form described in the same chapter as
Lignum papuanum II, unless referable to Altingia excelsa Noronha,
is undeterminable. The identification of Lignum papuanum
is based largely on the native name cited by Rumphius, caju
rasamala; in Java rasamala is the resin of Altingia excelsa
Noronha. The plant Rumphius had in mind may have been
entirely different.
ROSACEAE
RUBUS Linnaeus i
RUBUS MOLUCCANUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1197 (type!).
Rubus moluccus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 88, t. 47, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Halong and near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 270, July 16 and 23, 1913, in light forests and open places, altitude
about 10 meters, locally known as buan tampayang and daun doeri doevi.
246 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of
Rubus moluccanus Linn., but this species has been interpreted
by many authors as a polymorphous one and given a range from
the Himalayan region to Ceylon, southern China, the Philippines,
Malaya, and northeastern Australia. Hooker f., Fl. Brit. Ind.
2 (1878) 330, states: Ae
I am quite unable to arrange the forms of this common and protean
plant under recognizable varieties answering to its synonymy.
Focke, in his monograph of the genus Rubus, Bibl. Bot. 17+
(1910) 89, reproduces the Rumphian figure and limits the
species to Amboina. He cites no specimens, gives a short de-
scription after data given by Rumphius, and was unable to
determine the status of the species in a satisfactory manner.
He states:
Die weitere Verbreitung ist vollig unsicher, weil die Art zu ungentigend
bekannt ist. Anscheinend gehdren hieher Exemplare von Voun auf Neu-
guinea (leg. Tejsmann) und vielleicht auch von Luzon.
Rubus moluccanus Linn. has been treated by many authors as
a collective species, and it is very evident that numerous forms
so named in herbaria cannot be properly placed under this
species, but must be considered as distinct ones. The Amboina
specimens closely match a large series of specimens in the
herbarium of the Bureau of Science from various parts of the
Philippines and a few specimens from Borneo and Java. It
is suspected that the typical form will be found to be of wide
distribution in the Malay Archipelago. Its exact status can now
be definitely determined by a direct comparison with the topotype
cited above. All authors have followed Linnaeus in the reduc-
tion of the Rumphian figure and description, so that the case
is not complicated by synonyms, except as species described by
later authors, without reference to Rumphius, may have been
reduced to typical Rubus moluccanus Linn.
RUBUS FRAXINIFOLIUS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) 242, subsp.
CELEBICUS (Blume) Focke in Bibl. Bot. 177 (1911) 150, f. 62.
Rubus celebicus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1107.
Rubus parvifolius Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1197 p. p. (quoad syn. Rumph.).
Rubus moluccus parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 88, t. 47, f. 1.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 271,
July 23, 19138, hillsides and river banks, altitude 5 to 10 meters.
The Rumphian figure and description were cited by Linnaeus
in the original description of Rubus parvifolius, Sp. Pl. (1758)
ROSACEAE YAT
1197, but the actual type, on which the description was based
and from which the Linnean species must be interpreted, was
a specimen collected near Canton, China, by Osbeck. This speci-
men is the same as Rubus triphyllus Thunb., Fl. Jap. (1784)
215, the name that Focke has adopted for the species. However,
Focke is manifestly in error in the selection of this name as
the valid one for the species is Rubus parvifolius Linn. (1758)
[not R. parviflorus Linn. as cited by Focke, Bibl. Bot. 17? (1911)
187]. Rubus fraxinifolius Poir. was described from Javan
specimens collected by Commerson and is widely distributed in
the Sunda Islands, especially in Java and Sumatra. The sub-
species celebicus Focke is widely distributed in the Philippines
and in the Moluccas, extending to New Guinea.
PARINARIUM Aublet
PARINARIUM GLABERRIMUM Hassk. in Tijdschr. Nat. Ges. 10 (1848)
147, nomen nudum, Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 269, nomen nudum,
Flora 27 (1844) 588.
Parinarium scabrum Hassk. in Tijdschr. Nat. Ges. 10 (1843) 147,
nomen nudum, Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 269, nomen nudum, Flora
27 (1844) 585.
Parinarium laurinum A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. 8S. Explor. Exped. (1854)
AGO Ee 55: .
Parinarium ellipticum T. & B. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 253.
Parinarium macrophyllum T. & B. 1. c., Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29
(1867) 256.
Parinarium mindanaense Perk. Frag. Fl. Filip. (1904) 119.
Parinarium racemosum Merry. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 17 (1904)
19, non Vid.
Parinarium curranii Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1910). Bot. 264.
Atunus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 171, t. 66.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 278, August 16,
1918, in open forests, altitude about 5 meters, in fruit; Amboina (town),
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 272, November 4, 1913, from a cultivated tree,
in flower. Both specimens bear the common name atun.
Atunus of Rumphius has not been previously referred to its
proper place in our present system of classification, although
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 22, suggested that it was a
Parinarwm. It manifestly is Parinarium, and the species very
generally known as Parinarium scabrum Hassk., of which
numerous synonyms are given above. In citing the above syn-
onyms I have in part followed Koorders and Valeton, Bijdr.
Boomsoort. Java 5 (1900) 337, but have also seen authentically
named specimens of most of the species I have here reduced.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 295, mentions it, following the
248 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
description of Stixis scandens Lour., as apparently belonging in
the same genus as that species, but Atunus has nothing in
common with Stixis scandens Lour., which belongs in the Cap- —
paridaceae. Atunus albus Rumph., |. c. 172, is probably a form
of Parinarium glaberrimum Hassk. !
CONNARACEAE
CONNARUS Linnaeus
CONNARUS sp.
Clompanus funicularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 70. t. 37, f. 2.
The description and figure are certainly those of a Connarus,
and perhaps Clompanus funicularis Rumph. is the same as Con-
narus gaudichaudiu Planch. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 52,
places it under Clompanus paniculatus Aubl., a species based
on material from tropical America, and one that has nothing to
do with the form that Rumphius figured and described. Miquel,
Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 349, suggested that it might be a species
of Millettia, where it certainly does not belong.
LEGUMINOSAE
PITHECOLOBIUM* Martius
PITHECOLOBIUM CLYPEARIA (Jack) Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3
(1844) 209.
Inga clypearia Jack Malay Miscel. 2 (1822) 78.
Mimosa trapezifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 93, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 546.
Adenanthera circinalis DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 446 (type!).
Clypearia rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 176, t. 112.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 548, October
3, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 285 meters.
In proposing the name Adenanthera falcata Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Linnaeus
referred to it both Clypearia alba and Clypearia rubra as rep-
resented by tt. 111 and 112 of Rumphius. I maintain that
the name must be typified by the first figure mentioned, that is
t. 111, especially in view of the fact that in the Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1020 and Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 550 Linnaeus excluded
under Adenanthera falcata and A. falcataria the reference to
t. 112, Clypearia rubra, limiting the species to Clypearia alba
Rumph. t. 111. I have not seen the original description of
Inga clypearia Jack, which was based on Sumatran specimens;
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Zygia Boehm. (1760) is older.
LEGUMINOSAE | 249
the specific name, however, was unquestionably taken from
Rumphius. Prain* cites Inga clypearia Jack as a doubtful
synonym of Pithecolobium clypearia Benth., but if Inga clypearia
Jack should prove to be different from Pithecolobium clypearia
Benth. as currently interpreted, then the specific name will go
with Jack’s species. Adenanthera circinnalis DC. is based
wholly on Clypearia rubra Rumph., and both are cited by
Bentham as synonyms of Pithecolobium clypearia (Jack) Benth.,
in Trans. Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 580.
ALBIZZIA Durazzini
ALBIZZIA SAPONARIA (Lour.) Blume ex Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat 1* (1855) 19.
Mimosa saponaria Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 658.
Inga saponaria Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 1008.
Cortex saponarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1381, t. 66.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 523, August 138, 1918,
on limestone formation, altitude about 30 meters, in flower; Hatiwe,
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 524, September 15, 1913, in forests, altitude
about 300 meters, in fruit, locally known as langir.
Mimosa saponaria Lour. was described from a Cochin-China
specimen, which has been universally considered, and probably
is, identical with the form that Rumphius described. Loureiro
also cites the Rumphian plant as representing his species, while
Cochin-China material in various herbaria is identical with the
common Philippine and Moluccan form of the species.
ALBIZZIA FALCATA (Linn.) Backer comb. nov.
Adenanthera falcata Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1020 (type!).
Adenanthera falcataria Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 550 (type!).
Albizzia moluccana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 26; Koord. in Meded.
Lands Plantent. 19 (1898) 419.
Clypearia alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 176, t. 111.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
However, after a very careful study of Rumphius’s description
I have definitely concluded that the form he described and
figured is identical with Albizzia moluccana Migq., a species
originally described from leaf specimens only, but of which
Koorders has given an ample and detailed description. Mr.
Backer in connection with his study of the Leguminosae of
Java has independently reached the same conclusion. In all
botanical literature the Rumphian Clypearia alba has been cited
under Adenanthera falcata Linn. and A. falcataria Linn., both
* Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66’ (1897) 274.
@
250 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
being based wholly on Rumphius’s description and figure. The
description, compiled wholly from Rumphius, is given under one
or the other of these names by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 101,
Murr. Syst. (1771) 398, Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 76, Pers. Syn.
1 (1805) 461, Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 550, DC. Prodr. 2 (1825)
446, Don Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 399, Dietr. Syn. 2 (1839-52) 1425,
Walp. Repert. 5 (1846) 580, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1’ (1855) 47,
and Walp. Ann. 4 (1857) 6138, yet the status of the species has
been very doubtful up to the present time.
ALBIZZIA RETUSA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3 (1844) 90.
Albizzia littoralis T. & B. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29 (1866) 259.
Clypearia maritima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 199.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
I have very little doubt that this is the correct disposition of
Clypearia maritima, after the description and data given by
Rumphius. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 66, follows Rader-
macher in considering it an undetermined species of Adenan-
thera. The species is scattered along the seashore from the
Nicobar Islands through Malaya and the Philippines to the
Caroline Islands and has been reported from Amboina.
ALBIZZIA PROCERA (Roxb.) Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 3 (1844)
89.
Mimosa procera Roxb. Pl. Coromandel 2 (1798) 12, t. 121.
Lignum murinum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 50, ft. 28.
Nothing resembling this occurs in our Amboina collections,
but I have not the slightest doubt that the plant figured is iden-
tical with Albizzia procera Benth., which extends from India
to tropical Australia. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 54, has
suggested that the Rumphian figure represents an Albizzia, but
otherwise no other author has suggested an identification of
Lignum murinum.
The two other forms described, but not figured by Rumphius,
l. c. 50, 51, as Lignum murinum minus and Lignum murinum
parvifolium, probably also represent species of Albizzia, as sug-
gested by Miquel. Their status, however, cannot be definitely
determined from data at present available.
Caju ticcos leytimorensis Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 52, briefly de-
scribed by Rumphius, is suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel
(1866) 50, as a possible synonym of Albizzia procera Benth.
The description of the pods and of the wood hardly conforms to
Roxburgh’s species; it probably is an Albizzia, but its status must
remain doutbful pending further exploration of Amboina.
LEGUMINOSAE 951
ALBIZZIA sp.
Clypearia rubra s. sye I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 177.
The description is very brief, following that of Clypearia
rubra. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 205, suggests that it
may be Albizzia moluccana Miq., which I have here reduced to
Albizzia falcata (Linn.) Backer. Its exact status is indetermin-
able at the present time, but it is probably a species of Albizzia.
ACACIA. Linnaeus
ACACIA MANGIUM Willd. Sp. Pl. 4? (1805) 1053 (type!).
Mimosa simplicifolia Linn. var. mangium Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl.
1-(1810) 61. |
Acacia holosericea A. Cunn. ex G. Don Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 407.
Mangium montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 123, t. 81.
A species based wholly on Rumphius’s description and figure.
The description, after Rumphius, has been repeated by de
Candolle, Prodromus 2 (1825) 451; Don, Gen. Syst. 2 (1832)
403; Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 15; and Bentham, Trans.
Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 495. Bentham thought that it was probably
allied to the Australian Acacia holosericea A. Cunn., and I con-
sider his surmise correct; in fact I can detect no differences
between Australian specimens and material from the Island of
Baru. (cult. *Buitenzorg T-C-37—K-32).. Forster f.,° Prodr.
(1786) 75, referred Mangium montanum Rumph. to Mimosa
mangium Forst. f., basing his description, however, on actual
specimens from the Friendly Islands, New Caledonia, and New
Hebrides. Acacia mangium Willd. was published independently
of the earlier Mimosa mangium Forst. f.
ACACIA RUGATA (Lam.) Ham. in Wall. Cat. (18382) no. 5251.
Mimosa rugata Lam. Encyel. 1 (1788) 20.
Mimosa concinna Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 1039.
Acacia concinna DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 464.
Guilandina microphylla DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480 (type!).
Nugae silvarum minimae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 95, t. 49, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The Rumphian figure is poor, presenting a sterile branch only,
but both it and the description conform better to Acacia rugatu
(Lam.) Ham. than to any other known species, so that the
present reduction is probably the correct disposition of it. Bur-
man f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 99, thought it represented a variety of
Guilandina nuga Linn. Guilandina microphylla DC. was based
wholly on the Rumphian figure and description. Wight and
Arnott, Prodr. (1884) 277, reduced it to Acacia concinna DC.
252 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
with doubt, while Miquel cites it as a possible synonym of
Acacia hooperiana Zipp. var. subcuneata (Bl.) Miq. FI. Ind.
Bat. 1’ (1855) 11=Acacia concinna DC.=Acacia rugata (Lam.)
Ham.
MIMOSA Linnaeus
MIMOSA PUDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 518.
Herba mimosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 303.
AMBOINA, Kobinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 526, July 25, 1913, along small
streams near the town of Amboina.
The identification of Herba mimosa follows Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 124, which is certainly the correct disposition
of it. This weed originated in tropical America and is now
found in most hot countries. As noted by Doctor Robinson this
was known to Rumphius only by description, but is now fairly
common in Amboina.
In the discussion of the various species of plants with sensitive
leaves, following Herba sentiens Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5: 301,
several representatives of the Mimosoideae are briefly described
or mentioned, some probably are species of the genus Mimosa,
others may belong in allied genera. Following Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 124, 125, Caban cabanan, page 304, may bea
Mimosa; Similis planta peruana, page 304, may be Mimosa dormiens
HBK.; Altera planta peruana, page 304, may be Mimosa humilis
HBK.; Pina hui huitzli, page 304, may be Mimosa casta Linn.;
Arbor pudica, page 305, may be Mimosa pudibunda Willd.; while
Planta sentiens hispanorum and Herba viva are wholly doubtful. It
is hardly worth while to consider these forms, as the data given
are in most cases quite insufficient on which to base a definite
identification of the several forms; and Hasskarl’s determina-
tions, aS any must be, are for the most part merely guesses.
They were not from Amboina and were known to Rumphius by
description only.
ADENANTHERA Royen
ADENANTHERA PAVONINA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 384.
Corallaria parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 178, t. 109.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 544, October 29, 1913, along
the seashore.
The original reduction of Corallaria parvifolia to Adenanthera
pavonina was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
14, is the correct disposition of it, and has been consistently
followed by all subsequent authors who have had occasion to cite
the Rumphian figure.
LEGUMINOSAE 953
ENTADA * Adanson
ENTADA PHASEOLOIDES (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914)
Bot. 86.
Lens phaseoloides Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!).
Mimosa entada Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 518.
Mimosa scandens Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1501.
Entada scandens Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 4 (1842) 332.
Entada rumphu Scheff. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 32 (1871) 412.
Faba marina major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 5, t. 4.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 528, August, 28, 1913,
in flower, growing near the beach; Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
529, October 7, 1913, in flower and fruit, growing at an altitude of about
80 meters.
The Rumphian plate is the whole basis of Lens phaseoloides
Linn., which supplies the oldest valid specific name for this
widely distributed species, although the name Lens phaseoloides
as published by Linnaeus was probably taken from Burman,
Thesaurus Zeylanicus (1737) 1389. The original publication in
Stickman’s Herbarium Amboinense is as follows: ‘5. Faba
marina. Lens phaseoloides; propri generis.” As to the pro-
priety of taking up the generic name Levs in place of E'ntada, as
W. F. Wight proposes,y I have already fully discussed the mat-
ter and do not believe that Mr. Wight’s proposal merits the
approval of ‘botanists. +
~The form described by Rumphius as Parrana nigra, Herb. Amb.
5: 7, may be an L’ntada as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 89, but at any rate it is apparently entirely different
from Entada phaseoloides Merr. The description is too im-
perfect to warrant definite determination of its proper position.
PARKIA R. Brown
PARKIA SPECIOSA Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 55.
Arbor pete Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 51.
The identification follows Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 50,
which is undoubtedly correct, as proved by the native names
cited by Rumphius and the indicated uses of the plant.
CYNOMETRA Linnaeus
CYNOMETRA CAULIFLORA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 382.
Cynomorium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 163, t. 62.
AMBOINA, from cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 530, September 25, 1913, locally known as namu namu.
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Gigalobium Boehm. (1760) is older.
+ Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905) 308.
£ Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 33; 9 (1914) Bot. 87.
254 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Cynomorium is one of the few Rumphian species cited by
Linnaeus in the first edition of the Species Plantarum (1753)
382, where the reduction to Cynometra cauliflora Linn. was
made. This is manifestly the correct disposition of it, and
Linnaeus has been consistently followed by all succeeding
authors.
CYNOMETRA RAMIFLORA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 382.
Cynomorium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 167, t. 63.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 581, August 28, 1913,
on coral limestone cliffs at low altitudes.
Like Cynomorium, this Rumphian plant was first reduced
by Linnaeus in the original description of Cynometra ramiflora
Linn., Sp. Pl. (1753) 3882. Linnaeus includes in Cynometra
ramiflora the form with a single pair of leaflets, the Amboina
plant, and the form with two pairs of leaflets, Ivipa of Rheede,
apparently the form described by Thwaites as Cynometra rami-
flora Linn. var. heterophylla Thw. The present form, with a
single pair of leaflets, has very generally been interpreted as
typical Cynometra ramiflora Linn., and has been indicated by
Prain as var. genuina, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66? (1897) 198.
SINDORA Miquel
SINDORA GALEDUPA Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66’ (1897) 483
(type!).
Sindora inermis Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 10 (1915) Bot. 314?
Caju galedupa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 59, t. 18.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The material on which the description was originally based
was from Celebes and from the small islands of Saleyer and
Calaua. It grows near the sea and is locally known as cajzu
galedupa. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788) 594, cites the Rumphian
figure and description as a synonym of Galedupa indica, but
Galedupa indica Lam. as described from Sonnerat’s specimens
is Pongamia glabra Vent.=P. pinnata (Linn.) Merr. Hamilton,
Mem. Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 291, thought that it might be a species
of Copaifera. Wight and Arnott, Prodr. 1 (1834) 262, placed it
in Pongamia, with doubt. Walpers, Ann. 4 (1857) 581, and
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1’ (1855) 144, erroneously cite it as a
synonym of Derris forsteniana Blume. Linnaeus, in Stickman —
Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, placed it
under Connarus with doubt, but did not refer it to Connarus
monocarpus Linn. as indicated by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 28. Prain has certainly placed it in its correct genus,
tie
LEGUMINOSAE 255
and Sindora galedupa Prain is based wholly on Rumphius. The
exact status of the species still remains uncertain, but it is
manifestly very near Sindora coriacea Prain and S. inermis
Merr. Prain thought that Sindora sumatrana Miq. var. javanica
Koord. & Valeton might be a synonym of Sindora galedupa.
I suspect that Sindora inermis Merr. will have to be reduced to
Sindora galedupa Prain, when botanical material from the Mo-
lucecas is available for comparison. The type of my species was
from back of the mangrove swamp at Sarangani, southern
Mindanao, there known as gayugalo, a native name that is
certainly suggestive of caju galedwpa. It differs from the
Rumphian plant in having six rather than eight leaflets, perhaps
also in having slightly larger pods, while Rumphius does not
figure or describe the prominent aciniciform stipules that are
characteristic of Sindora inermis Merr.
TAMARINDUS Linnaeus
TAMARINDUS INDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 34.
Tamarindus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 90, t. 23.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 549, December 1, 1918, from culti-
vated trees, locally known as assam.
This widely distributed and well-known species hardly needs
discussion. Linnaeus referred the Rumphian figure to his
species, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, in which he has been
followed by all succeeding authors.
INTSIA Thouars
INTSIA BIJUGA (Colebr.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 192.
Macrolobium bijugum Colebr. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 12 (1819) 359, t. 17.
Afzelia bijuga A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854)
467, t. 51.
Outea bijzuga DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 511.
Intsia amboinensis DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 509 (type!).
Macrolobium amboinense Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 189 (type!).
Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 21, ¢. 10.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
yet the identity of Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph., at least for
the most part, with the plant commonly known as Intsia (Afze- —
lia) biguga O. Kuntze is certain. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
266, cites it with doubt under Baryxylum rufum, but Baryxylum
rufum Lour. manifestly belongs in the genus Peltophorum; see
Pierre, Fl. Forest. Cochinch. 4: sub. t. 390. Loureiro’s descrip-
tion of the flowers applies to Peltophorum, of the fruits perhaps
to Intsia; his specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum
256 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBJINENSE
is a Peltophorum. Possibly more than one species of Intsia are
included in the description of Metrosideros amboinensis, but
it is certainly for the most part the common and widely
distributed Intsia biguga O. Kuntze. The figure is poor. The
description and figure are the whole basis of Intsia amboinensis
DC. and of Macrolobium amboinense Teysm., the latter not
appearing in Index Kewensis.
BAUHINIA Linnaeus
BAUHINIA LINGUA DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 516 (type!), excl. syn. Linn.
Phanera ? lingua Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 67.
Folium linguae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 1, t. 1.
AMBOINA, Soja and Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 522, August,
1913, in fruit, locally known as tabla mulu.
Foluum linguae Rumph. was originally and erroneously re-
duced by Linnaeus to the Indian Bauhinia scandens Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128,
Syst. ed. 10 (1859) 1015, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 535, in which
he was followed by numerous authors. Loureiro, however,
Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 387, cited it under Phanera coccinea
Lour., the type of which was a Cochin-China plant. Bauhinia
lingua de Candolle is typified by Folium linguae Rumph.,
the specific name and description being taken wholly from
Rumphius. Curiously, de Candolle cites as a synonym Bauhinia
scandens Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 374, “excl. Rheed. syn.,” yet
Rheede’s description and figure are the whole basis of the
Linnean species, for the first reference given by Linnaeus to Ray
Suppl. 328 is based wholly on Rheede.
The Amboina specimen is in fruit, but the species manifestly
belongs in the section Phanera, as is shown by Rumphius’s de-
scription of the stamens. I have not been able definitely to
refer the Amboina specimens to any other described species than
Bauhinia lingua DC., although it seems probable that the same
form has been described under another specific name or names.
De Candolle’s description calls for a specimen with 3-nerved
leaf-lobes, as they are thus presented in most of the leaves in
Rumphius’s figure. However, the actual specimens have mostly
5- or 6-nerved lobes.
BAUHINIA sp.
Folium linguae litorea alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 2.
This form is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 88, suggests that it may be
Phanera glauca Benth.=Bauhinia glauca Wall., but the cor-
LEGUMINOSAE 257
rectness of this reduction is very improbable. Doubtless a
future exploration of Amboina will yield material that will
definitely determine its status.
DIALUM Linnaeus
DIALUM INDUM Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 24.
Tamarindus altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 98.
From the native names cited by Rumphius, carandje and
carandjang, and the references cited, this is Dialum indum Linn.,
but the Javan specimens in Rumphius’s garden may not have
been this species. It was from Java, not from Amboina. Ben-
nett and Miquel both reduce it to Dialum indum Linn.
CASSIA Linnaeus
CASSIA MIMOSOIDES Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 379.
Amoena moesta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 147, ¢. 67. f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah and Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 585,
August 5, 1913, on grassy hillsides, altitude 200 to 250 meters.
Amoena moesta was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, with doubt, to Cassia procumbens
Linn., and later, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 135, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1018, to Cassia nictitans Linn., both American species;
both reductions are erroneous. De Candolle, Prodromus 2
(1825) 505, reduced it correctly to Cassia angustissima Lam.,
but Lamarck’s species is a synonym of Cassia mimosoides Linn.
or at most represents merely a variety of it, C. mimosoides
Linn. var angustissima (Lam.) Walp.
CASSIA ALATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 878.
Herpetica alata Raf. Sylv. Tellur. (1838) 128.
Cassia alata Linn. var. rumphiana DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 492 (type!).
Herpetica Rumph. Herb. Amb, 7: 35, t. 18.
AMBOINA, in a sago swamp near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 546, July 25, 1913.
The reduction of Herpetica to Cassia alata was originally made
by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, is the correct disposi-
tion of it, and has been accepted by ail authors.
CASSIA TORA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 376.
Cassia obtusifolia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 377.
Gallinaria rotundifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 288, t. 97, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robison Pl. Rumph. Amb. 525, August 15, 1913,
at low altitudes near the seashore; also Rel. Robins. 2480 from Boeton Island,
July 13, 1918.
A weed of pantropic distribution, originating in tropical
144971——-_17
958 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
America. Linnaeus reduced the Rumphian figure to both his
Cassia tora and Cassia obtusifolia, the latter being a synonym of
the former. it is considered as Cassia tora Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1381, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1016, and as Cassia obtusifolia Linn. in his Species
Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 539. The early authors, following
Linnaeus for the most part, considered it as Cassia obtusifolia
Linn., but practically all recent authors have properly placed
it under Cassia tora Linn.
CASSIA OCCIDENTALIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 377.
Gallinaria acutifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 2838, ¢. 97, f. 1.
AMBOINA, along the beach near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 584, August 8, 1913; also represented by Rel. Robins. 2519
from Bali Island, July 7, 1913.
Linnaeus originally reduced Gallinaria acutifolia to Cassia
sophera Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1017, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 542, in which he was consistently followed by all early
authors. Vogel, Hasskarl, and Miquel, however, have correctly
placed it as Cassia occidentalis Linn., which, like the preceding
species, is a pantropic weed of American origin.
CASSIA GLAUCA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 647.
Flos flavus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 68, t. 28.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure, however, is unmistakably that of Cassia glauca Lam.,
where it was definitely placed by Miquel and by Hasskarl. Bur-
man f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 96, erroneously reduced it to Cassia plani-
siliqua, or at least Cassia planisitliqua Burm. f. is entirely dif-
ferent from Cassia planisiliqua Linn. Lamarck, Encycl. 1
(1785) 644, suggests its comparison with Cassia chinensis Lam.,
but it certainly is not this, although the exact status of Cassia
chinensis Lam. is doubtful; from the description it may be
Cassia occidentalis Linn., although Bentham thought it might
be Cassia sophera Linn.
CASSIA SOPHERA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753)-379.
Soffera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 55.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The plant described by Rumphius is probably the common and
widely distributed Cassia sophera Linn., as indicated by Hass-
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 75.
LEGUMINOSAE 259)
CASSIA FISTULA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 377.
Cathartocarpus fistula Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 459.
Cassia fistula Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 88, t. 21.
This common species is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections, but it is so well known that it hardly needs discussion.
Rumphius’s plate is good. It was first reduced by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, and has been consistently
cited under Cassia fistula Linn. by all subsequent authors.
CASSIA JAVANICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 379.
Canna fistula javanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 86.
Cassia fistula silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 88, ft. 22.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
There is very little doubt, however, that the first of the Rumphian
names cited above is referable to Cassia javanica, although
Cassia fistula silvestris may include two different species. The
reduction of ¢. 22 to Cassia javanica Linn. was first made by
Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 649, and has been very generally
accepted. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 337, referred it
to Cassia bacillus Gaertn., which, however, is generally con-
sidered to be a synonym of Cassia javanica Linn. Other names
involved in the reduction are Cassia marginata Roxb. and C.
nodosa Ham.
The plants briefly discussed by Rumphius, op. cit. 89, under the
names bilalangh, cajudju, and ke ule are indeterminable from
data at present available. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 30,
has suggested that the second one may be a Pterocarpus and
that the other two may be referable to Cassia. The only logical
method of determining these forms is to carry on field work
with special reference to the native names.
CA ESALPI NIA Linnaeus
CAESALPINIA SAPPAN Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 381.
Lignum sappan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 56, t. 21.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 568, November 26, 19138,
cultivated, locally known as lolan tuni.
This well-known species hardly needs discussion. Lignum
sappan was originally reduced to Caesalpinia sappan Linn. by
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, and has been
consistently so cited by all other authors who have had occasion
to quote Rumphius.
260 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIMA (Linn.) Sw. Obs. (1791) 166.
Poinciana pulcherrima Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 380.
Crista pavonis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 53, t. 20.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 542, September, 1913, from culti-
vated plants in the town of Amboina, including god the red and yellow
and the yellow-flowered forms.
This commonly cultivated plant, of tropical American origin,
is well figured by Rumphius. Crista pavonis was first reduced
by Linnaeus, to Poinciana pulcherrima, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1018; but in the second edition of his Species Plantarum (1762)
544, he erroneously referred it to Poinciana bijuga Linn.
CAESALPINIA CRISTA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 380, pro majore parte, excl.
Fl. Zeyl. 157 quoad Herm. zeyl. 12.
Guilandina bonducella Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 545.
Guilandina bonduc Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 381, p. p., excl. Fl. Zeyl. 156.
Caesalpinia bonducella Flem. Asiat. Res. 11 (1810) 159.
Guilandina crista Small Fl. Southeast. U. S. (1905) 591.
Guilandina bonduc Linn. var. minus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480.
Caesalpinia jayabo var cyanosperma Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist.
Nat. 19 (1890) 234.
Frutex globulorum majorum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 92, t. 49, f. 1.
The widely distributed plant commonly known as Caesalpinia
bonducella Flem. is not represented in our Amboina collections.
There is no question whatever as to the identity of the plant
Rumphius figures, as his illustration is an excellent one. The
synonymy, like that of Caesalpinia jayabo Maza (C. bonduc
auctt.), is exceedingly complicated and was first adjusted by
Urban, Symb. Antil. 2 (1900) 269. I agree with Doctor Urban
in the application of the Linnean name in spite of the fact
that the first reference given by Linnaeus in the original de-
scription of the species applies to the plant commonly known as
Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait., as originally pointed out by
Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 2 (1894) 99; see under Caesalpinia nuga Ait.,
infra, page 261. Skeels, Science N. S. 37 (1913) 921, would
interpret Fl. Zeyl. 157 strictly on the basis of Hermann zeyl.
12, as the type of Caesalpinia crista Linn., thus making the
species exactly the same as Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait., re-
ducing the latter as a synonym. At the same time he would
interpret Fl. Zeyl. 156 as the type of Guilandina bonduc Linn.,
thus making Caesalpinia bonduc the proper name for the plant
described in most botanical works as Caesalpinia bonducella
Flem.
LEGUMINOSAE 261
CAESALPINIA JAYABO Maza in Anal. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 19 (1890) 234.
Guilandina bonduc Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 381, p. p., quoad Fl. Zeyl. 156.
Caesalpinia bonduc auctt.
Guilandina bonduc Linn. var. majus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480.
Guilandina major Small Fl. Southeast. U. S. (1908) 591.
Caesalpinia glabra Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 54, non
Guilandina glabra Mill.
Frutex globulorum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 89, t. 48.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 564, November 25, 1913, climb-
ing over trees at low altitudes.
The reduction of Frutex globulorum femina was first made by
Linnaeus, who placed it as a synonym of Guilandina bonduc
Linn. in his Species Plantarum ed. 2 (1762) 545, and most
authors have been content to accept this name as the proper
one for the species. The synonymy is very complicated, but
Guilandina bonduc Linn. as originally published by Linnaeus in
1753 is for the most part identical with G. bonducella Linn.
as published by Linnaeus in the year 1762, and both are, for
the most part, the same as Caesalpinia crista Linn. 1753. The
synonymy has been very fully discussed by Urban, Symb. Antil.
2 (1900) 269, 272. Guwilandina bonduc Linn. var. majus DC.
was based on the Linnean description, as given in the second
edition of the Species Plantarum, and the figure of Rumphius
cited above and in turn is the basis of Guilandina major Small.
Guilandina glabra Mill. is an entirely different species, if Miller’s
short description be correct, and I erred in 1910 in proposing to
take up this specific name. It is apparent that Maza’s specific
name Caesalpinia jayabo is the earliest valid one for this pan-
tropic plant. Caesalpinia bonduc Roxb., based on Guilandina
bonduc Linn., is certainly untenable and should be abandoned.
CAESALPINIA NUGA (Linn.) Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 3 (1811) 32.
Guilandina nuga Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 546 (type!).
Caesalpinia crista Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 380, pro minore parte, Fl. Zeyl.
157 quoad Herm. zeyl. 12.
Nugae silvarum litoreae et terrestres Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 94, t. 50.
AMBOINA, Eri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 589, September 22, 1913, along
the seashore; Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 538, August 13, 1918,
in thickets at an altitude of about 30 meters, locally known as galachi and
pohon badurt.
The Rumphian reference is the whole basis of Guilandina
nuga Linn.—Caesalpinia nuga (Linn.) Ait. and has been inter-
preted as such by all authors. In this connection it is to be
noted that Caesalpinia crista Linn., Sp. Pl. (1753) 380, is, in
part, the same as Caesalpinia nuga Ait. The first reference
in the original description of the species is to Fl. Zeyl. No. 157,
262 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
and Hermann’s specimen is not Caesalpinia crista Linn. as
currently interpreted, but is C. nuga Ait.; see Trimen, FI. Ceyl.
2 (1894) 99. However, the other references in the Species
Plantarum and the first reference in the Flora Zeylanica, Pluk.
Alm. 4. t. 2 f. 2, are apparently Caesalpinia crista Linn. as
generally understood, so that Caesalpinia crista Linn. is here
maintained for the plant so described by all authors; see
page 260.
ORMOSIA * Jackson
ORMOSIA CALAVENSI!IS Azaola ex Blanco FI. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 2380.
Pongamia (?) corallaria Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 149 (type!).
Corallaria latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 175, t. 110.
This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina
collections. The reduction to Ormosia calavensis Azaola is made
after a careful study of Rumphius’s figure and description and
a comparison with a very full series of specimens from northern
Luzon to southern Mindanao and from the Palau Islands.
Corallaria latifolia is the whole basis of Pongamia corallaria
Miq., so this specific name is available should future botanical
exploration of the Moluccas yield material that shows the plant
Rumphius described to be specifically distinct from that of the
Philippine and the Palau Islands. Teysmann, quoted by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 63, referred it to the genus
Macropteris, this being a synonym of Ormosia.
SOPHORA Linnaeus
SOPHORA TOMENTOSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 373.
Anticholerica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 60. ¢. 22.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 545, October 31, 1918, along
the seashore.
Anticholerica of Rumphius has been confused by most authors,
following Linnaeus, with Sophora heptaphylla Linn. It is
typical Sophora tomentosa Linn. It was originally reduced
by Linnaeus to Sophora heptaphylla, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1015, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 533, in which he was followed by all
authors up to 1825, when de Candolle, Prodromus 2: 96, suggested
that the Rumphian figure referred to Sophora tomentosa Linn.
Sophora heptaphylla Linn. is in itself a mixture. The type is
Fl. Zeyl. 104, and Hermann’s specimen on which it is based is °
Derris sinuata Benth.=Derris heptaphylla (Linn.) Merr.,
page 273.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Toulichiba Adans. (1763) is older. .
LEGUMINOSAE | 963
CROTALARIA Linnaeus
CROTALARIA RETUSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 715.
Crotalaria | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 278, t. 96, f. l.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 547, September 4, 1913,
near the seashore; also represented by Rel. Robins. 2464 from Macassar,
Celebes.
The reduction of the form of Crotalaria figured by Rumphius
to Crotalaria retusa Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 1159, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1004, and is certainly
the correct disposition of it.
CROTALARIA QUINQUEFOLIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 716.
Crotalaria I! minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 278.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction of the Rumphian description follows Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 121, which is manifestly the correct
disposition of it.
CROTALARIA CHINENSIS Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1158.
Crotalaria Ill agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 297.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph Amb. 468, August 1, 1918, on
grassy hillsides, altitude about 200 meters.
The identity of the recently collected material with Crotalaria
III agrestis is somewhat doubtful, as Rumphius’s description is
short and imperfect. It cannot possibly be Crotalaria verrucosa
Linn., as placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 121.
CROTALARIA LINIFOLIA Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 322.
Phaseolus montanus II!| Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146.
This suggested identification of Phaseolus montanus III is
scarcely more than a guess, but the description, with a slight
modification of the Latin translation, seems to apply very closely
to the form of Crotalaria linifolia Linn. f. described by Vogel
as C. stenophylla and by Matsumura as C. formosana. In the
Dutch description the fruits are described as ‘‘met twee rug-
gens,’ which I translate ‘‘with two ridges.” The Latin descrip-
tion reads ‘‘cum binis alis,” translated by Hasskarl as “bialatis.”’
With the modification of the description suggested by translating
“ruggens” as “ridges” instead of as “‘wings,” there is nothing
in the entire description that does not apply to Crotalaria steno-
phylla Vogel.
Phaseolus montanus IV Rumph. 1. c. is apparently but a dwarfed
form of Crotalaria linifolia Linn. f.
264 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
INDIGOFERA Linnaeus
INDIGOFERA TINCTORIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 751.
Indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 220, quoad descr. (excl. t. 80=I.
suffruticosa Mill.).
Probably both Indigofera tinctoria Linn. and I. suffruticosa
Mill. (/. anil Linn.) are included in the Rumphian discussion of
Indicum, but the description of the pods as “digiti articulum
longae”’’ applies unmistakably to Indigofera tinctoria Linn., not
to I. suffruticosa Mill. The figure, however, unmistakably repre-
sents Indigofera suffruticosa Mill., as shown by the relatively
short, strongly curved pods. Indicum was reduced by Linnaeus
to Indigofera tinctoria Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1171, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1061, in which he has been followed by most
authors. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 244, referred it to Indigo-
fera ani Linn.=I. suffruticosa Mill., which is the correct disposi-
tion of the figure. Other authors have referred it to Indigofera
anil Linn. var. orthocarpa DC., I. tinctoria Linn. var. macrocarpa
DC., and I. tenctoria Linn. var. brachycarpa DC.
INDIGOFERA SUFFRUTICOSA Mill. Gard. Dict. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2.
Indigofera anil Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 272.
Indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: quoad ft. 80.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 195,
August 8, 1918, near the seashore.
This is the form figured by Rumphius, but so far as the
description. goes the essential characters by which Indigofera
tinctoria Linn. and I. suffruticosa Mill. are distinguished are
those of the former species. As indicated above probably both
are included in the general discussion of Indicum.
The several forms briefly described under Indicum I consider
to be indeterminable, although Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) —
1138, indicates their possible positions as follows: Indicum silvestre — |
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 222—IJndigofera sp.?; Indicum silvestre e
Madagascar Rumph. 1. c. 223—Indigofera linifolia Retz. var. an-
gustissima Miq.?; Indicum brasilianum Rumph. 1. c. 224—Indigo-
fera sp.?; Indicum spurium Rumph. |. c. 224—Indigofera celebica
Mia.?.
TEPHROSIA * Persoon
TEPHROSIA sp. aff. T. purpurea Pers.
Phaseolus montanus | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146.
No representative of the genus Tephrosia occurs in our Am-
boina collections. The plant described by Rumphius, however,
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Cracca Linn. (1763) is older.
LEGUMINOSAE ?265
is manifestly a Tephrosia, and it is probably a form of the
widely distributed 7. purpurea Pers. MHasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 176, considers that it represents a species near Tephrosia
timoriensis DC., but de Candolle’s species is generally considered
to be a synonym of T. purpurea Pers.
Phaseolus montanus alter Rumph., |. c. 146, may also represent
a species of Tephrosia. The description, however, is too short
and imperfect to warrant an identification of it with the data
now available.
SESBANIA * Persoon
SESBANIA SESBAN (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot.
235.
Aeschynomene sesban Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 714.
Coronilla sesban Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1806) 1147.
Sesban aegyptiacus Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 7 (1806) 128 (type!).
Aeschynomene moluccana Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Flora 4 (1835)
1285.
Emerus sesban O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 180.
Gajatus niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 64, t. 24.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The Rumphian figure was erroneously reduced by Linneaus to
Aeschynomene indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1158, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1061, in which he was generally followed by
the older authors. Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 219, placed
it under Aeschynomene roxburghw Spreng., a synonym of A.
indica Linn. It is apparently the type of Aeschynomene moluc-
cana Kostel. (publication not seen by me). Miquel, FI. Ind.
Bat. 1? (1855) 287, thought it might be referable to Sesbania
cochinchinensis (Lour.) DC., which is probably a synonym of
Sesbania sesban (Linn.) Merr. Teysmann correctly placed it
as a synonym of Sesbania aegyptiaca Pers., which manifestly is
a synonym of Sesbania sesban (Linn.) Merr. From Rumphius’s
description it is exactly the form described by Wight and Arnott,
Prodr. (1884) 214, as Sesbania aegyptiaca Pers. var. bicolor
W. & A.t
SESBANIA CANNABINA (Retz.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 316.
Aeschynomene cannabina Retz. Obs. 5 (1789) 26.
Agati cannabina Desv. Journ. Bot. 1 (18138) 120.
Gajatus luteus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 64.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Sesban Adans. and Agati Adans.
(1763) are older.
+ See Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66’ (1897) 367.
266 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 76, discusses it under Aeschy-
nomene indica Linn. var. aspera Hassk. and under Sesbania
polyphylla Mig. The Rumphian description calls for a plant
with larger leaves and longer pods than Gajatus niger (Sesbania
sesban Merr.) and with yellow flowers, and I believe that the
plant described is unmistakably Sesbania cannabina (Retz.)
Pers. It was introduced into Amboina in Rumphius’s time.
The form from Bali with white flowers, merely mentioned by
Rumphius, is indeterminable, the only character given being
that the flowers are white.
SESBANIA GRANDIFLORA (Linn.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 316.
Robinia grandifiora Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 722.
Aeschynomene grandiflora Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1060.
Coronilla grandiflora Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1800) 1145.
Agati grandiflora Desv. in Journ. Bot. 1 (1813) 120, t. 4, f..6.
Turia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 188, t. 76.
Turia minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 190, t. 77.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 532, September 27, 1913,
at low altitudes, locally known as turi.
Turia was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Aeschynomene
grandiflora Linn. in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 1060,
and the figure has very generally been cited by various authors
under one or the other of the synonyms cited above. Turia
minor Rumph. is the form with reddish or purplish flowers,
considered by early authors to represent .a distinct species,
Sesbania coccinea (Linn. f.) Pers. (Aeschynomene coccinea Linn.
f., Coronilla coccinea Willd., Sesban coccinea Poir., Agatti cocci-
nea DC.), and by others considered as merely a variety of
Sesbania grandiflora Pers. It is manifestly but a color form of
the common and widely distributed Sesbania grandiflora (Linn.)
Pers.
ORMOCARPUM * de Candolle
ORMOCARPUM ORIENTALE (Spreng.) comb. nov.
Parkinsonia orientalis Spreng. Syst. 4 (1827) Cur. Post. 170 (type!).
Ormocarpum glabrum Teysm. & Binn. in Tijschr. Ned. Ind. 27 (1854)
56.
Solulus arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 200, t. 128.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
according to Rumphius the plant is not a native of Amboina,
occurring there as an introduced and planted one. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 454, cites Solulus arbor as representing his
Diphaca cochinchinensis=Ormocarpum cochinchinense (Lour.)
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Diphaca Lour. (1790) is older.
LEGUMINOSAE 967
Merr. (O. sennoides DC.), but the Rumphian figure and descrip-
tion manifestly apply to Ormocarpum glabrum T. & B. The
oldest specific name, however, if this form be maintained as
distinct from Ormocarpum cochinchinense, is that supplied by
Parkinsonia orientale Spreng., which was based wholly on the
Rumphian figure and description.
ARACHIS Linnaeus
ARACHIS HYPOGAEA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 741.
Chamaebalanus japonica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 426, t. 156, f. 2.
The common peanut is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections, although doubtless it is still cultivated there as it is
in most warm countries. The reduction of the Rumphian figure
was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1167, which has
been followed by all authors except Loureiro, who proposed to
eall it Arachis asiatica Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 430. lLou-
reiro’s species is manifestly a synonym of Arachis hypogaea
Linn.
DESMODIUM * Desvaux
- DESMODIUM ORMOCARPOIDES DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 327, non auct. plur.
Desmodium ormocarpoides Desv. in Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris 1825 (1826)
307, non auct. plur.
Hedysarum adhaerens Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 5 (1817) 15, non
Vahl. .
Desmodium dependens Blume ex Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1855) 248.
Phaseolus montanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: quoad t. 66 p. p. (excl.
descr.!).
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 555, August 16, 1913.
in light woods at low altitudes; Amahoesoe, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 556, August
30, 1913, at low altitudes, locally known as rumpit makal.
The plant figured by Rumphius does not agree with any of
the eight forms described under the name Phaseolus montanus.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 164, referred the figure to Hedysarum
gangeticum Linn.—Desmodium gangeticum (Linn.) DC., in
which he was followed by numerous authors; this reduction,
however, is entirely wrong. The figure is, for the most part,
an excellent representation of Desmodium dependens Blume,
which was originally described from specimens originating in
the Moluccas and in New Guinea, which Gagnepain, Not. Syst.
3 (1916) 256, has recently shown to be exactly the form described
by de Candolle and by Desvaux as Desmodium ormocarpoides,
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Meibomia Adans. (1763) is older.
268 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
a species that has consistently been misinterpreted by modern
authors on account of de Candolle’s original insufficient descrip-
tion. The drawing apparently represents two species. The
infructescence and fruits shown on the right-hand branch are
distinctly different from those shown on the left-hand branch;
the former is apparently Desmodium ormocarpoides auct., non
DC.=Desmodium zonatum Miq.,* and the latter is typical D.
ormocarpoides DC. (D. dependens Blume).
DESMODIUM UMBELLATUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 325.
Hedysarum umbellatum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 747.
Aeschynomene arborea Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 713, non Desmodium
arboreum Sweet.
Dendrolobium umbellatum W. & A. ex Benth. Pi. Jungh. (1852) 216.
Meibomia umbellata O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 197.
Folium crocodili latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 112, t. 52.
Folium crocodili parvifollum Rumph. 1. c. 118.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 560, October 21, 1913, along
the seashore; Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 559, July 28, 1918.
Foliuum crocodili Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to Hedysarum umbellatum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1170, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1053, which, as Desmodium umbella-
tum (Linn.) DC., is certainly the correct dispositon of it.
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1’ (1855) 263, erroneously placed it under
Dendrolobium cephalotes Benth. The two forms described by
Rumphius as latifoliwm and parvifoliwm are manifestly referable
to the same species.
DESMODIUM TRIQUETRUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 326.
Hedysarum triquetrum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 746.
Pteroloma triquetrum Benth. in Miq. Pl. Jungh. (1852) 220.
Meibomia triquetra O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 197.
Phaseolus montanus VI, VII Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 557, August 1, 1913,
on hillsides, altitude 200 to 300 meters.
The reduction of Phaseolus montanus VI to Hedysarum tri-
quetrum Linn. was first made by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
448, which, as Desmodium triquetrum (Linn.) DC., is certainly
the correct disposition of it. Phaseolus montanus VII was first
* At the time of publication of this the continuation of Gagnepain’s paper
in Not. Syst. 3, no. 9, has not reached me, so I am not certain that Des-
modium zonatum Mig. is the name selected by him for Desmodium ormo-
carpoides auct., non DC.
LEGUMINOSAE 269
reduced here by Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1052, which is
probably the correct dispositon of it, although not certain.
DESMODIUM GANGETICUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 327.
Hedysarum gangeticum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 746.
Meibomia gangetica O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 196.
Crotalaria montana V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146? (haud t. 66 quae
est Desmodium ormocarpoides DC. et D. zonatum Miq.).
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 558, August 5, 1913,
on grassy hillsides, altitude about 150 meters. Also represented by Rel.
Robins. 2537 from Bali Island, July 7, 1913.
The reduction of Crotalaria montana V to Desmodium gan-
geticum (Linn.) DC. is rather unsatisfactory, but follows Bur-
man f., Loureiro, Poiret, de Candolle, and other authors. All,
however, apparently based their conception of the Rumphian
plant chiefly if not wholly upon the figure indicated by Rumphius
as Phaseolus montanus. None of the eight forms actually de-
scribed by Rumphius under the heading Phaseolus montanus
agrees with the figure, which unmistakably is Desmodium or-
mocarpoides DC.; see page 267. The Rumphian description
of Crotalaria montana V applies to Desmodium gangeticum DC.
sufficiently closely except in the description of the leaves as ‘‘semi
digitum longa, ac pennam lata.”
Phaseolus montanus VIII Rumph., Herb. Amb. 6: 146, is inde-
terminable from any data at present available. It was from
Macassar, Celebes, where it was known as tsjeme tsjeme. Hass-
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 176, suggests that it may be a
species of Sophora near S. glabra Hassk.
PSEUDARTHRIA Wight and Arnott
PSEUDARTHRIA VISCIDA (Linn.) W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 209.
Hedysarum viscidum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 747.
Desmodium viscidum DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 386.
Desmodium timoriense DC. 1. ce. 327.
Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 150.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 554, August 30, 1913,
at low altitudes, locally known as bunga pasang pasang. Also represented
by Rel. Robins. 2499 from Boeton, and Rel. Robins. 2536 from Bali, July,
1913.
The identification of Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph. with Psevd-
arthria viscida W. & A. is not certain. The Rumphian plant
may be a Desmodium rather than a Pseudarthria. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 177, considers that it is Desmodium stipu-
laceum DC. var. aparine (Hassk. ) Mig. fl. Inds Batt) (sob)
252. .
270 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
DALBERGIA *. Linnaeus f.
DALBERGIA PARVIFLORA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 98, nomen nudum,
Fi cindved) 2-3 4@les2)) 1225.
Dalbergia zollingeriana Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 180.
Lacca lignum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:17, t. 12.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction of Lacca lignum to Dalbergia parviflora Roxb. is
certainly correct and was first suggested, as D. zollingeriana
Miq., by Teysmann in a letter to Hasskarl, cited by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 90.7
This species of Dalbergia extends from Indo-China and the
Malay Peninsula to Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Celebes, Halmaheira,
and Amboina.
The forms briefly described by Rumphius as Lacca lignum
ruffum, Herb. Amb. 5:18, L. lignum femina, |. c. 20, and L. lignum
e Java, 1. c. 20, are indeterminable from data now available
and may be referable to Dalbergia or to other genera of the
Leguminosae, or they may even belong in other families.
PTEROCARPUS Linnaeus
PTEROCARPUS INDICUS Willd. Sp. Pl. 3° (1800) 904 (type!).
Lingoum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 205, t. 70.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 550, October 18, 1918,
in remnants of forests, altitude 200 meters, locally known as kayu lingua.
This was originally reduced by Linnaeus merely to the genus
Pterocarpus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, but in his
Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763) 1662, he erroneously placed it
as a synonym of Pterocarpus draco Linn. It is the entire basis
of Pterocarpus indicus Willd., which species must be interpreted
wholly from the Rumphian figure and description. The species
is widely distributed in the Malayan region and very generally
has been correctly interpreted by modern botanists, as Rumph-
ius’s figure of the plant is an excellent one.
Probably referable here are the forms described by Rumphius,
l. c. 206, 209, 210, as Lingoum II album and III rubrum.
PTEROCARPUS PAPUANUS F. Muell. in Austral. Journ. Pharm. 1 (1886)
123; Bot. Centralbl. 27 (1886) 21?
Lingoum saxatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 210.
Lingoum saxatile Rumph., apparently a Pterocarpus, should
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Amerimnon P. Br. (1756) is older.
+ See Prain, D., in Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 10* (1964) 34, t. 8, who cites
specimens from Amboina and who also cites Lacca lignum Rumph. as a
synonym of Dalbergia parviflora Roxb.
LEGUMINOSAE Dear
be a very characteristic species, judging from the description of
the fruits, which are stated to be twice as large as those of
Pterocarpus indicus Willd., ‘‘quatuor vel quinque digitos transver-
sales lati.” Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 41, has suggested
that it may be Pterocarpus obtusatus Miq., which after all may
be the correct disposition of it. Miquel’s description is so very
imperfect that no definite conception of his species can be gained
from the description alone. I suggest that it may be F. Mueller’s
species, which is supposed to have large fruits. Pterocarpus
blancoi Merr. should also be very closely allied. Dr. Alfred J.
Ewart has kindly sent me a leaflet from the type of Pterocarpus
papuanus F.-Muell., which is preserved in the national herbarium
at Melbourne. The leaflet very closely resembles those of
Pterocarpus indicus Willd. Doctor Ewart states that there are
no fruits with the specimen, and the size of the fruits is not
indicated by Mueller in the original description of the species.
- PTEROCARPUS SANTALINUS Linn. f. Suppl. (1881) 318.
Sandalum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 47.
This is undoubtedly the correct disposition of Sandalum rub-
rum, as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 47. It
was not from Amboina.
PONGAMIA * Ventenat
PONGAMIA PINNATA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Cytisus pinnatus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 741.
Robimia mitis Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1044.
Galedupa indica Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 594, excl. syn. Caju galedupa
Rumph.
Dalbergia arborea Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1808) 901.
Pongamia glabra Vent. Jard. Malm. 1 (1803) 28, t. 28.
Galedura pinnata Taub. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3 * (1891)
344.
Caju pinnatum O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 167.
Pongamia mitis Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 101.
Malaparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 183, t. 117.
Malaparius e Nussanive Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 184.
AMBOINA, Eri and Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 248, August
and September, 1918, along the seashore, with normal fruits and with
galls (Malaparius e Nussanive Rumph.!).
Desrouss, in Lamarck Encycl. 3 (1791) 689, thought that Mala-
parius might be near Pterocarpus; and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 481, erroneously cites it under his Pterocarpus flavus,
a species of doubtful status, this reduction being followed, how-
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Galedupa Lam. (1786) is older.
272 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ever, by Poiret, de Candolle, Don, Dietrich, Miquel, and a few
other authors. Malaparius, however, is no Pterocarpus, but is
manifestly identical with the plant commonly called Pongamia
glabra Vent. The Rumphian figure is an excellent one, and the
description applies perfectly except as to. the statement that
the flowers are yellow; this may have been due to a mixture of
material, or Rumphius may have had old flowers. The flowers
are usually white or pink, turning somewhat yellowish in age.
Prain, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66? (1897) 95, seems to have been
the first author correctly to reduce Malaparius to Pongamia.
Malaparius flavus Miq., Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 (1858) 1082, based on
Sumatran specimens, the generic name from Rumphius, is ap-
parently the form of Pongamia pinnata (Linn.) Merr. described
by Hasskarl as Pongamia xerocarpa (P. glabra Vent. var. xero-
carpa Prain).
I have taken up the earliest Linnean specific name for this
widely distributed species, as I am now convinced that the speci-
men in the Linnean herbarium, which is the common Pongamia
glabra Vent., is the actual type of Cytisus pinnatus Linn., as
indicated by the fact that Linnaeus not only gives a biblio-
graphical reference to Plukenet, but also adds a short descrip-
tion manifestly taken from an actual specimen.
DERRIS * Loureiro
DERRIS TRIFOLIATA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 483.
Robinia uliginosa Roxb. ex Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1800) 1138.
Dalbergia heterophylla Willd. 1. c. 901.
Pongamia uliginosa DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 416.
Derris forsteniana Blume ex Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 144, t. 3.
Tuba siliquosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 41, t. 25, f. 2.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 537,
October 25, 1918, along tidal streams, locally known as daun talahohor.
Rumphius’s figure is an excellent one of the widely distributed
form commonly known as Derris uliginosa Roxb., but for which
-I maintain the earlier name, Derris trifoliata Lour. lLoureiro’s
type is not extant, at least no specimen of his species is among
his plants in the herbarium of the British Museum. Dalbergia
heterophylla Willd. is exactly the same as Derris uliginosa Roxb.
and has priority over Roxburgh’s name in case Derris trifoliata
Lour. be abandoned. Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 93, re-
duced Tuba siliquosa Rumph. to Derris forsteniana Blume, which
is a synonym of the above species.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Salken Adans. and Solori Adans. (1763),
Deguelia Aubl. (1775), and Cylizoma Neck. (1790) are older.
4
,
LEGUMINOSAE 273
DERRIS HEPTAPHYLLA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Sophora heptaphylla Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 373, excl. syn. Plukenet.
Pongamia sinuata Wall. Cat. (18382) no. 5911, nomen nudum.
Derris sinuata Benth. ex Thw. Enum. Pl. Zeyl. (1859-64) 93.
Pterocarpus diadelphus Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 568.
Derris diadelpha Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 108.
Funis convolutus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 69, t. 37, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but unquestionably Funis convolutus Rumph. is identical with
the widely distributed Indo-Malayan form commonly known as
Derris sinuata Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 96, after
Miquel, has suggested that it may be the same as Derris montana
Benth., which is hardly possible in view of the characters and
geographic distribution of that species. The type of Sophora
heptaphylla Linn. is Fl. Zeyl. 104, and Hermann’s specimen on
which Fl. Zeyl. 104 was based is Derris sinuata Benth. The
reference to Plukenet, included by Linnaeus in the original de-
scription as a doubtful synonym, cannot possibly be interpreted
as the type.
DERRIS ELLIPTICA (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 4 (1860)
Suppl. 111.
Galedupa elliptica Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 538, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 242.
Tuba radicum alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 37, t. 22.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
figure is unmistakably that of a species of Derris, either identical
with, or very closely allied to, Derris elliptica Benth. The in-
dicated use of the plant, for poisoning fish, is also a Derris
' character, several of the Malayan species being thus used, in-
cluding Derris elliptica Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
92, considers the Rumphian figure and description to be referable
to Mullettta sericea W. & A., but this reduction is certainly
incorrect.
Perhaps referable to the same species of Derris as the above
is Tuba radicum nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:38. It is used for
the same purposes as Tuba radicum alba, and is at least a species
of Derris. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 92, merely in-
dicated that it belongs in the Dalbergiae.
INOCARPUS Forster
INOCARPUS EDULIS Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 66, ft. 33.
Bocoa edulis Baill. Adansonia 9 (1868-70) 237.
Gajanus edulis O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 189.
Gajanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 170 t. 65.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 540, November, 1913,
14497118
274 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
in light forests, altitude 50 meters; Amboina town, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 541, October 25, 1918, from cultivated trees, locally known as guyang
and daun gayang.
This reduction of Gajanus seems first to have been suggested
by Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 253, which has been accepted by
all succeeding authors and is the correct disposition of it.
ABRUS Linnaeus
ABRUS PRECATORIUS Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 472.
Glycine abrus Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 758.
Abrus frutex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 57, t. 32.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 527, September, 1913,
locally known as saga, saga alus, and daun saga.
This species is too well known to need discussion. The orig-
inal reduction of Abrus frutex to Glycine abrus Linn.=Abrus
precatorius Linn. was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
173; op. El ed: 2 (1763) 1025:
CLITORIA Linnaeus
CLITORIA TERNATEA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 758.
Flos coeruleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 56, t. 31.
AMBOINA, Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 548, August 25, 1918, along
roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as bunga sayor and sayor katjang.
This species is too well known to need discussion. Flos coeru-
leus was first reduced to Clitoria ternatea by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, and has been consistently cited here
by all succeeding authors.
GLYCINE Linnaeus
GLYCINE MAX (Linn.) comb nov.
Phaseolus max Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 725.
Dolichos soja Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 727.
Soja hispida Moench. Meth. (1794) 153.
Glycine hispida Maxim. in Bull. Acad. Pétersb. 18 (1873) 398.
Glycine soja S. & Z. in Abh. Akad. Muench. 4’ (1848) 119.
Glycine ussuriensis Regel & Maack Tent. Fl. Ussur. (1861) 50.
Soja max Piper in Journ. Am. Soc. Agron. 6 (1914) 84.
Cadelium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 388, t. 140.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
the Rumphian figure is an excellent representation of the widely
cultivated and well-known soy bean. It was originally reduced
LEGUMINOSAE 275
by Linnaeus to Phaseolus max, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1382, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1018, in which he was followed by Burman
f., Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret, Don, and other authors. Lour-
eiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 441, correctly referred it to Dolichos
soja Linn., which is a synonym of Phaseolus max Linn.—Glycine
max (Linn.) Merr. By Henschel and by Pritzel it has been
also correctly referred to Soja hispida Moench., another synonym
of Glycine max Merr. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 11 (1855) 197,
erroneously referred it to Phaseolus radiatus Linn.
Phaseolus max Linn. has been considered a true Phaseolus and
a synonym of P. radiatus Linn. by nearly all recent authors.
It is clearly the soy bean, identical with Glycine hispida Maxim.,
and the specific name max should be maintained for the soy
bean, whether Glycine or Soja be recognized as its generic name.
Piper has declared in favor of the genus Soja, chiefly for the
reason that of the eight species originally described by Linnaeus
in Glycine, but a single one, G. javanica Linn., now remains in
the genus, the other seven having been removed by subsequent
authors to Apios, Kraunhia, Abrus, Rhynchosia, Amphicarpaea,
and Fagelia, respectively. However, I am content to determine
the type of the genus Glycine by elimination, which well maintain
Glycine in its generally accepted sense with G. javanica Linn.
as its type.
Prof. C. V. Piper has cleared up the synonymy of this com-
monly cultivated species; and with the aid of extensive data,
supplied by Sir David Prain, he has clearly shown that Phaseolus
max Linn. is identical with the commonly cultivated and well-
known soy bean.*
ERY THRINA Linnaeus
ERYTHRINA FUSCA Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 427.
Erythrina ovalifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 53, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3
(1882) 254. /
Gelala aquatica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 235, t. 78.
This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina
collections. The reduction of Gelala aquatica was made by
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 427, in the original description
of the species. Hrythrina ovalifolia Roxb., the name commonly
employed in current botanical literature, is certainly a synonym.
* For a very full discussion of the case see Piper, C. V. The name of
the soy bean; a chapter in its botanical history. Journ. Am. Soc. Agron.
6 (1914) 75-84.
276 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ERYTHRINA VARIEGATA Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122 (type!).
Erythrina picta Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 993.
Gelala alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 234, t. 77.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The form so excellently figured by Rumphius occurs in the Philip-
pines, in Palawan and in Mindanao, and on Corregidor Island in
cultivation and is in all respects, except in its variegated. leaves,
the same as the common and widely distributed plant commonly
known as ELrythrina indica Lam. The Rumphian figure and
description are the whole basis of Erythrina variegata Linn.
and in part the basis of H. picta Linn. Strictly, the specific
name variegata should be adopted to include not only the
form with the variegated leaves, but also the much commoner
and widely distributed form with uniformly green leaves, LH.
indica Lam. The differences between the two are no greater,
for the purpose of distinguishing species or varieties, than be-
tween the various color forms of Graptophyllum pictum (Linn.)
Griff. or of Codiaewm variegatum (Lour.) Blume.
Var. ORIENTALIS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Erythrina corallodendron Linn. var. orientalis Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753)
706.
Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 98.
Erythrina indica Lam. Encycl. 2 (2785) 391.
Erythrina orientalis Murr. Comm. Gotting. 8 (1787) 35, t. 1.
Erythrina lithosperma Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1828) 92.
Gelala litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 230, t. 76.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 533,
August 8, 1918, along the seashore, locally known as daun gelala.
Gelala litorea Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to
Erythrina corallodendron Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1155;
and in the second edition of the Species Plantarum, (1763) 993,
it was definitely reduced to the var. orientalis Linn. Hrythrina
corallodendron Linn. is a mixture of an American species and
what is now generally known as Erythrina indica Lam., here —
ealled Erythrina variegata Linn. var. orientalis (Linn.) Merr.
Erythrina corallodendron Linn. is apparently typified by the
American plant. Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck, which does not
appear in Index Kewensis, is manifestly the same as Erythrina
indica Lam., the type being from western Java. It is suspected
that the forms from Java and China, briefly mentioned by
Rumphius, are referable here, but the data given are too in+
definite for their certain determination.
LEGUMINOSAE HA
MUCUNA * Adanson
MUCUNA GIGANTEA (Willd.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 405.
Dolichos giganteus Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1800) 1041.
Carpopogon giganteum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54.
Zoopthalmum giganteum Prain in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 667 (1897) 68.
Lobus litoralis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 10, t. 6.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 567, November 26, 1918, along
the seashore, locally known as bharu laut.
This was erroneously reduced by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 456, to Citta nigricans Lour.—Mucuna nigricans (Lour.)
Steud. Loureiro’s species was described from Cochin-China
material, and is entirely different from the plant that Rumphius
described and figured, belonging in the section Citta, the pods
with prominent oblique plaits across their faces. Most authors
who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure have followed
Loureiro’s erroneous reduction. The forms indicated by Rumph-
ius, lc, as nigra and maculata are probably merely variants
of this widely distributed species.
MUCUNA PRURIENS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 405.
Dolichos pruriens Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162 (type!).
Stizolobium pruriens Medic. in Vorles. Churpf. Phys. Ges. 2 (1797)
399. pee
Carpopogon pruriens Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54.
Negretia pruriens Blanco FI. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 411.
Cacara pruritus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 398, t. 142.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but I have before me a single pod of the species originating
in Amboina, received from the botanic garden, Buitenzorg, Java,
through Prof. C. V. Piper, of the United States Department of
Agriculture; it is apparently identical with the widely dis-
tributed, low-altitude, Philippine form, but is not the same as
much of the material in various herbaria labelled Mucuna pru-
riens DC. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole
basis of Dolichos pruriens Linn., and the species must ac-
cordingly be interpreted from it. In the second edition of his
Species Plantarum (1763) 1019, Linnaeus added certain ref-
erences, to Jacquin, to Sloane, and perhaps the one to Rheede, that
represent a species quite different from the Philippine and
Moluccan Mucuna pruriens (Linn.) DC., and from these
references the species has, by most authors, been erroneously
interpreted.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Zoopthamnum P. Br. and Stizolobium P.
Br. (1756) are older.
278 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MUCUNA MINIATA sp. nov. § Citta (?).
Parrana miniata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 10.
AMBOINA, Paso and Roemah tiga, Robinson Pl. Rumpi. Amb. 566 (type),
in thickets and forests at low altitudes, locally known as tali or tali-tali.
Frutex scandens usque ad 15 m altus, inflorescentiis exceptis
glaber ; foliolis firme chartaceis, in siccitate nigricantibus, nitidis,
oblongis ad oblongo-ovatis, usque ad 14 cm longis, prominente
subcaudato-acuminatis, lateralibus obliquis, basi rotundatis vel
obscurissime subcordatis, nervis utrinque circiter 4; inflor-
escentiis circiter 20 cm longis, minute adpresse cinereo-
pubescentibus atque pilis paucis urentibus instructis, fasciculatis,
caulifioris; floribus miniatis, 6 ad 7 cm longis, calycis dentibus
prominentibus, inferioribus angustis, 5 ad 7 mm longis.
A scandent shrub attaining a height of 15 m, glabrous except
the inflorescence, deciduous. Branches slender, smooth, terete.
Petioles 6 to 8 cm long. Leaflets firmly chartaceous, blackish
when dry, shining, 10 to 14 cm long, 5 to 6 cm wide, oblong-ovate
to oblong, the terminal one equilateral, lateral ones more or less
oblique, apex rather prominently subcaudate-acuminate, acumen
1 to 1.5 cm long, blunt, base rounded or shallowly and obscurely
cordate; lateral nerves about 4 on each side of the midrib, pro-
minent, curved-ascending, obscurely anastomosing, the rachis
extended about 2.5 cm beyond the insertion of the lateral leaflets,
the petiolules black, 4 to 5 mm long. Plant leafless at time of
flowering, the racemes up to 20 cm in length, fascicled on nodules
along the trunk or larger branches, appressed cinereous-pubes-
cent with short hairs, with a few, longer, yellowish-brown, stiff,
stinging hairs intermixed, the indumentum more prominent on
the calyx and pedicels than on the rachis. Flowers vermilion,
6 to 7 cm long, somewhat curved, their pedicels mostly in pairs,
slender, about 2 cm long, spreading. Calyx cup-shaped, the tube
about 8 mm long, the teeth rather prominent, the upper one
stouter than the others, 3 to 4 mm long, the two lateral ones
slenderly acuminate, about 3 mm long, the lower one linear, 5
to 7 mm in length. Standard 3.5 cm long, about 2 cm wide,
blunt; wings rather strongly falcate, acuminate, up to 6 cm
long, about 12 mm wide. Keel slightly longer than the wings,
somewhat rostrate, outer margins ciliate in the lower part.
Ovary and style hirsute. Fruit unknown.
This species is well characterized by its glabrous leaves, rather
large, crimson flowers, and prominent, slender calyx teeth. It
belongs with a group of species found in New Guinea, including
Mucuna novo-guineénsis Scheff., M. bennettii F. Muell., and M.
kraetkei Warb. Scheffer’s species has bright orange flowers,
LEGUMINOSAE 279
but the other two have red flowers. Warburg’s species is dis-
tinguished by having short calyx teeth. Mueller’s species differs
from the Amboina form in its distinctly larger flowers and very
much longer calyx teeth. I am under obligations to Prof. A.
J. Ewart, curator of the national herbarium at Melbourne, for
a flower of d’Albertis’s specimen, the type of Mucuna bennettii
F. Muell., for purposes of comparison, as well as for a copy of
Mueller’s original description of the species.
MUCUNA ATERRIMA (Piper & Tracy) comb. nov.
Stizolobium aterrimum Piper & Tracy in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl.
inde ule 179 (LOTOP MSS te FB t. 7.
Cacara nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 381, t. 138.
Cacara pilosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 392.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
However, Cacara nigra is manifestly a Mucuna and is certainly
synonymous with the form recently described by Piper and Tracy
as Stizolobium aterrimum, as indicated by the Rumphian de-
scription, rather poor figure, and especially the data as to the
pods “ad ventrum tribus protuberantibus costis notati,” and
the seeds “primo rubentia, dein fusca, ac tandem nigerrima,
glabra & splendentia.” Stizolobium aterrimum was described
from cultivated specimens originating in Brazil, Australia,
Cochin-China, Barbadoes, Mauritius, Java, and Ceylon. Lin-
naeus erroneously reduced Cacara nigra to Phaseolus unguicu-
— datus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 182, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, and to Dolichos unguicu-
latus Linn., in Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1019, with which species it
has nothing in common. He was followed by Burman f.,
Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Persoon, Henschel, Pritzel, and
Miquel. By other authors, Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834)
255, it was reduced, with doubt, to Mucuna capitata DC., which
it certainly is not; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 11 (1855) 228,
thought that it might be referable to Dolichos dasycarpus
Mig.—Dysolobium dolichoides (Roxb.) Prain. Piper and
Tracy,* discuss Cacara nigra under Stizolobium capitatum
(Roxb.) O. Kuntze=—Mucuna capitata DC., but on account of
the unsatisfactory figure given by Rumphius failed to recognize
it as their Stizolobium aterrimum, while excluding it as a syn-
onym of S. capitatum O. Ktze: In spite of the poor figure the
description of the fruit ard flower characters applies very closely
in all particulars to Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr.
* The Florida velvet bean and related plants. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl.
Ind. Bull. 179 (1910) 18.
230 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
From the rather full data given by Rumphius I am unable to
distinguish from this species the form described by Rumphius
as Cacara pilosa. He contrasts it with Cacara nigra, but ap-
parently considered it distinct from the latter chiefly because
it was a wild, not a cultivated plant. Henschel, Vita Rumph.
(1833) 181, erroneously cites the name Cacara pilosa as a syn-.
onym of Phaseolus pilosus Klein and erroneously cites t. 142
(=Mucuna pruriens DC.) as representing Cacara pilosa. As
noted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 1386, it is close to
Mucuna utilis Wall., but that species has the pods covered with
a tawny pubescence. It differs from Mucuna velutina Hassk.
in its purple, not white flowers. The chief objection to the iden-
tification of Cacara pilosa Rumph. with Cacara nigra Rumph.
—Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr. is that Rumphius
describes the former as having more pubescent leaves than the
latter.
DIOCLEA Humbolt, Bonpland, and Kunth
DIOCLEA REFLEXA Hook. f. Niger Flora (1849) 306.
Parrana rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 9, t. 5.
AMBOINA, Toelehoe, Paso, and Amboina, in thickets at low altitudes and
along the beach, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 897, November, 1918.
Parrana rubra Rumph., one of the “‘sea beans,” is fairly well
described but very poorly figured by Rumphius. It has remained
doubtful up to the present time, but I feel confident that it is
the widely distributed Dioclea reflexa Hook. f. in spite of the
poor figure. Miquel thought that the figure represented a species
of Mucuna, and Teysmann thought it was a species of Derris.
The description of the seeds applies closely to those of Dioclea
reflexa, but the figure does not show their peculiar hilum
character.
CANAVALIA * de Candolle
CANAVALIA MICROCARPA (DC.) comb. nov.
Lablab microcarpus DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402 (type!).
Canavalia turgida Grah. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5534.
Cacara litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 390, ¢. 141, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 562, October 29, 1913, in
fruit, climbing in thickets back of the beach; town of Amboina, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 561, October 26, 1913, in, flower, in thickets along streams,
locally known as katjang hor.
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 182, reduced Cacara litorea, with doubt, to Dolichos
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Canavali Adans. (1768) and Cle-
mentea Cav. (1804) are older. .
LEGUMINOSAE 281
lablab Linn., with which species it has nothing in common.
Lablab microcarpus DC. apparently supplies the oldest valid
specific name for the species, which is here accepted, although
unfortunately not an appropriate specific name, as the fruits are
by no means “small” in this species.
The synonymy of the species is rather complicated, and has
been discussed by Prain,* who concludes that the name Canavalia
obtusifolia DC. is properly applicable to this form with the
wide pods and prominent keels or ridges. Canavalia obtusifolia
DC. was based on Dolichos obtusifolius Lam., an American plant.
Dolichos rotundifolius Vahl was also described from American
specimens, and I believe that this name, as well as Canavalia
obtusifolia (Lam.) DC., is a synonym of Canavalia lineata
(Thunb.) DC. Katu-tjyandi Rheede, Hort. Malabar. 8: 83, t. 43,
included pods of both Canavalia lineata DC. and C. turgida
Grah.—Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr. Hasskarl, Neue
Schlussel (1866) 136, leaves Cacara litorea as a synonym of
Lablab vulgaris Savi, which is an entirely wrong disposition of
it. The Rumphian figure is very greatly reduced, whence de
Candolle’s inappropriate specific name.
CANAVALIA LINEATA (Thunb.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404.
Dolichos lineatus Thunb. Fl. Jap. (1784) 280.
Dolichos obtusifolius Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 295.
Dolichos rotundifolius Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 81.
Canavalia obtusifolia DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404.
Cacara litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 390 quoad descr. p. p., non
t. 141, t. 1. [See Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr.].
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 553, September 4, 1913,
along the strand.
This strand form, apparently always growing on the loose
sand of the beach, is not to be confused with Canavalia micro-
carpa (DC.) Merr. (C. turgida Grah.), which grows in thickets
back of the beach. It is apparently included in the description
of Cacara litorea Rumph., but is not the form figured by him;
see Canavalia microcarpa (DC.) Merr., page 280.
CANAVALIA GLADIATA (Jacq.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404.
Dolichos gladiatus Jacq. Coll. 2 (1788) 276.
Canavalia gladiata DC. var. machaeroides DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 404
(type!).
Canavalia machaeroides DC. ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 273
(type!).
Lobus machaeroides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3876, t. 135, f. 1.
This cultivated bean is not represented in our Amboina col-
* Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 667 (1897) 419.
232 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
lections. The figure and description manifestly apply to the
form generally known as Canavalia gladiata DC., which is found
in scattered cultivation in most tropical countries. Linnaeus
originally, but erroneously, reduced Lobus machaeroides to Doli-
chos ensiformis Linn.=Canavalia ensiformis DC., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 238, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 182, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1162, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1022, in which he was
followed by Burman f., Lamarck, and Loureiro. Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 3 (1800) 1039, referred it to Dolichos gladiatus, which —
as Canavalia gladiata (Jacq.) DC. is the correct disposition of
it. Canavalia machaeroides DC. (C. gladiata DC. var. machaer-
oides DC.) is based wholly on Rumphius and thus becomes a
synonym of Canavalia gladiata (Jacq.) DC., although placed in
Index Kewensis as a synonym of Canavalia cathartica Thouars.
PUERARIA de Candolle
PUERARIA PHASEOLOIDES (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 9
(1867) 125.
Dolichos phaseoloides Roxb. F]. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (18382) 316.
Phaseolus minimus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 387?
AMBOINA, Soja road, Batoe gadjah, and Amboina (town), Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 607, July and August, 1918, in thickets and waste places,
sea level to an altitude of 200 meters, locally known as katjang panjang.
The species briefly described by Rumphius is referred here
with some doubt, although the description applies closely to
Pueraria phaseoloides Benth.. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
136, thought that it might be Glycine mollis W. & A. Phaseolus
minimus Rumph., described in the same chapter and figured,
is Phaseolus aureus Roxb.
CAJANUS * de Candolle
CAJANUS CAJAN (Linn.) Millsp. in Field. Columb. Mus. Bot. 2 (1900)
53.
Cytisus cajan Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 739.
Cytisus pseudo-cajan Jacq. Hort. Vind. 2 (1772) 54, t. 119.
Cajan inodorum Medic. in Vorles. Churpf. Phys. Ges. 2 (1787) 363.
Cajanus bicolor DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 85.
Cajanus indicus Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 248.
Phaseolus balicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5 : 377, t. 135, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Koesoe koesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 551, August 23,
1913, locally known as kajan kay.
Phaseolus balicus was originally reduced by Linnaeus to his
Cytisus cajan, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 132, to which it certainly belongs. The oldest valid
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Cajan Adans. (1763) is older.
LEGUMINOSAE 222
specific name is that supplied by the Linnean binomial, which is
here accepted in place of the almost universally used Cajanus
indicus Spreng. ,
PHASEOLUS Linnaeus
PHASEOLUS VULGARIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 723.
Phaseolus scriptus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 382?
Faba rubra Rumph: Herb. Amb. 5: 382?
Both of the above plants, very briefly described by Rumphius,
were exotics, which had been introduced into Amboina and
cultivated. Both of them may possibly be forms of Phaseolus
vulgaris Linn., but this disposition of them is a mere guess.
PHASEOLUS AUREUS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 55, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 297.
Phaseolus mungo auctt., non Linn.
Phaseolus radiatus auctt., non Linn.
Phaseolus minimus Rumph. Herb, Amb. 5: 386, t. 139, f. 2.
The commonly cultivated and well-known mung bean is not
represented in our Amboina collections. Linnaeus originally
reduced Phaseolus minimus Rumph. to P. radiatus Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, in which he has been followed by all
authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure and
description. However, Phaseolus radiatus Linn. is not the mung
bean, but is the form described by Roxburgh as Phaseolus sub-
lobatus Roxb. Phaseolus max Linn., also referred to the mung
by some authors, is the soy bean, Glycine max (Linn.) Merr.
(Soja max Piper, Glycine hispida Maxim.); see page 274.
Phaseolus mungo Linn. is a species distinct from P. aureus
Roxb. (P. radiatus auctt.), the urd, or black gram, of India.*
PHASEOLUS CALCARATUS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 54, nomen nudum,
ET Indeed. 2, 3 (1832). 289.
Phaseolus cylindraceus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 389?
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 288, October 6, 19138,
in thickets, altitude about 90 meters.
I am not sure that the plant here cited represents either
Phaseolus cylindraceus. Rumph. or P. calcaratus Roxb. The
specimen is identical with the widely distributed, wild Philippine
form that I have referred to Phaseolus calcaratus Roxb.+, which
* Piper, C. V. Five Oriental species of beans. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bull.
119 (1914) 1-832, t. 1-6, gives critical consideration of the mung bean and
its allies.
4+ Philip. Journ. Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 132.
284 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
differs from typical P. calcaratus in its more scandent habit
and in its smaller seeds.
VIGNA Savi
VIGNA SINENSIS (Linn.) Endl. ex Hassk. Pl. Jav. Rar. (1848) 386.
Dolichos sinensis Linn. Cent. Pl. 2 (1756) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
132, 326 (type!).
Dolichos sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3875, t. 134.
This cultivated species is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections, but the identity of Dolichos sinensis is unmistakable
from Rumphius’s figure and description. It is the commonly
cultivated bean in southern China and the Indo-Malayan region
with very long pods, indicated by Rumphius as “ulnam circiter
longae.” It is known in the Philippines as sitao, a name of
Chinese origin, corresponding to the Chinese name tsjaitau quoted
by Rumphius. Dolichos sinensis Rumph. is the whole basis
of Dolichos sinensis Linn. Linnaeus took his name and brief
description from Rumphius. I have not seen the original
edition of the Centuria Plantarum 2 (1756), but in the reprint,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 326, and in the reprint of Stickman’s
Herbarium Amboinense, |. c. 132, the Rumphian reference is
the whole basis of the species as proposed by Linnaeus. All
early authors follow Linnaeus in quoting the Rumphian figure
under Dolichos sinensis Linn., but some of the more recent ones,
Hasskarl and Miquel, quote it under Vigna sinensis where it
properly belongs. Vigna sinensis (Linn.) Endl., however, has
not always been correctly interpreted by recent authors, but
strictly must be limited to the form of the cow pea with the
very long pods.
VIGNA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Phaseolus cylindricus Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 182 (type!).
Dolichos catjang Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 269.
Phaseolus unguiculatus auctt., non Dolichos unguiculatus Linn.
Phaseolus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3888, t. 139, f. 1.
This cultivated bean is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections. The Rumphian figure and description of Phaseolus
minor are the whole basis of Phaseolus cylindricus Linn. (1759),
a name that has been overlooked by all subsequent authors,
and which is not listed in Index Kewensis. It antedates
Dolichos catjang Linn. and supplies the earliest valid specific
name for the common cow pea. This form, with the short pods,
by some authors has been considered either as identical with
Vigna sinensis (Linn.) Endl. or as a variety of it. Modern
LEGUMINOSAE 285
authors have generally considered it as a distinct species, some
under the name Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp. However,
Dolichos unguiculatus Linn., the basis of Vigna ungwiculata
Walp., is Phaseolus unguiculatus (Linn.) Piper, in Torreya 12
(1912) 190 (Phaseolus antillanus Urban), and has nothing to
do with Vigna, with which it has been confused. Linnaeus
cites the Rumphian name and figure in the original publication
of Dolichos catjang (1771), in which he was followed by Bur-
man f., Murray, Lamarck, Loureiro, Willdenow, Persoon, de
Candolle, Don, and other authors. Rumphius described two
forms, I albus and II ruber, which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 135, indicated as Vigna catjang var. alba Hassk. and
V. catjang var. ruber Hassk., respectively. Both are probably
merely cultural forms of the species.
VIGNA MARINA (Burm.) comb. nov.
Phaseolus marinus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [17]
(type!).
Dolichos luteus Sw. Prodr. Veg. Ind. Occ. (1788) 105.
Vigna lutea A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor. Exped. (1854) 452.
Phaseolus maritimus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 391, t. 141, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe and Eri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 586, September,
1913, along the strand, locally known as katjang laut.
The specific name above adopted for this well-known and widely
distributed strand plant seems to be the oldest valid one for it.
Burman’s species is typified by the Rumphian figure and descrip-
tion, the figure being an excellent representation of the plant
commonly called Vigna lutea A. Gray. It is one of the few
species published by Burman in the Index Universalis issued
with Volume VII (Auctuarium) of the Herbarium Amboinense.
PACHYRRHIZUS * Richard
PACHYRRHIZUS EROSUS (Linn.) Urban Symb. Antil. 4 (1905) 311.
Dolichos erosus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 726.
Dolichos bulbosus Linn Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1021.
Pachyrrhizus angulatus Rich. ex DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402.
Pachyrrhizus bulbosus Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 457% (1876) 246.
Cacara erosa O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 165.
Cacara bulbosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 878, t. 182, f. 2.
The common yam bean is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections. It was introduced into Amboina from the Philippines,
having been brought to the latter group from Mexico by the
Spanish colonists. Cacara bulbosa was originally reduced by
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Cacara Thou. (1805) is older.
286 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Linnaeus to Dolichos erosus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 23, Amoen, Acad. 4 (1759) 1382, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1163;
but in the second edition of his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1763)
1021, he placed it under Dolichos bulbosus Linn., which is
manifestly a synonym of the earlier D. erosus Linn. By most
recent authors it has been considered to be Pachyrrhizus angula-
tus Rich., but this name must be abandoned for the much earlier
Linnean one.
PSOPHOCARPUS * Necker
PSOPHOCARPUS TETRAGONOLOBUS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 403.
Dolichos tetragonolobus Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1162, Sp. Pl. ed.
2 (1763) 1020 (type!).
Botor tetragonoloba O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 162.
Lobus quadrangularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3874, t. 133.
This well-known species is not represented in our Amboina
collections, but is doubtless still cultivated there as it is in most
parts of the Indo-Malayan region. The Rumphian figure and
description are the whole basis of Dolichos tetragonolobus Linn.,
and it has been consistently cited by all authors under that
name or its modern equivalent, Psophocarpus tetragonolobus DC.
DOLICHOS Linnaeus
DOLICHOS LABLAB Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 725.
Dolichos lignosus Linn. 1. ¢. 726.
Dolichos albus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 489.
Lablab vulgaris Savi Diss. (1821) 19.
Lablab perennans DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 402.
Cacara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 378, t. 136.
Cacara alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 380, t. 137.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 552, pepe 235
1918, locally known as kakara puti.
The specimen represents one of the several distinct forms of
this variable species; in the shape of its pod it is somewhat
different from both of the forms figured by Rumphius. Two
distinct forms are figured and described by Rumphius: Cacara,
with purple flowers, and Cacara alba, with white flowers. These
are now, however, generally considered to represent a single
species. Cacara was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Dolichos
lignosus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, and has
been cited by various authors under the names Dolichos altissi-
mus Lour. and Lablab vulgaris Savi, both synonyms of Dolichos
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Botor Adans. (1763) is older.
OXALIDACEAE 287
lablab Linn. Cacara alba was cited by Loureiro in the original
description of Dolichos albus Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 439,
and has been cited by various authors under Lablab perennans
Dc., Lablab vulgaris Savi, and Lablab cultratus DC., all syn-
onyms of Dolichos lablab Linn.
Some authors, after Adanson, have maintained Lablab as a
genus distinct from Dolichos Linnaeus, but I interpret Dolichos
lablab Linn. as the type of the genus Dolichos, it being the first
species cited in the Species Plantarum, while the generic descrip-
tion, as given in the Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754) 324, conforms
to the characters of this species.
LEGUMINOS4® OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Crotalaria montana VIII tsjeme tsjeme Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 146.
A shrub from Macassar, Celebes, insufficiently described, but manifestly
a representative of the Leguminosae. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 176,
thought that it might be a species of Sophora, near S. glabra Hassk.
Aeschynomene theophrasti Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 124.
Burman f. referred this to Aeschynomene aspera Linn., but there is no
warrant for this reduction. Rumphius merely discusses the plant as de-
scribed by Theophrastus.
OXALIDACEAE
AVERRHOA Linnaeus
AVERRHOA BILIMBI Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 428.
Blimbingum teres Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 118, t. 36.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 219, August 18, 1913,
locally known as blimbing.
This is one of the few Rumphian species that Linnaeus reduced
in the first edition of his Species Plantarum, the Rumphian
citation appearing in Sp. Pl. (1753) 428, and in all of Linnaeus’s
subsequent works in which the species is considered. The reduc-
tion is certainly correct, and Linnaeus has been followed by all
subsequent authors.
AVERRHOA CARAMBOLA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 428.
Prunum stellatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 115, t. 35.
AMBOINA, from cultivated plants near the town of Amboina, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 218, August 23, 1918, locally known as blimbing manis.
This Rumphian species, like the preceding one, was reduced
by Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753)
428, appears in the subsequent writings of the same author in
which Averrhoa is considered, and the reduction, certainly cor-
rect, has been accepted by all subsequent authors.
288 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
BIOPHYTUM de Candolle
BIOPHYTUM SENSITIVUM (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 690.
Oxalis sensitiva Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 434.
Herba sentiens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 301, t. 104, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 217, eee 20, 1918,
along ditches in rocky soil, altitude 5 to 10 meters.
Herba sentiens Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Ovzalis
sensitiva, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 1381, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1038, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 622,
which is certainly correct. The plant is now known as Biophy-
tum sensitivum (Linn.) DC., and most authors who have cited
the Rumphian figure since 1824 have so placed it. Miquel,
however, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1858) 1384, considers that the
Rumphian figure represents Oxalis reinwardtw Zucc., which he
maintains as a species distinct from Biophytum sensitivum
(Lainn.). DC.
OXALIS Linnaeus
OXALIS REPENS Thunb. Diss. Oxal. (1781) 16.
Oxys lutea indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 277.
AMBOINA, on walls in the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
216, July 22, 1913, locally known as daun kelauwar.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 107, and Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 285, place Oxys lutea indica under Oxalis corniculata
Linn., and most authors have considered Oxalis repens Thunb.
to be a synonym of the older Linnean species. However, Dr.
B. L. Robinson * has shown that two species are involved in
what is generally called Oxalis corniculata Linn. The actual
Amboina specimens, like most or all the material from the.
Malayan region usually called Owalis corniculata Linn., are
actually referable to Thunberg’s species, as the two forms are
distinguished by Doctor Robinson.
RUTACEAE
FAGARA Linnaeus
FAGARA TORVA (F. Muell.) Engl. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam.
3.* (1895) 119.
Zanthoxylum torvum F. Muell. Fragm. 7 (1871) 140.
Zanthoxylum glandulosum T. & B. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 234,
nomen nudum.
Nugae sylvarum silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 124.
AMBOINA, Paso, on trees at low altitudes, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 250,
October 29, 1913.
* Journ. Bot. 44 (1906) 391.
RUTACEAE 289
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 99, has suggested that Nugae
sylvarum silvestris might be a Zanthoxylum. With Amboina
material that certainly represents the Rumphian species, this
supposition can now be verified. The specimen is a very close
match for Hochreutiner’s Pl. Bogor. E'xsiccatae No. 28, which
is typical Zanthoxylum glandulosum T. & B., and which Hochreu-
tiner interprets as typical Zanthoxylum torvum F. Muell. The
same form is found in Luzon, Leyte, and Mindanao in the Philip-
pines, so that the known range of the species is now from Luzon
to Java, the Moluccas, and tropical Australia.
FAGARA sp.
Panax ? anisum DC. Prodr. 4 (18380) 254 (type!).
Nothopanax ? anisum Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1857) 766 (type!).
Anisum moluccanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 131, ¢. 42.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The description in all respects applies to Fagara (Zanthoxylum),
but without specimens I am unable definitely to refer Anisum
moluccanum Rumph. to any described Malayan species. So far
as can be determined from the description, Panax anisum DC.
is based wholly on Rumphius, Nothopanax anisum Miq. being
merely a transfer of de Candolle’s name. Henschel erroneously
referred the Rumphian species to Zanthoxylum aromaticum
Willd., an American species. The figure closely resembles
Fagara avicennae Lam.
EVODIA Forster
EVODIA LATIFOLIA DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 724 (type!).
Ampacus latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 186, ¢t. 67.
This species was based wholly on Rumphius and must be
interpreted entirely from the Rumphian figure and description.
Evodia latifolia DC. has been interpreted by recent authors
as being represented by Philippine specimens collected by
Cuming, but the Philippine material has been described under
two different names, E'vodia bintoco Blanco and E'vodia philip-
pinensis Merr. Burman f. thought that the plant figured by
Rumphius might be a species of Rhus, Lamarck a Premma
or Vitex, and Poiret, with doubt, an Awbertia. De Candolle,
however, based his Hvodia latifolia wholly on Rumphius.
It has also been called Zanthoxylum latifolium Don, Fagara
latifolia Roxb., and Zanthoxylum rumphianum Cham. It
is undoubtedly a true Evodia. Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.
Bat. 3 (1867) 244, has redescribed Evodia latifolia DC. from
Halmaheira specimens, and his description conforms closely
144971——-19
29() RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
to Philippine material referred to de Candolle’s species. Am-
boina specimens are desirable in order definitely to determine
the true status of the species. |
EVODIA AMBOINENSIS sp. nov.
Ampacus angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 188, t. 62.
AMBOINA, Koesoejoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 251 (type),
October 3, 1913, in light woods at an altitude of about 225 meters; hills
behind the town of Amboina, in light forests, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
252, October 27, 1918, locally known as gendarussa.
Arbor parva, 8 ad 10 m alta, glabra, vel ramulis junioribus
inflorescentiisque plus minusve cinereo-puberulis; foliis 3-foliola-
tis, foliolis petiolatis, firme chartaceis ad subcoriaceis, oblongis,
usque ad 16 cm longis, acuminatis, basi acutis ad rotundatis,
nervis utrinque 10 ad 12, subtus prominentibus; paniculis axilla-
ribus, pyramidatis, usque ad 13 cm longis, ramis patulis, mul-
tifloris, floribus circiter 2.5 mm longis, ovario pubescente.
A tree 8 to 10 m high, nearly glabrous, or the young branchlets
and parts of the inflorescence more or less cinereous-puberulent.
Branches terete, reddish-brown, often somewhat compressed at
the nodes, smooth. Leaves opposite, 3-foliolate, their petioles
4 to 7 cm long; leaflets in general oblong, firmly chartaceous to
subcoriaceous, 9 to 16 cm long, 4 to 7 cm wide, entire, apex rather
prominently acuminate, base acute to rounded, somewhat shining
when dry, subolivaceous or somewhat pale, quite glabrous on
both surfaces; lateral nerves 10 to 12 on each side of the midrib,
slender but prominent, anastomosing, the reticulations lax; pe-
tiolules 8 to 5 mm long. Panicles axillary, pyramidal, slightly
puberulent or nearly glabrous, up to 13 cm long, the branches
spreading, the lower ones up to 7 cm long. Flowers white,
numerous, their pedicels about 2 mm long. Sepals 4, ovate,
obtuse, 0.56 mm long. Petals 4, elliptic-ovate, glabrous, slightly
apiculate at the apex, 2 to 2.5 mm long; filaments elongated,
glabrous; anthers 1.2 mm long. Ovary 4-lobed, pubescent.
Fruit small, composed of two or three, nearly free, dehiscent
cocci about 3.5 mm in length, the seeds blue-black, shining, about
2 mm in diameter.
Ampacus angustifolius has been confused with Evodia tri-
phylla DC. by practically all authors since the publication of
the latter species in de Candolle’s Prodromus 1 (1824) 724,
which in turn was based on Fagara triphylla Lam., Encycl. 2
(1788) 447. The type of Fagara triphylla was a Philippine
specimen, and it is Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr., in Philip.
Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 375, where the complicated synonymy
—— ae ~
RUTACEAE 3 991
of the species is discussed. It is manifest, however, that most
authors interpreted E'vodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. not from the
Philippine specimen actually described, but from the Rumphian
figure, for Lamarck in the original description of Fagara tri-
phylla adds a reference to Ampacus angustifolia Rumph. The
names Fagara triphylla Lam., Evodia triphylla DC., and Zan-
thoxylum triphyllum Don all refer to Melicope triphylla (Lam.)
Merr. as synonyms and cannot be applied to the Amboina plant.
It was erroneously reduced by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859)
671, to Zanthoxylum zeylanicum DC.
Evodia triphylla (Lam.) DC. has been given a range of from
Tenasserim to Japan southward through Malaya to New Guinea,
and to it have been referred specimens representing at least
four distinct species in two different genera. As already
pointed out by me, true Zanthoxylum triphyllum Lam.=E'vo-
dia triphylla DC. is Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr., a species
confined to the Philippines. Chinese material generally, but
erroneously, referred to E'vodia triphylla DC. is Evodia pteleae-
folia (Champ.) Merr., in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 377;
material from India, the Malay Peninsula, and the Sunda Islands
for the most part is E'vodia lunur-ankenda (Gaertn.) Merr., 1. c.
378; while the actual Ampacus angustifolius Rumph. of Amboina
represents still another species, H'vodia amboinensis Merr. de-
scribed above. This is known only from Amboina, but ma-
terial from other parts of the Moluccas and from New Guinea,
erroneously referred by other authors to EH'vodia triphylla DC.,
may prove to be identical with the Amboina species.
FLINDERSIA R. Brown
FLINDERSIA AMBOINENSIS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816) 659
(type!).
Flindersia radulifera Spreng. Geschicht. Bot. 2 (1818) 76 (type!),
ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 208.
Arbor radulifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 201, t. 129.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Arbor radulifera Rumph. is the whole basis of Flindersia am-
boinensis Poir. and of F. radulifera Spreng. The latter name
does not appear in Index Kewensis. All descriptions of the
species published, up to and including that of A. de Candolle,*
have been based on the data given by Rumphius, no botanist
having had specimens. It is cultivated in the botanic garden
at Buitenzorg, Java, according to botanical specimens named
* Meliaceae in DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 735.
292 _ RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Flindersia amboinensis Poir. from “III-A-7” and distributed
from that institution.
MURRAYA * Koenig
MURRAYA PANICULATA (Linn.) Jack in Malay Miscel. 1 (1820) 31.
Chalecas paniculata Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 68.
Chaleas camuneng Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 104.
Murraya scandens Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866)
233 (Neue Schliissel 91) (type!).
Camunium japonense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 29, t. 18, f. 2.
Camunium javanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 27.
Camunium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 26, t. 17.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 249, September 18, 1913, from
cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, locally known as kamuneng; exactly
Camunium japonense Rumph.!
While the figures given by Rumphius represent two distinct
forms, it is very doubtful whether or not two species are rep-
resented. Specimens are found in herbaria that apparently
present all intergradations between the form with small leaflets
(Camunium japonense Rumph.) and the form with fewer and
larger leaflets (Camunium vulgare Rumph.). If but one species
be represented, then the oldest valid name is Murraya paniculata
(Linn.) Jack, and pending a critical revision of the genus it is
probably best to consider both forms described by Rumphius as
representing one variable species.
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 128, erroneously reduced Camunium japonense to
Vitex pinnata Linn., the latter being given by some authors as
a synonym of Aglaia odorata Lour. However, Vitex pinnata
Linn. was based on Fl. Zeyl. 415, and Hermann’s specimen is
Vitex altissima Linn.+ The reduction of Camunium japonense
to Murraya exotica Linn. was made by Lamarck, Encycl. 4
(1797) 382, in which he has been followed by numerous authors.
Camunium vulgare Rumph. was placed by Burman f., FI. Ind.
(1768) 104, as a synonym of Chalcas camuneng, but Chalcas
camuneng Burm. f. was primarily based on Javan specimens
from cultivated plants. Linnaeus based his Chalcas paniculata
on Burman’s species and also cited Rumphius. Whether the
form actually in Burman’s hands was the one with small leaflets
(typical Murraya exotica Linn.) or with fewer and larger
leaflets is impossible to determine from the original descrip-
tion, but it was probably the former. Murraya sumatrana
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Camunium Adans. (1768), Chalcas
Linn. (1767), and Bergera Koenig (1771) are older.
+ See Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 3 (1895) 358.
RUTACEAE 2938
Roxb. is apparently quite the same as Camunium vulgare
Rumph.; while Murraya scandens Hassk., which does not appear
in Index Kewensis, must be typified wholly by the Rumphian
figure and description. The forms mentioned by Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 91, as Camunium javanicum and Camunium e
Macassar are both probably referable to Murraya paniculata
(Linn.) Jack as here interpreted.
FERONIA Correa
FERONIA LIMONIA (Linn.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 4 (1914)
328.
Schinus limonia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 389.
Limonia acidissema Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 554,
Feronia elephantum Correa in Trans. Linn. Soc. 5 (1800) 225.
Anisifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 1388, t. 48.
Nothing resembling Anizsifoliwm appears in our Amboina col-
lections. Regarding the Rumphian figure, Swingle states that
it is “the wood apple or a very closely allied species.”’ Linnaeus
made the reduction to his Schinus limonia, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1759) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1034, and in his Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 554, to Limonia
acidisstma, the latter reduction being followed by most authors.
Hamilton placed it under F'eronia elephantum Corr., while Hass-
karl places it under Hesperethusa acidisstma Roem., a synonym
of Feronia imonia (Linn.) Swingle. Rumphius’s material was
from Java where the species is still cultivated.
AEGLE * Correa
AEGLE MARMELOS (Linn.) Correa in Trans. Linn. Soc. 5 (1800) 223.
Crataeva marmelos Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 444.
Bilacus marmelos O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 98.
Bilacus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 197, t. 81.
Bilacus taurinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 199.
This reduction of Bilacus was first made by Linnaeus, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 637, and is certainly the correct disposition
of it. It was described and figured from cultivated specimens.
I am unable definitely to place Bilacus amboinensis silvestris
Rumph., Herb. Amb. 1: 200, ¢t. 28. It was erroneously reduced
by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 120, to Crataeva tapia Linn. Hamilton suggested that
it might be an undescribed species of Aegle, but this is improb-
able. The figure strongly resembles Crataeva religiosa Forst.,
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Below Adans. (1763) is older.
294 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
but the description does not conform to Crataeva in the seed
characters: ‘In centro quatuor vel quinque locantur ossicula, a
sese invicem remota, lanosa seu pilosa instar seminum Gossypii.”’
In the original description Rumphius states that the flowers
were unknown to him; but in the plate, drawn after he became
blind, the flowers are shown. His original material was from
Manipa, Sula Islands, and Celebes, but in the supplementary
data taken from the Auctuarium and appended to the original
description he cites specimens from Leytimor, Amboina, and
states regarding the fruit: ‘Fructus est instar ovi minoris avis |
Casuaril.”” It is possible that the description was based on
material from two different species. The figure, however, con-
forms to the characters of Bilacus amboinensis silvestris as
given in the text. In some respects the figure and description
suggest Chaetospermum, typified by the Philippine Chaetosper-
mum glutinosum (Blanco) Swingle, but Bilacus amboinensis
silvestris Rumph. can hardly belong in the Rutaceae.
FORTUNELLA Swingle
FORTUNELLA JAPONICA (Thunb.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci.
5 (1915) 171, f. 3.
Citrus japonica Thunb. Nov. Act. Upsal. 3 (1780) 199.
Citrus madurensis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 467.
Citrus wmermis Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 393.
Limonellus madurensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 110, t. 31.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 467, first reduced Limonellus
madurensis to his Citrus madurensis, which Swingle considers
to be a synonym of Citrus japonica Thunb.—Fortunella japomca
Swingle. The plant is a native of China, and the only possible
objection I note to the reduction of Limonellus madurensis is
that Citrus japonica is not known to occur in the Malay Archi-
pelago. However, Rumphius states that the plant was cultivated
in Madura and at Batavia, Java, where it may have been intro-
duced from China and where it has failed to persist. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 32, suggests Atalantia monophylla DC.
as the proper reduction of Limonellus madurensis Rumph., but
judging from the figure and description given by Rumphius the
plant can hardly have been an Atalantia.
MEROPE M. Roemer
MEROPE ANGULATA (Willd.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5
(1915) 423.
Citrus angulata Willd. Sp. Pl. (1800) 1426 (type!).
Sclerostylis spinosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 134.
Limonia spinosa Spreng. Syst. Veg. 4° (1827) 162.
Bea enh:
RUTACEAE | 295
Glycosmis spinosa Dietr. Syn. Pl. 2 (1840) 1409.
Merope spinosa M. Roem. Syn. Mon. Hesp. 1 (1846) 44.
Limonia angulosa W. & A. ex Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859) 521
(type!).
Atalantia longispina Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 41’ (1872) 295.
Gonocitrus angulatus Kurz 1. c. 42% (1874) 228, t. 18.
Paramignya longispina Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 511.
Paramignya angulata Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 43° (1874) 135.
Atalantia spinosa Hook. f. ex Koord. Exkurs. Fl. Java 2 (1912) 427.
Limonellus angulosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 110, t. 32.
The above formidable list of synonyms is copied from Swingle’s
paper on Merope.* He has there given a critical consideration
of Merope angulata (Willd.) Swingle and its numerous syn-
onyms. Rumphius’s figure and description are the whole basis
of Citrus angulata Willd. and hence typify the species, which
on Wight and Arnott’s suggestion was transferred to Limonia as
L. angulosus W. & A. by Miquel; it is, therefore, also the type of
Limonia angulosa W. & A. It is also the name-bringing syn-
onym of both Gonocitrus angulatus Kurz and Paramignya angu-
lata Kurz. Kurz was the first to recognize the identity of
Limonellus angulosus Rumph. and its true relationships.
CITRUS Linnaeus
A number of representatives of the genus Citrus are figured
and described by Rumphius, and these have been variously inter-
preted by botanists. Some maintain that the species of this
genus are reducible to a few polymorphous types with nu-
merous varieties, while others maintain that the genus is
composed of a large number of closely allied species. The
probabilities are that there are relatively few species and that
these have yielded numerous horticultural forms and hybrids;
it is not at all improbable that natural hybrids occur. In such
a genus as Citrus it is naturally to be expected that authors
have widely differed in interpreting the forms described by
Rumphius. In relatively few cases is it possible definitely to
determine from his figures and descriptions alone the exact
status of the several forms in our present system of classifica-
tion. The Robinson Amboina collection presents but two species
of Citrus, the common lime and the common pomelo, and na-
turally helps but little in determining the status of the Rumphian
species or forms. Until extensive field work is prosecuted in
the whole Malayan region and until the entire genus Citrus
undergoes a very thorough and critical revision, any attempt
* Merope angulata, a salt-tolerant plant related to Citrus, from the
Malay Archipelago. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 420-425.
296 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
to interpret the Rumphian figures and descriptions must be
unsatisfactory. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, reduced most of the forms that
Rumphius figured to Citrus medica Linn. and Citrus aurantium
Linn., which disposition of them is not at all satisfactory; yet
succeeding attempts to interpret them are hardly more satis-
factory. It is probable that all or most of them have been de-
scribed by succeeding authors, but from descriptions alone it
is quite impossible to determine precisely to what forms or
species the Rumphian plants should be reduced.
CITRUS AURANTIFOLIA (Christm.) Swingle in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci.
3 (1918) 465.
Limonia aurantifolia Christm. Pflanzensyst. 1 (1777) 618.
Limonia acidissima Houtt. Handl. 2’ (1774) 444, non Linn.
Citrus lima Lunan Hort. Jamaic. 2 (1814) 4651.
Citrus acida Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 390.
Citrus notissimus Blanco FI. Filip. (1887) 607.
Citrus limonellus Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 43.
Limonellus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 107, t. 29.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 247, August 13, 19138, along
roadsides, locally known as limon china.
This is the common lime. Limonellus was erroneously re-
duced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 121, to Citrus aurantium Linn. Both Houttuyn
and Christmann cite the Rumphian figure, and Christmann’s
specific name is the oldest valid one for the species, as shown
by Swingle. Blume cites the Rumphian plant as a synonym of
Citrus javanica Blume, Bijdr. (1825) 140, while Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 382, places it under Citrus limonellus Hassk.,
the specific name being apparently taken from Rumphius. The
form figured on the same plate by Rumphius, fig. A, Hasskarl,
l. c., considers as a variety, calling it Citrus lamonellus var.
oxycarpus Hassk.
CITRUS MAXIMA (Burm.) comb. nov.
Aurantium maximum Burm. ex Rumph. Herb. Amb. Auctuarium
(1755) Ind. Univ. [16] (type!).
Citrus grandis Osbeck Dagbok Ostind. Resa (1757) 98.
Citrus aurantium Linn. var. grandis Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 783.
Citrus decumana Linn. Syst. ed. 12 (1767) 508.
Limo decumanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 96, t. 24, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 248, August 17, 1913,
altitude about 60 meters, locally known as limon.
The common pomelo is commonly known as Citrus decumana
Linn., but there are at least two older names, the older of
which is here accepted. Aurantium maximum Burm., a name
RUTACEAE 297
not listed in Index Kewensis, is validly published by Burman in
the general index to the Herbarium Amboinense by citation of
the Rumphian name and description. It is to be noted that
Burman on page [11] of the Index Universalis refers Limo
decumanus Rumph. to Citrus aurantium Linn. Swingle, in
Sargent Pl. Wils. 2 (1914), has already pointed out that Citrus
grandis Osbeck antedates the publication of Citrus decumana
Linn. and accordingly accepted Osbeck’s specific name. Three
forms described by Rumphius, J/, J/J, and IV, are all probably
referable here; although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 31,
places them under the varieties pyriformis Hassk., leucosarca
Hassk., and dulcis Hassk., respectively.
CITRUS OBVERSA Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 218.
Limo ferus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 106, t. 26, f. 3, t. 28.
In this reduction I merely follow Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 382. The figures strongly resemble forms of Citrus
hystrix DC., as de Candolle’s species is currently interpreted;
and Limo ferus Rumph., with Citrus obversus Hassk., may be
merely a form of this polymorphous species. At any rate,
the specific status of Citrus obversa Hassk. is very doubtful.
CITRUS BERGAMIA Risso Hist. Nat. Or. Europ. Merid. (1826-28) ft. 52.
Limo taurinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 105.
The status of both Citrus bergamina Risso, as a species, and
of Limo taurinus Rumph. is very doubtful. The reduction fol-
lows Miquel and Hasskarl. I suspect that Limo taurinus is
merely a form of Citrus hystrix DC.
CITRUS MEDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 782.
Malum citrium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 99, t. 25.
This was placed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 465, under
Citrus medica Linn., and by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
31, under Citrus grandis Hassk. var. oblonga Hassk.
CITRUS HYSTRIX DC. Cat. Hort. Monsp. (1813) 97.
Limo tuberosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 101, t. 26, f. 1.
Limo unguentarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 103.
Limo agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 104, t. 27.
The forms with the rugose fruits appear to be the same as
the Philippine form described by Blanco as Citrus torosa. Limo
tuberosus has been reduced to Citrus medica Linn. var., to C.
hystrix DC. var., and to Citrus bergamia Risso var. unguen-
taria Roem. Limo unguentarius has been reduced to Citrus
medica Linn. var., to C. hystrix DC. var., and to C. bergamia
298 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Risso var. unguentaria Roem.; while Limo agrestis has been
reduced to Citrus medica Linn. var., C. hystrix DC. var., C.
bergamia Risso var. ventricosa Roem., Papeda rumphi Hassk.,
and Citrus papeda Miq.
CITRUS AURANTIUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 782, var.
Aurantium acidum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 111, t. 38.
This figure seems to represent one of the sour oranges. It
has been reduced by various authors to Citrus fusca Lour., C.
aurantium Linn. var. vulgaris Risso, C. vulgaris Risso, C. amara
Hassk., and C. bigaradia Risso.
To Citrus aurantium should probably also be referred
Aurantium verrucosum Rumph., Herb. Amb. 2: 116, of Banda, and
Aurantium pumilum madurense Rumph., 1. c., of Madura, and
probably also the forms indicated as Aurantium acidum II and III
on page 112.
CITRUS NOBILIS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 466.
Aurantium sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 118.
Aurantium sinense I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 113.
This is the common loose-skinned orange commonly referred
to Citrus nobilis Lour. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 383,
refers A. sinense to Citrus nobilis var. melanocarpa Hassk. and
A. stnense II to C. nobilis var. microcarpa Hassk.
CITRUS sp.
Limo ventricosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 102, t. 26, f. 2.
The figure represents a form somewhat approaching the true
lemon. It has been reduced by various authors to Citrus medica
Risso, C. hystrix DC., C. aurantium Linn. var. limonum Risso,
C. bergamia Risso var. ventricosa Roem., and C. limonum Risso.
CITRUS sp.
Limonellus aurarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 109, t. 80.
This has been reduced by various authors to Citrus aurantium
Linn., C. limetta Risso, C. limetta var. auraria Risso, and C.
hystrix DC. Its true position is very uncertain, but it may
be a form of Citrus limetta Risso.
CITRUS sp.
Aurantium verrucosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 115, t. 35.
This has been reduced by various authors to Citrus nobilis
Lour., C. aurantiwm Linn., C. pompelmos var. racemosus Risso,
C. decumana var. racemosa Roem., and C. decumana var.
verrucosa Miq.; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 33, sug-
SIMARUBACEAE 299
gests that it may be Citrus macracantha Hassk. The figure
might be either a form of Citrus aurantium Linn. or a small-
fruited form of Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr. (C. decumana
Linn.).
) SIMARUBACEAE
BRUCEA J. S. Miller
BRUCEA AMARISSIMA (Lour.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 10 (1915)
Bot. 18.
Gonus amarissimus Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 658.
Brucea sumatrana Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 12 (type!), Fl. Ind. ed.
2) 4 (8882) °.449.
Lussa radja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 27, t. 15.
This characteristic and widely distributed Malayan species
is not represented in our Amboina collections. The Rumphian
figure is the full basis of Brucea sumatrana Roxb. by citation in
the original place of publication, Hort. Beng. (1814) 12. It is
also cited by Loureiro in the original description of his Gonus
amarissimus, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 658. The form “II ex Solora”
Rumph., |. c. 28, may be referable to the same species; it was
characterized as differing from the Javan form in its longer
inflorescences and in its larger and more intensely bitter fruits.
AILANTHUS * Desfontaines
AILANTHUS INTEGRIFOLIA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 417 (type!).
Atlanthus moluccana DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 89 (type!).
Arbor coeli Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 205, t. 132.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Arbor coelt Rumph. is the whole basis of Ailanthus (Aylanthus)
integrifolia Lam. as published in 1791, while A. moluccara DC.,
1825, is merely a new name for Lamarck’s species, so that both
must primarily be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and
description. Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 379, thought that it
might possibly be referable to Adenanthera falcataria Linn.,
which is Albizzia falcata (Linn.) Backer (see p. 249); while
Henschel erroneously referred it to Connarus pentagynus Lam.
SAMADERA + Gaertner
SAMADERA INDICA Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 352, t. 156.
Lanius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 194, t. 124.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collection.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Pongelion Adans. (1763) is older.
+ Retained name, Vienna Code; Locandi Adans. (1763) is older.
300 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The figure is very poor and does not conform very well with
Samadera indica Gaertn., although the plant described is cer-
tainly referable to this genus. The only previously suggested
reduction is Teysmann’s opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 66, that it was a species of Samadera. Botan-
ical material from the Moluccas may show Lanius to be speci-
fically distinct from Samadera indica Gaertn.
SOULAMEA Lamarck
SOULAMEA AMARA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 449.
Cardiocarpus amarus Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 14.
Rex amaroris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 129, t. 41.
The Rumphian species was first reduced by Linnaeus to Ophio-
zylon serpentinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, an entirely erroneous disposition
of it. Lamarck cites Rex amaroris Rumph. as a synonym of
Soulamea amara Lam. in the original description of the genus
and species, the description being based on actual specimens
from New Britain; it is barely possible that the Moluccan form
is specifically distinct from the New Britain one, but this can
be determined only by a comparison of specimens from these
localities.
BURSERACEAE
CANARIUM Linnaeus
CANARIUM DECUMANUM Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 99, t. 102.
Pimela decumana Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 223.
Canariopsis decumana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859) 652.
Canarium decumanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 166, t. 55.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections, and like
several other species of the genus it must be interpreted largely
from the description and the figure given by Rumphius. It is
almost certain that the species as described by Engler, in DC.
Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 132, under Canarium decumanum is not
the same as the plant that Rumphius described. The status
of the species must await the results of further field work.
CANARIUM LEGITIMUM (Blume) Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859) 647.
Pimela legitima Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 222.
Dammara nigra legitima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 162, t. 52.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. It is
probable that Blume in describing the species correctly reduced
BURSERACEAE 201
the Rumphian plant. Blume’s species was based on actual
specimens with a reference to the Rumphian name and figure.
CANARIUM BALSAMIFERUM Willd. Sp. Pl. 47 (1804) 760 (type!).
Boswellia balsamifera DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 76 (type!).
Pimela glabra Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1850) 222 (type!).
Canariopsis glabra Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859) 653 (type!).
Canarium odoriferum leve Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 156, t. 50.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
status of the species is wholly doubtful, and all the names cited
above must be interpreted entirely from Rumphius, as all are
based solely on his description and figure. Like a number of
other species of Canarium, the exact status of Canarium balsa-
miferum Willd. must await further botanical exploration of
Amboina; the only certain thing about the status of the species
is that it is a true Canarium.
CANARIUM COMMUNE Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 127 (type!).
Canarium mehenbethene Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 98, saltem quoad syn.
Rumph.
Canarium indicum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143 pro minore parte.
Canarium moluccanum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 216.
Canarium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 145, ¢. 47, (excl. f. EH,
FG?)
AMBOINA, Binting and the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
881, September 27, 1913, in flower; Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 380,
July 16, 1913, in fruit, locally known as kanari.
Canarium vulgare Rumph. is the whole basis of Canarium
commune Linn., as originally published by Linnaeus in his
Mantissa 1 (1767) 127, and the species must be interpreted from
the Rumphian reference. The species has been correctly inter-
preted by practically all authors, as it is widely destributed in
the Malay Archipelago and is a characteristic and well-known
one. Canarium indicum Linn., not listed in Index Kewensis, is
an older name, but I believe it should be abandoned for the reason
that Linnaeus cited under it all the species of Canariwm figured
by Rumphius, ¢. 47 to 56, inclusive. He abandoned the name,
apparently realizing later that numerous species were involved,
and made the first plate, t. 47, the type of his Canariwm com-
mune. While the first plate cited under Canarium indicum,
that is t. 47, might be interpreted as the type of Canarium
indicum Linn., it really represents that species only in small part.
I can see no valid reason for considering Canarium moluccanum
Blume other than a form of C. commune Linn. Figures LE, F,
302 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
and G, of plate 47, probably represent merely variations of
Canarium commune Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 36,
places them under C. commune Linn. and C. moluccanum Blume.
CANARIUM HIRSUTUM Willd. Sp. Pl. 4? (1804) 760 (type!).
Boswellia hirsuta DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 76 (type!).
Pimela hirsuta Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 23838 (type!).
Canariopsis hirsuta Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1859) 653 (type!).
Canarium odoriferum hirsutum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 157, t. 51.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Canariwm
hirsutum Willd. and all of the synonyms cited above must be
interpreted wholly from Rumphius, on whose description and
figure all are based. The probabilities are that Canarium his-
pidum Blume will prove to be a synonym of it, but additional
botanical material from Amboina will be necessary before the
exact status of Canarium hirsutum Willd. can definitely be fixed.
CANARIUM ACUTIFOLIUM (DC.) comb. nov.
Marignia acutifoia DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 79 (type!).
Canarium nigrum Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 138.
Pimela acutifoia Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 221, excl. syn. Zipp.
Dammara nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t. 52.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 377, October 3, 1918, in
light forests, altitude about 300 meters, locally known as nanari.
Marignia acutifolia DC. was based entirely on the Rumphian
reference cited above and must be interpreted from it and from
Amboina material. After a careful study of the description as
given by Rumphius, I am convinced that the specimen cited
above, although with an abnormal fasciated inflorescence, rep-
resents the plant described and in all probability the one figured,
although the figure is crude and unsatisfactory. It is very
certain that Canarium rostratum Zipp., referred here by Blume,
is not the plant described or figured by Rumphius, but represents
a distinct species apparently very closely allied to Canarium
oleosum (Lam.) Merr. (C. microcarpum Willd.). It is to be
noted that Blume, in citing Rumphius under Pimela acutifolia,
erroneously gives the reference as “Dammara nigra II. p. 160,
t. 72,” instead of Canaritum mgrum Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t. 52,
as it should be. Canarium nigrum Roxb., which is scarcely
described by him, belongs here at least in part. It is not listed
in Index Kewensis. He cites Dulcamara (sic!) nigra Rumph.,
Amb. II. 162. t. 52 and 53, as representing Canarium ngrum
Roxb; but the two plates manifestly represent two distinct
species, the latter being Canarium legitimum Blume (see p. 300).
BURSERACEAE 303
CANARIUM OLEOSUM (Lam.) Engl. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam.
3* (1896) 241.
Amyris oleosa Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 3862 (type!).
Canarium microcarpum Willd. Sp. Pl. 4* (1805) 760 (type!).
Nanarium minimum s. oleosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 162 (t. 54?).
AMBOINA, Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 376, October 38, 19138, in
light forest at an altitude of 325 meters, locally known as nanari.
Amyris oleosa Lam. and Canarium microcarpum Willd. are
both based solely on Rumphius, and strictly must be interpreted
by the Rumphian description and figure; they are, therefore,
exact synonyms, and the older name is here retained. The
reference of Nanarium oleosum Rumph. to Pimela oleosa Lour.,
Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 408, is a manifest error, as Loureiro’s
species was described from Cochin-China material that in all
probability represents a species different from the Amboina one.
Even though Loureiro cites the Rumphian name as a synonym
and took his specific name from Rumphius, the reference to
the Herbarium Amboinense should be excluded in interpreting
his species. The present interpretation of Canarium oleosum
(Lam.) Engl. follows the conventional interpretation of Cana-
rium microcarpum Willd., and the Amboina specimen cited
agrees closely with other botanical material from the Moluccas,
so named, and with Rumphius’s description; it does not, howevex,
agree well with the figure given by Rumphius, which may in-
dicate some mixture between the:Rumphian figure and descrip-
tion. Canarium rostratum Zipp. should be critically compared
with it.
CANARIUM SYLVESTRE Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 99, t. 102.
Canarium silvestre alterum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 155, t. 49.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 378, September
30, 1913, in forests, altitude 400 meters; Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 379, October 14, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally
known as dammara itam, nanari, nanari utan, and nanari puti daun alus.
The specimens agree closely with both the description and
figure given by Rumphius, and undoubtedly represent his Cana-
rium silvestre alterum. While there may be some doubt as to
whether or not the fruit figured by Gaertner represents the
exact form described by Rumphius, still it seems best to retain
Gaertner’s name in its accepted application, especially in view
of the fact that he cites the Rumphian figure and description
as representing his species. The citation of Rumphius under
Canarium sylvestre Gaertn. has been followed by all authors
except Loureiro, who places it, with doubt, under Pimela nigra
304 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407, where it certainly does not
belong.
CANARIUM ZEPHYRINUM Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 217; Miq. FI.
Ind. Bat. 1” (1859) 648; March. in Baill. Adansonia 8 (1867-68)
58; Engl. in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 149.
Canarium zephyrinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 151. t. 48.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
unless it be a form of Canarium commune Linn., which seems
to be very probable. The figure is rather crude, but certainly
represents a form very closely allied to Canarium commune
Linn., where it has been referred by many authors, including
Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and Don. Canarium zephyrinum
Blume is a species of doubtful status and in the latest monograph
of the family is placed under Canariwm among the “species
dubiae.”’
CANARIUM ZEYLANICUM (Retz.) Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218.
Amyris zeylanica Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 25.
Arbor zeylanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 153 (in Burm. obs.).
The reduction follows Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218, as this
is undoubtedly the correct disposition of Rumphius’s Arbor
zeylanica.
CANARIUM PIMELA Konig in Konig & Sims Ann. Bot. 1 (1805) 361.
Pimela nigra Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407.
Canarium nigrum Engl. in Engl. & Prantl] Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3* (1896)
240, non Roxb.
Canarium sinense | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 154?
The identity of Canarium sinense I of Rumphius with Pimela
nigra Lour.=Canarium pimela Konig is entirely problematical
as the description is inadequate. I merely follow Blume, Mus.
Bot. 1 (1850) 220, in this reduction. Rumphius’s material was
from China.
CANARIUM ALBUM (Lour.) Rausch ex DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 80.
Pimela alba Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 408.
Canarium sinense I! Rumph Herb. Amb. 2: 154.
The identity of Canarium sinense II with Pimela alba Lour.
is more or less problematical, although Loureiro in the original
publication of the species cites Rumphius, and the native names
given by Rumphius agree with those cited by Loureiro.
Rumphius’s material was from China, not from Amboina.
Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 149, places Canariwm
album under the “species dubiae.”’ *
* See Guillaumin, in Lecomte Fl. Gén. Indo-Chine 1 (1911) 714, who
gives a full description and a figure of this species.
MELIACEAE 305
PIMELA CARYOPHYLLACEA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1850) 222.
Canarium sinense II! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 154 (type!).
Based originally on Chinese material by Rumphius. Pimela
caryophyllacea Blume is based wholly on Rumphius’s very brief
description, and all that can be said regarding it is that it is
probably a species of Canarium.
CANARIOPSIS PAUCIJUGA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1859) 653 (type!).
Pimela paucijuga Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 226 (type!).
Canarium odoriferum leve var. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 156.
A species of entirely doubtful status, based wholly on the
Rumphian description and to be interpreted solely by it. All
that can be definitely stated regarding it is that it is a species
of Canarium. Its further determination must await additional
botanical material from Amboina.
GARUGA Roxburgh
GARUGA ABILO (Blanco) Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1905) 73.
Guiacum abilo Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 364.
Garuga mollis Turez. in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mose. 31* (1858) 475.
Capraria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 139?
Capraria Rumph. is here tentatively referred to Garuga abilo
Merr. The description applies closely, although Rumphius does
not describe the flowers or the fruits. The only previously
suggested reduction is Teysmann’s opinion, quoted by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 35, that Capraria might belong in the
Sapindaceae.
PROTIUM Burman f.
PROTIUM JAVANICUM Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 88.
Amyris protium Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 65.
Tingulong Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 54, t. 23, f. 1.
This reduction, manifestly the correct disposition of Tingu-
long, was made by Burman f. in the original description of
Protium javanicum Burm. f.
MELIACEAE
TOONA Roemer
TOONA SURENI! (Blume) comb. nov.
Swietenia sureni Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823) 72.
Cedrela febrifuga Blume Bijdr. (1825) 180.
Surenus febrifuga O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 111.
Surenus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 66, t. 39.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
illustration is unmistakably that of Cedrela, or Toona as the
144971——20
306 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Indo-Malayan representatives of the group are called by some
botanists. More than one species may be included in the de-
scription, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, definitely stating
that three are represented; namely, Cedrela toona Roxb., C.
febrifuga Blume, and C. inodora Hassk. Roxburgh was the
first botanist to recognize the approximate position of Surenus
and reduced it to Cedrela toona Roxb., in FI. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (18382)
635. . The typical form of Roxburgh’s species is confined to
India, but a few varieties occur in the Malay Archipelago and
in Australia.* - Surenus alba Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 126, is con-
sidered by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 51, to represent
Cedrela inodora Hassk., which species C. de Candolle treats as a
variety of Cedrela febrifuga Blume; Cedrela febrifuga Blume
var. inodora (Hassk.) C. DC., Records Bot. Surv. Ind. 3 (1908)
373. Hasskarl also refers to Cedrela febrifuga Blume the form
described by Rumphius as Surenus rubra Rumph., Herb. Amb.
3: 126, which is probably the correct disposition of it. The
oldest specific name, that supplied by Swietenia sureni Blume,
is here adopted.
XYLOCARPUS Koenig
XYLOCARPUS GRANATUM Koen. in Naturf. 20 (1784) 2.
Carapa obovata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 179.
Xylocarpus obovatus Juss. Mém. Mus. Paris 19 (18380) 244.
Carapa indica Juss. in Dict. Sci. Nat. 7: 31.
Carapa moluccensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 621 p. p., quoad Rumph.
t. 61, excl. descr.
Monosoma littorata Griff. Notul. 4 (1854) 502.
Granatum litoreum III parvifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 98, t. 61.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The description, but to a less degree the figure, given by
Rumphius is clearly Xylocarpus (Carapa) obovatus Juss., as cur-
rently interpreted, but Xylocarpus obovatus Juss. is apparently
identical with the earlier Xylocarpus granatum Koen. In
Rumphius’s description the shape of the leaves, rounded at the
apex, and the size of the fruits, indicated as larger than those of
Granatum litoreum I latifolium, are the determining points.
The synonymy between Xylocarpus granatum Koen. (X. obo-
vatus Juss.) and X. moluccensis Lam. as interpreted below, is
curiously confused. C. de Candolle + recognizes the two species
Carapa obovata Blume and Carapa moluccensis Lam., but
erroneously reduced Xylocarpus granatum Koen. to Carapa
* See C. de Candolle, Records Bot. Survey India 3 (1908) 346.
+ Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 718, 719.
MELIACEAE 307
moluccensis Lam. Hiern * erred in referring both to a single
species, Carapa moluccensis Lam. The type of Koenig’s species
was from the Tranquebar coast, India, and his description applies
unmistakably to the form with obovate leaves and large fruits;
that is, the species that grows in the mangrove swamps; ‘“‘folia
* * * oblongo-clavata, rotundata;” ‘‘Habitat in silvis rhizo-
phoreis.””’ Lamarck, in the original description of Carapa
‘moluccensis, which was based wholly on “Granatum litoreum s.
Martahul Rumph. Amb. 38. p. 92. Tab. 61,” confused the two
forms; the plate reference is to Xylocarpus granatum Koenig,
but the description that he compiled was from Granatum lto-
reum I latifolium Rumph. as indicated by the page reference
and his description. He disposed of t. 62 of the Herbarium
Amboinense, to which his description wholly applies, thus:
“Variat foliis acutioribus. Ibidem t. 62.” The two species
are very strongly marked. Xylocarpus granatum Koen. grows
in the mangrove swamps and has oblong to obovate leaflets, very
large fruits, and a smooth, rather thin bark. Xylocarpus
moluccensis Lam. grows on the open coasts and has usually ovate,
acute leaflets; much smaller fruits than X. granatum Koen.; and
a thick, very flaky bark.
XYLOCARPUS MOLUCCENSIS (Lam.) M. Roem. Syn. Hesper. (1846)
124 (type!).
Carapa moluccensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 621, quoad descr., excl.
Rumph. t. 61 (type!); C. DC. Monog. Phan. 1 (1878) 719, excl.
syn. Koenig et Willdenow.
Carapa rumphiui Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5 (1886) 1988 (type!).
AXylocarpus carnulosus Zoll. & Mor. Nat. Geneesk. Arch. Neer]. Ind.
2 (1845) 582, ex descr.
Xylocarpus forsteniti Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868) 62, ex
descr.
Granatum litoreum | latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 92, t. 62.
Granatum litoreum III latissimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 92.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 491, September 19,
1913, along the seashore.
Lamarck, as noted above, in proposing the binomial Carapa
moluccensis, based his description on Granatum litoreum I lati-
folum, but erroneously referred to his species t. 61 of the Her-
barium Amboinense, which is Xylocarpus granatum Koenig.
His species, manifestly, should be interpreted by the form de-
scribed, rather than by the figure that he erroneously referred
to it. The rather confused synonymy between Xylocarpus gra-
natum Koenig and X. moluccensis M. Roem., is here discussed
* Hooker f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 567.
308 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
under the former. The Rumphian illustration, t. 62, is the
type and whole basis of Carapa rumphi Kostel. Xylocarpus
carnulosus Zoll. & Mor., type from eastern Java, and X. forstenti
Miq., type from Celebes, appear to be synonymous with Xylo-
carpus moluccensis M. Roem.
SANDORICUM Cavanilles
SANDORICUM KOETJAPE (Burm. f.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912)
Bot. 237.
Melia koetjape Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 101.
Trichiia nervosa Vahl Symb. 1 (1790) 31.
Sandoricum indicum Cav. Diss. 4 (1787) 359, t. 202, 208.
Sandoricum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 167, t. 64.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 488, July 30, 1918, near the town
of Amboina.
The generic name Sandoricum was apparently taken from
Rumphius, and the form figured and described by him has
been consistently referred to Sandoricum indicum Cav., mani-
festly a synonym of Melia koetjape Burm. f. Burman’s specific
name, being much the older, has been previously adopted by
me, and under our rules of nomenclature it must be maintained.
The forms briefly described by Rumphius as Sandoricum silvestre
and Sandoricum Cajim Gulur are undoubtedly referable to Sando-
ricum koetjape Merr., the former the spontaneous form with
acid fruits, the latter with rather large, sweet fruits. Like most
cultivated fruit trees, considerable variation is found in the
characters of the fruit of the santol.
DYSOXYLUM Blume
DYSOXYLUM EUPHLEBIUM Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot.
305.
Alliaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 81, t. 20.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 489, November 6,
1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters.
This specimen certainly represents Alliaria Rumph., of which
Rumphius figured a fruiting specimen. It is also apparently
identical with the Philippine Dysoxylum euphlebium Merr., as
a careful comparison between the specimen and the type of the
latter species shows no essential differential characters. It is
not Dysoxylum alliacewm Blume, which was described from
Javan specimens. It was referred to Dysoxylum alliaceum
Blume, Bijdr. (1825) 172, which disposition of it was accepted
by Henschel, Walpers, Dietrich, and Miquel. Hamilton, Mem.
Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 305, placed it under Guarea alliaria Ham.,
MELIACEAE 309
the actual type of which, however, was a Bengal plant that
is Dysoxylum hamilton Hiern. Hasskarl, Cat. Hort. Bot.
Bogor. (1844) 221, erroneously reduced it to Hartighsea forsterz
Juss.—Dysoxylum forstert C. DC., a species of Australia and
Polynesia; while Roemer, Hesper. (1844) 101, placed it under
Prasoxylum alliaceum Roem., presumably a synonym of Dysoxy-
lum alliaceum Blume, of Java and Sumatra.
DYSOXYLUM sp.
Arbor nussalavica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 14, t. 8, f. 2.
Manifestly this is a species of Dysoxylum, and one that should
be readily recognized when once collected. Hamilton thought it
was referable to the genus Guarea, and Teysmann, quoted by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, thought it was referable
to H'picharis=Dysoxylum Blume.
DYSOXYLUM sp.
Arbor sebi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 7.
The plant described was from Java, there known as cadoja.
This name is still applied to two or more species of Dysoxylum
in Java, so that Arbor sebi is probably referable to this genus.
LANSIUM (Rumphius) Correa
LANSIUM DOMESTICUM Correa in Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 10 (1807)
157, t. 10. f. 1; Poir. in ,Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 299; Jack in
Means.’ Linn. Soc. 14,.(1828) 115; t: 4:
Lansium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 151, t. 54.
This common and well-known Malayan fruit tree is not rep-
resented in our Amboina collections. Lansiwm was originally
reduced, with doubt, to Averrhoa acida Linn. by Linnaeus,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, in which he was followed by a few
authors. Correa, Jack, Poiret, and recent authors generally,
have referred it to Lansium domesticum, the correct disposition
of it. The generic name Lansium is taken from Rumphius,
and by some authors Rumphius is quoted as its author. . The
tree is commonly cultivated in most parts of the Malayan region,
but like many other cultivated plants, it is poorly represented in
herbaria.
AGLAIA Loureiro
AGLAIA ODORATA Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 178.
Camunium sinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 26, t. 18, f. 1.
Tsjiulang Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 38.
This commonly cultivated ornamental tree is not represented
in our Amboina collections, but the figure cited and both of the
»”
310 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
descriptions apply unmistakably to this well-marked species.
Camunium sinense Rumph. was cited by Loureiro as a synonym
of Aglaia odorata Lour. in the original description of that species,
in which reduction he has been followed by practically all
authors, as it is manifestly the correct disposition of it. Vitex
pinnata Linn., Sp. Pl. (1753) 638, is cited in Index Kewensis
as a synonym of Aglaia odorata Lour., but it is not clear on what
grounds. It is based wholly on Pistacio-vitex Linn., Fl. Zey].
No. 415, the description of which is clearly a Vitex, certainly
no meliaceous plant. Trimen, Fl. Ceyl. 3 (1895) 358, after
examining Hermann’s specimen, considers it to be a variety of
Vitex altissima Linn. f. Druce, Bot. Exch. Club (1914) 413,
has erroneously transferred Vitex pinnata Linn. to Aglaia as
A. pinnata (Linn.) Druce, as the equivalent of Aglaia odorata
Lour. Tsjiulang, as described by Rumphius in the Auctuarium
is clearly the same as Camunium sinense Rumph., the common
name of the latter being also tsjiulang. Hasskarl, Neue Schliis-
sel (1866) 190, thought that it might be Aglaia odorata Lour.
or Aglaia odoratissima Blume.
AGLAIA SILVESTRIS (Roem.) comp! nov. § Huaglaia.
Lansium silvestre Roem. Hesper. (1846) 99, ex Hassk. Neue Schliissel
(1866) 20 (type!).
Lansium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 158, ¢. 55.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 490, October 11, 1913,
in forests, altitude about 150 meters.
Arbor circiter 16 m alta, ramulis et petiolis et inflorescentiis
dense uniformiter cupreo- vel brunneo-lepidotis; foliis circiter
30 cm longis, foliolis circiter 12, suboppositis, oblongis, tenuiter
acuminatis, vetustioribus utrinque glabris, usque ad 13 cm lon-
gis; paniculis 20 ad 25 cm longis, anguste pyramidatis, multi-
floris; floribus 5-meris, breviter pedicellatis, in ramulis ultimis
racemose dispositis, calycis profunde obtuse 5-dentatis; tubo
subellipsoideo, glabro, libero.
A tree about 16 m high, the branchlets, petioles and rachis,
and inflorescence densely and uniformly cupreous- or brownish-
lepidote, the indumentum, however, not at all stellate-hairy.
Leaves alternate, about 30 cm long, 6- or T7-jugate; leaflets
firmly chartaceous to subcoriaceous, subopposite, oblong, 8 to
13 cm long, 3 to 3.8 em wide, rather pale when dry, shining,
base acute to somewhat rounded, sometimes slightly inequi-
lateral, apex slenderly long-acuminate, the acumen 1 to 1.5
cm long, the lower surface browner than the upper, at maturity
wholly glabrous; lateral nerves about 14 on each side of the
midrib; petiolules 2 to 4 mm long. Panicles terminal and in
MELIACEAE oh
the upper axils, narrowly pyramidal, 20 to 25 cm long, their
peduncles 4 to 6 cm long, the lower branches spreading, 4 to
6 cm long, the upper shorter. Flowers numerous, racemosely
arranged on the ultimate branchlets, their pedicels 1 mm long
or less, and with the calyces more or less lepidote. Calyx about
1.4 mm long, prominently 5-toothed, the teeth rounded or obtuse,
0.6 mm long. Petals 5, free, glabrous, oblong to elliptic-oblong,
2.7 mm long, rounded. Staminal-tube free, glabrous, subellip-
soid, contracted at the apex, the orifice small, round. Stamens
~ 5, the anthers attached near the base of the tube, about 1 mm
long.
Aglaia silvestris Merr., typified by the specimen cited above,
is certainly the form described and figured by Rumphius as Lan-
sium silvestre, the exact status of which has not been previously
determined. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 272, placed it under
Quinaria lanstum Lour.—Clausena punctata (Retz.) W. & A.,
a species that has little in common with the form Rumphius
described. It was later referred by de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824)
537, to Cookia punctata Retz., by reduction of Quinaria lansium
Lour. Lansium silvestre Roem., Hesper. (1846) 99, is ap-
parently merely a repetition of Rumphius’s name. Teysmann,
quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 20, correctly placed
it in the genus Aglaia.
Its: alliance is with Aglaia perviridis Hiern and Aglaia laxi-
flora Miq., but it does not appear to be any of the numerous
described forms and has been accordingly redescribed here as
a new species. It is apparently the form described by Miquel as
Aglaia ganggo Miq. forma amboinensis Miq., in Ann. Mus. Bot.
Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868) 47, but I consider it to be specifically distinct
from Aglaia ganggo Miq., of which I have a series of excellent
specimens.
AGLAIA sp.
Lansium montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 154, t. 56.
Probably an Aglaia, and one that should very readily be re-
cognized when once collected, as Rumphius’s figure presents a
very characteristic species. Jack, Trans. Linn. Soc. 14 (1823)
118, considered that it closely resembled his Milnea montana, of
Sumatra=Aglaia; and Roemer, Hesper. (1846) 99, placed it
under Selbya montana Roem., perhaps based on Rumphius’s Lan-
sium montanum, perhaps based on Milnea montana Jack (ori-
ginal publication not seen by me). Teysmann, quoted by Hass-
karl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 20, considers it to be a species of
Aglaia, which is probably the correct disposition of it, although
312 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
it might possibly be a small-flowered species of Dysoxylum. In
the plate the fruits are drawn entirely out of proportion to the
leaves according to the measurements given by Rumphius.
MELIACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS
Vidoricum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 178, t. 67.
This disposition of Vidoricum silvestre is suggested chiefly because the
seeds, as figured by Rumphius, almost certainly pertain to some meliaceous
plant. The description of the species is indefinite, and from it alone no
rational idea of the plant can be obtained.
DICHAPETALACEAE
DICHAPETALUM Thouars
DICHAPETALUM MOLUCCANUM sp. nov.
Funis butonicus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 77, t. 41, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 602 (type), November 26,
1918, in light forests, altitude about 20 meters.
Frutex scandens, ut videtur dioicus, ramulis junioribus inflor-
escentiisque leviter cinereo-pubescentibus, foliis subtus ad costa
nervisque plus minusve ciliato-hirsutis; foliis oblongis, charta-
ceis, uSque ad 16 cm longis, integris, utrinque subaequaliter an-
gustatis, basi acutis, apice breviter acuminatis, nervis utrinque
circiter 7, subtus prominentibus, in siccitate nigrescentibus;
cymis axillaribus, solitariis, pedunculatis, usque ad 2 cm longis,
laxis, paucifloris; floribus ¢ 5-meris, circiter 3 mm diametro,
sepalis extus parce pubescentibus, petalis oblongis, truncatis,
vix retusis, glabris, glandulis pubescentibus.
A scandent shrub. Branches terete, glabrous, slender,
brownish or somewhat reddish-brown, lenticellate, the branchlets
similar in color, slightly pubescent with pale, scattered, usually
appressed hairs. Leaves chartaceous, oblong, 11 to 16 cm long,
4 to 6 cm wide, entire, subequally narrowed to the acute, equi-
lateral, or rarely slightly inequilateral base, and to the distinctly
but rather shortly blunt-acuminate apex, brown or olivaceous-
brown when dry, the upper surface shining, quite glabrous,
the lower surface of nearly the same color, ciliate-hirsute with
scattered, spreading, pale hairs on the midrib, and to a less
extent on the primary nerves, reticulations, and sometimes even
the margins; lateral nerves about 7 on each side of the midrib,
prominent, curved, blackish when dry, faintly anastomosing,
the reticulations distinct; petioles about 4 mm long, sparingly
grayish-pubescent, ultimately glabrous. Cymes axillary, soli-
tary, slightly grayish-pubescent with short appressed hairs,
EUPHORBIACEAE 313
peduncled, about 2 cm long and wide, dichotomous, rather lax,
few-flowered, the peduncle about as long as or slightly exceeding
the petiole. Male flowers pale yellow, about 3 mm in diameter,
their pedicels pubescent, 1 to 2 mm long, the bracteoles very
small. Calyx about 2 mm long, externally cinereous-pubescent
with short, appressed hairs, the lobes 5, oblong-ovate, obtuse,
about 1.5 mm long. Petals glabrous, oblong, apex rounded-
subtruncate, entire or very obscurely notched, not retuse or split,
nearly 1.5 mm long. Stamens 5, about 1.5 mm long, glabrous.
Glands densely pubescent, small. Pistillate or perfect flowers
not seen.
This species is apparently closely allied to Dichapetalum timo-
riense (DC.) Engl., from which it is distinguished by certain
‘floral characters, the flowers dioecious (or polygamous?), the
glands densely pubescent, not glabrous. It seems to be even
more closely allied to Dichapetalum papuanum (Becc.) Engl.,
of New Guinea, but has rather smaller, differently shaped leaves,
while the petals are truncate and entire, rarely minutely notched,
not at all bifid at the apex.
Rumphius’s description and ‘figure agree sufficiently well with
the specimen cited above to warrant the reduction of F'unis
butonicus minor to Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr. ‘The only
previously suggested reductions are Burman’s opinion that it
represented some species in the Contortae and Lamarck’s opinion
that it was near Menispermum.
EUPHORBIACEAE
PHYLLANTHUS Linnaeus
PHYLLANTHUS NIRURI Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 981.
Herba moeroris | alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 41, t. 17, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 350, July 20, 1918,
in ditches at low altitudes.
This reduction was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1264, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1392, has been accepted by all authors
who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure, and is cer-
tainly the correct disposition of Herba moeroris I alba.
PHYLLANTHUS URINARIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 982.
Herba moeroris I! rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 42, t. 17, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe ketsjil, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 351, July 20, 1918,
on coral limestone at low altitudes.
This reduction was made by Linnaeus in the same publica-
tions as those in which Herba moeroris I alba was reduced to
314 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Phyllanthus mruri Linn., has been accepted by all authors, and
is certainly the correct disposition of it.
PHYLLANTHUS EMBLICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 982.
Mirobalanus embilica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 1, ft. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1265, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1393,
which is certainly the correct disposition of it. Rumphius notes
that it was an introduced plant in Amboina.
CICCA Linnaeus
CICCA ACIDA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Averrhoa acida Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 428.
Cicca disticha Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 124.
Cicca nodiflora Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 1.
Phyllanthus distichus Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15” (1866) 413.
Phyllanthus cicca Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 32 (1863) 90.
Cicca acidissima Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 700.
Phylianthus acidissimus Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 32 (1865) 50.
Phyllanthus cheramela Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 104.
Phyllanthus acidus Skeels in U. 8S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bull. 148
(1909) 17.
Cheramela Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 34, t. 17, f. 2.
This widely cultivated tree is not represented in our Amboina
collections. The reduction of Cheramela Rumph. to Averrhoa
acida Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
136, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 613, in which he was followed by Bur-
man f. and Lamarck. Willdenow, followed by numerous other
authors, referred it to Cicca disticha Linn. Miquel, FI. Ind.
Bat. 12 (1859) 372, referred it to Cicca nodiflora Lam., while
Henschel and Pritzel referred it to Phyllanthus cheramela Roxb.
All of these names are synonyms of Cicca acida (Linn.) Merr.,
Averrhoa acida Linn. being a synonym of Cicca disticha Linn.
(Phyllanthus distichus Muell.-Arg.), but much earlier. I prefer
to follow Robinson * in retaining Cicca as a genus distinct from
Phyllanthus.
BREYNIA Forster
BREYNIA CERNUA (Poir.) Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15° (1866) 439.
Phyllanthus cernuus Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 298.
Melanthesa cernua Decne. in Nuov. Ann. Mus. Paris 3 (1834) 488.
Aalius parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 207.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah and Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 499,
339, August 5 and October 8, 1918, in light forests, altitude 175 to 250
meters, locally known as kartu utan.
* Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1909) Bot. 87.
EUPHORBIACEAE 315
The description is that of a Breynia in all respects, and
undoubtedly Aalius parvifolia Rumph. is the same as Breynia
cernua Muell.-Arg. ‘The red, accrescent calyx is very character-
istic. The only other suggested reduction of Rumphius’s species
is Hasskarl’s, Neue Schliissel (1866) 67, reference of it to
Sauropus albicans Blume, which is certainly incorrect.
Aalius latifolia Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 207, very briefly de-
scribed, is compared with Aalius parvifolia, having leaves two
to three times as long as the latter. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 67, surmises that it may be a Glochidion. Its status is
quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius.
BACCAUREA Loureiro
BACCAUREA NANIHUA sp. nov.
Nani hua Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 21, t. 9.
AMBOINA Koesoekoesoe sereh and Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
8381 (type), 330, October 3 and August 7, 1913, in light forest, altitude
about 250 meters, locally known as haharu and as makarlasi.
Arbor circiter 15 m alta, inflorescentiis dense ferrugineo-
pubescentibus; foliis oblongo-ovatis, coriaceis, glabris, in sicci-
tate brunneis, usque ad 16 cm longis, integris, basi rotundatis,
apice obtusis ad latissime obtuseque acuminatis, nervis utrinque
circiter 9, subtus valde prominentibus; racemis solitariis vel
binis, 3 ad 5 cm longis, e ramis infra foliis, paucifloris, omnibus
partibus dense ferrugineo-pubescentibus, sepalis oblongis, cir-
citer 3 mm longis; fructibus depresso-globosis, 2 ad 2.3 cm
diametro, extus ferrugineo-pubescentibus vetustioribus glabres-
centibus, brunneis, pericarpio crassissimo.
A tree about 15 m high, the very young branchlets and petioles
slightly pubescent, the inflorescence densely ferruginous-pubes-
cent, otherwise glabrous. Branches and branchlets brown or
reddish-brown, terete. Leaves coriaceous, brown and somewhat
shining when dry, oblong-ovate, entire, 11 to 16 cm long, 5 to 8
cm wide, base rounded, narrowed upward to the obtuse or very
broadly blunt-acuminate apex, the lower surface paler than the
upper; lateral nerves about 9 on each side of the midrib, very
prominent on the lower surface, curved-anastomosing, the re-
ticulations distinct; petioles 2.5 to 3.5 cm long. Pistillate ra-
cemes solitary or in pairs, from the branches below the leaves,
few-flowered, 3 to 5 cm long, simple, all parts densely ferrugi-
nous-pubescent. Pedicels about 4 mm long, jointed at about
the middle, here supplied with a single, broadly ovate, 1.5 mm
long bracteole. Sepals 5, oblong to oblong-ovate, subequal, sub-
acute or obtuse, about 3 mm long, densely pubescent on both
316 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
surfaces. Ovary ovoid, densely pubescent. Fruits brown when
dry, depressed-globose, 2 to 2.5 cm in diameter, normally 3-celled,
in cross-section with three very broadly rounded angles, more
or less ferruginous-pubescent, in age becoming nearly glabrous,
the pericarp very thick, inside reddish-brown when dry, some-
what spongy in texture.
Nant hua Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro to Baccaurea
ramiflora Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 661, the type of the genus,
but Baccaurea ramiflora Lour. was actually described from speci-
mens taken from cultivated trees in Cochin-China and is not
the same as the Amboina Nani hua of Rumphius. Henschel,
Poiret, and Pritzel accepted Loureiro’s reduction of Nani hua.
DeVriese and Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1798) 419, thought
that it might be a species of Hugenia, while Hasskarl, Neue
Schltissel (1866) 47, quotes Teysmann’s opinion that it might
belong in the Myrtaceae.
Baccaurea nanihua Merr. closely resembles Baccaurea philip-
pinensis Merr. and Baccaurea bracteata Muell.-Arg. and mani-
festly belongs in the same group as these two species. It is
readily distinguished from both, however, by its more numer-
ously nerved leaves.
ANTIDESMA Burman
ANTIDESMA BUNIUS (Linn.) Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 826.
Stilago bunius Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 122.
Antidesma rumphii Tul. in Ann. Sci. Nat. III 15 (1851) 288 (type).
Bunius sativa s. domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 204, t. 131.
Bunius agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 205, t. 131, f. A.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 834, September 13, 1918, from
cultivated trees in the town of Amboina, locally known as kuti kata and
kata kuti.
Bunius sativus Rumph. (B. domestica Rumph.) was reduced
by Linnaeus to Stilago bunius Linn. in the original description
of that species, which, as Antidesma bunius (Linn.) Spreng., is
certainly the correct disposition of it. Antidesma rumphi Tul.
was based wholly on Bunius agrestis Rumph., which seems to
me to be merely the spontaneous or subspontaneous form of
Antidesma bunius Spreng.; I have accordingly here reduced
Antidesma rumphii Tul. to Antidesma bunius (Linn.) Spreng.
ANTIDESMA STIPULARE Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1125.
Antidesma amboinense Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1864) 218.
Arbor nuda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 89, ¢t. 59.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Batoe merah River, and vicinity of the town of Amboina,
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 355, 356, August, September, and October, 1913,
in light woods, altitude 40 to 150 meters, locally known as kata kuti kam-
EUPHORBIACEAE 317
bing; probably referable here also is Rel. Robins. 1709, from Hitoe messen,
Amboina, November 6, 1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters, with
smaller, narrower stipules and apparently more fleshy, slightly larger
fruits than the other specimens.
The Amboina specimens, typical Antidesma amboinense Miq.,
differ from material of Antidesma stipulare Blume from Nusa .
Kambangan, the type locality of Blume’s species, and from Java
in some details, notably in their larger, differently shaped sti-
pules, but I have followed J. Mueller in the reduction of Anti-
desma amboinense Miq. to Antidesma stipulare Blume. Arbor
nuda Rumph. was reduced to the genus Antidesma by Teysmann,
as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 54.
The details of the figure are not good, the leaves being rep-
resented as with but 5 to 8 pairs of nerves, while in the Amboina
specimens there are usually about 15 pairs of nerves, and the
characteristic stipules are not shown at all. However, these are
indicated in the description thus: ‘“folia * * * suprema
vero prope suum ortum unum alterumve gerunt foliorum seu
squamulas.”’ In spite of the discrepancies between the figure
and the specimens cited above, I am confident that Arbor nuda
Rumph. is here correctly interpreted, although some future mo-
nographer may prefer to reinstate Miquel’s Antidesma amboin-
ensé aS a species distinct from the Javan Antidesma stipulare
Blume.
CROTON Linnaeus
CROTON TIGLIUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1004.
Tighum officinale Klotz. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843)
Suppl. 1: 418.
Granum moluccanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 98, t. 42.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
reduction of Granum moluccanum to Croton tiglium was first
made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. —
Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1275, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1426, which is the correct disposition of it, and which has been
accepted by all authors.
MICROCOCCA Bentham
MICROCOCCA MERCURIALIS (Linn.) Benth. in Hook. Niger Fl. (1849)
5038.
Tragia mercurialis Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 980.
Urtica mortua Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 49, t. 20, f. 2?
Nothing resembling this species is represented in our Amboina
collections. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst.
318 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ed. 10 (1759) 1264, which, as Micrococca mercurialis Benth.,
is possibly the correct disposition of it. The species, however, is
not known from the Moluccas. Pax and K. Hoffmann, in Engl.
Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 138, give its range as tropical Asia and
Africa, extending to the southeast only as far as Malacca.
MALLOTUS Loureiro
MALLOTUS TILLIFOLIUS (Blume) Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 34 (1865) 190.
Rottlera tilufolia Blume Bijdr. (1825) 607.
Halecus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 196, t. 126.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 867, 368, August 8, 1913, along
the seashore near the town of Amboina, locally known as baru laut.
Halecus litorea Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to Croton aromaticus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, in which entirely erroneous reduc-
tion he was followed by Loureiro, Murray, Willdenow, Persoon,
Henschel, and Miquel. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 206, cites it
under Croton tiliifolius Lam. var. aromaticus Lam., the type of
the species being a specimen from Mauritius, the variety being
merely a reduction of Croton aromaticus Linn. Teysmann’s
reduction of it to Schmidelia, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 66, is entirely wrong and was probably due
to some error in transcribing Teysmann’s notes.
MELANOLEPIS Reichenbach f. and Zollinger
MELANOLEPIS MULTIGLANDULOSA (Reinw.) Reichb. f. & Zoll. in
Linnaea 28 (1856) 324.
Croton multiglandulosus Reinw. ex Blume Cat. Gew. Buitenz. (1823)
105.
Rottlera multiglandulosa Blume Bijdr. (1825) 609.
Melanolepis calcosa Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1” (1859) 399.
Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg. in Linnaea 34 (1863) 185, non Croton
moluccanus Linn. :
Melanolepis moluccana Pax & K. Hoffm. in Eng]. Pflanzenreich 63
(1914) 142, non Croton moluccanus Linn.
Folium calcosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 129, t. 64.
Folium calcosum I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 130.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen and Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 359,
860, August and October, 1918, on forested limestone hills and along road-
sides, altitude 5 to 150 meters, locally known as kayu kapor.
Folium calcosum Rumph. was reduced by Roxburgh, FI. Ind.
ed. 2, 3 (1832) 690, to Ricinus dicoccus Roxb., the description
being based on specimens originating in Amboina and cultivated
in the botanic garden at Calcutta; it is a synonym of Melanolepis
multiglandulosa Reichb. f. & Zoll. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1?
(1859) 399, reduced Ricinus dicoccus Roxb, together with
EUPHORBIACEAE 319
Folium calcosum Rumph. to Melanolepis calcosa Miq., which is
also a synonym of Melanolepis multiglandulosa Reichb. f. & Zoll.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 85, reduced Folawm calcosum II
to Melanolepis multiglandulosa Reichb. f. & Zoll.
In regard to the proper specific name for this widely distri-
buted and well-known species, I cannot follow J. Mueller in
calling it Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg. or Pax and K. Hoff-
mann in calling it Melanolepis moluccana Pax & K. Hoffm., for
the reason that nothing in the Linnean description of Croton
moluccanus Linn., the name-bringing synonym, applies to this
species. It was based on two references; the first, F'l. Zeyl. 346,
and the second, Nux juglans moluccana bifida Burm. FI. Zeyl.
170. The first reference, Fl. Zeyl. 364, is Givotia rottleriformis
Griff., according to the actual specimens, leaves only, in Her-
mann’s herbarium.* The second reference, from which Lin-
naeus took his specific name, is Aleurites moluccana (Linn.)
Willd. without the slightest doubt. The specimen in Linnaeus’s
herbarium, quoted by J. Mueller, in DC. Prodr. 15? (1866) 958,
under Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg., is manifestly not the
type and should be ignored in interpreting the Linnean species.
MACARANGA Thouars
MACARANGA MAPPA (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15’ (1866) 1000.
Ricinus mappa Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad.
Be tfo9) 124, Syst.. ed. 10° (1759) 1277, Sp. Pl. ed.. 2 (17638): 14380
(type!).
Acalypha mappa Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 526 (type!).
Mappa moluccana Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 878 (type!).
Tanarius mappa O. Ktze. Rev. Gen. Pl. 2 (1891) 620 (type!).
Folium mappae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 172, t. 108.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 361, November 26, 19138, in
light forest, altitude about 20 meters, locally known as hahuhun.
Foliuum mappae Rumph. is the whole basis of Ricinus mappa
Linn., and thus typifies all the synonyms cited above, for Mappa
moluccana Spreng. is merely a new name for Ricinus mappa
Linn. Burman f., Lamarck, Poiret, Roxburgh, and Pritzel fol-
lowed Linnaeus in considering it as Ricinus mappa Linn., but
other authors have followed Willdenow and Sprengel and have
placed it under Acalypha and Mappa.
Macaranga mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. is an imperfectly
known species. In de Candolle’s Prodromus 15? (1866) 1000
J. Mueller apparently compiled his description largely, if not
320 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ifolus Blanco to Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg. as a synonym.
Pax and K. Hoffmann, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 320,
assumed that Mueller was correct in his reduction of Blanco’s
species, but drew up their description and prepared a figure
of Macaranga mappa wholly from Philippine material. The
Philippine material cited by these authors has nothing whatever
to do with the Amboina Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., which
is so entirely distinct from Macaranga grandifolia (Blanco)
Merr. that it must be placed in a different section of the genus.
In vegetative characters, in its staminate inflorescence, and espe-
cially in its pistillate infiorescence, Macaranga grandifolia
(Blanco) Merr. is totally different from Macaranga mappa
Muell.-Arg. The whole description and the figure given by
Pax and Hoffmann go with Macaranga grandifolia (Blanco)
Merr., together with the synonyms Macaranga porteana André,
Mappa porteana Wats., and Croton grandifolius Blanco.
MACARANGA HISPIDA (Blume) Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15” (1866)
990.
Mappa hispida Blume Bijdr. (1825) 624.
Halecus rugosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 198.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amd. 368, 364, August 12, 1913,
in light forest at an altitude of 250 meters, locally known as haleki and as
bilang kinar.
No previous reduction of Halecus rugosa Rumph. has been
suggested. Rumphius’s description agrees perfectly with the
specimens cited above, which are at the same time apparently
typical Macaranga hispida Muell.-Arg., which was originally
described by Blume from Moluccan specimens. The Philippine
material referred here is very much more pubescent than the
Amboina specimens.
MACARANGA TANARIUS (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 15” (1866)
997.
Ricinus tanarius Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1277, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1430 (type!). .
Mappa tanarius Blume Bijdr. (1825) 624.
Ricinus mappa Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 690, non Linn.
Tanarius minor alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 190, t¢. 121.
Tanarius minor rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 190. |
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 362, October 18, 1913, in
wooded glens, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as hunua.
The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of
Ricinus tanarius Linn. and are hence the type of the species.
Most early authors considered it under the Linnean binomial,
EUPHORBIACEAE 321
Ricinus tanarius Linn., which in modern literature appears as
Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. Spanoghe referred Tanarius
minor Rumph. to Mappa glabra Juss., which Pax and Hoffmann
retain as a distinct species, Macaranga glabra (Juss.) Pax &
Hoffm. It is to be noted that the Amboina specimen, cited
above, which agrees closely with the Rumphian description and
with the greatly reduced figure, is by no means identical with
Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. as currently interpreted. The
leaves are larger, glabrous, the petioles longer, and the stami-
nate inflorescences are lax, long peduncled, up to 30 cm wide,
and including the peduncle about 40 cm long. It is typical
Macaranga tanarius (Linn.) Muell.-Arg., and it seems very
probable that a critical revision of the group must lead to the
adoption of another specific name for the widely distributed
form that appears in herbaria under the name Macaranga
tanarius Muell.-Arg. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1886) 65, sug-
gested that Tanarius minor rubra Rumph. might be the same as
Mappa denticulata Blume=Macaranga denticulata Muell.-Arg.,
but the distribution of the latter precludes the correctness of
this reduction. I consider it to be a color variant of Macaranga
tanarius Muell.-Arg.
MACARANGA INVOLUCRATA (Roxb.) Baill. Etud. Gén. Euphorb. (1858)
432.
Urtica involucrata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 47, nomen nudum, FI.
iid, ed. 2, 3 °(tS82) “592.
Halecus terrestris vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 197, t. 127.
Halecus terrestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 198, t. 127 bis.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 365, 366, August 11,
1918, hillsides at an altitude of about 20 meters, the former with pistillate
flowers and immature fruits, the latter with staminate flowers.
Halecus terrestris Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus,
with doubt, to Croton lacciferum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, and following this reduc-
tion, was placed by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 590, under Alew-
rites laccifera Willd. Miquel, Fl]. Ind. Bat. 1? (1859) 406, placed
it, with doubt, under Acalypha bracteata Mig. The specimens
cited above agree closely with the description and figure given
by Rumphius and are, moreover, typical Macaranga involucrata
Baill., a species known only from Amboina except for the plants
cultivated in the botanic gardens at Calcutta and Buitenzorg.
As representing Halecus terrestris alba Rumph., I cite Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 357, 358, from Amahoesoe and the town of Am-
boina, August, 1913, both with staminate flowers. The leaves
are somewhat more pubescent and are less toothed than in the
144971——21
399 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
two specimens cited above, yet they are apparently referable to
the same species. The Rumphian figure is poor, but the short
description applies closely to Macaranga involucrata Baill.
Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 206, referred it, with doubt, to Croton
mauritianum Lam.; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1859) 385,
thought that it might be Claoxylon indicum Hassk.
ACALYPHA Linnaeus
ACALYPHA AMENTACEA Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 676.
Acalypha stipulacea Klotz. in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 19 (1848)
Suppl. 1: 416.
Acalypha amboynensis Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 2 (1848) 233.
Achyranthes spiciflora Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [5]
(type!), non Acalypha spiciflora Burm. f.
Cauda felis agrestis rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 84, t. 37, f. 1.
Cauda felis agrestis alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 84, t. 37, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 853, 3854, July 22, 1918, along river
banks at low altitudes in the vicinity of the town of Amboina, locally known
as ekor kuching and ekor tusa.
Apparently but a single species is represented by the two forms
figured and described by Rumphius, and I consider both to be
referable to Acalypha amentacea Roxb., the type of which was
from the Moluccas. At the same time I do not see how the
Philippine Acalypha stipulacea Klotz. can be distinguished speci-
fically from the Amboina form, Klotzsch’s species having been
reported from as far to the southeast as New Guinea. Acalypha
amboynensis Benth. and probably the Amboina specimen re-
ferred by Bentham to Acalypha grandis Benth. doubtless are
referable here. It is to be noted, however, that J. Mueller re-
duced Acalypha amentacea Roxb. to Acalypha fruticosa Forsk.,
but the range of Forskal’s species militates very greatly against
the correctness of this reduction. Cauda felis agrestis rubra
was reduced by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 79, to Acalypha
grandis Benth., and no other disposition of it has been suggested.
Cauda felis agrestis alba has been considered by numerous
authors, but with little uniformity of opinion. Burman f., FI.
Ind. (1768) 203, erroneously placed it under Acalypha spiciflora
Burm. f.—Cleidion spicifiorum (Burm. f.) comb. nov. (Cletdion
javanicum Blume!). Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 127, erroneously
placed it under Caturus spiciflorus Linn., which is a synonym of
Acalypha hispida Burm., in which reduction he was followed by
a few authors. Retzius, Obs. 5 (1789) 30, placed it under
Acalypha betulina Retz., a species based on Ceylon specimens
collected by Koenig and a synonym of Acalypha fruticosa Forsk. ;
EUPHORBIACEAE yess
and finally Kosteletzsky, Allg. Med. Pharm. Fl. 5 (1836) 1743,
placed it under Acalypha caturus Blume.
ACALYPHA HISPIDA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 303, t. 61, f. 1.
Acalypha densiflora Blume Bijdr. (1826) 628.
Caturus spiciflorus Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 127, non Acalypha spiciflora
Burm. #:
Cauda felis domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 82, ¢t. 36.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 570, without data, apparently from
cultivated plants.
Burman f. described and figured Acalypha hispida from a
Javan specimen, but reduced Cauda felis domestica Rumph.
to his species which is certainly the correct disposition of it.
Blume misinterpreted Burman’s Acalypha hispida and rede-
scribed the same form as Acalypha densiflora Blume, reducing
to it also Cauda felis domestica Rumph. The plant is widely
cultivated for ornamental purposes in the Malayan region.
PLUKENETIA Linnaeus
PLUKENETIA CORNICULATA Sm. in Nov. Act. Soc. Sci. Upsal. 4
(1799) 4.
Pterococcus glaberrimus Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 41.
Hedrayostylus glaberrimus Hassk. in Tijdschr. Nat. Wetensch. 10
(1840) 141.
Hedrayostylus corniculatus Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1844). 234.
Sajorium corniculatum Dietr. Syn. Pl. 5 (1852) 331.
Sajor volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 194, t. 79, f. 2.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Sajor volubilis
Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to the American
Plukenetia volubilis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 1428, in which
he was followed by Burman f., Lamarck, Spanoghe, and Murray.
The form figured and described by Rumphius has been cited
under all or most of the various synonyms listed above. It was
cited by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 515, under Plukenetia cor-
niculata Sm., and perhaps by Smith in the original description
of the species, which I have not seen. Sajor volubilis Rumph.
is doubtless correctly placed under Plukenetia corniculata Sm.
RICINUS Linnaeus
RICINUS COMMUNIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1007.
Ricinus albus domesticus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 92.
Ricinus albus agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 92.
Ricinus ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 97, t. 41.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 337, 388, in waste places about
Castle Victoria, town of Amboina, November 18, 1918, locally known as
jarak puti daun besaar and jarak mera daun kechil.
324 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The Rumphian descriptions apply to three forms of this poly-
morphous species. The reduction of Ricinus ruber was first
made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1276, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 1480. The various forms described by Rumphius have
been reduced by authors to Ricinus lividus Jacq., R. viridis
Willd., R. africanus Mill., and R. ruber Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 12
(1858) 390; the last is not included in Index Kewensis; all are
synonyms of Ricinus communis Linn.
ALEURITES Forster
ALEURITES MOLUCCANA (Linn.) Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 590.
Jatropha moluccana Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1006.
Croton moluccanus Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 207.
Aleurites triloba Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 112.
Juglans camirium Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 573.
Aleurites ambinux Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 587.
Camirium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 180, t. 58.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 332, October 8, 1913,
cultivated, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as kamiri.
Lamarck seems to have been the first author to reduce Cami-
rium, placing it under Croton moluccanum Lam., which as
Aleurites moluccana Willd. is certainly the correct disposition of
it. By various authors it has been referred to Juglans camirium -
Lour., Aleurites triloba Forst., and A. ambinux Pers.—all syn-
onyms of Aleurites moluccana (Linn.) Willd.
JATROPHA Linnaeus
JATROPHA CURCAS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1006. -
Ricinus americanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 95.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 333, September 16, 1918,
along roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as jarap.
This reduction was first made by Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel
(1866) 81, and is certainly the correct disposition of the plant
Rumphius described as Ricinus americanus.
MANIHOT Adanson
MANIHOT UTILISSIMA Pohl Pl. Bras. Ic. 1 (1827) 32, t. 24.
Jatropha manthot Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1007.
Yucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 325, 361.
Mandihocca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 361.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 336, a roadside escape,
altitude about 375 meters.
The reductions follow Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 128,
133, and are unquestionably correct.
EUPHORBIACEAE 325
CODIAEUM * Jussieu
CODIAEUM VARIEGATUM (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1825) 606.
Croton variegatus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1199 (type!).
Codiaeum simplex (chrysosticton) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 65, t. 25.
AMBOINA. Waé and Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 848, 349, October
and November, 1918, cultivated and on coral hillsides at low altitudes,
locally known as kodiho. Additional specimens, perhaps referable to one
or the other of the numerous forms described by Rumphius are Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. $43, 344, 345, from cultivated plants, Soja, October 24,
1918, all sterile.
Croton variegatus Linn. is one of the few species published in
the first edition of the Species Plantarum that were based entirely
on Rumphius. It is typified by Codiaewm chrysosticton Rumph.,
Herb. Amb. 4: 65, ¢t. 25. Here Linnaeus also reduced, as varie-
ties, Codiaeum taeniosum Rumph., |. c. 68, t. 26, and Codiaeum
silvestre Rumph., 1. c. 69, t. 27, the latter, however, belonging
with Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb. These reductions were re-
peated in the later writings of Linnaeus, Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1275, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1424, and were generally accepted by
later authors. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 76, has reduced
many of the numerous forms characterized by Rumphius to
varieties of Codiaeum variegatum (Linn.) Blume, but the distinc-
tions between the very numerous varieties and forms of this
polymorphous species are vague and unsatisfactory. The forms
characterized by Rumphius are as follows:
Codiaeum chrysosticton medium.
Codiaeum chrysosticton latifolium.
Codiaeum chrysosticton angustifolium
Codiaeum chrysosticton medium rubrum.
Codiaeum chrysosticton rubro-maculatum.
Codiaeum erythrosticton parvifolium.
Codiaeum nigrum medium.
Codiaeum nigrum minus.
Codiaeum parvifolium viride.
CODIAEUM VARIEGATUM (Linn.) Blume f. TAENIOSUM Muell.-Arg. in
DC. Prodr. 15° (1866) 1120. .
Codiaeum taeniosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 68, t. 26, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 346, 347, October 24, 1913,
cultivated, altitude about 300 meters.
A narrow-leaved form of Codiaeum variegatum (Linn.) Blume,
originally placed by Linnaeus as var. B Sp. Pl. (1753) 1199.
Rumphius describes two forms under Codiaeum taeniosum, lu-
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Phyllaurea Lour. (1790) is older.
326 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
teum and viride, the latter, t. 26, f. 2, with crisped leaves—Croton
variegatum var. crispum Muell.-Arg.
CODIAEUM BRACTIFERUM Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 680.
Codiaeum brevistylum Pax & K. Hoffm. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 47
(1911) 28.
Codiaeum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 69, t. 27.
AMBOINA, Koesoe koesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 340, August
23, 1913, with staminate and pistillate flowers. Probably referable here
are Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 341, 342, from coral hillsides at Waé,
November 28, 1913, both sterile, and one lacking the characteristic reduced
“bracts” figured by Rumphius and described by Roxburgh.
Codiaeum silvestre Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to Codiaeum variegatum Linn. var. y Sp. Pl. (1753) 1199, but
represents an entirely distinct species, readily separated by its
pubescent ovaries and its vegetative characters. The greatly
reduced, bract-like leaf is very characteristic, but is present
opposite only the uppermost leaves and apparently falls early.
Codiaeum bractiferum Roxb. is not listed in Index Kewensis
and was described as follows:
C. bractiferum. R. Shrubby. Leaves linear-oblong, smooth, entire.
Racemes terminal, becoming lateral with an immense orbicular bract at
the base. Codiaewm silvestre Rumph. Amb. IV. ¢t. 27. A native of the
Moluccas.
I have placed the recently described Amboinese Codiaeum
brevistylum Pax & K. Hoffm. as a synonym, although in the de-
scription the characteristic, reduced, bract-like leaves are not
mentioned, possibly because they had fallen from the specimens
collected by Dolleschal.
ENDOSPERMUM Bentham
ENDOSPERMUM MOLUCCANUM (Teysm. & Binn.) Becc. Malesia 2
(1884) 38.
Capellania moluccana Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 29
(1866) 289.
Arbor regis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 257, t. 85.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections;
however, it has been collected in Amboina by Dolleschal. Lin-
naeus originally referred Arbor regis Rumph., with doubt, to
Hernandia sonora Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 11,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, thus: “85. Arbor regis=Hernandia
sonora ? (sed fructus alienus.).” In this reduction he was
followed by Burman f., Lamarck, Willdenow, Persoon, Henschel,
Spanoghe, Dietrich, Miquel, and other authors. Beccari, Ma-
lesia 2 (1884) 38, first made the correct reduction of it to
EUPHORBIACEAE AYA
Endospermum moluccanum (Teysm. & Binn.) Becc., the type
of Capellania moluccana Teysm. & Binn. being from the Mo-
luccas. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
45, thought that it was referable to Tournefortia.
EXCOECARIA Linnaeus
EXCOECARIA AGALLOCHA Linn. Syst. ed 10 (1759) 1288, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 122, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1451 (type!).
Arbor excoecans Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 237, t. 79 6, t. 80 9.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 335, October 29, 1918, along
the seashore, locally known as kayu matta buta.
The Rumphian illustration and description are the whole
basis of Excoecaria agallocha Linn. as originally published by
Linnaeus. The reduction, certainly correct, has been accepted
by all authors. The form briefly described by Rumphius as
Arbor excoecans (II variegata), Herb. Amb. 2: 239, can scarcely be
other than this species.
HOMALANTHUS Jussieu
HOMALANTHUS POPULNEUS (Geisel.) Pax in Engl. & Prantl Nat.
Pflanzenfam. 3° (1890) 96, f. 60.
Stillingia populnea Geisel. Croton. Monogr. (1807) 80.
Carumbium populneum Muell.-Arg. in DC. Prodr. 157 (1866) 1144.
Frutex excoecans Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1380, ¢. 65.
AMBOINA, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 329, October 3,
1913, in light forests, locally known as daun matta bali.
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 85,
reduced F'rutex excoecans Rumph. to Carumbium populifolium
Reinw., which is a synonym of Homalanthus popuineus (Geisel.)
Pax. The Amboina form appears to be typical Homalanthus
populneus Pax [that is, var. genuinus Pax in Engl. Pflanzenreich
52 (1912) 46], which extends from the Malay Peninsula to Java,
Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes.
PIMELEODENDRON Hasskarl
PIMELEODENDRON AMBOINICUM Hassk. Versl. en Med. Akad. Ams-
terdam 4 (1855) 140.
Carumbium amboimcum Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 17 (1859) 418.
Arbor pinguis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 249, ¢t. 83.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 174, October 18, 1913, at
low altitudes, locally known as mamina.
Arbor pinguis Rumph. was first correctly placed by Hasskar!
as a synonym of Pimeleodendron amboinicum Hassk. Desrouss,
in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 6938, thought that it might belong in
328 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
the Sapotaceae, while Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 152, thought
that it might be Cambogia gutta Linn. The species is known
only from Amboina.
SAPIUM P. Browne
SAPIUM INDICUM Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 572.
Ichthyoctonos litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 218, t. 188.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but I reduce the Rumphian species to Sapium indicum Willd.
with great confidence that this is the correct disposition of it.
Baillon, Etud. Gén. Euphorb. (1858) 518, suggested that it
was a Stillingia; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 68,
reduced it to Hxcoecaria virgate Zoll: & Mor.=Sapium virgatum
Hook. f., a species very closely allied to Sapium indicum Willd.
Sapium virgatum Hook. f. is confined to Java, according to
Pax & K. Hoffmann, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 52 (1912) 250, while
Sapium indicum Willd. extends from India to New Guinea. The
figure given by Rumphius is fairly good, while the description
applies to Sapium indicum Willd. in all respects.
EUPHORBIA Linnaeus
EUPHORBIA HIRTA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 454.
Euphorbia pilulifera Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 454.
Euphorbia capitata Lam. Encycl. 2 (1788) 422.
Esula esculenta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 54, t. 28, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 352, October 8, 1913,
in cultivated ground, altitude about 150 meters; also represented by Rel.
Robins. 2497, from Boeton Island, July 13, 1913.
E'sula esculenta Rumph. was first reduced by Linnaeus to
Euphorbia hirta Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1048, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 651, which is certainly the correct disposition of
it, and in which he was followed by many authors. In recent
literature the species appears chiefly as Euphorbia pilulifera
Linn., which is a synonym of Huphorbia hirta Linn., the latter
having page priority. Lamarck referred it, with doubt, to
Euphorbia capitaita Lam., a synonym of Euphorbia hirta Linn.
EUPHORBIA NERIIFOLIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 451.
Euphorbia ligularia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 86, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 465.
Ligularia lactea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 88, t. 40. _
Ligularia minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 90.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
This reduction of Ligularia lactea Rumph. was first made by
ANACARDIACEAE 329
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 126, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 648, and is apparently the
correct disposition of it. Euphorbia ligularia. Roxb. was de-
scribed from Bengal specimens, to which Ligularia Rumph.
was reduced. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 81, referred
Ligularia minor Rumph. to Huphorbia edulis Lour., but the form
described by Rumphius was probably only a somewhat reduced
one of Huphorbia nerifolia.
Ligularia lactea e Java, briefly described by Rumphius, Herb.
Amb. 4:88, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
80, to be possibly the same as Huphorbia splendens Boj., but
this reduction is probably incorrect.
EUPHORBIA TIRUCALLI Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 452.
Ossifraga lactea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 62, t. 29.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Ossifraga lactea was first reduced to Huphorbia tirucalli Linn.
by Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 187, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1047, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 649. This is manifestly the correct
disposition of it and has been accepted by all authors who have
had occasion to cite the Rumphian illustration.
EUPHORBIACEAE indet.
Involucrum cusci Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 738.
The description, while rather short, is sufficiently definite to
indicate that a euphorbiaceous plant is intended. I am, however,
unable to refer it to its proper genus from the description alone.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 77, suspects it to be an
Elateriospermum or a species of some allied genus.
ANACARDIACEAE
MANGIFERA Linnaeus
MANGIFERA FOETIDA Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 160.
Manga foetida Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 98, t. 28.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 126, beside clearings,
altitude about 175 meters, locally known as ambachan, bachan, and bichang.
Manga foetida Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro in the original
description of Mangifera foetida Lour. and is undoubtedly the
form that Loureiro described from Cochin-China material, as
the species is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region
in cultivation. All authors have followed Loureiro in this
reduction.
330 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MANGIFERA CAESIA Jack in Roxb. Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 441.
Mangifera kemanga Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 202.
Manga foetida I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 99.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The reduction follows Blume, who cites Mangifera foetida II
under the native name wani in the original description of Man-
gifera kemanga. It should be also compared with Mangifera
odorata Griff.
MANGIFERA UTANA Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5’ (1826) 326 (type!).
Mangifera membranacea Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 195 (type?).
Mangifera taipan Ham. ex Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1858) 681.
Manga silvestris | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 97, t. 27.
Nothing resembiing this species occurs in our Amboina col-
lections. The Rumphian figure and description are the whole
basis of Mangifera utana Ham., a species properly published,
but overlooked by the compilers of Index Kewensis, in which
it is not listed. Mangifera membranacea Blume is based, at
least in part, on the same Rumphian description and figure; like
Mangifera utana Ham. it is a species of very doubtful status,
placed by Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 215, under the
‘heading “species omnino incertae.” The figure very closely
resembles the Philippine form, Mangifera monandra Merr.
MANGIFERA INDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 200.
Manga domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 98, t. 25, 26.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 125, October 29, 1913, locally
known as manga; town of Amboina, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 123, 124, August 24,
1913, locally known as pau and manga pau.
Linnaeus originally reduced both tt. 25 and 26 to Mangifera
indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 119; and practically all authors have followed him,
at least in the reduction of Manga domestica as represented by
t. 25. The form represented by t. 26 is almost certainly nothing
but Mangifera indica; at least no characters are indicated by
which it can be distinguished. It has been cited by Blume and
by Miquel as Mangifera altissuma Blanco, a very characteristic
species that has very little in common with the figure given by
Rumphius; whatever else t. 26 may represent, it is certainly not
Mangifera altissima Blanco.
Rumphius describes five forms of Manga domestica, all of
which, with one exception, are surely referable to Mangifera
indica Linn. The exception is Arbor mangifera V minor, which
Blume has reduced to Mangifera minor Blume, Mus. Bot. 1
ANACARDIACEAE | 331
(1850) 198, his description being based on specimens from
Celebes.
MANGIFERA MINOR Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 198.
Manga domestica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 94.
Mangifera minor Blume was based on specimens from Celebes,
and Blume reduced the Rumphian species as a synonym in the
original description of the species. The species is a valid one,
placed by Engler near Mangifera longipes Griff.; DC. Monog.
Phan. 4 (1883) 202. Blume was undoubtedly correct in re-
ducing here Manga minor Rumph.
MANGIFERA LAURINA Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 195.
Manga simiarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 94.
The reduction follows Blume, who placed the Rumphian species
as a synonym of Mangifera laurina Blume in the original de-
scription of the species.
MANGIFERA TAIPAN Ham. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 5° (1826) 326 (type!).
Mangifera silvestris altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 97.
This species is based wholly on Rumphius’s description and
is of entirely doubtful status. Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4
(1883) 215, reduces it to Mangifera membranacea Blume, Mus.
Bot. 1 (1850) 195, following Blume, but Blume’s species is in
turn one of entirely doubtful status. Hamilton’s name is the
older and should be maintained if future investigations show
that the species is 2 valid one.
MANGIFERA RUMPHII Pierre FI. Forest. Cochinch. 4 (1897) t. 364, f. E,
excl. syn. Blanco.
Pauw Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 18, t. 11 (incl. I maxima, II media,
III minima).
The three forms described by Rumphius under the name
Pauw, were referred by Hasskarl to Mangifera altissima Blanco,
but the descriptions and the figure pertain to a totally different
species, which Pierre has described from Banda specimens as
Mangifera rumphii Pierre.
GLUTA Linnaeus
GLUTA BENGHAS Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 293.
Terminalia vernix Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 350 (type!).
Stagmaria verniciflua Jack. Malay Miscel. 3 (1828) 12.
Arbor vernicis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 259, t. 86.
Gluta benghas Linn. was based on Javan specimens, perhaps
benghas being a typographical error, as the specific name is
taken from its native name rengas. Arbor vernicis Rumph.
BOL RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
probably includes more than Gluta benghas Linn., but the figure
and the description, at least for the most part, apparently belong
here. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 587, discusses it under
Vernicia montana Lour., but does not refer it to this species,
which is supposed to be Aleurites moluccana Willd. It is the
type and whole basis of Terminalia vernix Lam. Hasskarl seems
to have been the first author to reduce it to Gluta benghas Linn.,
Flora (1844) 619, in which he was followed by Endlicher,
Blume, and Miquel, and, very generally, by recent authors.
Miquel also discusses it following Terminalia angustifolia Jacq.,
Fl]. Ind. Bat. 1' (1855) 599, overlooking the fact that Terminalia
vernix Lam., which he considered to be a doubtful species, was
based on Arbor vernicis Rumph., which in the same work, 1?
(1858) 624, he correctly placed under Gluta benghas Linn.
SPONDIAS Linnaeus
SPONDIAS DULCIS Forst. Prodr. (1786) 34.
Evia acida Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 234.
Spondias acida Blume ex Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 2 (1841) 625.
Spondias dulcis Forst. var. acida Engl. in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883)
247.
Condondum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 161, t. 60.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections, but the
species is known to occur in the island. I have followed Blume
in this reduction, as it is very probable that he was correct in
referring Condondum Rumph. to Evia acida Blume. Engler
considers that Blume’s Evia acida is a variety of Spondias dulcis
Forst. Linnaeus originally reduced Condondum to Chrysobala-
nus icaco Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 119, a pure error on his part, the reduction being
abandoned in his later writings. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1791)
697, followed by Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 5? (1826) 358,
thought that it was Mangifera pinnata Linn. f., which was
figured by Rumphius under the name Condondum malaccense,
t. 61. Mangifera pinnata Lam., non Linn. f., is Sorindeta
madagascariensis Thouars.
SPONDIAS PINNATA (Linn. f.) Kurz in Pegu Report (1875) A 44.
Mangifera pinnata Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 156.
Evia amara Commers. ex Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 2384.
Spondias mangifera Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 751.
Spondias amara Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 261.
Condondum malaccense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 162, ft. 61.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
reduction, apparently the correct disposition of Condondum
ANACARDIACEAE 330
malaccense Rumph., follows Blume and other authors. Blume
makes the Rumphian figure and description the type of Evia
amara Commers. var. tuberculosa Blume; and Engler, recogniz-
ing the variety, transfers it to Spondias mangifera Willd. var.
tuberculosa Blume. The form described and figured, however,
is probably nothing but typical Spondias pinnata (Linn. f.)
Kurz.
DRACONTOMELUM Blume
DRACONTOMELUM MANGIFERUM Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 281.
Poupartia mangifera Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1160, excl. syn.
Pomum draconum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 157, t. 58.
AMBOINA, Kaju poeti, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 127, October 24, 1913,
in light woods, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as bua rau.
Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 57 (1828) 358, thought Pomum
draconum Rumph. to be “‘pretty clearly a Spondias,” but Blume,
Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 231, referred it to Dracontomelum mangi-
ferum Blume, which is apparently the correct disposition of it,
and one that has been accepted by subsequent authors, including
Walpers, Miquel, and Engler. The species is widely distributed
in the Malay Archipelago.
DRACONTOMELUM SYLVESTRE Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 281.
Pomum draconum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 159, ¢. 59.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The
reduction was made by Blume in the original description of
Dracontomelum sylvestre and is probably the correct disposition
of it. According to Blume the species is widely distributed in
the Malay Archipelago, but in the most recent monograph of the
group Engler cites specimens from Borneo only.
ANACARDIUM Linnaeus
ANACARDIUM OCCIDENTALE Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 383.
— Cassuvium pomiferum Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 22.
Cassuvium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 177, t. 69.
The common cashew is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections, but is very generally cultivated throughout the Malayan
region. Cassuviwm Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus
to Anacardium cccidentale Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1019,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 548, which reduction is certainly correct
and has been very generally followed by subsequent authors.
Lamarck, however, redescribed the same species as Cassuvium
pomiferum Lam., referring here Cassuviwm Rumph., from which
he took the generic name.
334 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
SEMECARPUS Linnaeus f.
SEMECARPUS CASSUVIUM Roxb. Hort.’ Beng. (1814) 32 (type!);
Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 936; Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (18382) 85.
Anacardium longifolium Lam. Encycl. 1 (1768) 1389, p. p., quoad syn.
Rumph.
Cassuvium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 179, #. 70.
AMBOINA, Paso, Way tommo, and near the town of Amboina, Robinson .
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 119, 120, 121, 122, October, November, 1913, in thickets
and light woods, sea level to an altitude of 20 meters, locally known as saku.
Cassuvium silvestre Rumph. is the whole basis of Semecarpus
cassuvium Roxb. as originally published by him,’ Hort. Beng.
(1814) 32, by citation.* Sprengel apparently based his short
description partly, if not entirely, on Anacardium longifolium |
Lam., which is the same as Semecarpus cassuvium Roxb. only
in small part. Roxburgh’s actual description, as published in
1832, was based on specimens originating in the Moluccas and
cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta.
SEMECARPUS FORSTENI!I Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 188.
Cassuvium silvestre s. Lau Lassi (e Ternate) Rumph. Herb. Amb.
12 130.
The reduction follows Blume, who so reduced the Ternate
form mentioned by Rumphius, in the original description of
Semecarpus forstenit Blume, which was based on actual speci-
mens collected in Ternate by Forsten.
CELASTRACEAE
EUONYMUS Linnaeus
EUONYMUS sp.?
Caju lape lape Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 78, t. 50.
Nothing resembling the form figured by Rumphius occurs in
our Amboina collections. The figure looks suspiciously like
certain species of Huonymus, while the description applies fairly
closely. Blume, Rumphia 3 (1837) 167, notes that it cannot be
a Mischocarpus; Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1858) 567, mentions
it under Cupania fuscescens Miq.—Mischocarpus fuscescens
Blume; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 53, quotes Teys-
mann’s opinion that it was an Hlodea (Tridesmis) —Cratoxylon,
which is an impossible disposition of it. It may possibly be a
sapindaceous plant, but the probabilities are that it is a poorly
described and figured species of Euonymus.
* See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413, 418.
ICACINACEAE 225
PERROTTETIA Humbolt, Bonpland, and Kunth
PERROTTETIA MOLUCCANA (Blume) Loesen. in Engl. & Prantl. Nat.
Pflanzenfam. 3° (1892) 220.
Caryospermum moluccanum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 176.
Vertifolia rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 100, t. 67.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Mahija, and Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
157, 160, 601, August and November, 1915, in forests, altitude 100 to 250
meters.
No previous reduction of Vertifolia rubra Rumph. has been
suggested other than. Hasskarl’s tentative reference of it to the
Euphorbiaceae. The specimens cited above agree perfectly with
the description and very well with the figure, the fault in the
figure being that the flowers are relatively greatly enlarged.
Hasskarl was uncertain to which description, Vertifolia alba or
Vertifolia rubra, the figure pertained, as Rumphius does not
indicate which one he intended it for. The descriptions pertain
to two entirely different plants, of different genera, and probably
of different families. The Amboina material shows definitely
that the figure belongs with Vertifolia rubra Rumph. It is of
interest to note that the species is the type of the genus Caryo-
spermum and that Blume’s material was from Amboina.
ICACINACEAE
CARDIOPTERYX Wallich
CARDIOPTERYX MOLUCCANA Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 207.
Olus sanguinis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 482, t. 180.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Olus
sanguinis Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus, through
error, to Dioscorea sativa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
25, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, in which he was followed by a
number of authors. It has also been referred to Dioscorea clif-
fortiana Lam. and to D. deltoidea Wall. Blume placed it in
Cardiopteryx (often spelled Cardiopteris) in the original descrip-
tion of Cardiopteryx moluccana Blume, which is manifestly the
correct disposition of it.
STEMONURUS Blume
STEMONURUS sp.
Fructus bobae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 166, #. 105.
Nothing resembling this form is represented in our Amboina
collections. The figure is an excellent one and presents an icacin-
aceous plant, undoubtedly of the genus Stemonurus. Teysmann,
quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 62, placed it in Platea,
another genus of the same family.
336 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
SAPINDACEAE *
CARDIOSPERMUM Linnaeus
CARDIOSPERMUM HALICACABUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 366.
Halicacabus peregrinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 61, ¢. 24, f. 2.
This common and well-known species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The reduction of the Rumphian Halica-
cabus peregrinus was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1007, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 525, which has been followed by all
succeeding authors. The exact form figured by Rumphius is
apparently Cardiospermum halicacabum Linn. var. microcarpum
Blume.
ALLOPHYLUS Linnaeus
ALLOPHYLUS TIMORENSIS (DC.) Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 180 (emend.
Radlk.).
Schnudelia timorensis DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 611.
Ampacus litorea prima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 188.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 58,
August 8, 1918, along the beach, with the doubtful native names biking ubat
and kaya besi.
The position of this form, as described by Rumphius, has
not previously been indicated, but Ampacus litorea prima is
unquestionably identical with Allophylus timorensis (DC.)
Blume.
ALLOPHYLUS TERNATUS (Forst.) Radlk. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflan-
zenfam. 3° (1895) 318.
Aporetica ternata Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 182.
Allophylus amboinensis Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 129.
Ampacus litorea (angustifolia) minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 189.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 52, September 18,
1913, along the beach. Another form of the same species is represented
by Rel. Robins. 1603, from Paso, Amboina, Oct. 29, 19138, with elongated
racemes, approaching Allophylus leptococcus Blume.
Blume, Rumphia 3 (1847) 129, referred Ampacus litorea
(angustifolia) minor to his Allophylus amboinensis, which is
an exact synonym of Allophylus ternatus (Forst.) -Radlk.
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1859) 575, referred it to Allophylus
timorensis (DC.) Blume, but Ampacus litorea prima Rumph. is
manifestly Allophylus timorensis Blume, while the form from
Leytimor is surely A. ternatus Radlk. (A. amboinensis Blume).
It is to be noted that Ampacus angustifolius Rumph., Herb.
* T am indebted to Dr. L. Radlkofer for the identifications of the speci-
mens cited in this family.
SAPINDACEAE 307
Amb. 2: 188, ¢. 62, as described and figured, under which the two
species discussed above are briefly described, is no Allophylus,
but is Evodia amboinensis Merr. (Evodia triphylla auct. plur.,
non DC.) (see p. 290).
SAPINDUS Linnaeus
SAPINDUS RARAK DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 608.
Dittelasma rarak Hook. f. in Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. Pl. 1 (1862) 395.
Saponaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 134.
This is not represented in our Amboina collections, but Sapon-
aria is unquestionably the same as Sapindus rarak DC., which
was based in part on Rumphius and in part on a Javan specimen.
-Rumphius notes that the plant was abundant in Java, but oc-
curred in Amboina only as an introduced one. Burman f., FI.
Ind. (1768) 91, referred it to Sapindus saponaria Linn., in which
he was followed by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 238, but
Sapindus saponaria Linn. is a species entirely distinct from S.
rarak DC.
LEPISANTHES Blume
LEPISANTHES sp.?
Arbor palorum alba paaraligl Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 98, t. 65
(excl. f. A.). |
The form figured and described by Rumphius is of doubtful
status. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 479, thought
that it might be Pometia pinnata Forst., which is certainly
incorrect. De Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 615, erroneously
identified it as Stadmannia sideroxylon DC. Blume, Rumphia 3
(1837-47) 149, thought that it might be the same as Scoro-
dendron pallens Blume==Lepisanthes pallens Radlk., which was
described from Timor specimens. Teysmann, quoted by Hass-
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 55, placed it under Irine=Irina
—Pometia, where it certainly does not belong. If Blume’s
surmise that it is identical with Scorodendron pallens is correct,
it is strange that Rumphius did not mention the peculiar onion-
like odor that is characteristic of Blume’s species.
SCHLEICHERA Willdenow
SCHLEICHERA OLEOSA (Lour.) comb. nov.
Pistacia oleosa Lour. FJ. Cochinch. (1790) 615.
Schleichera trijuga Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 1096.
Cussambium spinosum Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 143
(type!).
Cussambium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 154, t. 57.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
14497122
Boye am RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Cussambium, although poorly figured by Rumphius, is certainly
referable to this widely distributed Indo-Malayan species. It
was first reduced by Loureiro, Fl]. Cochinch. (1790) 615, to his
Pistacia oleosa, and the plant he described from specimens cul-
tivated in Cochin-China is apparently identical with Schleichera
trujuga Willd.; at any rate it is no Pistacia. Accordingly,
Loureiro’s specific name, being the older, is here adopted. The
reference of Cussambium to Schleichera trijuga Willd. was first
made by Blume, Rumphia 3 (1847) 147, who also cites Pistacia
oleosa Lour. aS a synonym. Cussambium spinosum Ham. is
typified by the Rumphian plate and description.
EUPHORIA Commerson
EUPHORIA LONGANA Lam. Encycel. 3 (1791) 574.
Nephelium longana Cambess. in Nicm. M ‘s Se halt PEN
Linkeng Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 157.
This Chinese species is briefly mentioned by Rumphius, who
discusses it under the Chinese name linkeng. The material he
had was unquestionakly Huphoria longana Lam.
CUBILIA Blume
CUBILIA BLANCO! Blume Rumphia 2 (1849) 101.
Euphoria cubth Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 287. :
Cubitla rumphi Blume 1. ce. 101; Koord. in Ic. Bogor. 1 (1904) 51,
t. 92, 93. .
Boa massy Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 5, t. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but is now known from a number of localities in the Philippines
(Luzon to Mindanao), from Buru, and from Celebes. The
reduction was first made by Blume, in the original publication of
the genus cited above, but he recognized two species, the first
Cubilia blancoi, the second C. rumphii; it is very apparent that
the two are identical, and that, so far as material at present
available shows, the genus Cubilia is monotypic and is confined
to the Philippines and the Moluccas. Blume had no Philippine
material and interpreted Euphoria cubili Blanco solely from
Blanco’s description. Doctor Radlkofer, under date of July 5,
1904, in discussing the identity of certain Philippine specimens
with Cubilia blancoi and C..rumphii, writes as follows:
Your Philippine plant seems to be quite identical with the Celebes one
[coll. Koorders] and so Cubilia blancoi and C. rumphii will fall together,
and the latter must become a synonym of the former.
The differences indicated by Blume in the descriptions of what
SAPINDACEAE 229
he took to be two species are certainly due only to translations
of Blanco’s descriptive terms in indicating the fruit and leaf
characters.
POMETIA Forster
POMETIA PINNATA Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 110.
Irina glabra Blume Bijdr. (1825) 2380.
Dabanus (incl. Dawan batu, Dawan mera, Dawan puti) Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 3: 31, 32, tt. 16, 17.
AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 2, September 8, 1913,
on river banks at an altitude of about 25 meters, locally known as tauwan
itam; Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 3, October 7, 1918, in light
forests, altitude about 90 meters.
The reduction of Dabanus of Rumphius to Irina glabra Blume
was made by Blume, Rumphia 3 (1847) 114; that is, Dawan batu
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 31, ¢. 17, to Irina glabra var. solida Blume
and Dawan mera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 32 to Irina glabra var.
rubra Blume. Irina glabra Blume is a synonym of Pometia
pinnata Forst. All three forms indicated by Rumphius are
apparently referable to the widely distributed and variable
Pometia pinnata Forst. Plate 16 represents a fruiting specimen
and plate 17 a flowering specimen, the latter distinctly charac-
teristic, the former rather crude, yet unmistakably a Pometia.
JAGERA Blume
JAGERA SERRATA (Roxb.) Radlk. in Sitzb. Math.-Phys. Acad. Muench.
8 (1878) 303.
Sapindus serratus Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 88 nomen nudum, ¥1,
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 284.
Jagera speciosa Blume Rumphia 3 (1847) 155.
Papaja silvestris minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 150, t. 53, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Blume makes this reduction in the original description of Jagera
speciosa, which is probably the correct disposition of Papaja
silvestris minor Rumph.
MISCHOCARPUS Blume
MISCHOCARPUS FUSCESCENS Blume Rumphia 3 (1837-47) 169.
Arbor palorum alba latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 99, t. 65, quoad
fis A
This may or may not prove to be the correct disposition of
the form that Rumphius described, the reduction following
Miquel’s suggestion. It is at least a representative of the
Sapindaceae.
340 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
DODONAEA Linnaeus
DODONAEA VISCOSA (Linn.) Jacq. Enum. Pl. Carib. (1760) 19.
Ptelea viscosa Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 118.
Caryophyllaster litoreus Rumph. -erb. Ab. : it £2 DO!
AMBOINA, Tandjong martafrons, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 1, October
16, 1913, along the beach, locally known as chenki laut. The exact form,
as determined by Doctor Radlkofer, is Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. var. vulgaris
Benth., forma repanda Radlk.
The reduction of Caryophyllus litoreus to Ptelea viscosa Linn.
was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 898, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 173, and transferred to Dodonaea as D. viscosa
Linn., Mant. 2 (1771) 228, eleven years after Jacquin made the
same transfer. Other names given by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 83, are Dodonaea burmanniana DC., D. dioica Roxb., D.
triquetra Andr., and D. angustifolia Blanco, all of which are
apparently synonyms of Dodonaea viscosa Jacq.
HARPULLIA Roxburgh
HARPULLIA ARBOREA (Blanco) Radlk. in Sitzb. Math.-Phys. Akad.
Muench. 16 (1886) 404.
Ptelea arborea Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 63.
Metrosideros molucca fungosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 4, November 4, 1913,
in forests at an altitude of about 50 meters, locally known as samar ayer.
A form with larger leaflets, and, for the species, rather large fruits, is
represented by Rel. Robins. 1601, from Hitoe messen, October 10, 19138, grow-
ing on forested limestone hills at an altitude of about 150 meters..
The identification has been made chiefly from the native name
cited by Rumphius, that is, samar ayer, which also appears on
one of the specimens cited above. The description given by
Rumphius is entirely inadequate to warrant an identification of
the form from it alone. It is to be noted, however, that the other
two species described under the heading Metrosideros molucca
by Rumphius have nothing to do with Harpullia, but one is
Homalium foetidum Benth. and the other is indeterminable.
BALSAMINACEAE
IMPATIENS Linnaeus
IMPATIENS BALSAMINA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 938.
Lacca herba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 256, t. 90.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 70, September 27, 1913.
Lacca herba was reduced to Impatiens balsamina Linn... by
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4
RHAMNACEAE 2A]
(1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1239, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1328,
which is certainly the correct disposition of it, and which has been
very generally followed by later authors. I consider that all of
the forms indicated by Rumphius, I coccinea, II purpurea, III
alba, and IV e Sina, are merely color forms of the widely dis-
tributed and variable species. They have been referred by
various authors to Impatiens coccinea Sims, Balsamina fasci-
culata DC., B. tilo DC., and B. hortensis Desp.*
~RHAMNACEAE
ZIZYPHUS Linnaeus
ZIZYPHUS JUJUBA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 318.
Rhamnus jujuba Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 194.
Malum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 117, t. 386.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 267, November 18, 1913,
from cultivated trees, locally known as vidara.
This was reduced by Linnaeus to his Rhamnus jujuba, in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 282, in which he was followed by other authors until
Lamarck transferred Rhamnus jujuba to Zizyphus, where it
properly belongs. All authors who have cited Rumphius since
Lamarck, refer it to Zizyphus jujuba (Linn.) Lam. Skeels,
U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bull. 208 (1911) 67, considers that
Zizphus jujuba Lam. is invalidated by Z. jujuba Mill., Gard.
Dict. (1768), and proposes to adopt for the plant commonly
known as Zizyphus jujuba Lam. the name Z. mauritiana Lam.
Judging from the data given by Rumphius, the three forms
mentioned by him on page 118 as coming from Timor and Java
are merely slight variants of this common and widely distributed
species. |
COLUBRINAY Richard
COLUBRINA ASIATICA (Linn.) Brongn. in Ann. Sci. Nat. I 10 (1827)
369.
Ceanothus asiaticus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 196.
Amara litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 74, t. 39, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 269, October 29, 1913, in
thickets back of the beach, and at Ayer putre in similar habitat, August
Ze, L913:
Amara litorea Rumph. has not previously been properly
reduced. The figure is a good representation of this common and
widely distributed Indo-Malayan strand plant. Suggested re-
* See Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 118.
+ Retained name, Vienna Code; Marcorella Neck. (1790) is older.
342 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ductions by other authors have been Croton sp., by Burman f.,
ex Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 96; some aurantiaceous.
plant, after Poiret, Hasskarl, |. c.; and Teysmann’s suggestion to
Hasskarl that it was Zizyphus timoriensis DC.
VENTILAGO Gaertner
VENTILAGO sp.
Funis viminalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3, ft. 2.
Nothing that can be referred to the plant that Rumphius
figures and describes occurs in our Amboina collections. The
plant is manifestly a Ventilago, but its status must remain doubt-
ful until more comprehensive collections are made in Amboina.
Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 128, erroneously referred it to Securidaca volubilis Linn.,
with which, however, it has nothing in common. Willdenow,
Sp. Pl. 1 (1797) 1106, reduced it to Ventilago maderaspatana
Gaertn., in which he has been followed by all subsequent authors
who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure. It is very
improbable, however, that this Moluccan plant is identical with
Ventilago maderaspatana Gaertn. Possibly it is the same as
Ventilago cernua Tul., in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 8. (1857) 128,
which was described from specimens collected by Gaudichaud in
Rawak Island, Moluccas.
VITACEAE
AMPELOCISSUS Planchon
AMPELOCISSUS ARACHNOIDEA (Hassk.) Planch. in DC. Monog. Phan.
5 (1887) 875.
Cissus arachnoidea Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 166.
Cissus blumeana Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 39, non Span.,
nec Steud. —
Ampelopsis indica Blume Bijdr. (1825) 193, non Ampelocissus indica
Planch.
Labrusca molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 452, t. 167.
This rather characteristic species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The figure and the description, however,
apply closely to Ampelocissus arachnoidea (Hassk.) Planch. and,
for that matter, also to Ampelocissus martini Planch., which must
be very closely allied to the former. Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java
2 (1912) 557, seems first to have made this reduction of Labrusca
molucca Rumph., which is manifestly the correct disposition of
it. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 942, erroneously referred it to Vitis indica Linn. and
again, with even greater error, placed it under Vitis trifolia Linn.,
in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
VITACEAE 3438
155, referred it to Vitis labrusca Linn., but the Cochin-China
form he described under the Linnean name was probably Am-
pelocissus martini Planch. or A. arachnoidea Planch.
CISSUS Linnaeus
CISSUS QUADRANGULARIS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 39.
Vitis quadrangularis Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5992.
Funis quadrangularis Rumph. Lierb. Amb. 52 783) Cee epee
This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina
collections; it is, however, of local occurrence in many parts of
Malaya, apparently here an introduced plant. Linnaeus cites
the Rumphian name, Funis quadrangularis, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1468, as a synonym of Menispermum crispum Linn., an error for
Funis felleus Rumph., as the illustration indicated is t. 44, f. 1,
which is a Tinospora. In the original description of Cissus qua-
drangularis Linn., Funis quadrangularis Rumph. is cited as a
synonym, this reduction certainly being the correct disposition
of it. Most authors have quoted the Rumphian name and figure
under Cissus quadrangularis Linn., a few under its synonym
Vitis quadrangularis Wall.
CiISSUS REPENS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 381.
Cissus cordata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 11, nomen nudum, FI. Ind.
e021 "(18382)) 407.
Vitis repens W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 125.
Funis crepitans | major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 446, t. 164, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Eri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 215, September 238, 1913, in
thickets near the seashore, locally known as bunga tangong.
Through confusion of Vitis alba Rumph. with t. 164, f. 1, Lin-
naeus originally reduced the above figure to Bryonia cordifolia
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24; it is manifest that
he intended to cite ¢. 166, both here and in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
133. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762)
170, he erroneously reduced Funis crepitans Rumph. to Vitis
vitiginea Linn. Vahl, Symb. 3. (1794) 18, places it under Cissus
latifolia Vahl, of which, however, it is not the type; Murray,
Syst. (1774) 1388, places it under Cissus sicyoides Linn., where
it certainly does not belong; Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 17 (1797) 656,
places it under Cissus latifolia Lam.; and finally Roxburgh, F1.
Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 407, places it under Cissus cordata Roxb.,
an exact synonym of Cissus repens Lam. Cissus repens Lam.
was based on Neriam pulli Rheed., Hort. Malabar. 7: t. 48, and
the form figured by Rheede appears to me to be specifically
identical with the form figured by Rumphius as F'wnis crepitans
I major and illustrated by the specimen cited above.
344 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CISSUS ARISTATA Blume Bijdr. (1824) 183.
Oculus astaci Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 479, t. 178, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso, Waé, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
228, 229, 230, October and November, 19138, in thickets, sea level to an
altitude of about 225 meters, locally known as siri barat.
The identification of these specimens: with Oculus astaci
Rumph. is probably correct, although the stems, as presented by
herbarium material, are not quadrangular, yet some of the
branchlets are distinctly so. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
149, referred it to Cissus glauca Roxb., which is supposed to be
a synonym of Cissus repens Lam. Cissus aristata Blume has
been reduced by Miquel and by Planchon to Cissus adnata Roxb.,
Fl. Ind. 1 (1820) 423, a species originally described from Indian
material. The Amboina material seems to present some of the
characters of Cissus assamica Craib, which like C. adnata Roxb.
is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region, but its in-
dumentum is of the adnata type. It is possible that the material
should be referred to Cissus adnata Roxb. rather than to C. aris-
tata Blume, but without access to the original material on which
the various species were based, it is difficult to determine their
exact relationships. The closely allied species involved are Cis-
sus adnata Roxb., C. assamica Craib, C. aristata Blume, C. rotun-
difolia Blume (C. blumeana Steud.), and Cissus pyrrhodasys
Miq., the last apparently being identical with Cissus assamica
Craib var. pilosissima Gagnep., Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 358.
VITIS QUADRICORNUTA Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 85.
Funis crepitans I! minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 446, t. 164, f. 2.
This form is not represented in our Amboina collections.
It may be a variety of Cissus repens Lam., or it may be a closely
allied form worthy of specific rank. Planchon, DC. Monog.
Phan. 5 (1887) 506, repeats Miquel’s description, under Cissus
repens Lam., with the statement that Vitis diffusa Miq., V. mo-
desta Miq., Vitis metziana Miq., and V. quadricornuta Miq. are
either synonyms of Cissus repens Lam. or represent very closely
allied species. The reduction of Funis crepitans II minor follows
Miquel, but the plant, and for that matter Vitis quadricornuta
Miq., is a true Cissus, although the transfer is not here definitely
made in view of the uncertain status of the form described by
Miquel.
CISSUS sp.?
Funis crepitans 1!V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 447.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 83, cites this as a synonym of
Cissus trifoliata Lour., non Linn., a species of entirely uncertain
VITACEAE 345
status. It must be a species of Columella or of Tetrastigma, if it
belongs in the Vitaceae, as it probably does. I have not been able
to refer to it any of our Amboina specimens, but further explora-
tion of Amboina may yield material that will lead to a more
definite determination of its status.
COLUMELLA Loureiro
COLUMELLA GENICULATA (Blume) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11
(1916). Bot, 132.
Cissus geniculata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 184.
Cayratia geniculata Gagnep. in Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 345.
Funis crepitans III trifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 447, t. 165.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 226, October 29, 1918, on
trees near the seashore.
The specimen agrees perfectly with Rumphius’s description
and illustration and is manifestly the species commonly known as
Cissus geniculata Blume, here called Columella geniculata Merr.
Lamark, Encycl. 1 (1783) 31, reduced it to Cissus carnosa Lam.=
C. trifolia K. Sch. of which, however, it is not the type. In this
erroneous reduction he was followed by all authors who have had’
occassion to cite the Rumphian illustration; namely, Vahl, Willde-
now, Retzius, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, Pritzel, and Hasskarl.
COLUMELLA TRIFOLIA (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916)
Bot. 134.
Vitis trifolia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 203. |
Cissus carnosa Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 31.
Cissus crenata Vahl Symb. 3 (1794) 19.
Cissus acida Murr. Syst. (1774) 1383 (type!).
Cissus trifolia K. Sch. in K. Sch. & Hollr. Fl. Kaiser Wilh. Land
(1889) 71.
Cayratia carnosa Gagnep. in Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 347.
Folium causonis | album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450, t. 166, f. 2.
Folium causonis If Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah and Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 227,
August and September, 1913, in thickets at low altitudes, locally known
as kapiala. The same form is represented by Fel. Robins. 2485, from
Boeton, July 13, 1913.
Folium causonis Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to Vitis
trifolia Linn. in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 942, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1762) 293, which, as Cissus trifolia K. Sch., or Columella tri-
folia Merr., is the correct disposition of it. Of the various syn-
onyms cited above it is the type and whole basis of but one,
Cissus acida Muryr., but is cited as a synonym in the original
description of Cissus carnosa Lam. and of Cissus crenata Vahl.
Roemer and Schultes, Syst. 3 (1818) 313, thought that it might
346 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
represent Cissus trilobata Lam., which is a true Cissus and is
known only from India. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 12 (1859) 602,
placed it under Cissus cinerea Lam., which is apparently merely
a pubescent form of Colwmella trifolia (Linn.) Merr., and
in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 1 (1863) 81 placed it, with
doubt, under Vitis geniculata (Blume) Miq.—Columella genicu-
lata Merr., a species that it certainly does not represent. The
form described by Rumphius as Foliuwm causonis II rubrum is
apparently merely a color variant of Columella trifolia (Linn.)
Merr., although Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 145, thought
that it might be Vitis geniculata Miq.
Columella Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 85, has been accepted
by me as the proper generic name for this group, although the
recognition of it invalidates Coluwmellia Ruiz & Pavon (1794)
of the Columelliaceae. I am of the opinion that Gagnepain *
was justified in segregating from Cissus as a distinct genus,
those forms placed by Planchon in the subgenus Cayratia, dif-
fering from him only in the selection of the generic name.
TETRASTIGMA Planchon
TETRASTIGMA sp.
Folium causonis II! litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 450.
No Tetrastigma occurs in our Amboina collections, yet from
the description given by Rumphius, I have little doubt that
the form described as F'olium causonis III litoreum is referable
to this genus. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 145, thought
that it might be referable to Vitis geniculata Miq. var. grosse-
serrata Miq.
LEEA Royen
LEEA AEQUATA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 124.
Frutex aquosus femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 108, t. 45.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 565, July 20, 1913,
in rocky soil at low altitudes.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 78, erroneously placed this under
Aralia chinensis Linn. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1? (1797) 1177, re-
ferred it to Leea sambucina Willd., in which he was followed by
numerous authors, Persoon, Roxburgh, Roemer and Schultes, Don,
Dietrich, and others. Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1
(1868) 98, reduced it to Leea aequata Linn., which is certainly
the correct disposition of Frutex aquosus femina Rumph. The
figure is poor, and from it alone it would be difficult to determine
* Gagnepain, F. Un genre méconnu: classification des Cissus et Cayratia.
Not. Syst. 1 (1911) 339-362.
VITACEAE BAT
which of several species of Leea was intended; but the description
is unmistakably that of Leea aequata Linn.,- not of Leea sambu-
cina Willd., especially in the description of the leaflets as “‘su-
perne pilis hirta, inferne arenulosa,” “arenulosa”’ manifestly
referring to the numerous glands on the lower surface that are
so very characteristic of Leea aequata Linn.
LEEA ACULEATA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 197; Mig. Ann. -Mus. Bot. Lugd.-
Bats 111863) 99.
Leea spinosa Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 670 p. p., quoad cit. “Ins.
Moluce.” |
Leea aculeata Blume var. moluccana Mia. 1. c.
Leea serrulata Miq. 1. ¢.
Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. Anb. 4: 102, #. 44.
AMBOINA, Mahija and town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 231,
282, July 23 and August 7, 1913, along river banks and edges of clearings,
altitude 7 to 200 meters, locally known as kayu baduri.
The specimens certainly represent f'rutex aquosus mas Rumph. ;
they are also undoubtedly referable to the species described by
Blume as Leea aculeata Bl. and later described by Blanco from
Philippine material as a distinct species under the same specific
name. ‘The trunk is supplied with short spines, but ordinary
herbarium material rarely presents these as the branchlets are
nearly always unarmed. Chiefly on account of the spiny stems
as depicted by Rumphius, Linnaeus referred F'rutex aquosus mas,
with doubt, to Aralia chinensis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 967,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 393, in which he was followed by Lamarck,
Loureiro, Willdenow, Burman f., and other authors. Koste-
letzky, Alig. Med.-Pharm. FI]. 5 (1836) 1981, referred it to Aralia
spinosa Linn. De Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830) 259, expressed the
opinion that the Rumphian figure represented a species of Leea,
rather than an Aralia; and finally Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.
Bat. 1 (1863) 99, reduced Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. to Leea
aculeata Blume, which is apparently the correct disposition of it.
C. B. Clarke, Journ. Bot. 10 (1881) 105, expresses the opinion
that Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 102, t. 44, does
not represent Leea aculeata Blume; but it is apparent that he
misinterpreted Blume’s species, because he puts it in the section
with red flowers, while in Leea aculeata Blume the flowers are
greenish-white or white. The name Leea spinosa Spreng. is
properly a synonym of Aralia chinensis Linn.; Sprengel ap-
parently intended to refer here only the Amboina reference from
Rumphius, but does not so state. Following the short descrip-
tion he merely cites ‘Ins. Moluce. China (Aralia chinensis L.).”’
348 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ELAEOCARPACEAE
- ELAEOCARPUS Linnaeus ©
Five or six species of Hlaeocarpus are described by Rumphius
under various names, such as Bblimbingum sylvestre Rumph.,
Ganitrus, Ganitrum oblongum, Lignum momentaneum, and
Arbor rediviva; while Hasskarl, Neue Schiissel (1866) 49, 50,
suggests that Sicchius femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 41, t. 22,
and Carbonaria femina Rumph., |. c. 538, may be species of H’laeo-
carpus. The last is certainly not referable to the genus.
Five species of this genus have been described from Amboina.
These are Llaecocarpus oppositifolius (DC.) Miq. and EF’. frutico-
sus Roxb. (from the Moluccas, probably from Amboina), both
very imperfectly described, indicated as having opposite leaves,
and certainly the same as FE. edulis T. & B.; E moluccanus
Scheff.; and l’. treubi Hochr. The last two were described from
specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java,
and HE’. treubi Hochr. may not have originated in Amboina.
The Robinson collection presents three species, one of which is
certainly the same as Elaeocarpus edulis T. & B. and with equal
certainty is the same as Blumbingum sylvestre Rumph., but the
other two I cannot definitely refer to any described species.
While both have doubtfully been referred to forms figured and
described by Rumphius, the identity of neither with the
Rumphian plants can be considered certain.
ELAEOCARPUS OPPOSITIFOLIUS (DC.) Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1858) 211.
Aceratium oppositifoiwm DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 519.
Elaeocarpus fruticosus Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 600.
Elaeocarpus excavatus Reinw. ex Koord. in Lorenz Nova Guinea 8
(1907) 174.
Biimbingum sylvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1388, t. 78.
AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 372, September 8, 1913;
Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 373, August 17, 1918, Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 190, July 28, 1913 (detached mature fruits only), river banks,
altitude 15 to 40 meters.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 69, was entirely wrong in
referring Blimbingum sylvestre of Rumphius to his new genus
and species, Cylindria rubra. The genus is of entirely uncertain
status, has nothing to do with Hlaeocarpus, and must be inter-
preted from Cochin-China material. Elaecarpus edulis Teysm.
& Binn. was based on Amboina specimens, but these authors do
not indicate the identity of Blimbingum sylvestre with their
species. ‘The actual specimens, cited above, agree with Rumph-
ius’s dscription and rather poor figure and bear the native name
ELAEOCARPACEAE 349
tagorela; the Amboinese name cited by Rumphius is tagorela
abbal. The mature fruits are red, about 4 cm long, 2 cm wide,
3-angled, apex acute or acuminate, the pericarp rather peculiarly
produced at the base, giving the fruit the truncate appearance
represented in Rumphius’s figure. Teysmann gave the native
names as bliembieng-oetan, tagorela, and kakarja. The type
of Aceratium oppositifolium DC. was from Amboina, and the
description conforms with the characters of the species commonly
known as EHlaeocarpus edulis T. & B., the type of which was also
from Amboina. The type of Hlaeocarpus oppositifolius Roxb.
was from the Moluccas, very likely from Amboina, and Rox-
burgh’s short description also conforms with EHlaeocarpus edulis
T. & B. Elaeocarpus excavatus Reinw., a herbarium name
published by Koorders, was also based on an Amboina speci-
men. The species is in cultivation in the botanic garden, Bui-
tenzorg, Java, and occurs also in New Guinea.
ELAEOCARPUS RUMPHII sp. nov. § Monocera.
Arbor rediviva Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 165, t. 104?
AMBOINA, between Soja and Hatalai and at Hitoe messen, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 370 (type), October 24 and November 1, 1913, in TEMS ag
titude 175 to 350 meters.
Arbor circiter 12 m alta, inflorescentiis exceptis glabra; foliis
oblongis, coriaceis, longe petiolatis, usque ad 20 cm longis,
obscure obtuse acuminatis, basi rotundatis vel leviter cordatis,
margine obscure crenatis, nervis utrinque 8 ad 10, prominen-
tibus; racemis numerosis, pubescentibus, floribus longe pedicel-
latis, sepalis lanceleolatis, pubescentibus, circiter 10 mm longis,
petalis sepalis aequantibus, intus densissime retrose hirsutis,
apice subacutis leviter parce lobatis haud fimbriatis.
A tree about 12 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence.
Branches reddish-brown, terete, smooth, the ultimate ones 6
to 8 mm in diameter. Leaves alternate, coriaceous, green and
shining when dry, 15 to 20 cm long, 5 to 7.5 cm wide, gradually
narrowed upward to the obscurely blunt-acuminate apex, the
base rather broad, somewhat abruptly rounded or slightly cor-
date, margins distantly and rather obscurely crenate; lateral
nerves 8 to 10 on each side of the midrib, prominent, anasto-
mosing, the primary reticulations slender, subparallel, the ulti-
mate ones rather close, distinct, the whole lower surface with
scattered, minute dark-colored, roundish glands or gland-like
bodies; petioles reddish-brown, 6 to 7 cm long. Racemes axil-
lary, about 15 cm long, uniformly pubescent with short, grayish
hairs as are the pedicels and sepals. Pedicels about 1.5 cm long.
250 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Sepals 5, lanceolate, about 10 mm long, 3 mm wide, narrowed
upward, subacute. Petals as long as the sepals, oblong-lanceo-
late, outside densely pubescent with pale-brownish, shining, ap-
pressed hairs, inside uniformly and densely hirsute with refiexed
hairs, the apical 2 mm cut into few narrow lobes, usually two
lateral slender ones on each side with a central somewhat stouter
one. Stamens about 45, the filaments scabrid, 2 to 2.5 mm long;
anthers linear, scabrid, 4.5 to 5 mm long including the slender 1
to 1.5 mm long awn that terminates one cell. Ovary ovoid,
densely pubescent, 2-celled; style 4 to 5 mm long, pubescent
below.
It is by no means certain that this is Arbor rediviva of Rumph-
ius, although the plant figured and described by Rumphius is
manifestly an Hlaeocarpus. In the species above described the
leaves are larger than in Arbor rediviva, rounded or cordate at
the base, not acute, and do not present the peculiar protuberances
(galls?) shown by Rumphius. It was by Loureiro, F]. Cochinch.
(1790) 663, referred to Dicalyx cochinchinensis Lour., but this is
a species of Symplocos and judging from the description is
entirely different from Arbor rediviva Rumph.
ELAEOCARPUS AMBOINENSIS sp. nov. § Ganitrus.
Ganitrus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 160, t. 101?
AMBOINA, Paso, near the coast, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 871 (type),
November, 25, 19138.
Arbor circiter 12 m alta partibus junioribus inflorescentiisque
parce pubescentibus exceptis glabra; foliis alternis, anguste
oblongis, chartaceis, nitidis, usque ad 15 cm longis, utrinque
subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis, apice obtusis, margine cre-
nulatis, nervis utrinque circiter 13, prominentibus; racemis e
ramis defoliatis, tenuibus, 10 ad 12 cm longis; floribus numerosis,
tenuiter pedicellatis, sepalis anguste lanceolatis, acuminatis, par-
cissime pubescentibus, circiter 11 mm longis, petalis aequilongis,
oblongo-lanceolatis, apice usque ad ? fissis, basi ad margine dense
puberulis exceptis glabris; ovario 5-loculare.
A tree about 12 m high, glabrous except the slightly appressed-
pubescent younger parts and inflorescence. Branches terete,
reddish-brown, glabrous, the younger ones somewhat angled,
brownish-olivaceous, minutely and rather sparingly pubescent.
Leaves alternate, narrowly oblong, firmly chartaceous, suboliva-
ceous, of about the same color on both surfaces and shining when
dry, 12 to 15 cm long, 3 to 5 cm wide, subequally narrowed to the
acute base and to the blunt apex, the tip sometimes slightly retuse
and minutely apiculate, margins distinctly crenulate; lateral
ELAEOCARPACEAE 351
nerves about 13 on each side of the midrib, slender but prominent,
- eurved, anastomosing, the reticulations distinct; petioles slender,
about 1 cm long, the younger ones slightly pubescent. Racemes
numerous, solitary, spreading, from the branches below the leaves
in the axils of fallen leaves, 10 to 12 cm long, slender, the rachis
and pedicels more or less pubescent with short, appressed, pale-
gray hairs. Flowers 20 to 25 or more in each raceme, the buds
lanceolate, acuminate, whitish when fresh, brown when dry, the
opened flowers greenish, the pedicels slender, about 1.5 cm long.
-Sepal 5, narrowly lanceolate, acuminate, externally slightly pub-
escent, about 11 mm long, 2 to 2.5 mm wide. Petals as long as
the sepals, oblong-lanceolate, the upper two-fifths cut into from
15 to 20 slender fimbriae, these united into 5 or 6 primary divi-
sions, quite glabrous except the densely pubescent or puberulent
margins in the lower part. Stamens about 50, the filaments
slender, scabrid, 1 to 1.5 mm long; anthers linear, 5 to 6 mm long
including the slender, solitary, bristle-like, 1 mm long awn that
tips one of the cells. Ovary ovoid, densely pubescent, somewhat
sulcate, 5-celled; style 5 to 6 mm long, pubescent below.
This species is very closely allied to the Philippine Hlaeocarpus
dolichopetalus Merr., from which it is distinguished by its blunt,
not acuminate leaves, its longer racemes, longer pedicels, and
smaller flowers.
It is by no means certain that it is the same as Ganitrus of
Rumphius. The figure of Ganitrus presents relatively shorter,
fewer-nerved, rather differently shaped leaves, and relatively
shorter, fewer-flowered racemes. It was apparently drawn from
Amboina specimens, although Rumphius includes in the descrip-
tion specimens from other parts of the Malay Archipelago.
Historically, Ganitrus was first reduced by Linnaeus to his
E'laeocarpus serratus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 138, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1075, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
734, in which he was followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Willdenow,
and Lamarck. However, EHlaeocarpus serratus Linn., Sp. PI.
(1753) 515, was based on Indian and Ceylon plants, and has
nothing to do with the plant described by Rumphius. Gaertner,
Fruct. 2 (1791) 271, t. 139, f. 6, takes his generic name Ganitrus
from Rumphius, and refers to Ganitrus sphaerica Gaertn. the
figure and description of Rumphius mentioned above. Gaertner’s
description was from an actual specimen, and his species must be
interpreted from the material described. Gaertner’s species is
probably the same as the one later described by Roxburgh as
Klaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb., Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 592, who
refers to his species the Rumphian plant and takes his specific
352 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
name from Rumphius. However, the species actually described
by Roxburgh was based on Indian material and manifestly is
not the Rumphian plant. The proper name for this Indian
species is apparently EHlaeocarpus sphaericus (Gaertn.) K. Sch.
(L. ganitrus Roxb., non Ganitrus Rumph.). The species de-
scribed above should be compared critically with Elaeocarpus
angustifolus Blume (Aceratium ganitri Hassk.), to which it
is manifestly allied.
ELAEOCARPUS OBLONGUS Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1791) 202, t. 43, f. 8.
Ganitrum oblongum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 163, t. 102?
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Rumphius states that the form he described was found in Am-
boina, Celebes, and Bali. Gaertner placed it under Hlaeocarpus
oblongus in the original description of that species, but I have no
means of determining whether or not the specimens he had
before him were identical with the form Rumphius described and
figured. He does not state the origin of his material. Lamarck,
Encycl. 2 (1788) 604, referred it tentatively to Hlaeocarpus integ-
rifolius Lam., but his type was from the Isle of France and is
certainly not the same as the Moluccan form. Willdenow, Sp.
Pl. 2? (1799) 1170, followed Lamarck in his disposition of it.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 62, suggests that it is Hlaeocar-
pus macrophyllus Blume, which is very improbable. Pending a
critical revision of the genus or at least of the Indo-Malayan
species, it seems best to leave it under Elaeocarpus oblongus
Gaertn. I have seen no authentic species of Gaertner’s species,
do not know of what country it is a native, and strongly suspect
that current interpretations of it are merely approximate; per-
haps the modern conception of the species is based more on
Rumphius’s figure than on Gaertner’s actual specimens.
ELAEOCARPUS sp.?
Lignum momentaneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 164, t. 103.
This reduction is suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 62, following Savigny’s note in Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1798)
693, under the Rumphian name pagamat. There is little in the
description or in the figure to indicate an Elaeocarpus, and if
the infructescence is drawn correctly, it certainly is not a rep-
resentative of this genus, although Rumphius compares the
fruits with his Ganitrus, which is an Elaeocarpus. Its status
should be determinable from continued field work in Amboina,
as Rumphius states that it was common in the Moluccas and cites
the native names pagamatia and pegang matta for Amboina and
sal for Ternate.
GON YSTYLACEAE—TILIACEAE 353
GONYSTYLACEAE
GONYSTYLUS Teysmann and Binnendyck
GONYSTYLUS BANCANUS (Miq.) Baill. ex Hook. f. & Jackson Index
Kewensis 2 (1895) 1055.
Aquilaria bancana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1860) 141, 355.
Gonystylus miquelianus T. & B. in Bot. Zeit. 20 (1862) 265.
Agallochum spurium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 40.
Teysmann and Binnendyck reduced Agallochum spurium
Rumph. to Gonystylus miquelianus T. & B., in Mig. Ann. Mus.
Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1864) 1388, where the species is minutely de-
scribed and figured. It is impossible definitely to determine from
Rumphius’s description whether the plant he had in mind was
G. bancanus Baill. or was one of the other species of the genus.
The fact that a portion of his material came from Borneo leads
one to suspect that-he may have had one of the Bornean species,
G. affinis Radlk., G. borneensis Gilg, G. pluricornis Radlk., or
G. calophyllus Gilg.
Agallochum spurium album Rumph., very briefly described in this
chapter, is indeterminable from any data at present available.
Agallochum spurium III, merely mentioned, is E'xcoecaria agallocha
Linn., later described and figured by Rumphius, Herb. ae
2: 237, t. 79, 80 (see p. 327).
TILIACEAE
CORCHORUS Linnaeus
CORCHORUS CAPSULARIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 529.
Ganga sativa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 212, t. 78, 7. 1.
This spcies is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
Rumphius’s figure is unmistakably Corchorus capsularis Linn.
It was first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1079, all
later authors concurring in this reduction.
CORCHORUS OLITORIUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 529.
Ganga agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 213 (haud ¢t. 78, f. 2).
This species is not represented in the Amboina collections.
The description is unmistakably that of Corchorus olitorius Linn.
The figure, however, is certainly no Corchorus, but I am unable
to suggest what species was intended; it does not agree at all
with the description in either its leaf or its fruit characters.
The figure was referred by Linnaeus to Corchorus olitorius in
Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130.
144971——23
354 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
COLUMBIA Persoon
COLUMBIA SUBOBOVATA Hochr. Pl. Bogor. Exsice. (1904) 25.
Restiaria nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 188.
Perticaria tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 189, t. 120.
Perticaria tertia latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 189.
AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 279, September 8, 1913,
in light woods, altitude 10 meters, locally known as hunot; Amboina (town),
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 278, July 30, 1918, river sides at 5 meters
altitude, locally known as morong itam; Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
280, near the seashore, October 29, 19138, locally known as morong mera and
hunut putt.
There is very little doubt that the three Rumphian descrip-
tions, cited above, represent the same species, and that all
are Columbia (Diplophractum) subobovata Hochr. The species
presents great variation in its vegetative characters, the leaves
varying from 8 to 35 cm in length and from 5 to 18 cm in width,
all intermediate sizes being found on the same specimen. Like-
wise the leaf bases on the same specimen vary from perfectly equi-
lateral to strongly inequilateral. The figure given by Rumph-
ius for Perticaria tertia is very poor, and one would never
suspect that it was intended for a species of Columbia. The
description, however, is unmistakable. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 639, referred, with doubt, Restiaria nigra Rumph., Herb.
Amb. 3: 188, to Restiaria cordata Lour. Loureiro’s species, how-
ever, is supposed to be an Uncaria, is certainly not the same as
the Rumphian one, and must be interpreted from Cochin-China
material. The proper disposition of Perticaria has not before
been indicated.*
TRIUMFETTA Linnaeus
TRIUMFETTA BARTRAMIA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1044.
Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Enum. Pl. Carib. (1762) 22, Stirp. Am.
Hist. (1763) 147, t. 90.
Lappago amboinica sylvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 60 (haud tf.
25h 2).
AMBOINA, town of Amboina and Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 277,
August, 19138, along the beach and in waste places at low altitudes.
Lappago amboinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 59, t. 25, f. 2, is
certainly Urena lobata Linn. The figure is poor, but the drawing
of the fruits and the description are unmistakably Urena, while
the drawing of the flowers on the same plant are likewise
*For a further discussion of the status of Restiaria nigra Rumph.
see Trichospermum quadrivalve Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916)
Bot. 289.
MALVACEAE 355
unmistakably those of Triumfetta. The figure has by some
authors been referred to Urena, by others to Triumfetta. The
description of Lappago amboinica sylvestris is certainly that of
a Triumfetta. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 163, has re-
ferred it to Triumfetta rotundifolia Lam., but Lamarck’s species
is Indian not Malayan.
The oldest name for this species is Bartramia indica Linn. Sp.
Pl. (1753) 3889, but the specific name is invalidated in Triumfetta
by Triumfetta indica Lam. Triumfetta bartramia Linn. was
based on Bartramia indica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 389, with the
addition of a reference to “Rumph. Amb. 3: ¢t. 119,’’ which is
Commersonia bartramia (Linn.) Merr. I interpret the type of
Bartramia indica Linn. as Fl. Zeyl. 174, which according to
Thwaites, Fl. Ceyl. 1 (1893) 180, is Triwmfetta rhomboidea Jacq.,
who also states that:
The name 7. Bartramia has priority (1762), but Linnaeus may have
included in it more than T. rhomboidea Jacq. as now understood.
MALVACEAE
ABUTILON Tournefort
ABUTILON INDICUM (Linn.) Sweet Hort. Brit. (1827) 54.
Sida indica Linn. Cent. Pl. 2 (1756) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 324.
Abutilon laeve Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 31, t. 11.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
Rel. Robins. 2518 from Boeleleng, Bali, is Abutilon indicum
Sweet. Abutilon laeve Rumph. was originally considered by
Linnaeus to represent a variety of Sida abutilon Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125. It
was first reduced to Sida indica Linn. by Loureiro, Fl]. Cochinch.
(1790) 414, which as Abutilon indicum (Linn.) Sweet is cer-
tainly the correct disposition of it. By some authors it is
considered to represent Sida indica Sweet var. populifolia (Lam.)
Mast. in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1874) 326, while Roxburgh,
Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 178, erroneously placed it under Sida
abutilon Linn.—A butdon avicennae Gaertn.
ABUTILON HIRTUM (Lam.) Sweet Hort. Brit. (1827) 53.
Sida hirta Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 7.
Sida pilosa L’Hérit. Stirp. (1784-85) 130.
Abutilon hirsutum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 29, t. 10.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The Rumphian description and plate were cited by Lamarck in
356 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
the original description of Sida hirta, but the actual type of the
species was a plant collected by Sonnerat. Linnaeus originally
considered the plate to represent a variety of Sida abutilon Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125;
while Burman f., Henschel, and Murray erroneously placed it
under Sida asiatica Linn. By other authors it has been placed
under Abutilon graveolens Wight & Arn. (Sida graveolens
Roxb.), to which A butilon hirtum has been reduced as a variety,*
but even if varietal forms be recognized, the specific name,
hirtum, being much older, should be retained.
Abutilon litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 33, briefly described
in the same chapter with Abutilon laeve=Abutilon indicum
Sweet, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 73,
possibly to represent Abutilon albescens Mig. This suggested
reduction of A butilon litoreum is possibly correct, but the definite
identification of the form described by Rumphius must await
further botanical exploration of the Moluccas. The plant is
undoubtedly an A butilon and may be a form of A. indicum Sweet.
SIDA Linnaeus
SIDA ACUTA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 147.
Sida carpinifolia Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 307.
Sida scoparia Lour. Fl]. Cochinch. (1790) 414.
Sigalurium I! longifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 45, t. 18, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 500, August 25, 19138, altitude
about 100 meters.
The figure given by Rumphius is asta Sida aeus
Burm. f., and Burman f. cites it in the original publication of
his species, although his description is based primarily on
actual specimens. Linnaeus erroneously referred it to Sida
spinosa Linn., in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145. Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 414, cites it as representing his Sida scoparia.
Most recent authors have followed Burman f., which is certainly
the correct disposition of Sigalurium longifolium.
SIDA RETUSA Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 961.
Sigalurium | rotundum s. vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 44, ¢. 19.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure is unmistakably Sida retusa Linn., and it is cited in
the original description of that species, although it is not the
type. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Sida alnifolia
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4
* Masters in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1874) 327.
MALVACEAE 257
(1759) 1384, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145, where it manifestly does
not belong.
SIDA CORDIFOLIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 684.
Abutilon montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 32.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
but Rel. Robins. 2512, from Boeleleng, Bali, is a form of this
common and widely distributed species. The reduction of Abu-
tilon montanum to Sida cordifolia follows Hasskarl, Neue Schlis-
sel (1866) 73, and is almost certainly the correct disposition
of it.
The form from the Cape of Good Hope, indicated by Rumphius,
l. c., as Abutilon montanum e Capite bonae spei, suggested by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 73, as possibly Szda triloba Cav. or S.
sonneratiana Cav.—A butilon sonneratianum Sweet, may be iden-
tifiable from a study of the South African Malvaceae in Sida,
Abutilon, and other allied genera. It may be one of the species
that Hasskarl has indicated, but again it may be quite different
from both of these.
SIDA spp.?
Sigalurium rotundum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 45.
Sigalurium II1 album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 465.
The descriptions are too indefinite to warrant accurate de-
termination of these two forms. MHasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 160, suggests that the former may be Sida carpinoides
DC.=Malvastrum coromandelianum (Linn.) Garcke (M. tricus-
pidatum G. Gray) and that the latter may be Sida alba Linn.,
but both of these suggested determinations are probably wrong.
URENA Linnaeus
URENA LOBATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 692.
Lappago amboinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 59, t. 25, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Caju poeti, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 495, August 2, 1918,
roadsides, etc., up to an altitude of 350 meters.
So far as the Rumphian figure and description go, Urena lobata
includes the forms described as I laciniata and II latifolia, while
III silvestris and the drawings of the attached flowers are Triwm-
fetta bartramia Linn. (see p. 354). The descriptions quoted
above and the figure, excepting the flowers, are unmistakably
Urena lobata Linn. On account of the mixture of two entirely
different species in the drawing, the plate has by some been cited
under Triumfetta, by others under Urena. The plate and de-
scription, for the most part, are Urena lobata Linn., although
originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
358 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, to Urena sinuata Linn., but cor-
rected in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1148, to Urena lobata.
Other names involved in the reduction are Urena lappago Sm.
and U. heterophylla Lam.
ABELMOSCHUS Medikus
ABELMOSCHUS MOSCHATUS Medik. Malv. (1787) 46.
Hibiscus abelmoschus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 696.
Granum moschatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 38, ¢t. 15.
AMBOINA, Toelehoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 492, November 25, 1913,
in grasslands, altitude about 15 meters, locally known as daun kasturi.
The original reduction of Granum moschatum to Hibiscus
abelmoschus Linn. was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1149, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 980, which is certainly the correct.
disposition of it, although now it is very generally recognized as
representing a distinct genus and is classified as Abelmoschus
moschatus Medik. The Amboina specimen cited above is much
more pubescent than the commoner forms of the species, but
probably belongs here.
ABELMOSCHUS MINDANAENSIS Warb. in Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904)
114.
Granum moschatum agreste Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 39. '
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 493, August 17, 1913,
along river banks, altitude about 50 meters. Erect, about 1.5 meters high.
Granum moschatum agreste is very briefly described, but the
probabilities are that the plant here determined as Abelmoschus
mindanaensis Warb. is the one intended by Rumphius. The
description given by Rumphius is mainly comparative with
Abelmoschus moschatus Medik., a-taller, more woody plant than
the latter, with which data the cited specimen agrees. It cannot
possibly be Abelmoschus ficulneus W. & A. as suggested by
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 74. The Amboina specimen is
apparently a perfect match for our Mindanao material that un-
questionably represents Warburg’s species; it has previously
been reported only from Mindanao.
HIBISCUS Linnaeus
HIBISCUS TILIACEUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 694.
Paritium tiliaceum A. St. Hil. Fl. Bras. Merid. 1 (1825) 256.
Novella Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 218, ¢t. 72.
Novella repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 222.
Novella rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 228.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 497, October 17, 1913,
in cultivated ground, altitude about 80 meters, locally known as baru.
MALVACEAE 359
Novella of Rumphius was first reduced to Hibiscus tiliaceus
Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 976, which disposition of it is certainly correct and which
has been accepted by practically all authors. The figure is not
good. The form described by Rumphius as Novella repens is
certainly the form of Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. with procumbent
trunks that is very abundant in some localities, while Novella
rubra is also manifestly merely a form of the same species.
HIBISCUS MUTABILIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 694.
Flos horarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 27, t. 9.
This widely cultivated form is not represented in our Am-
boina collections. The figure, however, is unmistakably refer-
able to Hibiscus mutabilis Linn. and was first reduced to this
species by Linnaeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 977, in which he has been followed by all authors.
HIBISCUS SURATTENSIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 696.
Hibiscus convolvulaceus Hassk. in Abh. Naurf. Gesellsch. Halle 9
(1866) 216 (Neue Schltissel 74) (type!).
Herba crinalium domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 40, t. 16.
Herba crinalium silvestris Rumph. |. c. 41. -
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph., Amb. 496,
August 8, 1918, near the beach.
The original reduction of Herba crinalium to Hibiscus surat-
tensis Linn. was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 979, which is certainly the correct disposition
of it. This reduction has been followed by all authors. Hass-
karl, however, Neue Schliissel (1866) 74, decided that Herba
crinalium silvestris represented a distinct species, which he
named and described after Rumphius, as Hibiscus convolvulaceus,
the publication of which has been overlooked by all authors and
is not included in Index Kewensis. I consider this to be merely
a form of Hibiscus surattensis Linn. with narrowly lobed leaves.
HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 694.
Flos festalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 24, t. 8.
This reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 15, and the figure was consistently cited by Lin-
naeus in his subsequent writings; while his reduction, certainly
correct, has been followed by all authors. The form figured is
the commonly cultivated one with double flowers. The form
360 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
described as ruber simplex is the ordinary type with normal red
flowers. Other forms described are the one with yellowish
double flowers and one with normal, pale or nearly white flowers.
This commonly cultivated plant does not occur in our Amboina
collections, but is doubtless common in Amboina in cultivation,
as it is in all parts of Malaya.
THESPESIA Solander
THESPESIA POPULNEA (Linn.) Soland. ex Corr. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9
(1807) 290.
Hibiscus populneus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 694.
Thespesia macrophylla Blume Bijdr. (1825) 73, 106.
Novella litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 224, t. 74.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe and Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 498,
August and September, 1918, along the strand.
Novella litorea was: first reduced by Linnaeus to Hibiscus
populneus Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
976, which, as Thespesia populnea Soland., seems to be the correct
disposition of it. Blume, however, Bijdr. (1825) 73, has pro-
posed Thespesia macrophylla as a distinct species, apparently
based wholly on the Rumphian figure and description, and many
authors have recognized it as a valid species. Any large series
of specimens from the Malayan region presents such relatively
great variations in the characters by which the two forms have
been distinguished, that I am by no means certain that they are
specifically distinct and prefer to retain the Amboina plant under
the older name.*
GOSSYPIUM Linnaeus
GOSSYPIUM BRASILIENSE Macf. Fl. Jam. 1 (18387) 72.
Gossypium lapideum Tussac, Fl. Antil. 2 (1818) 67, nomen nudum.
Gossypium latifolium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 87, t. 13.
AMBOINA, Koesoe koesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 494, August
238, 1913, locally known as kapas.
The Rumphian species was first reduced by Linnaeus to Gos-
sypium arboreum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1148, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1768) 975, where it certainly does not belong. Lamarck
cites it in the original description of Gossypium vitifolium,
Encycl. 2 (1786) 135, but Lamarck’s type was an actual specimen
collected by Sonnerat. Watt, Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants
of the World (1907) 255, leaves the Rumphian name as a syn-
* See Baker in Journ. Bot. 35 (1897) 52.
BOMBACACEAE 361
onym of Lamarck’s species, but states that “Rumphius’s Celebes
plant shows the leaves too deeply 5-lobed (as in G. brasiliense)
to be typical G. vitifolium.” Other names involved in the reduc-
tion are Gossypium nigrum Ham. and G. indicum Lam. While
the disposition of Gossypiwm latifoliwm Rumph. as a synonym of
G. brasiliense Macf. is’ not certainly the correct one, it is a
reasonably safe one for the present.
GOSSYPIUM INDICUM Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 134.
Gossypium nanking Meyen Reise 2 (1836) 323.
Gossypium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 33, t. 12.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
_ The Rumphian plant was first reduced by Linnaeus to Gossypiwm
herbaceum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen.
Aicad:4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1148, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 975, where it certainly does not belong. Lamarck,
Encycl. 2 (1786) 134, cited the Rumphian figure as representing
his Gossypium indicum, although the actual type of that species
is a specimen collected by Sonnerat. However, Watt considers
that Gossypium indicum Lam. is a synonym of G. nanking Meyen,
and as Lamarck’s specific name is the oldest valid one for the
species it is here accepted. Watt, Wild and Cultivated Cotton
Plants of the World (1907) 128, definitely refers Rumphius’s
figure to Gossypium nanking var. nadam Watt. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 73, interprets the Rumphian description as
Gossypium minus and G. majus, considering the tall form de-
scribed to be Gossypium arboreum Linn.
GOSSYPIUM PURPURASCENS Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1811) 369.
Gossypium floribus fusco-rubentibus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 34.
The reduction merely follows Hasskarl’s suggestion. It is
probable that it is the correct disposition of the Javan form
that Rumphius casually and very briefly describes, but the data
given are too few to warrant a certain identification of it.
BOMBACACEAE
DURIO Adanson
DURIO ZIBETHINUS Murr. Syst. (1774) 591.
Durio Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 99, t. 29.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 69, August 5, 1913,
from a cultivated tree, locally known as durion.
Durio was reduced to Durio zibethinus by Murray in the orig-
inal description of the species, the characters being apparently
362 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
taken largely, if not wholly, from Rumphius. The three forms
briefly described by Rumphius on page 101 may be merely
variants of the common durian or some of them may represent
distinct species. |
CEIBA Medikus
CEIBA PENTANDRA (Linn.) .Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 244, t. 133.
Bombax pentandrum Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 511.
Eriodendron anfractuosum DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 479.
Gossampinus alba Ham. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 15 (1826) 126.
Gossampinus rumphu Schott. & Endl. Meletem. (1882) 35.
Eriophorus javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 194, t. 80.
The common kapoc or silk cotton tree is not represented in
our Amboina collections. Eriophorus javana Rumph. was first
reduced by Linnaeus to Bombax pentandrum Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1754) 120, Sp. Pl. ed.
2 (1763) 958, but in the Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1141, it is placed
under Bombax aculeatum Linn., which may prove to be merely
a synonym of Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. Bombax aculeatum
Linn. does not appear in Index Kewensis.
STERCULIACEAE
PENTAPETES Linnaeus
PENTAPETES PHOENICEA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 698.
Flos inpius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 288, t. 100, f. 1.
This well-known species is not represented in our Amboina
collections. The Rumphian figure and description are unmistak-
ably the same as Pentapetes phoenicea Linn., and Linnaeus
himself made the first reduction, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1150,.3p:
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 958. This reduction has been followed by all
subsequent authors.
COMMERSONIA Forster
COMMERSONIA BARTRAMIA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Muntingia bartramia Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124 (type!).
Commersonia echinata Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 44, t. 22.
Restiaria alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 187, t. 119.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet and Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 294, August 2,
1913, in flower, October 18, 1913, in fruit, locally known as marong, morong
mera, and hunut. In clearings, altitude 200 to 375 meters. |
Restiaria alba Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 124, to Muntingia bartramia Linn. and is the whole
basis of the Linnean species, which has been entirely overlooked.
STERCULIACEAE 363
In the same year Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1859) 1044, erroneously
referred the same figure to Triumfetta bartramia Linn. The
Rumphian plate and description were reduced to Forster’s species
by Linnaeus f., Suppl. (1781) 187, and this disposition of it has
been accepted by subsequent authors. In this connection botan-
ists generally have recognized Commersonia echinata Forst. and
C. platyphylla Andr. as two distinct species. The latter is hardly
more than a form or a variety of the former. Gagnepain, Not.
Syst. 1 (1909) 96, in a note regarding the typical form of Fors-
ter’s species, reduces Commersonia platyphylla Andr. to C. echi-
nata Forst. var. platyphylla (Andr.) Gagnep. Kuntze, Rev. Gen.
Pl. 1 (1891) 81, recognizes Restiaria Rumph. as the proper
generic name for Commersonia, but this is inadmissible under
the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
HELICTERES Linnaeus
HELICTERES ISORA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 963.
Fructus regis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 32, t. 17, f. 1.
This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina
collections. Burman, in the explanation of the Rumphian fig-
ure, p. 33, connects Fructus regis with Helicteres isora Linn.,
citing not the Linnean binomial, but the diagnostic sentence
“Helicteres foliis cordatis, serratis, fructu composito contorto,
Linnaei Spec. Plant. pag. 963.” This reduction was accepted by
Linneaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, and manifestly is the
correct disposition of Fructus regis. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789)
88, erroneously considered it to represent a variety of his Helic-
teres ovata, a Brasilian species; while Hasskarl, Pl. Jav. Rar.
(1848) 808, Neue Schliissel (1866) 189, adds Jsora corylifolia
Schott & Endl., a synonym of Helicteres isora Linn.
KLEINHOVIA Linnaeus
KLEINHOVIA HOSPITA Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1865.
Catti marus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 177, t. 112.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 292, September 8, 1913,
margins of cultivated fields, altitude about 10 meters, locally known as
kinar.
Cattt marus was cited by Linnaeus in the original description
of Klewnhovia hospita, but the type was an actual specimen from
Java, collected by Kleinhof; the generic name is corrected by
some botanists to Kleinhofia, but the original Linnean spelling
is here retained. All authors subsequent to Linnaeus who have
cited the Rumphian description and figure have followed Lin-
naeus in the reduction of Cattt marus.
364 . RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
STERCULIA Linnaeus
STERCULIA FOETIDA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1008.
Clompanus molucanus Raf. Sylva Tellur. (1838) 73 (type!).
Clompanus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 168, t. 107.
AMBOINA, Silali, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 293, in clearings at an
altitude of about 150 meters, September 22, 1913.
This reduction, manifestly correct, was first made by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen Acad. 4 (1759)
124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1277, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1431, and
has generally been accepted by all botanists who have had
occasion to cite the Rumphian figure and description. The
Rumphian description and figure typify Rafinesque’s genus and
species Clompanus molucanus.
STERCULIA TREUBII Hochr. Pl. Bogor. Exsicc. (1904) 8.
Clompanus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 169, t. 107 bis.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 327, August 25, 1913; Ama-
hoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 398, August 28, 1918; the former in
forests at an altitude of about 250 meters, the latter on coral rocks at an
altitude of about 10 meters; locally known as choklat utan and saklat utan;
that is, wild chocolate, the seeds being’ used as a substitute for, or as an
adulterant of, chocolate.
Linnaeus reduced this to Sterculia balanghas Linn., in Stick-
man Herb. Amb. (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst.
ed. 10 (1759) 1277, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1430, and this disposi-
tion of the Rumphian plant has been accepted by most authors.
However, it manifestly is incorrect, as Sterculia balanghas Linn.
is known only from India and Ceylon. Smith placed the Rumph-
ian species under his Sterculia urceolata in the original de-
scription of that species, Rees’s Cyclop. 34 (1816) no. 3, in which
he was followed by de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 482. Smith’s
material was from Honimoa Island, near Amboina, and his
description, a copy of which has kindly been supplied to me by
Sir David Prain, does not conform with my interpretation of
Clompanus minor Rumph. The specimens cited above appear
to be identical with Sterculia treubti Hochr., originally described
from trees cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java,
their definite origin being unknown. The Rumphian figure is
very poor, and from it alone one would hardly suspect the species
described by Rumphius to be even closely allied to Sterculia
treubit Hochr. The Rumphian description applies to the speci-
mens much closer than the figure.
Under Clompanus minor several forms are discussed, which
probably represent distinct species. These are Clompanus terna-
tensis femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 170; C. ternatensis mas Rumph.
DILLENIACEAE 365
l. c., from Ternate; and C. silvestris Rumph. |. c. 171, from Ceram.
These are entirely undeterminable from the material and data
now available, and their identity must await the results of field
work in the two islands mentioned.
ABROMA Jacquin
ABROMA FASTUOSA Jacq. Hort. Vind. 3 (1776) 3, t. 1.
Abroma (Ambroma) augusta Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 341.
Gossypium daemonis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 88, t. 14.
No representative of the genus Abroma occurs in our Amboina
collection, yet Gossypium daemonis Rumph. is manifestly an
Abroma. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 126, erred in reducing it to his Hibiscus zeyla-
nicus. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 156, seems to be
the first author to make the reduction to Abroma, by referring
it to Abroma augusta Linn. f. The form described by Rumphius
is manifestly what is currently named Abroma fastuosa R. Br.;
that is, the form with spiny branchlets. Abroma mollis DC.,
Prodr. 1 (1824) 485, is described from specimens originating in
the Moluccas, and is unquestionably the same as the spiny form
currently named Abroma fastuosa R. Br. TI have adopted the
oldest name, Abroma fastuosa Jacq., but if this smooth-stemmed
form be really specifically distinct from the form with the spiny
stems, some adjustment of the synonymy will be necessary.
HERITIERA Dryander
HERITIERA LITTORALIS Dryand. in Ait. Hort. Kew. 3 (1789) 546.
Atunus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 95, t. 62.
This common and widely distributed strand plant is not rep-
resented in our Amboina collections. The reduction was first
suggested by Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 228, and has generally
been accepted by subsequent authors. Roxburgh, FI. Ind. ed.
2,3 (18382) 142, erroneously reduced it to Heritiera minor Roxb.,
and by others it has been referred to Heritiera fomes Ham.
It is, however, unquestionably Heritiera littoralis Dryand.
DILLENIACEAE
TETRACERA Linnaeus
TETRACERA SCANDENS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Tragia scandens Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 128 (type!).
Delima hebecarpa DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 407.
Tetracera hebecarpa Boerl. in Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 3.
Funis urens aspera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 18, t. 9.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
266 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
yet Funis urens aspera Rumph. is unmistakably a Tetracera
and apparently the form described by de Candolle as Tetracera
hebecarpa, which some authors reduce to Tetracera sarmentosa
Linn., and others treat as a variety of the latter species. The
Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of Tragia
scandens Linn., a species that-is not included in Index Kewensis.
Linnaeus later, Sv. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1890, referred Funis wrens
Rumph. to Tragia volubilis Linn., in which he was followed by
Burman f., Poiret, and Henschel. Baillon, Etud. Gén. Euphorb.
(1858) 461, 4638, referred it to Tragia hirsuta Blume. The
description, and for that matter the figure also, is unmistakably
Tetracera and has nothing to do with the euphorbiaceous genus
Tragia.
TETRACERA BOERLAGEI sp. nov.
Funis urens glabra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 13.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 485 (type), August
5, 1918, on trees at an altitude of about 200 meters.
Frutex scandens, ramulis junioribus adpresse hirsutis; foliis
oblongis ad oblongo-ellipticis, coriaceis, nitidis, usque ad 11 cm
longis, glabris vel minutissime scaberulis, integris vel obscu-
rissime undulatis, basi rotundatis ad subacutis, apice acutis
ad obtusis, nervis utrinque 10 ad 12; inflorescentiis anguste
pyramidatis, leviter hirsutis; sepalis interioribus obovatis, ro-
tundatis, 6 mm longis, carpellis 2 vel 3, dense hirsutis; folliculis
1 vel 2, rariter 3, oblongo-ovoideis, acuminatis, 8 ad 10 mm longis,
parcissime hirsutis, in siccitate pallide olivaceis nitidisque, se-
minibus solitariis.
A scandent shrub, nearly glabrous except the very young
branchlets and the inflorescence. Branches glabrous, reddish-
brown, twisted, slender, tips of the young branchlets sparingly
appressed-hirsute. Leaves oblong to oblong-elliptic, coriaceous, —
brittle, glabrous on both surfaces or very minutely and
slightly scaberulous, in young leaves the midrib on the lower
surface very slightly appressed-hirsute, 6 to 11 cm long, 2.5
to 5.5 em wide, rather pale or brownish when dry, shining,
base rounded to subacute, apex acute to obtuse, margins entire
or very obscurely undulate; lateral nerves 10 to 12 on each side
of the midrib, prominent, brown; petioles 1 cm long or less.
Panicles terminal, narrowly pyramidal, up to 12 cm in length,
sparingly hirsute with scattered, subappressed hairs, the
branches few, distant, the lower ones 2 cm long or less. Fruiting
calyx with five sepals, the outer ones broadly ovate, slightly
hirsute, about 3 mm long, the inner two or three obovate,
DILLENIACEAE 267
rounded, about 6 mm long, their margins minutely ciliate. Car-
pels 2 or 3, narrowly ovoid, densely hirsute, the styles glabrous.
Follicles 1 or 2, sometimes 3, narrowly oblong-ovate, acuminate,
8 to 10 mm long, pale olivaceous when dry, shining, with few,
scattered, subappressed, rather long, stiff hairs, when fresh
violet, turning brownish. Seeds solitary, broadly ovate, 2 to
2.5 mm long, the aril pale, membranaceous, loose, obovate,
rounded, 3 mm long, entire or obscurely toothed, not lacerate.
This species is dedicated to Doctor J. G. Boerlage, who con-
tracted a fever, while carrying on a botanical exploration of
Amboina, which resulted in his death. It is manifestly allied to
Tetracera indica Merr. (T. assa DC.), from which it differs
in its smaller sepals and follicles, the latter being prominently
acuminate and sparingly hirsute. From the only other endemic
Amboina species, Tetracera moluccana Martelli, it differs in its
much shorter petioles and smaller fewer-nerved leaves. While
Rumphius’s description is short and largely comparative with
Funis urens aspera, the specimen cited above agrees with it in
all particulars, and I consider it certainly to represent the Rumph-
lan plant.
Ay-assa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 20 has erroneously been referred
by some authors to Tetracera assa DC., but the plant that Rumph-
ius describes presents little in common with Tetracera and is
certainly not referable to this genus. Christmann and Panzer,
Pflanzensyst. 4 (1779) 40, t. 26, f. 1, after Houttuyn, Nat. Hist.
Plantenk. 5 (1776) 275, referred the Rumphian plant to Assa
indica Christm. & Panz., but the description was manifestly based
on an actual specimen. The generic name was apparently taken
from Rumphius, and de Candolle, Syst. 1 (1818) 402, selected
assa as the specific name under Tetracera. The synonymy should
be adjusted, for Assa indica presents the oldest valid name:
Tetracera indica (Christm. & Panz.) comb. nov. (Assa indica
Christm. & Panz. Pflanzensyst. 4 (1779) 40, t. 26, f. 1; Tetracera
assa DC. Syst. 1 (1818) 402).
DILLENIA Linnaeus
DILLENIA ELLIPTICA Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 1 (1791) 200 (type!).
Songium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 140, ft. 45.
No representative of this species occurs in our Amboina col-
lections. Dillenia elliptica Thunb. was based wholly on the
Rumphian figure and description. Martelli, in Beccari Malesia 3
(1887) 161, has redescribed Dillenia elliptica Thunb. from speci-
mens collected in Celebes by Beccari, and doubtless this interpre-
368 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
tation of the species is correct. Rumphius states that Songiwm
was known in Amboina as aylassalinu and as ay macaninu, in
Celebes as songi and songo, and in Java as sambu. Sempu is
one of the Javanese names for Dillenia indica Linn., the only
white-flowered Dillenia reported from Java, so that the Javan
reference included by Rumphius probably refers to Dillenia
indica Linn. Linnaeus reduced both t. 45 and 46 of Rumphius
to Dillenia indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082, but later
authors have followed Thunberg in the disposition of t. 45. lLin-
naeus was manifestly wrong in his reduction of ¢. 46, which is
the following species. Miquel, Fi. Ind. Bat. 17 (1858) 11, erro-
neously reduced Dillenia elliptica Thunb. to D. speciosa Thunb.,
which is a synonym of D. indica Linn.
DILLENIA SERRATA Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 1 (1791) 201 (type!).
Sangius mas et femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 142, t. 46.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Dillenia serrata Thunb. was based wholly on Rumphius and
must be interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description.
Linnaeus erred in reducing this plate to his Dillenia indica, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082. All authors since Thunberg have
been content with calling it Dillenia serrata, although the exact
status of the species is quite uncertain. It seems probable that
more than one species is included in the Rumphian description,
as he gives the range as Amboina, Celebes, and Java. It was
said by Rumphius to be abundant in Celebes at Tambocco, near
Macassar, and at Toletae. Dillenia ochreata Teysm. & Binn.
should be compared critically with Dillenia serrata Thunb., as
it is probably identical with Thunberg’s species.
THEACEAE
GORDONIA * Ellis
GORDONIA RUMPHII sp. nov.
Lignum muscosum s. Caju lapia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 203, t. 180.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 276 (type), November
1, 1913, in forests, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as kayu lapia.
Arbor circiter 10 m alta, floribus exceptis glabra; follis
oblongis, coriaceis, usque ad 14 cm longis, acutis vel obscure
acuminatis, obscure crenulatis, basi cuneatis, nervis utrinque
circiter 15; floribus solitariis, axillaribus, circiter 3 cm diametro,
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Lasianthus Adans. (1763) is older.
THEACEAE 369
sepalis suborbicularibus, coriaceis, extus cinereo-pubescentibus,
petalis extus filamentisque basi adpresse pubescentibus.
A tree about 10 m high, quite glabrous except the inflorescence.
Branches terete, reddish-brown, the branchlets smooth. Leaves
oblong or oblong-elliptic, coriaceous, 8 to 14 cm long, 3.5 to 5.5
cm wide, brown or brownish-olivaceous, prominently shining
when dry, base cuneate, apex acute to obscurely acuminate,
margins obscurely crenulate, the lower surface minutely verrucu-
lose; lateral nerves irregular, the primary ones about 15 on each
side of the midrib, slender, anastomosing; petioles up to 5 mm
in length. Flowers solitary, axillary, white, about 3 cm in
diameter, their pedicels about 1 cm long, slightly pubescent.
Sepals suborbicular, coriaceous, rounded, cinereous-pubescent ex-
ternally, about 7 mm in diameter. Petals obovate, rounded,
less than 1.5 cm long, externally pubescent. Stamens numerous,
the basal portions of the filaments appressed-pubescent. Ovary
ovoid, densely appressed-pubescent with pale hairs, the style-
arms 5, short, glabrous.
The identity of this plant with Lignum muscosum is certain.
It bears the same native name as that cited by Rumphius for
his plant, agrees well with his description, and fairly well with
the rather crude plate. The identity of Lignum muscosum has
not been previously determined, although Teysmann in a letter
to Hasskar] considered it a species of Gordonia.* Its alliance
is with Gordonia excelsa Blume, from which it is readily distin-
guished by its entirely glabrous leaves and branchlets and its
much smaller flowers.
Caju lapia soyanansium s. Lignum muscosum parvifolium Rumph.
Herb. Amb. 3: 203, mentioned and casually described under Caju
lapia, is apparently an entirely different plant. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 67, mentions it, but suggests no identification of
it. It is quite indeterminable from the data given by Rumphius.
TERNSTROEMIA + Mutis
TERNSTROEMIA ROBINSONII sp. nov.
Ichthyoctonos montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 214, ¢.. 139.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 275 (type), October
18, 1913, in forests, altitude about 350 meters locally known as anaan mera.
Arbor circiter 14 m alta, glabra; foliis oblongo-obovatis, crasse
coriaceis, usque ad 25 cm longis, petiolatis, apice obscure latis-
* See Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 67.
+ Retained name, Vienna Code; Mokof Adans. (1768), Taonabo Aubl.
(1775), Dupinia Scop. (1777), and Hoferta Scop. (1777) are older.
144971——24
370 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
sime acuminatis ad obtusis, basi cuneatis, in siccitate purpureo-
_ brunneis, nervis utrinque circiter 15; fructibus magnis, ellip-
soideis, circiter 6 cm longis, calycis lobis valde incrassatis,
sublignosis. | |
A tree about 14 m high, quite glabrous, the branches stout,
grayish. Leaves purplish-brown when dry, somewhat shining,
thickly coriaceous, 15 to 25 cm long, 6 to 11 cm wide, generally
oblong-obovate sometimes oblong, apex obtuse to very broadly
and obscurely blunt-acuminate, base narrowed, cuneate; lateral
nerves about 15 on each side of the midrib, slender, distinct,
very obscurely anastomosing, the reticulations obsolete or nearly
so; petioles stout, about 1 cm long. Flowers not seen. Fruits
ellipsoid, vermilion when fresh, dark-brown when dry, about
6 cm long, solitary, their pedicels stout, about 2 cm long, the
calyx persistent, the lobes much thickened, rugose, somewhat
woody when dry, more or less connate, the fruiting calyx 2 to
2.4 cm in diameter, the pericarp smooth, rather brittle, each
fruit containing three, red or garnet-colored, 3 cm long pyrenes
which are notched at the apex, each containing two seeds.
This species agrees sufficiently closely with Rumphius’s
description and with the rather crude figure. It is characterized
by its relatively large leaves and large fruits and is most closely
allied to Ternstroemia megacarpa Merr., of the Philippines; from
which, however, it differs in many characters, notably in its
calyx-lobes being more or less connate, very much thickened,
and somewhat woody when dry and in its much shorter pedun-
cles. The form described by Rumphius in the same chapter as
Ichthyoctonos litorea silvestris latifolia is possibly also referable here.
GUTTIFERAE
MESUA Linnaeus
MESUA FERREA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 515.
Calophyllum nagassarium Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 121.
Nagassarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 8, ft. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Nagassarium was described by Rumphius from specimens cul-
tivated in Java. It was originally reduced to Mesua ferrea Linn.
by Murray, Syst. (1774) 525, certainly the correct disposition
of it, and one that has been accepted by practically all authors.
Calophyllum nagassarium Burm. f. is an exact synonym of Mesua
ferrea Linn. and was based on Javan specimens with a reference
to Nagassarium Rumph. as a synonym.
GUTTIFERAE 371
CALOPHYLLUM Linnaeus
CALOPHYLLUM INOPHYLLUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 513.
Balsamaria inophyllum Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 470.
Calophyllum bintagor Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 41 (type!), Fl. Ind.
ed. 2, 2 (18382) 607.
Bintangor maritima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 211, t. 71.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 480, September 22, 1913, along the
seashore, locally known as bintangor.
This is certainly the correct disposition of Bintangor marit-
ima, a characteristic tree of tropical seashores of the Old World,
the reduction having been made first by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1753) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1075, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 732, and generally accepted
by all authors. It is the type of Calophyllum bintagor Roxb. as
originally published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 41.*
CALOPHYLLUM SOULATTRI Burma tf. Kl ind. 1768) 121;
Calophyllum spectabile Willd. in Ges. Naturf. Fr. Berl. Mag. 5 (1811)
80.
Bintangor silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 216, t. 72.
Bintangor silvestris altera Rumph. 1. c. 217.
AMBOINA, near houses, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 482, August 20, 1918,
locally known as sulatre; Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 481, in
forests, altitude 150 meters, locally known as bintangor utan.
Bintangor silvestris was originally reduced by Linnaeus,
through error, to the American Calophyllum calaba Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121.
Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 5538, cites it, with doubt, under
Calophyllum acuminatum Lam., which is supposed to be a syn-
onym of Calophylium spectabile Willd.=C. soulattri Burm. f.
Choisy, in de Candolle, Prodr. 1 (1824) 562, cites it as a doubtful
synonym of Calophyllum spectabile Willd.; while Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 42, adds Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f., which
is the oldest valid specific name for this widely distributed
species. Rumphius’s figure is poor, but his description conforms
closely to the characters of the species. Bintangor silvestris
altera Rumph. (Pl. Rumph. Amb. 481), seems to be merely a
form of Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f. with the leaves somewhat
retuse at the apex.
CALOPHYLLUM sp.
Bintangor montana (B. silvestris tertia) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 217.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 488, September
30, 1913, in forests, altitude about 300 meters.
* See Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1812) Bot. 414.
372 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The specimen certainly represents the plant that Rumphius
briefly described as Bintangor montana, but it appears to be an
undescribed species. Unfortunately no flowers are available,
so that it is impossible to determine the true relationships of
the form within the genus Calophyllum. The leaves are lanceo-
late, 6 to 10-cm long, 2 to 3 cm wide, acute at the base, and
gradually narrowed in the upper one-half to the rather slender
and blunt-acuminate apex. The fruits are less than 1 cm in di- .
ameter. The plant is entirely glabrous oe the ferruginous-
pubescent buds.
GARCINIA Linnaeus
GARCINIA AMBOINENSIS Spreng. Syst. Veg. 2 (1825) 448 (type!).
Folium acidum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 58, t. 32.
This is a species of very doubtful status, based entirely on
Folium acidum majus Rumph. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
648, referred it to Oxycarpus cochinchinensis Lour.=Garcinia
cochinchinensis Choisy, a species based on Cochin-China speci-
mens, quite different from the Amboina plant described by
Rumphius and known only from Indo-China.* Doctor. Robinson
collected in Amboina typical Garcinia dulcis Kurz, which he
thought probably represented Folium acidum majus. However,
while agreeing with the figure in many respects and with the
description in part, the discrepancies are too great to warrant
the citation of this specimen as representing the Rumphian plant.
Boerlage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 75, refers to Garcinia
amboinensis Spreng., two specimens, originating in Amboina and
cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg. I have sterile
specimens of one of these, “VI-F-11,” which certainly agrees
better with the original figure and description than does Gar-
cinia dulcis Kurz, and which may represent Folium acidum majus
in spite of certain discrepancies between the specimen and the
figure and description.
GARCINIA DULCIS (Roxb.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 43% (1874) 88.
Xanthochymus dulcis Roxb. Pl. Coromandel 3 (1819) t. 270. °
Mundo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 135.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 478, October 8, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 175 meters.
The reduction of Mundo is based almost wholly on the native
name, the brief description being entirely inadequate. It was
from Java, and the native names mundo, munder, etc., are still
* See Vesque in DC. Monog. Phan. 8 (1898) 449.
GUTTIFERAE 273
in use there for this species. The type of Xanthochymus dulcis
Roxb.=Garcinia dulcis Kurz was from the Moluccas.
GARCINIA CERAMICA Boerl. Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 76?
Folium acidum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 60, ft. 33.
Folium acidum minus Rumph. is almost certainly a species
of Garcinia, and the above reduction is suggested. There are,
however, some discrepancies between the characters indicated
by Rumphius and the authentic specimens of Boerlage’s species
before me. Vesque, in DC. Monog. Phan. 8 (1893) 349, has
suggested that it may be the same as Garcinia picrorhiza Miq.,
but to me it seems much closer to G. ceramica Boerl. than to
G. picrorhiza Miq. ‘Two forms are described, majus and minus,
which probably represent different species. Rumphius’s ma-
terial was not from Amboina, but from Little Ceram and Xula-
bessi Islands.
GARCINIA CAMBOGIA (Gaertn.) Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 701.
Mangostana cambogia Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791?) 106.
Gutta cambodja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 251.
The form discussed by Rumphius as Gutta cambodja is un-
doubtedly the same as Garcinia cambogia Desr., where it was
placed by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 45. Henschel re-
ferred it with doubt to Cambogia gutta Linn., but Cambagia
gutta Linn. is a synonym of Garcinia morella Desr., not of Gar-
cima cambogia Desr.*
GARCINIA CELEBICA Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen.
Aead. 4 (1759) 119, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 10438, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
6385 (type!).
Garcinia rumphii Pierre Fl. Forest. Cochinch. Enum. XIII, t. 77, A.
Mangostana celebica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 134, ft. 44.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 328, August 16, 1913,
on banks of the river at low altitudes.
Garcinia celebica Linn. was based wholly on the Rumphian
figure and description, which in turn were based on specimens
from Macassar, Celebes, there known as kras and as mangostaan
utan. Pierre, Fl. Forest Cochinch. Enum. XIII, not satisfied
that specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg,
Java, under the name Garcinia celebica Linn. were correctly
named, based his Garcinia rumphii on this material. I have
a duplicate specimen of Pierre 4168, named Garcinia rumphii
* See Trimen FI. Ceyl. 1 (1898) 96.
3714 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Pierre, originating in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java,
which bears the native name kiras. Specimens of “VI-A-12a,”
“VI-A-16,” and “VI-C-18a” from the Buitenzorg Botanic Garden
certainly represent the same species, and agree well with the
Rumphian figure and description of Mangostana celebica. Boer-
lage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 69, concluded also that
Garcinia rumphi Pierre is the same as Mangostana celebica
Rumph. and is a synonym of Garcinia celebica Linn. The Am-
boina specimen collected by Robinson, cited above, should be
critically compared with the closely allied Garcinia porrecta
Wall. var. schizogyna Boerl. 1. c. 69.
GARCINIA MANGOSTANA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 443.
Mangostana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 132, ¢. 43.
The mangosteen is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Mangostana was one of the few species figured and described
by Rumphius that was reduced by Linnaeus in the first edition
of the Species Plantarum, where it is cited under Garcinia
mangostana Linn. The reduction is certainly correct and has
been followed by all authors.
GARCINIA CORNEA Murr. Syst. Veg. (1774) 368 (type!).
Lignum corneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 55, t. 30.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Lignwm cor-
neum Rumph. is the whole basis of Garcinia cornea Murr., and
the status of the species is now well known. It is a very charac-
teristic species and occurs in cultivation in the botanic garden
at Buitenzorg, Java; “VI-C-144” and “VI-C-144a” represent
staminate and pistillate plants, both originating in Amboina.
Murray has been consistently followed by all authors in this
reduction of Lignum corneum. The two forms indicated and
briefly described by Rumphius as latifolium and angustifolium
are indeterminable from data now available. The former may
be Garcinia latissima Miq., and the latter possibly Garcinia dulcis
Roxb.
GARCINIA PICRORHIZA Migq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1866) 209.
Pharmacum sagueri legitimum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 1386, t. 44.
Boerlage, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (1899) 67, made this reduc-
tion, and I consider that he is correct, after a comparison of
the Rumphian figure and description with authentic specimens
of Miquel’s species, duplicates from the numbers cited by Boer-
lage. Previous to Boerlage’s reduction of the Rumphian plant
DIPTEROCARPACEAE 315
to Garcinia picrorhiza Miq., its position had not been recognized
by any author.
GARCINIA PICRORHIZA Mig. var. LIMONORHIZA Boerl. Cat. Hort. Bot.
Bogor. (1899) 68.
Pharmacum limonicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 187, t. 44, f. B.
This is, in all probability, correctly placed by Boerlage. It
is in cultivation at Buitenzorg, but is not represented in Robin-
son’s Amboina collections.
GARCINIA sp.?
Vidoricum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 1738.
This form is of wholly doubtful status. Henschel thought
that it might be a species of Bassia or of Diospyros. I have
suggested Garcinia, as Rumphius states that the bark yields a
yellow juice, and his description otherwise conforms fairly well
with the characters of Garcinia.
DIPTEROCARPACEAE
SHOREA Roxburgh ~
SHOREA SELANICA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 33.
Unona ? selanica DC. Prodr. 1 (1824) 92 (type!).
Englehardtia selanica Blume FI. Jav. 2 (1836) Jugl. 8 (type!).
Hopea selanica W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 85; Walp. Repert. 5 (1845) 128
(type!). |
Dammara selanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 168, t. 56.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections
and is not credited to Amboina by Rumphius in the original
description. The Rumphian description and figure are the
whole basis of Unona selanica DC., Englehardtia selanica Blume,
and Hopea selanica W. & A., and it is to be noted that E'nglehard-
tia selanica Blume and Shorea selanica Blume were published
without reference to the earlier Unora selanica DC. In trans-
ferring the species to Shorea, Blume adds a short description,
probably from Moiuccan specimens. Burck, Ann. Jard. Bot.
Buitenz. 6 (1887) 216, gives a more ample description based on
specimens collected by Reinwardt and by Teysmann and on
plants cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java.
SHOREA SELANICA Blume var. LATIFOLIA Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 33.
Dammara selanica femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 169 (type!).
Blume originally reduced Dammara selanica femina, by error,
to Englehardtia spicata Blume FI. Jav. 2 (1836) Jugl. 8, followed
by Hasskarl’s equally erroneous reduction of it to Hnglehardtia
376 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
acerifoia Blume. Later Blume made it the type of Shorea
selamca Bl. var. latifolia Bl., which is perhaps the correct dis-
position of it. The forms described in this chapter as Caju cawan
e Java and Dammar leomelaena are undeterminable; the gas is
probably a species of Canarium.
DRYOBALANOPS Gaertner
DRYOBALANOPS AROMATICA Gaertn. Fruct. 3 (1805) 49, t. 186.
Arbor camphorifera I! occidentalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65, 68.
The general discussion of camphor includes the true camphor,
Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees & Eberm., as well as that
produced in Malaya, the resin of Dryobalanops aromatica
Gaertn. This reduction was made by Blume, Mus. Bot. 2 (1851)
388, and by de Vriese, who placed it under Dryobalanops cam-
phora Colebr., a synonym of D. aromatica Gaertn.
DIPTEROCARPUS Gaertner
DIPTEROCARPUS sp.?
Arbor koring Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 74.
The reduction of Arbor koring to Duipterocarpus is based
wholly on the observation made by Hamilton that the oil produced
by the tree was secured by the same method as that used in-
gathering the oil of Dipterocarpus. The probabilities are very
great that this is the correct disposition of Arbor koring. No
further reduction of it is possible from the data given by
Rumphius.
BIXACEAE
BIXA Linnaeus
BIXA ORELLANA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 512.
Pigmentaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 79, t. 19.
Pigmentaria Rumph. was first reduced to Bixa orellana Linn.
by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1074, which is manifestly the
correct disposition of it and has been accepted by all authors.
FLACOURTIACEAE
PANGIUM Reinwardt
PANGIUM EDULE Reinw. in Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 12.
Pangium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 182, t. 59.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 212, October 20, 1913,
in light forests, altitude about 75 meters, locally known as pangi.
FLACOURTIACEAE =) Oey
The reduction of Pangiwm made by Reinwardat in the original
publication of the genus and species has been followed by all
authors and is manifestly the correct disposition of it. The
species is of very wide distribution in the Malayan region.
FLACOURTIA L’Héritier
FLACOURTIA INDICA (Burm. f.) comb. nov.
Gmelina indica Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 182, t. 39, f. 5.
Mespilus sylvestris.Burm. Index Univ. Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [18]
(type!), non Burm. 1. c. [14].
Flacourtia sepiaria Roxb. Pl. Coromandel 1 (1795) 48, t. 68.
Flacourtia ramontchi L’Herit. Stirp. Nov. (1784-85) 59, t. 30, 31.
Spina spinarum | mas Rumph. Herb. |Full oat A VE) ER ha
Spina spinarum II femina Rumph. 1. c. 37.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Rumphius states, however, that the plant was an introduced
one there, originating in Java, where it was common. Spina
spinarum Rumph. is the whole basis of Mespilus sylvestris
Burm., as published on page 18 of his Index Universalis; it is
not included in Index Kewensis. The name is invalid, however,
because Burman published the same binomial on page 14 of the
same work for an entirely different species, Carissa carandas
Linn. (see p. 425). I consider that the form figured and
described by Rumphius is the same as Flacourtia sepiaria Roxh.,
from which I cannot distinguish F. ramontchi L’Hérit. Lin-
naeus cites the first figure as a synonym of Carissa spinarum
Linn., but the plant actually described and hence the type of
the species is a true Carissa; figure 3 of the same plate, the
type of Mespilus silvestris Burm. Index Universalis [14] non
[18], is apparently a true Carissa. Linnaeus, in his erroneous
reduction of Spina spinarum Rumph., was followed by Murray,
Lamarck, Willdenow, Roemer and Schultes, Dietrich, and
Pritzel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 634, cites the Rumphian
species under Stigmarota jangomas Lour.—Flacourtia jangomas
(Lour.) Steud. By other authors it has been referred to
Damnacanthus indicus Gaertn., of the Rubiaceae; to Flacourtia
jangomas Steud.; to Rowmea sp.=Flacourtia; and to Flacourtia
cataphracta Roxb. It is possible that Spina spinarum IT femina
Rumph. represents a species distinct from Spina spinarum I mas.
Burman’s Gmelina indica supplies the oldest valid specific name
for the species and is here adopted. Burman’s type was from
Java, for which he cites the Javanese name doery roekan.
378 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
HOMALIUM Jacquin
HOMALIUM FOETIDUM (Roxb.) Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 4
(1860) 37.
Ludia foetida Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 38, nomen nudum, FI. Ind.
ed. 2, 2 (1832) 508.
Blackwellia foetida Wall. Cat. (1831) no. Beas; nomen nudum, Deles-
sert Ic. 3.(1887) 32, t. 52.
Blackwellia moluccana Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1852) 27 (type!).
Metrosideros molucca mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25, ¢t. 11.
Nothing resembling this species is represented in our Amboina
collections. Homalium foetidum Benth. includes more than one
species, the Mergui specimen cited being apparently Homalium
griffithianum Kurz. It is to be noted that Bentham does not
cite Ludia foetida Roxb. as a synonym of Homaliwm foetidum
Benth. He based his species on Blackwellia foetida Wall., but
Wallich quotes Ludia foetida Roxb. as a synonym; the type of
Ludia foetida Roxb. was a specimen cultivated in Calcutta, orig-
inating in Amboina. In Index Kewensis Ludia foetida Roxb.
is reduced to Flacourtia sumatrana Planch. Blackwellia moluc-
cana Blume is based wholly on the Rumphian description and
figure. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
47, thought that Metrosideros molucca mas might be a Helicia,
but this suggested reduction is manifestly entirely wrong.
CARICACEAE
CARICA Linnaeus
CARICA PAPAYA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1036.
Papaya vulgaris Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 2.
Papaja mas et femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 145, t. 50, 51.
Rumphius’s illustrations of the common papaya are excellent.
The first reduction to Carica papaya Linn. was made by Lin-
naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
119, which is manifestly the correct disposition of Papaja
Rumph. and is generally accepted by all authors.
DATISCACEAE
OCTOMELES Miquel
OCTOMELES SUMATRANA Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1860) 336.
Octomeles moluccana Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Nuturf.
Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 208 (Neue Schliissel 66) (type!).
Octomeles moluccana Warb. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 13 (1891) 386.
Palacca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 195, t. 125.
Teysmann and Binnnendyck, quoted by MHasskarl, Neue
BEGONIACEAE 379
Schliissel (1866) 66, correctly reduced Palacca Rumph. to Octo-
meles, but considered the species to be distinct from O. suma-
trana Migq., calling it Octomeles moluccana. Warburg later
considered that the oriental Malayan form was distinct from
the one found in the Sunda Islands and described it as new
under Octomeles moluccana Warb. I believe that K. Schumann
and Lauterbach were correct in reducing Octomeles moluccanu
Warb. to O. sumatrana Miq. At any. rate, if two species are
represented, Teysmann and Binnendyck should be quoted as the
authority for Octomeles moluccana, for although they published
no description, their name is typified by Palacca as described and
figured by Rumphius.
BEGONIACEAE
BEGONIA Linnaeus
BEGONIA TUBEROSA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 3898 (type!), excl. syn. B.
capensis Linn.
Diploclinium tuberosum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1856) 685.
Empetrum acetosum | album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 457, t. 169, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah and Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 65,
August, 19138, altitude 15 to 200 meters, on rocks.
Empetrum acetosum was originally reduced by Linnaeus to
Begonia obliqua Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Sp. Pl. ed.
2 (1763) 1497, in which he was followed by Burman f., FI. Ind.
(1768) 222. This disposition of it was entirely erroneous, as
Begonia obliqua Linn. is an American species. Lamarck,
Encycl. 1 (1785) 398, made it the type of his Begonia tuberosa.
It is true that Lamarck erroneously gives as the first citation
Begonia capensis Linn., but that he intended the Rumphian
figure to typify his plant is manifest from his specific name.
This was taken from the tuber-like lower part of the plant as
shown in Rumphius’s figure, which, however, was intended merely
to represent a portion of the rock on which the plant grows.
De Candolle, Prodr. 15: (1864) 323, mentions this tuber-like
portion of the drawing thus: “Ex ic. Rumphii tuber 3 poll.
crassum et habitus totus Cyclaminis.”’
Possibly referable here is Robinson Pl. Rumph. Atk 66 from
Lateri and Koesoekoesoe sereh, August and September, 1913,
on rocks, with smaller leaves than No. 65, cited above, in which
the leaves are distinctly purplish when dry. Doctor Robinson
thought this might represent Empetrum acetosum rubrum
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 457, but Rumphius describes this form
as having leaves a palm wide, which is not true of No. 66.
380 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
I am unable definitely to place the forms very briefly described
by Rumphius under Empetrum acetosum II rubrum and III cordatum.
The former Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 146, thought might
be referable to Begonia (Diploclinium) rubrum Blume and the
latter to Begonia mollis A. DC. It seems probable that Em-
petrum acetosum II rubrum was merely a broad-leaved form of
KE. acetosum I album=Begonia tuberosa Lam., but FE. acetosum
III cordatum, described.as pilose, probably represents an en-
tirely different species, not, however, represented in our Am-
boina collections.
CACTACEAE
OPUNTIA Tournefort
OPUNTIA sp.
Ficus indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 89.
The description is very imperfect, but probably applies to
Opuntia. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 80, thought that
it might be Opuntia dillenu Haw.
THY MELAEACEAE
GYRINOPSIS Decaisne
GYRINOPSIS BRACHYANTHA Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912)
Bot. 318.
Cortex filarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 18.
AMBOINA, Way uri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 274, September 9, 1918,
in forests, altitude about 100 meters, locally known as melowassi.
The specimen of melowassi is in fruit, but is apparently iden-
tical with the Luzon species described by me as Gyrinopsis
brachyantha. It differs from G. cumingiana Dene. not only in
its shorter flowers, but also in the venation of its leaves, all the
veins being slender and indistinct, the primary not more prom-
inent than the secondary ones. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 186, cites Cortex filarius as a synonym of Anassera mo-
luccana Pers. and of A. rumphw Span.; but Persoon, Syn. 1
(1805) 265, and Lamarck before him, under Anasser moluccana
Lam., Ill. 2 (1797) 40, cites not Cortex filaritus Rumph. but Cortex
foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, t. 7, which is a Pittosporum.
The correct status of Cortex filarius Rumph. has not been
previously indicated. The genus Gyrinopsis has been reported
only from the Philippines, but apparently also occurs in Borneo.
LYTHRACEAE 381
AQUILARIA * Lamarck
AQUILARIA MALACCENSIS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 49.
Aquilaria secundaria DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 59 (type!).
Aquilaria ovata Cav. Diss. (1790) 877, t. 224.
Agallochum secundarium (coinamense et malaicense) Rumph. Herb.
mim. 2: 34,35, t. 10. ree
This species was not described from Amboina material. It
is apparently the same as Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. Lamarck
cites the Rumphian description and figure in his original descrip-
tion. The figure is cited by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 267,
under Aloexylum agallochum Lour., but with a reference to
Agallochum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 29=Aquilaria agallocha
Roxb., not to Aquilaria secundarium Rumph. Roxburgh’s Aqui-
laria agallocha is a species published quite independently of
Aloexylum agallochum Lour. and is hence not to be interpreted
by Loureiro’s description. From the characters assigned by
Loureiro to Aloexylum, his plant seems to belong in the Legu-
minosae, although it has very generally been considered to be
the same as Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. Aquilaria secundaria
DC. was based wholly on Rumphius’s description and figure of
Agallochum secundarium and is a synonym of Aquilaria malac-
censis Lam.
AQUILARIA AGALLOCHA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 33, nomen nudum,
DGr Predr:*2 (1825) 59; Roxb. Fl. Ind: ed. 2, 2 (1832) 422.
Agallochum s. Calambac Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 29.
The status of Agallochum or Calambac is doubtful. It was
not described from Amboina material, but probably is the same
as the Indian Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. Agallochum “officina-
rum Lam.,” cited as Encycl. 1 (1783) 48 and listed in Index
Kewensis as a synonym of Aquilaria malaccensis Lam. 1. ¢. 49,
I consider has no status, as Lamarck certainly did not intend a
publication, but merely discussed the plant under Bauhin’s name,
Agallochum officinarum Bauh. Pin. (1623) 393.
LYTHRACEAE
LAGERSTROEMIA Linnaeus
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1076 (type!), Sp.
Pied 2 Glios \yivos:
Lagerstroemia chinensis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 137 (type!).
Tsjinkin Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 61, t. 28, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Agallochum Lam. (1788) is older.
382 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The plate is a fair representation of the common and well-known
Lagerstroemia indica Linn. It is the whole basis of Lager-
stroemia indica Linn. and of L. chinensis Linn. as originally
published, both in the year 1759. As to priority of publication I
have no means of determining between volume four of the Amoe-
nitates Academicae and the tenth edition of the Systema, but
as Linnaeus himself abandons the name Lagerstroemia chinensis
in favor of L. indica and as L. indica Linn. is the name univer-
sally used for this well-known species, it should be maintained.
Lagerstroemia chinensis Linn. does not appear in Index Kewen-
sis, but Lagerstroemia chinensis Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 375, also
typified by Ts7inkin of Rumphius, is listed there as a synonym of
L. wndica Linn.
LAWSONIA Linnaeus
LAWSONIA INERMIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 349.
Cyprus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 42, t. 17.
The common henna is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections. Cyprus was originally reduced to Lawsonia spinosa
Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 15, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1753) 126, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 498, which is a synonym
of Lawsonia inermis Linn. Some authors have referred Cyprus
to Lawsonia alba Lam., L. inermis var. spinosa Pers., and L.
alba var. spinosa Lam., but these are all synonyms of the common
and widely distributed Lawsonia inermis Linn.
PEMPHIS Forster
PEMPHIS ACIDULA Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 68, t. 34.
Lythrum pemphis Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 249.
Aegiceras ferreum Blume Bijdr. (1825) 693 p. p. quoad syn. Rumph.
Mangium ferreum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 120, t. 79, exel. f. A, B.
Mangium porcellanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 126, t. 84.
This common and widely distributed strand plant is not rep-
resented in our Amboina collections. Mangium ferreum mas
as figured by Rumphius presents a flowering branch of Pemphis
acidula Forst., but the additional figures A and B are Aegiceras.
This mixture of the two species was first pointed out by Teys-
mann, as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 57. The
form described by Rumphius, 1. c., as Mangiwm ferreum femina
is probably merely Pemphis acidula Forst. Mangium porcellan-
cum Rumph. was first reduced to Lythrum pemphis Linn. by
Retzius, Obs. 5 (1789) 4, and as Pemphis acidula Forst. this is
the correct disposition of it.
SONNERATIACEAE 383
SONNERATIACEAE
SONNERATIA * Linnaeus f.
SONNERATIA ALBA Sm. in Rees. Cycl. 33 (1816) no. 2.
Mangium caseolare album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 111, ¢. 738.
AMBOINA, Wakeroe, and at Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 290,
July 28 and October 17, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as mangi
mangi. “Flower apetalous, sepals lilac inside.”
Mangium caseolare album was originally referred by Linnaeus
to Rhizophora caseolaris, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18,
Linnaeus overlooking the fact that at least two distinct species
were considered by Rumphius, one having flowers without petals,
and one with petals. I have not seen the original description of
Sonneratia alba Smith, which may have been based in part
on Rumphius. Succeeding authors, de Candolle, Don, Blume,
and Miquel, cite the Rumphian plate as representing Sonneratia
alba Smith.
SONNERATIA CASEOLARIS (Linn.) Engl. in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanz-
enfam. Nachtr. 1 (1897) 261.
Rhizophora caseolaris Linn. p. p., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 635 (type!).
Sonneratia acida Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 252.
Sonneratia pagatpat Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 424.
Mangium caseolare rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 112. t. 74.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 291, October 29, 1918, at the
back of a mangrove swamp, “petals present, lilac.”
This is Rhizophora caseolaris Linn. in part only. The orig-
inal description in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, is as fol-
lows: “73. 75. Mangium caseolare [=] Rhizophora caseolaris,
foliis ovatis obtusis, floribus solitariis, fructibus orbiculatis de-
pressis mucronatis.” The figures refer to plates 73 to 75 of
Rumphius, inclusive. As noted above ¢t. 73 represents the ape-
talous Mangium caseolare album Rumph. and is Sonneratia alba
Smith; ¢. 74, however, represents Mangium caseolare rubrum
Rumph., definitely described as having petals. Perhaps on a
very strict interpretation of types, t. 73 should represent the
plant now known as Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Engl., in
which case the name Sonneratia caseolaris would have to be
applied to the plant now known as Sonneratia alba Sm., and
what is here interpreted as Sonneratia caseolaris would have
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Blatti Adans. (1763) and Pagapate Sonn.
(1776) are older.
384 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
to be called Sonneratia pagatpat Blanco. Botanists very gen-
erally, since the publication of Sonneratia acida Linn. f. in 1781,
have referred to it Mangiwm caseolare rubrum of Rumphius,
including tt. 74, 75; but Sonneratia acida Linn. f. is merely a
synonym of Sonneratia caseolaris (Linn.) Engl., as interpreted
by Engler and as interpreted here. |
PUNICACEAE
PUNICA Linnaeus
PUNICA GRANATUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 472.
Malum granatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 94, t. 24, f. 1.
The common pomegranate is not represented in our Amboina
collections, although it is found in scattered cultivation through-
out the Malayan region. Malum granatum was first reduced to
Punica granatum Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1753) 9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1056,
which is manifestly the correct disposition of it.
LECY THIDACEAE
BARRINGTONIA * Forster
BARRINGTONIA ASIATICA (Linn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 457’
(1876) 181; 46* (1877) 70.
Mammea asiatica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 512.
Barringtonia speciosa Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 76 t. 38, f. A-C; Linn.
f. Suppl. (1781) 312.
Agasta asiatica Miers in Trans Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 61.
Agasta indica Miers 1. ¢c. 638.
Butonica rumphiana Miers 1. c. 68.
Butonica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 179, t. 114.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 466, September 16, 1918, along the
river near the town of Amboina.
Butonica was first reduced to Barringtonia speciosa by the
younger Linnaeus, Suppl. (1781) 312, which has been followed
by all authors except Miers. The latter retains Barringtonia
speciosa Forst. as the sole representative of the genus which he
confined to Polynesia and removed the Indo-Malayan forms from
Barringtonia as Agasta asiatica (Linn.) Miers and A. indica
Miers. He has not been followed by subsequent authors, the
general conclusions regarding Miers’s proposed classification,
in which I concur, being that his three species are all merely
forms of the common and widely distributed strand plant, Bar-
ringtonia asiatica (Linn.) Kurz. The type of the Linnean
species, Mammea asiatica, was collected by Osbeck on a small
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Huttwm Adans. (1763) is older.
LECYTHIDACEAE 3&5
island near the western end of Java. Butonica rumphiana Miers
is certainly identical with Mammea asiatica Linn.=Barringtonia
asiatica Kurz.
BARRINGTONIA RACEMOSA (Linn.) Blume ex DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 288;
Roxb. Fl]. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 6384.
Eugenia racemosa Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 471.
Stravadia alba Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 30.
Stravadium album DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 289.
Barringtonia alba Blume in FI. des Serres I 7 (1851-52) 28.
Barringtonia «lba Kostel. Allgem. Med. Pharm. Fl. 4 (1835) 1536.
Stravadium rubrum DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 289, p. p., quoad syn. Rumph.
Butonica terrestris Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 69.
Barringtonia rubra Blume FI. des Serres I 7 (1851-52) 23.
Butonica rubra Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 70.
Barringtonia inclyta Miers in Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1 (1875) 71.
Butonica terrestris rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 181 ! (t. 115?).
Butonica terrestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 181, ¢. 116.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Rumph. Amb. 467, November 25, 1913, near
the beach.
This much-named species is widely distributed along and
near the seashore from India to Malaya and Polynesia. Miers
has attempted with little success to distinguish several species.
As the proper authority for Barringtonia racemosa, I have
selected Blume (1828) in preference to Roxburgh, as Roxburgh’s
original use of the name, Hort. Beng. (1814) 52, is a nomen
nudum.
In previous reductions of the Rumphian descriptions and
figures, practically all authors have assumed that two species
were involved. Butonica terrestris alba was originally reduced
by Linnaeus to Hugenia racemosa Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
- (1754) 14, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1055,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 673; but cther authors have reduced it to
Barringtoma acutangula Gaertn., to Stravadia alba Pers., to
Barringtonia alba Kostel., to Butonica alba Miers, etc. The
description and the figure apply unmistakably to Barringtonia
racemosa (Linn.) Blume as here interpreted.
The description of Butonica terrestris rubra Rumph. is un-
mistakably Barringtonia racemosa (Linn.) Blume, as_ here
interpreted, but the figure, which is poor, may represent an-
other species, possibly Barringtonia acutangula Gaertn. In
Rumphius’s description note:
Folia * * * unum vel sesquipedem longi, immo longiora * * *
palmam nempe lata, vel paulo latiora * * *. Flores ex longo, tenui, &
dependente petiolo, binos pedes longo * * * huic viridia insident capita
instar Olivarum tenerarum, per illum laxe dispersa, quae sese aperiunt in
bina vel terna crassa & concava petala [sepals].
14497125
386 - RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The description otherwise applies to Barringtonia racemosa,
not to B. acutangula Gaertn., to which it has been reduced by
many authors. It was originally reduced by Linnaeus to
Eugema acutangula Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 14,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 124, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 673; by
Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 197, to Hugenia racemosa Linn.;
by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 410, to Meteorus coccineus
Lour., which is a possible synonym of Barringtonia racemosa
Blume; and by other authors to Barringtonia acutangula Gaertn.,
to Stravadia rubra Pers., to Stravadium rubrum DC., to Barring-
tonia rubra Blume, and finally by Miers to Butonica terrestris
Miers.
RHIZOPHORACEAE
The Rhizophoraceae described and figured by Rumphius are
obscure, and the actual status of the several species involved is
susceptible of various interpretations. The species actually rep-
resented in our Amboina collections are the forms commonly
known as brugwiera eriopetala W. & A., B. caryophylloides
Blume, B. parviflora W. & A., and Rhizophora conjugata Linn.
By a strict interpretation of types, following the principles of
priority, most of these names must be discarded, Brugwiera
eriopetala W. & A. becoming B. sexangula (Lour.) Spreng.,
B. caryophylloides Blume becoming B. cylindrica (Linn.) Blume,
and Rhizophora conjugata auct., non Linn., becoming R. cande-
laria DC. Species apparently described by Rumphius, but not
included in the Amboina collections at present available for
study, are apparently Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C. B. Rob. (C.
candolleana Arn.) and Bruguiera conjugata (Linn.) Merr. (B.
gymnorhiza Lam.). A number of species and synonyms must
be interpreted wholly or in part from the Rumphian figures and
descriptions. An attempt has here been made to select the
earliest valid specific name in each case and to adjust the syn-
onymy, but a future monograph of the group, based on very
comprehensive collections, may modify some of these conclusions.
CERIOPS Arnott
CERIOPS TAGAL (Perr.) C. B. Rob. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 3 (1908) Bot. 306.
Rhizophora tagal Perr. Mém. Soc. Linn. Paris 3 (1824) 188. |
Rhizophora timoriensis DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 32.
Ceriops candolleana Arn. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1 (1888) 368.
Mangium caryophylloides II parvifolium et II! latifolium Rumph.
Herb. Amb. 3: 119.
No representative of the genus Ceriops occurs in our Amboina
RHIZOPHORACEAE 387
collections. The suggested reduction of the two forms described
under Mangium caryophylloides Rumph. is after Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 57, but Ceriops tagal is an older name than C.
candolleana Arn. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 143, suggests that
Mangium caryophylloides II may be the same as Certops zippel-
cana Blume, and that Mangiwm caryopylloides III may be the
same as Ceriops forsteniana Blume, but both of Blume’s species
are apparently merely forms of the common and widely dis-
tributed Ceriops tagal C. B. Rob. Blume also suggests that
Mangium minus Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 106 quoad descr., excl. t.
69, may be Ceriops zippeliana Blume, which may be the correct
disposition of the description; the plate is considered under
Bruguiera conjugata (Linn.) Merr. and under B. cylindrica
(Linn.) Blume (p. 388).
RHIZOPHORA Linnaeus
RHIZOPHORA CANDELARIA DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 32 (type!).
Rhizophora conjugata auct. plur., non Linn.
Rhizophora apiculata Blume Enum. 1 (1828) 91.
Mangium candelarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 108, t. 71, 72.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 266,
July 26, 1913, along tidal streams, locally known as mangi mangi.
While both plates given by Rumphius are very crude, they
unmistakably represent the form with short peduncles bearing
usually two flowers. The description, however, may include also
the allied Rhizophora mucronata Lam., which is distinguished
by its longer peduncles and more numerous flowers. By Lin-
naeus it was erroneously reduced to the American Rhizophora
mangle, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1048, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 634,
in which he was followed by Lamarck, Willdenow, Burman f.,
Roxburgh, and other authors. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 132,
placed it under Rhizophora mucronata Lam. with the comment
- “descriptio satis bona, figurae minus rectus!,” while Walpers,
Repert. 2 (1843) 70, placed it under Rhizophora conjugata Linn.
Rhizophora candelaria DC. is a composite species to be inter-
preted from Mangium candelarium Rumph. and Pee-kandel
Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 6: t. 34, Rheede being cited first, Rumph-
ius second; but as the specific name is manifestly taken from
Rumphius, while the description given by de Candolle applies
better to the form generally interpreted as Rhizophora conjugata.
auct. (non Linn.) than to R. mucronata Lam. Rheede’s figure
is considered to represent Rhizophora mucronata Lam.
388 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE i
BRUGUIERA Lamarck
BRUGUIERA CONJUGATA (Linn.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914)
Bot. 118.
Rhizophora conjugata Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 448, non aliorum!
Rhizophora gymnorhiza Linn. 1. ec.
Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. Ill. 2 (1797) t. 397, Encycl. 4 (1798) 696.
Bruguiera rumphiit Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 138.
Rhizophora ? palun DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 33.
Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. var. palun Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849)
136.
Mangium celsum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 102, t. 68.
Mangium minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 106, t. 69 excl. fl. et f. A, B.
There is no specimen of this species in our Amboina collec-
tions; and, although both of the figures cited above are crude,
there is very little doubt that both are properly referable here.
The reduction of Mangiwm celsum was first made by Lin-
naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 128, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043 (Rhizophora gymnorhiza
Linn.), in which he was followed by various other authors.
Since the transfer of the species to Brugiera, the plate has very
generally been cited under B. gymnorhiza Lam., although Blume
placed it under his B. rumphi. Mangium minus Rumph. is
manifestly a mixture, the leaves and fruits apparently being
the same as those of B. conjugata (B. gymnorhiza), but the
flowers and figures A and B certainly represent Brugutera cylin-
drica Blume, below. It is, excluding figures A and B, the whole
basis for Rhizophora palun DC. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 148,
suggests that the description, but not the plate, of Mangium
minus s. palun may be Ceriops zippeliana Blume (see Ceriops
tagal (Perr.) C. B. Rob. p. 386). It is to be noted that the two
attached flowers on the plate of Mangiwm minus Rumph. Herb.
Amb. 3: 106, t. 69, and figures A and B, were copied by Burman
from Rheede’s figure of Cari Candel, Hort. Malabar. 6: ¢. 33, and
have nothing to do with the plant actually figured and described
by Rumphius; see under Brugwiera cylindrica (Linn.) Blume,
below. :
BRUGUIERA CYLINDRICA Linn.) Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. (1828) 98.
Rhizophora cylindrica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 443.
Rhizophora caryophylloides Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 109.
Bruguiera caryophylloides Blume Enum. Pl. Jav. (1828) 98.
Kanilia caryophylloides Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 141.
Mangium minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: t. 69, pp. quoad fl. et f. A, B.
Mangium caryophylloides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 119, t. 78.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 265,
along tidal streams, July 26, 1918, locally known as tonki.
RHIZOPHORACEAE 389
Rhizophora cylindrica Linn. must be interpreted solely by
Cari-Candel Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 6:59, t. 33, which most
authors agree represents the form described by Blume as Bru-
guiera caryophylloides (Burm. f.) Blume. Mangiuwm minus
Rumph., as figured, is manifestly a composite species, the at-
tached flowers and figures A and B having been copied by
Burman in editing Rumphius’s work from Cari-Candel Rheed.
Hort. Malabar. 6: t. 33. The leafy branch and fruits, excluding
the attached flowers and figures A and b, and the description
for the most part are probably referable to Bruguiera gymnor-
hiza Lam. (B. rheedi Blume). It was reduced by Linnaeus to his
Rhizophora cylindrica, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1238, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1043, Sp. Pl.
ed. 2 (1762) 635, in which he was followed by Burman, La-
marck, Willdenow, and other authors. Mangium caryophylloides
Rumph. is the basis of Rhizophora caryophylloides Burm. f.,
Fl. Ind. (1768) 109, from which again Bruguiera caryophylloides
Blume and Kanilia caryophylloides Blume must be interpreted.
The figure is not good, but is undoubtedly referable here, while
the description applies closely to the form generally named Bru-
guiera caryophylloides Blume=B. cylindrica (Linn.) Blume.
BRUGUIERA SEXANGULA (Lour.) Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816)
262.
Rhizophora sexangula Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 297.
Bruguiera eriopetala W. & A. in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1 (1838) 368.
Bruguiera gymnorhiza Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 1386, non Lam.
- Bruguiera cylindrica Blume 1. c. 137.
Mangium digitatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 107, t. 70.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 264, July 28, 1918,
along tidal streams, locally known as mangi mangi.
Mangium digitatum Rumph. has been reduced by some authors
to Bruguiera gymnorhiza Lam. and by others to B. cylindrica
Blume. It seems, however, to be the species commonly known as
Bruguiera eriopetala W. & A., which I have here reduced to the
older Bruguiera sexangula Poir. (Rhizophora sexangula Lour.).
The generic description given by Linnaeus, Gen. Pl. (1754)
202, is unmistakably Rhizophora as at present understood,
although the first two species cited in his Species Plantarum
(1753) 448 are representatives of Bruguiera, the third a
Kandelia, and the last two true Rhizophorae. The first species,
Rhizophora conjugata Linn., has been misinterpreted by most
authors since its publication, but it has page priority over
Rhizophora gymnorhiza Linn. Trimen * states:
* Fl. Ceyl. 2 (1894) 154.
390 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
There is no specimen in Hermann’s Herb., but his drawing is unmis-
takably this species [Bruguwiera gymnorhiza Lam.] and it is the whole
foundation for Linnaeus’s Rhizophora conjugata, which name has been since
always applied to another plant, R. Candelaria DC., to which this bears a
strong resemblance in foliage.
If rules of priority be followed, the adoption of the name
Brugwmera conjugata is unavoidable for this widely distributed
Indo-Malayan species.
COMBRETACEAE
TERMINALIA * Linnaeus
TERMINALIA CATAPPA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 128, 2 (1771) 519.
Terminalia moluccana Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 349 (type!).
Juglans catappa Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 573.
Catappa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 174, t. 68.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 414, September 4, 1913,
along the seashore, locally known as katappan.
The Rumphian figure and description are, at least in part, the
basis of Terminalia catappa Linn., as they were cited in the
original publication of the species. They are also the whole
basis of Terminalia moluccana Lam., cited above, and in part the
basis of Juglans catappa Lour. The three forms described by
Rumphius are probably all referable to Terminalia catappa Linn.,
which presents considerable variation in its fruit characters.
Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 22, has referred all of them to
varietal forms, Catappa domestica to Terminalia catappa var.
macrocarpa Hassk., C. silvestris litorea to T. catappa var.
rhodocarpa Hassk., and C. silvestris altera to T. catappa var.
chlorocarpa Hassk. The form distributed under Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 414 is exactly Catappa silvestris litorea Rumph.
QUISQUALIS Linnaeus
QUISQUALIS INDICA Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 556 (type).
Quisqualis pubescens Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 104 (type!).
Quis qualis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 71, ft. 38.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
So far as the original Linnean description shows, the genus
and the species were based wholly on Rumphius, although he may
have had botanical material from India or Malaya. The form
figured by Rumphius is certainly the common and widely dis-
tributed Malayan and Philippine form that is currently called
Quisqualis indica Linn. The Linnean reduction has been fol-
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Adamaram Adans. (1768) is older.
MYRTACEAE 391
lowed by most authors, but Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 104,
based his Quisqualis pubescens wholly on the Rumphian Quis
qualis, and his var. glabra |. c. t. 28, f. 2, on Javan specimens.
Quisqualis pubescens Burm. f. is thus an exact synonym of the
older Q. indica Linn. Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 6 (1804) 43,
referred the Rumphian figure to Quisqualis glabra Burm. f.,
which likewise is a synonym of Q. indica Linn.
MYRTACEAE
: PSIDIUM Linnaeus
PSIDIUM GUAJAVA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 470.
Psidium pomiferum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 672.
Psidium pyriferum Linn. |. c. 672.
Psidium cujavus Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 119 (type!). ;
Cujavus domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 140, t. 47.
Cujavus agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 142, f. 48.
Cujavus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 148.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 202, July 31, 1913, on hills in the
vicinity of the town of Amboina.
The three forms described by Rumphius are all apparently
referable to Psidium guajava Linn., the two forms figured rep-
resenting the one with the pyriform fruit (Cujavus domestica
Rumph.), the other with the ovoid or ellipsoid fruit (Cujavus
agrestis Rumph., the type of Psidiwm cujavus Linn.). These
forms have been recognized by some authors as distinct species,
by others as varieties of Psidium guajava Linn. Both figures
were originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 7; t. 47 to Psidium guajava Linn. and t. 48 to Psidium
cujavus Linn., the latter figure being the whole basis of the
latter species. Following current modern usage both Psidiwm
pomiferum Linn. and Psidium pyriferum Linn. are here con-
sidered as synonyms of Psidium guajava Linn.
PSIDIUM CUJAVILLUS Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 114.
Psidium pumilum Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 56.
Psidium angustifolium Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 17.
Cujavillus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 145, t. 49.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 203, September 25,
1913, in waste places at low altitudes, locally known as guayawas china.
Psidium cujavillus Burm. f. was based primarily on a Javan
specimen, and Psidium pumilum Vahl on one from Ceylon,
although both authors cite Cujavillus Rumph. as a synonym,
and Burman f. took his specific name from Rumphius. By some
392 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
authors the species has been erroneously reduced to Psidiwm
guajava Linn. Lamarck also cites Cujavillus Rumph. in the
original description of Psidiwm angustifolium Lam. Most
authors who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure have
placed Cujavillus under Psidium pumilum Vahl, but Psidium
cujavillus Burm. f. is manifestly the same species and is a much
older name. Pritzel, Ic. Bot. Index, has erroneously listed the
figure of Cujavillus as Psidium decaspermum Linn. f.=Decas-
permum fruticosum Forst.; while Henschel, with equal error,
placed it under Nelitris jambosella Gaertn.=Timonius jambo-
sella Thw. (See also under Decaspermum fruticosum Forst.)
DECASPERMUM Forster
DECASPERMUM FRUTICOSUM Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 74, t. 87.
Psidium decaspermum Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 252.
Eugenia polygama Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 92, nomen nudum, F1.
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 491.
Nelitris paniculata Lindl. Collect. Bot. (1821) 16.
Nelitris polygama Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 488.
Nelitris rubra Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 73, excl. syn. Lour., Poir.,
Ras:
Nelitris alba Blume 1. c. 74.
Decaspermum rubrum Baill. Hist. Pl. 6 (1877) 341.
Decaspermum paniculatum Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 46’ (1877)
61.
Caryophyllaster albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 211.
Caryophyllaster ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 211, t. 186.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Gelala, and Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 205, 206, 207, August to September, 1913, in forests and along
streams, altitude 80 to 250 meters.
Caryophyllaster ruber Lour. was erroneously reduced by Lou-
reiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 144, to Antherura rubra Lour., a
rubiaceous plant, to which the synonyms Psychotria rubra Poir.
and P. antherura R. & S. pertain, although placed by Blume with
Caryophyllaster ruber under Nelitris rubra Blume. Poiret,
Roemer and Schultes, and Blume cite the Rumphian plant as
a synonym of Psychotria rubra Poir., P. antherura R. & S., and
Nelitris rubra Blume, respectively.. The form described by
Rumphius as Caryophyllaster albus I consider to be referable
to the same species as Caryophyllaster ruber, and accordingly
here reduce it with Nelitris alba Blume to Decaspermum fruti-
cosum Forst. Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. and Psidium |
decaspermum Linn. f. have been confused with Timonius jam-
bosella Thw., on account of Gaertner’s erroneous reduction of
Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. to Nelitris jambosella Gaertn. ;
the species figured by Gaertner is a true Timonius, the Ceylon
MYRTACEAE 393
Timonius jambosella Thw. Gaertner’s description is in part
some species of Hugenia. The plant here considered appears
in herbaria generally under the name Decaspermum paniculatum
Kurz, but from material before me I can see no reason for con-
sidering it specifically distinct from the type of the genus,
Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. The species is somewhat
variable. It is a common and widely distributed plant in Malaya
and Polynesia.
EUGENIA Linnaeus
~EUGENIA CARYOPHYLLATA Thunb. Diss. (1788) 1.
Caryophyllus aromaticus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 515, non Eugenia aro-
matica Berg.
Caryophyllus silvestris Teysm. ex Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch.
Halle 9 (1866) 167 [Neue Schliissel (1866) 25] (type!).
Caryophyllum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 1, t. 7.
Caryophyllum regium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 10, t. 2.
Caryophyllum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 12, t. 3.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 201, October, 1913, from
cultivated trees, locally known as chenki.
I can see no valid reason tor considering that more than
one species is represented by the three forms figured and de-
scribed by Rumphius, although Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 25, makes Caryophyllum silvestre Rumph.
the type of Caryophyllus silvestris Teysm. The first figure
represents the normal cultivated form, the second a form with
somewhat fasciated inflorescences, while the third apparently
represents the wild form of the same species. All three figures
were originally reduced by Linneaus to Caryophyllus aromaticus
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 8, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
120, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 735, and this reduction has been very
generally accepted as the correct disposition of all three.
EUGENIA AQUEA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 114 (type!).
Jambosa aquea DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 288 (type!).
Cerocarpus aqueus Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 36 (type!).
Eugenia mindanaensis C. B. Rob. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 4 (1909)
Bot. 368.
Jambosa aquea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 126, t. 38, f. 2.
Jambosa aquea altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 126.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 192, from cultivated trees,
locally known as jambu ayer.
Jambosa aquea Rumph. is the whole basis of Eugenia aquea
Burm. f. and is generally cited in botanical literature under
Jambosa aquea DC. It was erroneously referred by Lamarck
to Hugenia javanica Lam. and by Pritzel to Eugenia racemosa
394 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Linn. Hugenia mindanaensis C. B. Rob., described from Min-
danao specimens, is manifestly identical with Eugenia aquea
Burm. f. This reduction had been indicated by Doctor Robin-
son in the herbarium of the Bureau of Science before his de-
parture for Amboina in June, 1913.
EUGENIA CUMINI (Linn.) comb. nov.
Myrtus cumini Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 471.
EBugenia jambolana Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 198.
Calyptranthes jambolana Willd. in Usteri Ann. 17 (1796) 23.
Bugenia obtusifolia Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37, nomen nudum, F1.
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 485.
Syzygium jambolanum DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 259.
Syzygium cumini Skeels in U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Pl. Ind. Bull. 248
(1912) 25.
Jambosa ceramica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 180, t. 41.
Jambolana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 131, t. 42.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
Rel. Robins. 2448 from Macassar, Celebes, July 11, 1913, is
typical Jambolana Rumph. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1745) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119, reduced Jambolana,
with doubt, to Jambolifera pedunculata Linn., in which he was
followed by Burman f., Lamarck, Loureiro, Murray, and Pritzel.
It has been cited by various authors under Hugenia jambolana
Lam., Calyptranthes jambolana Willd., Eugenia obtusifolia
Roxb., and Syzygium jambolanum DC., and is the type of var.
6 of the last in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 260.
I am now of the opinion that Myrtus cumini Linn. supplies
the oldest valid specific name for this species. Jambolifera
pedunculata Linn., Sp. Pl. (1753) 349, was based primarily
on Fl. Zeyl. 139, and the specimen in Hermann’s herbarium
is Acronychia laurifolia Blume.* The description in Flora Zey-
lanica applies to Acronychia laurifolia, not to Eugenia cumini,
but the name and the synonyms Jambolones and Jambolons
apply to Eugenia cumini. It is clear, however, that Linnaeus’s
later conception of Jambolifera pedunculata was as Hugenia
cumini rather than Acronychia laurifolia, as shown by his reduc-
tion of Jambolana Rumph. and the reference to Plukenet added
in the Mantissa 2 (1771) 371. I believe, however, that the -
original description and specimen should stand as representing
Jambolifera pedunculata Linn. and that it goes with Acronychia
laurifolia Blume as a synonym. Myrtus cumini Linn. was based
wholly on Fl. Zeyl. 185, and the description and the specimen
* See Trimen in Journ. Linn. Soc. 24 (1887) 140
7 2
MYRTACEAE 295
in Hermann’s herbarium is Hugenia jambolana Lam. The
specific names, cumini and jambolifera, were interchanged
between Hugenia and Acronychia.
I can see no reason for considering Jambosa ceramica Rumph.
to be other than Hugenia cumini (Linn.) Merr. Linnaeus placed
it under Myrtus cumini Linn., and Willdenow placed it under
—Calyuptranthes caryophyllifolia Willd., both synonyms of Hugenia
cumini (Linn.) Merr. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 199, placed
it under Hugenia cymosa Lam., a species based primarily on
specimens from the Isle of France. At any rate Jambosa
ceramica Rumph. is not Hugenia cymosa Lam. as Lamarck’s
species is currently interpreted.
EUGENIA JAVANICA Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 200.
Jambosa silvestris parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 129, 2: ft. 40.
In all copies of the Herbarium Amboinense, t. 40 of volume
one and two are transposed; the plate in volume one corresponds
to Radix detpariae spuria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 127 and is
Gmelina villosa Roxb., while the plate in volume two corresponds
to Jambosa silvestris parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 129 and
is the species here considered (see under Gmelina villosa Roxb.,
p. 454). Perhaps the chief reason why the description and
figure as given by Rumphius have never been properly placed
was due to this transposition of the plates, which is mentioned
in the Auctuarium (Herb. Amb. 7: 3). The illustration seems
to me to be a fairly typical representation of Hugenia javanica
Lam.; and I have made this reduction with considerable confi-
dence, although I have seen no botanical material from Amboina
that I would refer to this species.
EUGENIA SUBGLAUCA Koord. & Valeton in Bull. Inst. Bot. Buitenz. 2
(1899) 8, var.
Jambosa litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 81, t. 52.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe and Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 198, 196,
September and October, 1913, on cliffs near the seashore, locally known as
jambu ayer and jambu puti.
No previous reduction of Jambosa litorea Rumph. has been
suggested, other than Henschel’s statement that it pertained
to the Myrtaceae. The description and figure manifestly per-
tain to Hugenia, a species in the group with Hugenia javanica
Lam., EH’. colubcob C. B. Rob., and FE. subglauca Koord. & Valeton.
The Amboina specimens, which certainly represent Jambosa
litorea Rumph., differ from the Javanese Eugenia subglauca
Koord. & Val. in their leaves, which are more rounded at the
396 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
base and relatively somewhat broader and thicker. Even if
eventually distinguished as a valid species, it must certainly be
placed near the Javanese one.
EUGENIA RUMPHII sp. nov. § Syzygium.
Arbor rubra tl! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 199 (type), 200,
November 6, 19138, in forests, altitude about 175 meters, locaily known as
kayu mera.
Arbor glabra circiter 16 m alta, ramis ramulisque teretibus
vel ramulis obscure rotundato-angulatis; foliis obovatis ad
obovato-ellipticis, usque ad 10 cm longis, apice latissime rotun-
datis interdum retusis vel obscurissime apiculatis, basi angus-
tatis, cuneatis, margine revolutis, supra olivaceis, valde nitidis,
subtus pallidis, haud puncticulatis, nervis utrinque numerosis,
tenuibus; inflorescentiis corymbosis, terminalibus, circiter 5 cm
longis; floribus plerumque in triadibus dispositis, omnibus bre-
viter pedicellatis, calycis circiter 7 mm longis, anguste infundi-
buliformibus, subtruncatis, calyptra 5 mm diametro.
An entirely glabrous tree about 16 m in height, the branches
and branchlets brownish, smooth, terete or sometimes with
obscure rounded angles. Leaves coriaceous, obovate to obovate-
elliptic, 5 to 10 cm long, 3 to 5.5 cm wide, apex broadly rounded,
often retuse, sometimes obscurely apiculate, base gradually nar-
rowed, cuneate, margins recurved, the upper surface dark-oliva-
ceous, strongly shining, the lower pale, dull, not puncticulate;
lateral nerves numerous, slender, spreading, densely arranged,
the primary ones but little more prominent than the secondary,
reticulations obsolete or nearly so; petioles about 1 cm long.
Inflorescence terminal, corymbose, about 5 cm long and wide,
branches from the base, the branches ascending, the flowers
white, mostly in triads on the ultimate branchlets, all pedicelled,
the bracteoles broadly ovate, rounded, thick, about 1 mm long,
the pedicels stout, 2 to 3 mm long. Calyx narrowly funnel-
shaped, about 7 mm long, truncate or with obscure lobes. Ca-
lyptra 5 mm in diameter, broadly ovoid, rounded. Stamens
indefinite, 5 to 10 mm long.
This is a sufficiently characteristic species, which I cannot
refer to any previously described form. It is readily recogniz-
able by its densely nerved, coriaceous, obovate to obovate-elliptic,
broadly rounded, shining leaves, these often retuse at the apex.
No previous attempt has been made to determine the status of
Arbor rubra III of Rumphius, other than Hasskarl’s reduction
of it to the Myrtaceae; it is undoubtedly Eugenia rumphi.
MYRTACEAE 207
EUGENIA STIPULARIS (Blume) Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1° (1855) 441.
Gelpkea stipularis Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 88.
Jambosa silvestris ayer utan Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 129.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 191, August 25, 1918, in
forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as jyambu utan and kayu
jambu jambu.
Hamilton, Mem. Wern. Soc. 57° (1826) 338, placed this under
Eugenia laeta Ham., the description of which, however, was
baseel on an Indian specimen. Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 104,
followed Hamilton in this reduction of Jambosa silvestris ayer
utan and cites Jambosa linearis Korth. as a synonym. The
description given by Rumphius certainly does not apply to Huge-
nia laeta Ham. nor to Jambosa linearis Korth., but does apply
fairly closely to Eugenia stipularis Miq., the type of which was
from Amboina.
EUGENIA CELEBICA (Blume) comb. nov.
Jambosa celebica Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 107.
Jambosa silvestris s. biawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 128?
The reduction of this Celebes form, very imperfectly described
by Rumphius, merely follows Blume’s suggestion. It may or
may not be the correct disposition of it, although the form
that Rumphius described is certainly a Hugenia of the section
Jambosa.
EUGENIA JAMBOS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 470.
Jambosa vulgaris DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286.
Jambosa rosacea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 128. ~
The description certainly applies to the rose apple, Eugenia
jambos Linn. (Jambosa vulgaris DC.), where Jambosa rosacea
Rumph. has been referred by Henschel, Blume, DeVriese, Miquel,
and Hasskarl.
EUGENIA sp. aff. jambos Linn.?
Jambosa (sylvestris) alba Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 94, non Don, nec
Eugenia alba Roxb.
Jambosa silvestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 127, t. 39.
Rumphius’s figure represents a characteristic species, and
when once collected in Amobina botanical material should
be readily connected with it. Jambosa silvestris alba Rumph.
was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Hugenia jambos Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 119,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1055, Sp. Pl. ed. 2-(1762) 672; and in this
manifestly erroneous reduction he was followed by Burman f.,
Lamarck, Willdenow, Loureiro, Roxburgh, and Persoon. Wight
398 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 332, with doubt, reduced it to Jambosa
aquea DC.; Hasskar! placed it under Eugenia macrophylla DC.;
and Berg. erroneously placed it under Jambosa vulgaris DC.
Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 93, has maintained it as a valid
species, Jambosa alba, but the specific name used by him is
invalid in both Hugenia and Jambosa.
EUGENIA MALACCENSIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 470.
Jambosa malaccensis DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286.
Myrtus malaccensis Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 484.
Jambosa purpurascens DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 286.
Eugenia purpurea Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37, nomen nudum, ae
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 483.
Jambosa domestica Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 91.
Jambosa domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 121, t. 37.
Jambosa nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 125, t. 38, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 194, October 29, 1913, from
cultivated trees, locally known as jambu ruttun.
Jambosa domestica Rumph. was first reduced to Hugenia ma-
laccensis Linn. by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1055, and Jam-
bosa nigra Rumph. was reduced to the same species by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 7; both reductions apparently are
correct. Neither figure can be considered as good, however.
The Rumphian names have been cited by various authors under
one or another of the synonyms given above. The several
forms named and described by Rumphius were made by Blume,
Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 91, the types of several varieties of Jambosa
domestica Blume=Hugenia malaccensis Linn., as_ follows:
Jambosa domestica II minor Rumph.—var. minor Blume; Jambosa
domestica rosacea Rumph.—var. rosacea Blume; Jambosa domestica
calapparia Rumph.—var. calapparia Blume; and Jambosa nigra
Rumph.=var. nigra Blume. They are apparently all variants
of Kugenia malaccensis Linn., which like most cultivated fruit
trees presents a considerable range of variation in the color,
size, and other characters of its fruits.
EUGENIA MELASTOMIFOLIA (Blume) comb. nov.
Jambosa melastomifolia Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 102.
Arbor rubra I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 198, September 5, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 200 meters, locally known as daun jambu jambu.
The specimen, which presents very young flowers, appears
to agree with both Rumphius’s and with Blume’s descriptions,
Jambosa melastomifolia Blume having been based on Amboina
specimens collected by Zippel. I do not agree with Miquel,
MYRTACEAE 299
Fl. Ind. Bat. 11 (1855) 522, in reducing Jambosa melastomifolia
Blume to Jambosa bifaria Wight.
EUGENIA sp.
Arbor rubra | Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3:. 74, t. 47.
This is a sufficiently characteristic species of Hugenia of
the section Syzygium, it is, however, not represented in our Am-
boina collections. No botanist has suggested its determination
beyond the genus. Lamarck reduced it to Hugenia sp., and
Teysmann expressed the opinion that it is, with doubt, a Jam-
bosa. The figure looks suspiciously like Eucalyptus deglupta
Blume (see p. 401), but although the bark is described as
peeling off in thin flakes, a character found in many species of
Eugenia, the description of the fruits and of the odor and taste
of the leaves definitely removes it from Eucalyptus.
EUGENIA sp.
Arbor rubra | angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 75, t.. 48.
This is a characteristic species of Hugenia of the section
Jambosa, not represented in our Amboina collections. No sug-
gestions have been made by other botanists as to its possible or
probable identity. In the absence of material for comparison
with the various named species from the Moluccas, no suggestion
can be made as to its proper disposition.
EUGENIA sp.
Folium intinctus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 202.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochin. (1790) 231, mentions this under Jam-
bolifera odorata Lour. (=Acronychia?), with which it has
nothing in common. Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 160, places
it, with doubt, under Cyminosma odorata DC., which is merely a
new name for Jambolifera odorata Lour. Rumphius’s descrip-
tion conforms in all respects to Hugenia and probably refers
to some species of this genus.
EUGENIA sp.
Arbor rubra II saxatilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 76.
Further determination of this form is impossible from the data
and material at present available.
EUGENIA sp.
Arbor rubra I1V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 77.
The form described is probably a Hugenia, but its exact
status is indeterminable from data at present available.
400 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
EUGENIA sp.?
Perticaria ferrea parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 80, t. 52.
The figure resembles Hugenia in many characters, yet if the
flowers be correctly delineated, the plant can be no Hugenia,
and hardly a myrtaceous one. Its status is indeterminable from
material and data at present available.
EUGENIA sp.?
Perticaria ferrea latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 80.
This may or may not belong in the same genus with the
preceding one. Its status is entirely uncertain, and it may not
even belong in the Myrtaceae.
EUGENIA sp.
Jambosa silvestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 81.
This is a Hugenia of the section Jambosa, but its further
identity is entirely doubtful.
METROSIDEROS * Banks
METROSIDEROS VERA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 37 (type!); Lindl.
Collect. Bot. (1821) ¢. 18.
Nania vera Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1855) 400.
Syncarpia vertholeni Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Ned. Ind. 2
(1851) 3807, Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 3 (1855) 411.
Metrosideros vera parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 16, ¢. 7.
Metrosideros vera latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 16, 19.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Metrosideros vera, usually accredited to Lindley as its author,
should be accredited to Roxburgh instead. The original publica-
tion of the name was based wholly on Rumphius by citation of the
illustration, in Hortus Bengalensis (1814) 37.7 It was later
described by Roxburgh, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 477, from speci-
mens cultivated at Calcutta, which had been introduced into the
botanic garden from Amboina. Syncarpia vertholenu Teysm.
& Binn. was described from Amboina specimens, and its authors
reduced to it Metrosideros vera parvifolia Rumph. The first
reduction was that made by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 309,
to Opa metrosideros Lour.. Opa metrosideros Lour. is not at
all Metrosideros vera Roxb., but is a synonym of Raphiolepis
indica (Linn.) Lindl., of the Rosaceae. The form described by
Rumphius as Metrosideros vera latifolia does not appear to
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Nani Adans. (1763) is older.
+ See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414.
MYRTACEAE AOL
be specifically distinct from the one described as Metrosideros
vera parvifolia, although a more extended exploration of the
Moluccas may show that two distinct species are involved.
EUCALYPTUS L’Héritier
EUCALYPTUS DEGLUPTA Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 83.
Populus deglubata Reinw. ex Blume l. c. in syn.
Eucalyptus versicolor Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 84 (type!).
Eucalyptus multiflora Rich ex A. Gray Bot. Wilkes U. S. Explor.
Exped. (1854) 554.
Eucalyptus naudiniana F. Muell. in Austral. Journ. Pharm. (1886)
239, Bot. Centralbl. 28 (1886) 179.
Eugenia binacag Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 7 (1914) 2351.
Eucalyptus binacag Elm. 1. c. 8 (1915) 2776.
Arbor versicolor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 122, ¢t. 80.
Rumphius’s material, on which his figure and description of
Arbor versicolor were based, was from Ceram, not from Am-
boina. The description and the figure, as far as they go, are
unmistakably a Hucalyptus. I feel quite confident that Eugenia
deglupta Blume, from Celebes; EF’. versicolor Blume, from Ceram;
E. multiflora Rich and EF. binacag Elm., of Mindanao; and EL.
naudiniana F. Muell., of the Bismarck Archipelago, are all refer-
able to a single species, which is now definitely known from a
half-dozen localities in Mindanao, from New Guinea, and from
the Bismarck Archipelago, and with the inclusion of Blume’s
species, from Celebes and Ceram. There is not a character
given by Blume for either Eucalyptus versicolor or E. deglupta
by which the two can be definitely distinguished from each
other or from Eucalyptus naudiniana F.-Muell. EHucalyptus
moluccana Roxb., as described, must represent a different species,
at least entirely different from Hucalyptus naudiniana F.-Muell.
and the Philippine synonyms cited here. Eucalyptus versicolor
Blume is based wholly on Rumphius’s description of Arbor versi-
color, and it is to be noted that Blume, by error, cites t. 53 instead
of ¢. 80 as representing the species. The latter figure is Hugenia
subglauca Koord. & Valeton, as I have here determined it (see
p. 395).
Eucalyptus sarassa Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 84, unaccom-
panied by any word of description, was based on Kaju sarassa
Rumph., incidentally mentioned by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. 3:
122, following the description of Arbor versicolor. It is inde-
terminable from any data now available, and there is little
or no evidence that it belongs to Hucalyptus.
144971——_26
402 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
LEPTOSPERMUM Forster
LEPTOSPERMUM FLAVESCENS Smith in Trans. Linn. Soc. 3 (1797) 262.
Leptospermum amboinense Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1100.
Leptospermum porophyllum Cav. Ic. 4 (1797) 17, t. 380, f. 2.
Melaleuca thea Wendl. Sert. Hannov. (1795-98) 24, t. 13?
Leptospermum thea Willd. Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 949?
Macklottia amboinensis Korth. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 1 (1847) 196.
Myrtus amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 77, t. 18.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 204, September
30, 1918, on lightly forested hillsides, altitude about 250 meters.
Myrtus amboinensis Rumph. has been very generally reduced
to Leptospermum amboinense Blume, but this species does not
appear to be specifically distinct from the much older Leptosper-
mum flavescens Smith. The younger Linnaeus reduced it to
Melaleuca virgata Linn. f., Suppl. (1781) 348; which, however,
was based on Leptospermum virgatum Forst.—Baeckea virgata
Andr., in which he was followed by Willdenow and by Lamarck.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 115, had already referred it to Myr-
tus communis Linn., an entirely erroneous disposition of it.
Leptospermum thea (Wendl.) Willd. may prove to be the oldest
valid name for the species.
MELALEUCA * Iinnaeus
MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 105.
Myrtus leucadendra Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 120, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1056, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
676 (type!).
Myrtus saligna Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 116, saltem quoad syn. Rumph,
Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 59 (type!).
Melaleuca saligna Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1849) 66, non Schauer.
Melaleuca viridiflora Blume Bijdr. (1026) 1099, var. angustifolia
Blume 1. c.
Melaleuca trinervis Ham. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 147
(type!).
Melaleuca minor Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 23 (1813) no. 2.
Arbor alba major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 72, t. 16.
Arbor alba minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 76, t. 17.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 208, August 1, 1913, on
open hillsides, altitude about 150 meters, locally known as kayu putt.
Myrtus leucadendra Linn. as originally published included
both ¢t. 16 and t. 17 of Rumphius. Myrtus leucadendra Linn.,
Melaleuca leucadendra Linn., Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb., M. tri-
nervis Ham., and possibly M. minor Sm. are all typified by the
Rumphian descriptions and figures. Some authors have as-
sumed that t. 17, f. 2, represents a distinct species, which has
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Cajuputi Adans. (1763) is older.
MELASTOMATACEAE 403
been indicated as Melaleuca minor Sm. and M. trinervis Ham.,
but which seems to be merely a form of Melaleuca leucadendra
Linn. Cajukelam Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 74 may or may not
be identical with Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. Nearly all
authors have cited Arbor alba Rumph. under Melaleuca leuca-
dendron Linn., but Linnaeus’s original spelling is here retained,
as he apparently never adopted the form “lewcadendron.” Me-
laleuca leucadendra Linn. is an exceedingly variable species
as already noticed by Bentham.
MELASTOMATACEAE
OTANTHERA Blume
OTANTHERA CYANOIDES (Sm.) Triana in Trans. Linn. Soc. 28 (1871)
55.
Melastoma cyanoides Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 23 (1818) no. 56, 57.
Melastoma moluccanum Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1078.
Fragarius ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1385, t. 71.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 512, July 31, 1918,
on wooded hillsides, altitude about 10 meters.
Melastoma cyanoides Sm. was based on a specimen collected
in Amboina by Mr. Christopher Smith in October, 1796, Fra-
gartus ruber Rumph. and Katou-Kadali Rheede being cited as
synonyms; Rheede’s synonym must be excluded as it is not the
same as the Amboina plant. Linnaeus erroneously reduced F'ra-
gartus ruber to Melastoma asperum Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1022, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 560, in which he was followed by
numerous authors. Murray, Syst. (1771) 336, erroneously re-
duced it to Melastoma malabathricum Linn. Blume reduced it
to Melastoma moluccanum Blume in the original description of
that species and later cited it under Otanthera moluccana
Blume, both of which are manifestly synonyms of Otanthera
cyanoides (Sm.) Triana. I am indebted to Sir David Prain,
director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, England, for a transcript
of Smith’s original description and for a comparison of Robin-
son’s specimen with the type of Smith’s species, which is pre-
served in the herbarium of the Linnean Society, London.
MELASTOMA Linnaeus
MELASTOMA POLYANTHUM Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 480.
Fragarius niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 187, t. 72.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 508, July 31, 1913, on
hillsides at low altitudes, locally known as biroro and daun biroro.
The specimen is apparently referable to Melastoma polyan-
A04 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
thum Blume as currently interpreted, although the limits of
Blume’s species and the differential characters by which it can
be distinguished from other forms are not at all clear. Lin-
naeus originally reduced Fragarius niger Rumph. to Melastoma
octandrum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 127, an entirely erroneous disposition of it.
Later, Mant. 2 (1771) 381, he transferred it to Melastoma
malabathricum Linn., to which Melastoma polyanthum Blume is
certainly closely allied. This reduction has been accepted by
numerous authors, including Cogniaux in the latest monograph
of the family, DC. Monog. Phan. 7 (1891) 349. Loureiro placed
it with doubt under Melastoma septemnerve Lour., and Blume |
himself transferred it to Melastoma polyanthum BI., the latter |
certainly the most satisfactory position for it.
Another specimen from Amboina, Rel. Robins. 2027, from
Kati-kati, altitude 80 meters, may represent a form of Melas-
toma polyanthum Blume, and at the same time may represent
Fragarius niger Rumph., at least in part. It differs from the
specimen cited above under Melastoma polyanthum Blume in
its somewhat longer calyx-lobes and in other minor characters.
MELASTOMA sp.
Fragarius ruber grandifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 136.
AMBOINA, Mahiya, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 511, October 3, 1918, in
light woods at an altitude of about 350 meters. 7
The specimen almost certainly represents the form described
by Rumphius as Fragarius ruber grandifolius, and at the same
time probably represents an undescribed species of Melastoma.
Unfortunately incomplete material is represented, the petals
and stamens having fallen. The branches, branchlets, and
leaves are supplied with scattered, minute, appressed scales,
and the calyx-tube is densely covered with pale, spreading,
curved, linear-lanceolate, acuminate, long, very slightly fimbriate,
rather stiff paleae. The flowers are terminal and solitary. It
seems to be most closely allied to the Philippine Melastoma
lanaense Merr., but is very different from that species. |
MEDINILLA Gaudichaud
MEDINILLA CRISPATA (Linn.) Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 517.
Melastoma crispatum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 560 (type!).
Funis muraenarum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 66, t. 35, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati and Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 509, 510,
October 19 and September 19, 1913, climbing on trees, altitude 40 to 70
meters.
_ MELASTOMATACEAE 405
This is a very characteristic species; it is well figured by
- Rumphius, and accordingly its synonymy is very simple. Funis
muraenarum mas Rumph. is the whole basis of Melastoma cris-
patum Linn., which was transferred to Medinilla by Blume in
18381. Linnaeus first erroneously reduced it to Melastoma
malabathricum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, but
soon recognized the error and in the reprint of Stickman’s paper,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128, he excluded the reduction to Melas-
toma malabathricum and still later, in 1762, made the Rumphian
description and figure the type of Melastoma crispatum Linn.
MEDINILLA MACROCARPA Blume in Flora 14 (18381) 510; Rumphia 1
(1885) Al4, b.) 2,
Frutex muraenarum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67, t. 35, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 569, August 25, 1913, in
forests, altitude about 250 meters.
This is ‘certainly the correct disposition of Frutex muraena-
rum femina Rumph., the reduction having been made by Blume,
whose description and figure, however, were based on Amboina
specimens collected by Zippel.
MEDINILLA sp.
Funis muraenarum I!| Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 67.
This should be a very characteristic species, judging from
Rumphius’s description, which calls for a vine with solitary
(that is, alternate) leaves, 8 to 10 inches long and 5 to 6 inches
wide, long-acuminate, with 10 or 11 oblique nerves and many
transverse nervules. Blume, Rumphia 1 (1835) 15, referred it
to Medinilla crassinervia Blume, with which, however, it does
not at all agree. Its exact status must await further botanical
exploration of Amboina.
ASTRONIA Noronha
ASTRONIA PAPETARIA Blume in Flora 14 (1831) 526; Rumphia 1 (1835)
20. :t246.
Pharmacum papetarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 134, t. 69.
AMBOINA, Way tommo and Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 518, 514,
August 19 and October 14, 1913, in light forests, altitude 50 to 325 meters,
locally known as daun tabal.
Blume’s description and figure were based on specimens col-
lected in Amboina by Zippel, and he reduced here Pharmacum
papetartum Rumph., which is certainly the correct disposition of
it, and a reduction that has been accepted by all subsequent
authors. The species is known only from Ternate and Amboina.
406 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
OENOTHERACEAE
JUSSIEUA Linnaeus |
JUSSIEUA SUFFRUTICOSA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 388.
Herba vitilaginum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 49, t. 21, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 259, July 25, 1918, in wet places
near the town of Amboina.
Herba vitilaginum was reduced by Linnaeus to Jussieua suf-
fruticosa, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 134, but in his Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 1021, he errone-
ously cited ¢. 417 instead of t. 21. In the second edition of his
Species Plantarum (1762) 556 he erroneously placed it under
Jussieua erecta Linn., an American species. By other authors
it has been placed under Jussieua angustifolia Lam. Encycl. 3
(1789) 331, Lamarck himself citing the Rumphian description
and figure as possibly or probably representing his species. The
actual type was a Javan specimen, and the species does not
appear to be specifically distinct from the older J. suffruticosa
Linn. |
ARALIACEAE
OSMOXYLON Miquel
OSMOXYLON UMBELLIFERUM (Lam.) comb. nov.
Aralia umbellifera Lam. Encycl. 1 (1788) 224 (type!).
Hedera umbellifera DC. Prodr. 4 (18380) 262 (type!).
Hedera amboinensis DC. ex Boerl. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887)
124 im’ syn:
Gastonia saururoides Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 90, nomen nudum.
Gastonia sasuroides Roxb. FI]. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 408.
Osmoxylon amboinense Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 1 (1863) 6.
Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 54, ¢. 12.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections
and is not definitely known to be represented by Amboina speci-
mens in any herbarium. Pseudo-sandalum amboinense Rumph.,
which is excellently figured, is the whole basis of Aralia umbelli-
fera Lam.; and this, being the earliest valid specific name for
the species, is here adopted. The figure is cited by de Candolle
and by Miquel, while Boerlage, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6
(1887) 124, confines Osmoxylon amboinense Miq. to the Amboina
plant originally described and figured by Rumphius, redescribing
the New Guinea specimen, cited by Miquel, as Osmoxylon
miquelit Boerl. Amboina material is necessary for study and
comparison, however, before the relationships of the two forms
ARALIACEAE 407
can be satisfactorily determined. Gastonia sasuroides Roxb.
(or saururoides) is a probable synonym, as suggested by Miquel;
in literature generally it is given as G. saururoides Roxb., as
originally printed in the Hortus Bengalensis. However, in Rox-
burgh’s Flora Indica it is given as G. saswroides. In the very
short description the Rumphian figure is crted as being nearly
allied, and the specific name was taken from the local name
sasuru, cited by Rumphius. Roxburgh’s type’ was from the
Moluccas.
BOERLAGIODENDRON Harms
BOERLAGIODENDRON PALMATUM (Lam.) Harms in Engl. & Prantl
Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3° (1894) 31.
Aralia palmata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 224 (type!).
Trevesia zippeliana Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1868) 11.
Trevesia moluccana Miq. in Bonplandia 4 (1856) 137, Fl. Ind. Bat.
1* (1857) 748.
Eschweileria palmata Zipp. ex Boerl. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6
C1887), 116, t 14.
Unjala bifida Reinw. ex Boerl. |. c. a
Osmoxyion moluccanum Bece. Malasia 1 (1878) 195.
Osmoxylon zippelianum Bece. 1. ec.
Folium polypi mas (et femina?) Rumph Herb. Amb. 4: 101, t. 42.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 389, September 5, 19138, in
light forests, altitude 20 meters; Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 388,
August 31, 1918, in forests, altitude 375 meters, locally known as papaya
utan and poppya utan.
Folium polyp. as figured and described by Rumphius is the
whole basis of Avralia palmata Lam., which supplies the oldest
valid specific name for this rather much-named species. All
early authors, who had occasion to consider it, followed Lamarck
in this reduction; but Miquel, overlooking the fact that the
Rumphian figure and description typified Aralia palmata Lam.,
referred it to Trevesia moluccana Mig. The synonymy is given
by Boerlage, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 6 (1887) 116, who in
taking up Zippel’s unpublished name Eschwetleria overlooked
or ignored, as a synonym of Lecythis, the previous use of the
same name by Martius for a South American genus of Lecy-
thidaceae; Eschweilera Mart. is now recognized as a valid
genus distinct from Lecythis. Harms accordingly proposed the
new generic name Boerlagiodendron, no other being available
for the plants Boerlage placed in E’'schweileria Zipp. Boerlage
gives an ample description of the species and an excellent illustra-
tion and cites specimens from Amboina, Banda, and Celebes.
AOS RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
SCHEFFLERA Forster
SCHEFFLERA sp.
Brassaia littorea Seem. Journ. Bot. 2 (1864) 244 (type!).
Papaja litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 150, t. 52.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Brassaia littorea Seem. was based wholly on Rumphius’s figure
and description. As its status is entirely uncertain, no direct
transfer is here made to Schefflera, where Papaja litorea Rumph.
manifestly belongs. Walpers, Repert. 2 (1843) 430, reduced it to
Aralia longifolia Reinw., the original publication of which I
have not seen, but which is apparently the same as the Javanese
Sciodaphyllum longifolium Blume; in Index Kewensis the latter
is given as a synonym of Brassaia littorea Seem. It has also
been referred to Paratropia longifolia DC. by DeVriese, Pl.
Ind. Bat. Or. (1845) 89, and was mentioned by Miquel, FI. Ind.
Bat. 1! (1856-57) 760, following Paratropia macrostachya Miq.,
‘as a possible representative of Paratropia. 'Teysmann, cited
by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 20, thought that it might
possibly be Paratropia macrostachya Miq. The species is such
a characteristic one and has such large leaflets and long petioles,
that it should be readily recognized when once collected in
Amboina.
POLYSCIAS Forster
POLYSCIAS NODOSA (Blume) Seem. in Journ. Bot. 3 (1865) 181.
Aralia nodosa Blume Bijdr. (1826) 873.
Paratropia nodosa DC. Prodr. 4 (18380) 265.
Hedera nodosa Hassk. in Hoev. & De Vriese Tijdschr. Nat. Gesch. 10
(1843) 181.
Aralia umbraculifera Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 22, nomen nudum,
Fl. Inde ed..2,'2 (18382) 108.
Eupteron nodosum Miq. in Bonplandia 4 (1856) 139; FI. Ind. Bat.
1” (1857) 762.
Papaja silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 149, t. 58, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Ermes, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 386, August 9, 1913, on
forested hillsides, altitude about 250 meters, locally known as pata tulan
and patu tulong.
The figure is very poor and is scarcely recognizable as Poly-
scias nodosa Seem., yet the description applies unmistakably
to this species. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 2 (1799) 549, mislead by the
‘very poor figure, erroneously referred it to Bergera koenigiu
Linn. Roxburgh, FI. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 108, cites it as a syn-
onym of his Aralia umbraculifera, which was described from
specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta, origin-
ating in the Moluccas, and which is an exact synonym of
ARALIACEAE 409
Polyscias nodosa Seem. Miquel cites it as a synonym of Eupteron
nodosum (Blume) Miq., while Seemann quotes it in the original
transfer of the species to Polyscias as cited above.
NOTHOPANAX Miquel
NOTHOPANAX SCUTELLARIUM (Burm. f.) comb. nov.
Crassula scutellaria Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 78.
Aralia cochleata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 224 (type!).
Panax cochleatum DC. Prodr. 4 (1880) 253 (type!).
Panax scutellarioides Reinw. in Blume Bijdr. (1826) 880.
Nothopanax cochleatum Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1857) 766.
Scutellaria prima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 75, t. 31.
This commonly cultivated and characteristic shrub is not
represented in our Amboina collections. The first post-Linnean
description of the species seems to be that of Burman f., whose
specific name is here adopted. Burman cites Scutellaria prima
Rumph. as a synonym of his Crassula scutellaria, but by error
cites the illustration as t. 30 instead of t. 31. Rumphius’s figure
and description are the whole basis of Aralia cochleata Lam.,
and hence of Panax cochleatum DC. and of Nothopanax cochle-
atum Miquel. The Rumphian figure has for the most part
been cited in literature under the names Panax cochleatum DC.
and Aralia cochleata Lam.
NOTHOPANAX TRICOCHLEATUM Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. Suppl. (1862) 340.
Panax rumphu Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 220
(Neue Schlissel 78) (type!).
Scutellaria secunda latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 76.
This cultivated form is not represented in our Amboina col-
lections. Panax rumphi Hassk. was based wholly on the
Rumphian description and has been overlooked by all subsequent
authors; it is not included in Index Kewensis. From the de-
scription compiled by Hasskarl and from Rumphius’s original
and more ample description, I can see no reason for considering
it other than Nothopanax tricochleatum Miq. The form de-
scribed by Rumphius in this chapter as daulde probably belongs
in Nothopanax, but the description is too indefinite to warrant
its certain reduction.
NOTHOPANAX PINNATUM (Lam.) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1* (1857) 766.
Panax pinnatum Lam. Encycl. 2 (1788) 715 (type!).
Panax ? secundum Schultes Syst. 6 (1820) 215 (type!).
Polyscias rumphiana Harms in Engi. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam 3°
(1894) 45.
Scutellaria secunda angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 76, t. 32.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
A410 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
A form that almost certainly represents the Rumphian plant
is in cultivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java,
“XII—J-31,” which originated in the Moluccas. The Rumphian
description and figure are the whole basis of Panax pinnatum
Lam. and Panax secundum Schultes and hence of Nothopanax
pinnatum Mig. Most authors have followed Lamarck and cite
the Rumphian plant as Panax pinnatum Lam. The species is
as yet very imperfectly known, and its relationship to several
forms distinguished in comparatively recent years in horticul-
tural literature is obscure, such as Aralia maculata Truff., Aralia
guilfoylec Cogn. & March., etc. Polyscias rumphiana Harms was
proposed by Harms in transferring the species to Polyscias, on
account of the earlier Polyscias pinnata Forst. However,
Schultes’s name was available, although overlooked by Doctor
Harms.
NOTHOPANAX FRUTICOSUM (Linn.) Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 (1857) 765.
Panax fruticosum Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 15138.
Scutellaria tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 78, t. 38.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 387, September 25, 1913, cultivated
or semicultivated, near the town of Amboina, locally known as pagar pagar.
The Rumphian name and figure are cited by Linnaeus in the
original description of the species, and in this reduction he has
been consistently followed by nearly all authors. I prefer, how-
ever, to follow Miquel in considering the species under Notho-
panax. Harms, in Engl. and Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3°
(1894) 43-45, places all species of Nothopanax under Polyscias.
PANAX Linnaeus
PANAX GINSENG C. A. Mey. in Bull. Phys.-Math. Acad. Pétersb. 1
(1848) 340.
Radix sinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 42, t. 21, f. 1.
There is little doubt that the plant discussed by Rumphius
is the common Chinese ginseng, but the figure given by Rumph-
ius, other than that of the root, appears to be largely imagi-
nary. Henschel referred it to Siwm ninst Linn., a species the
status of which is not understood; it may prove to be the oldest
name for Panax ginseng. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190,
placed it under Sium siarum Linn. var. ninsi DC.; both this
reduction and the one suggested above are open to serious objec-
tions, although the matter of the exact identity of the plant
Rumphius discussed is of slight importance, as no question of
nomenclature is involved.
UMBELLIFERAE 41
UMBELLIFERAE
CENTELLA Linnaeus
CENTELLA ASIATICA (Linn.) Urban in Mart. Fl. Bras. 11*: 287.
Hydrocotyle asiatica Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 234.
Pes equinus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 455, t. 169, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 326, August 1, 1918,
common up to an altitude of 300 meters.
The reduction of Pes equinus to Hydrocotyle asiatica was first
made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 188, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 958, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762)
338, which has been followed by many succeeding authors.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 176, cites the Rumphian figure
as representing the new genus and species Trisanthus cochinchin-
ensis Lour., which is a synonym of Centella asiatica (Linn.)
Urban.
ANTHERISCUS Bernhardi
ANTHERISCUS sp.?
Levisticum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 269, t. 93, f. 3.
Nothing resembling this is represented in our Amboina col-
lections, and Levisticum indicum Rumph. has never been satisfac-
torily reduced. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 179, places
it under Bubon macedonicus Linn.=Athamantha macedonica
Spreng., while Henschel thought it might be Ligusticum striatum
Roxb.=Selinum striatum Benth. & Hook. f.; the range of this,
Himalayan, makes the suggested reduction of Rumphius’s Levis-
ticum indicum an impossible one. MHasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 119, mentions the resemblance of the figure to Apium in-
volucratum Roxb. and Cnidium diffusum DC. Field work and a
critical study of the various species of Umbelliferae cultivated
in the Malay Archipelago should solve the problem of the status
of Levisticum indicum, as Rumphius states that the plant was
cultivated only, and that it was rare in Amboina, but more
abundant in Java and Ternate. It may prove to be Antheriscus
cereifolium Hoftm., which Koorders reports from Java, but should
be critically compared with Ligusticum acutilobum Sieb. & Zucc.
CARUM Ruppius
CARUM COPTICUM (Linn.) Benth. ex C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. Fl. Brit.
ind. 2 (1879) 682.
Ammi copticum Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 56.
Ligusticum ajowan Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 21, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1882) 91.
412 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Ptychotis ajowan DC. Prodr. 4 (1880) 109.
Carum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 270.
Amudium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 270.
The form described by Rumphius under the name Carum is
unquestionably Ptychotis ajowan DC.=Carum copticum Benth.,
for which Rumphius cites the native names aydjuan and djintam
soa. Henschei thought that it might be de Candolle’s species.
Amudium was thought by Henschel to be Ptychotis roxburgh-
iana DC.=Carum roxburghianum Benth. It is certainly ident-
ical with the Philippine form described by Blanco as Ammi
glaucifoium (non Linn.) Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 218—Daucus
anisodorus Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 150, for which he cites
the native name lamudio. Rumphius took his data regarding
Amudium from Nieremberg’s description of the Philippine
plant.
Of uncertain status, other than that it is an umbelliferous
plant, is Mussi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 271. It may be Carum
carvi Linn., but the description is too indefinite to be at all
certain. Mussi is given by Rumphius as the Javanese name.
CRITHMUM Linnaeus
CRITHMUM MARITIMUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 246.
Crithamus verus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 166, t. 72, f. 2.
The plant discussed is the European Crithmum maritimum
Linn., and it was apparently figured from European specimens.
MYRSINACEAE
MAESA Forskal
MAESA TETRANDRA (Roxb.) A. DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 82.
Baeobotrys tetrandra Roxb. FI. Ind. 2 (1824) 238.
Maesa amboinensis Scheff. Comm. Myrsin. Archip. Ind. (1867) 29.
Perlarius 11 Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 122, t. 57.
AMBOINA, Mahija, Koesoekoesoe sereh, Amahoesoe, and town of Amboina,
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 241, 242, 234, July to October, 1913, in thickets
and light forests, sea level to an altitude of 300 meters, locally known as
kayo mani mani.
Perlarius II Rumph. was reduced by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 124, fo Dartus perlarius Lour., the specific name being
taken from Rumphius. The plant actually described was from
Cochin-China and manifestly is not the same as the Amboina
one figured and described by Rumphius. In this erroneous
reduction Loureiro has been followed by Poiret, Roemer and
MYRSINACEAE — A138
Schultes, Henschel, Kosteletzky, Don, Endlicher, Walpers,
Pritzel, A. de Candolle, and Miquel. Rumphius’s figure, while
crude, is a fair representation of Maesa tetrandra A. DC., the
type of which was from the Moluccas, probably Amboina, while
the description applies perfectly. I consider the correctness of
this reduction absolutely certain.
The form described in the same chapter as Perlarius III silvestris
is one of uncertain status. It may be an allied species of Maesa
or may refer to a species of some other genus or even of some
other family; Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 84, thought that it might be a Callicarpa.
AEGICERAS Gaertner
AEGICERAS CORNICULATUM (Linn.) Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 79.
Rhizophora corniculata Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123 (type!).
Rhizophora aegiceras Gmel. Syst. (1791) 747.
Aegiceras majus Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 216, t. 46.
Aegiceras minus Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 216 p. p., quoad syn. Rumph.
Umbraculum corniculatum O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 405.
Mangium fruticans | corniculatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 117, t. 77.
Umbraculum maris ceramense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 124, ft. 82.
Umbraculum maris amboinense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 124.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 254, July 28, 1913, along
’ tidal streams, locally known as brappat.
Mangium fruticans I corniculatum Rumph. is the whole basis
of Rhizophora corniculata Linn.—Aegiceras corniculatum
(Linn.) Blanco, as cited in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 138,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 10438, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 635. It has also been cited by various authors
under Aegiceras majus Gaertn. and under Aegiceras fragrans
Koenig, both synonyms of Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.)
Blanco. Umbraculum maris ceramense Rumph. is manifestly
the same as Mangium fruticans I corniculatum Rumph. and was
reduced by Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 216, to Aegiceras minus
Gaertn. in the original description of that species. Aegiceras
minus Gaertn. is, however, to be typified by the species figured
by him, a Ceylon plant, which is Rouwrea santaloides (Vahl)
W. & A.=Rourea minor (Gaertn.). Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret,
Roemer and Schultes, Sprengel, Henschel, Spanoghe, de Candolle,
Pritzel, and Miquel have followed Gaertner in this reduction, but
Aegiceras minus Gaertn., in part, only as to the Rumphian syn-
onym, is Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco. Umbraculum
maris amboinensis Rumph. is placed here after Mez in Engl.
A14 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Pflanzenreich 9 (1902) 56, but may well be the same as Aegiceras '
floridum Roem. & Schultes.
AEGICERAS FLORIDUM Roem. & Schultes Syst. 4 (1819) 512 (type!).
Aegiceras ferreum Blume Bijdr. (1826) 693. ;
Aegiceras nigricans A. Rich. Voy. Astrolabe 2 (1834) 57, t. 21.
Mangium floridum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 125, t. 88.
Mangium ferreum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 120 p. p., quoad t. 79,
fA: iB:
Mangium fruticans I! parvifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 117.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 253, October 31, 1918, along
the seashore.
Mangium floridum Rumph. is the whole basis of Aegiceras
floridum Roem. & Schultes, a species very different from Aegi-
ceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco. The flowering and fruiting
branchlets figured on t. 79, f. A, B, under Mangium ferreum
Rumph. are also manifestly referable to Aegiceras floridum
R. & S., although Mangium ferrewm Rumph. is for the most
part Pemphis acidula Forst. (see p. 382). Mangium fruticans
II parvifolium Rumph. is also apparently referable to this species,
judging from the description; while Umbraculum maris am-
boinense Rumph., Herb. Amb. 3: 124, may be referable to
Aegiceras floridum R. & S., rather than to Aegiceras cornicu-
latum (Linn.) Blanco where I have placed it.
PLUMBAGINACEAE
PLUMBAGO Linnaeus
PLUMBAGO INDICA Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1838 (type!).
Plumbago rosea Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 215.
Plumbago coccinea Salisb. Prodr. (1796) 122.
Radix vesicatoria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 453, t. 168.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 221, August 16, 1913.
Plumbago indica Linn., validly published by citation of
Rumphius, is not included in Index Kewensis, and this specific
name has been entirely overlooked by all botanists. Linnaeus,
Systema, ed. 10 (1759) 921, abandoned the name Plumbago
indica and erroneously referred Radix vesicatoria to Plumbago
zeylanica Linn. In the Species Plantarum, ed. 2 (1762) 215, he
referred it correctly to Plumbago rosea Linn., but this now
becomes a synonym of the older name, Plumbago indica Linn.
The description is unmistakably that of the plant commonly
known as Plumbago rosea Linn. and as P. coccinea Salisb.; the
figure is not particularly good, although manifestly a Plumbago.
SAPOTACEAE A415
SAPOTACEAE
PAYENA A. de Candolle
PAYENA LEERII (Teysm. & Binn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 40”
(1871) 69.
Azaola leertti Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 6 (1854)
116.
Hapaloceras ? arupa Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9
(1866) 193 (Neue Schliissel 51) (type!).
Arupa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 66, t. 38.
Under Arupa Rumphius briefly describes two forms which he
indicates as Arupa alba and Arupa rubra. He distinctly states
that the flowers and fruits were unknown to him, yet figures a
plant with fruits, probably the one mentioned in the postscript
following the original description. Arupa alba Rumph. is the
whole basis of Hapaloceras arupa Hassk., a name not listed in
Index Kewensis. The illustration, and for that matter the de-
scription, applies fairly well to Payena leerit Kurz, a species
already reported from Amboina by Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot.
Buitenz. 5 (1885) 56. This may, however, prove not to be the
correct disposition of Arupa, but this matter can be definitely
determined only after a more comprehensive exploration of
Amboina. The form very imperfectly described as Arupa rubra
probably pertains to some entirely different plant, but its status
is wholly problematical and cannot be determined from the
description. The figure might pass for Cratoxylon formosum
Dyer, but the indicated size of the leaves and the fruit charac-
ters, aS given in the description, make this identification an
impossible one.
PALAQUIUM Blanco
PALAQUIUM AMBOINENSE Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 (1885) 37.
Cicadaria latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 210, t. 135?
The figure conforms fairly well with specimens of Burck’s
species taken from. trees cultivated in the botanic garden at
Buitenzorg, Java. The correctness of the reduction, however,
is very doubtful. _Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliis-
sel (1866) 68, referred it to the Sapotaceae, where it certainly
belongs.
The forms described in this chapter as Cicadaria angustifolia
and as C. zeylanica are undeterminable, and probably neither
belongs in this family.
PALAQUIUM sp.?
Sicchius | mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 40, t. 21?
Sicechius I mas is of very doubtful status, and the description
A16 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
is possibly a mixture of the characters of two different species.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 48, quotes it under Hapaloceras
leer Hassk.—Keratophorus leer Hassk.—Payena leeri Kurz,
where it certainly does not belong; at least the form figured by
Rumphius. He also suggests that it is an Aegiceras, an equally
wrong disposition of it. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, con-
sidered that it belonged to the Sapotaceae. The description and
the plate indicate Sapotaceae, but no species is known to me
that conforms with the characters indicated by Rumphius. The
drawing of the fruit certainly represents no sapotaceous plant,
and it does not conform with Rumphius’s description. The
name sicki in Amboina appears to be applicable to Litsea, but
the plant figured and described is no lauraceous species.
SIDEROXYLON Linnaeus
SIDEROXYLON MICROCARPUM Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5
(1885) 7,
Arbor facum major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 77, t. 49.
Rumphius’s figure is an excellent one and unmistakably rep-
resents a Sideroxylon, and I believe S. microcarpum Burck in
spite of the discrepancies between the fruit as figured by
Rumphius and as described by Burck. The type of Sideroxylon
microcarpum Burck was from Amboina, with the native names
ay-lapei and kajoe lapei-lapei; two names cited by Rumphius
are caju lobe and caju lape-lape. The figure agrees very closely
with flowering specimens from trees cultivated in the botanic
garden at Buitenzorg. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 234, cites
it with doubt under Bassia longifolia Lam., where it manifestly
does not belong. The only other suggested indentification of it
is Teysmann’s reference of it to the Sapotaceae, as quoted by
Hasskarl.
SIDEROXYLON sp.
Sicchius Il femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 41, t. 22?
The figure certainly represents a sapotaceous plant and is prob-
ably a species of Sideroxylon as placed by Teysmann in Hassk.
Neue Schliissel (1866) 49. It has, however, much the appear-
ance of Payena leertt Kurz, which is known from Amboina.
The brief description given by Rumphius does not agree with
the figure as to fruit characters. It is certainly no Hlaeocarpus
as suggested by Hasskarl. The form briefly described as
Sicchius III in this chapter is entirely undeterminable.
ae ee
SAPOTACEAE A417
SIDEROXYLON sp.
Lignum eurinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 63, t. 35.
There is no previous reduction of Lignum eurinum Rumph.
except Hasskarl’s tentative suggestion that it might be Melan-
thesia or Maesa. The presence of milky sap, mentioned by
Rumphius in the description, invalidates these suggested reduc-
tions. The plant is undoubtedly a species of Sideroxylon; it
closely matches specimens from plants cultivated in the botanic
garden at Buitenzorg distributed as Sideroxylon attenuatum A.
DC., var. amboinense Scheff. If these are correctly named, they
are certainly specifically distinct from Sideroxylon attenuatum
A. DC.
MIMUSOPS Linnaeus
MIMUSOPS ELENG! Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 349.
Flos cuspidum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 189, t. 62.
This common and well-known species is not represented in
our Amboina collections. Rumphius states that it was an intro-
duced plant in Amboina, as it is in most parts of the Malayan
region. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1000, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 497, which is manifestly the
correct disposition of Flos cuspidum and has been accepted by
all authors.
MIMUSOPS PARVIFOLIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 581.
Tanjonus litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 198, t. 64.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. The species is
manifestly a Mimusops, and I cannot distinguish it from a large
series of specimens from the coastal regions in the Philippines,
others from Celebes, and others from New Caledonia that I
believe represent Mimusops parvifolia R. Br. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 39, states “ob calycem quadripartitum insignis
arbor et Mimusopi aliena;’”’ while Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl,
]. c., referred it to Uvaria tripetala Roxb. Burman f., FI. Ind.
(1768) 86, reduced it to Mimusops elengi Linn. The whole de-
scription, except the 4-parted calyx, native names, etc., is Mimu-
sops, and the figure is an excellent representation of Mimusops,
with some of the calyces indicated as 5-parted, while Rumphius
definitely states that the flowers and fruits are very similar to
those of the domesticated tanjonus, that is, the form considered
by him in the preceding chapter, Mimusops elengi Linn.
144971———27
A18 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MIMUSOPS KAUKI Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 349.
Metrosideros macassarensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 19, ft. 8,
This reduction was originally made by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 11, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1000, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 497, which has been accepted
by most authors and is probably the correct disposition of the
Rumphian species. Rumphius’s material was from Celebes, not
from Amboina. Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1797) 186, referred it to
Mimusops obtusifolia Lam., but this species was based on actual
specimens, and it may or may not prove to be the same as
Mimusops kauki Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 47,
considered that the flowers represented by t. 8 were referable
to Mimusops manilkara Don, but this species is supposed to be a
synonym of Mimusops kauki Linn.
SAPOTACEAE indet.
Vidoricum silvestre I! Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 184.
Gaertner, Fruct. 2 (1794) 104, mentions this in the original
description of Bassia dubia Gaertn. as possibly representing
that species. Bassia dubia Gaertn. is an entirely doubtful spe-
cies of which the flowers and leaves are unknown. Its country
of origin is also unknown, except that it probably came from the
Indo-Malayan region.
SAPOTACEAE indet.
Vidoricum silvestre 1V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185, t. 118.
The form figured is possibly a species of Sideroxylon, but the
figure does not conform especially well with the description of
Vidoricum silvestre IV, which it is supposed to represent. It
may be the form of Vidoricum that Gaertner intended to cite
under Bassia dubia Gaertn., but he does not mention the figure.
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 65,
thought that it might be a Diospyros. This is possibly the
correct disposition of the description, but is manifestly not the
correct disposition of the figure.
The other forms described under Vidoricum are all indeter-
minable from data at present available. They are as follows:
Vidoricum silvestre Il var. Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 184.
Vidoricum II| Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185.
Vidoricum V Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 185.
Vidoricum VI Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 186.
SAPOTACEAE indet.
Lignum clavorum Rumph. Herb.’ Amb. 3: 97, t. 64.
This was placed by Henschel, with doubt, under Calophyllum
EBENACEAE A419
spurium Choisy, in Vita Rumph. (1833) 156, following Rumph-
ius’s comparison of it with Tsj7erou-Ponna of Rheede, Hort.
Malabar. 4: 81. Its status is indeterminable from the data at
present available, although it undoubtedly belongs in the Sapo-
taceae. This was Teysmann’s disposition of it, as quoted by
Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 55.
EBENACEAE
MABA Forster
MABA BUXIFOLIA (Rottb.) Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 606?
Pisonia ? buxifolia Rottb. in Nye Saml. Kong. Danske Skrift. 2
(1788) 586,04, f. 2
Maba ebenus Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 126 (type!).
Ebenus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 1, ¢. 1.
Nothing resembling this is represented in our Amboina col-
lections. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 613, discusses it under
his Hbenoxylum verum, which manifestly is a species of Maba,
but certainly not Maba elliptica Forst. where it was placed by
Hiern, Trans. Cambr. Philos. Soc. 12 (1878) 122. lLoureiro’s
species must be interpreted from his original specimens or,
failing these, from Cochin-China material. It is apparently a
form of Maba buaxifolia Pers. or a closely allied species. Maba
ebenus Spreng. is based wholly on Rumphius and must be
interpreted from the Rumphian figure and description. From
Rumphius’s description of the flower as 3-merous the species is
a Maba, not a Diospyros.
Ebenus e Madagascar Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 6 is indetermin-
able; Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 46, suggested that it might
be Maba madagascariensis A. DC.
DIOSPYROS Linnaeus
DIOSPYROS MARITIMA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 669.
Ebenus molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 6, t. 2.
Nothing resembling this species is presented by our Amboina
collections. Hbenus moluwcca Rumph. is certainly a species of
Diospyros, and it is either D. maritima Blume or a very closelv
allied form. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1859) 1049, suggested that
the Rumphian plant pertained to Diospyros, but no further deter-
mination of it has been suggested by other authors.
DIOSPYROS EBENUM Koen. in Physiogr. Salsk. Handl. 1 (1776) 176?
Hebenaster Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 18, t. 6.
Nothing resembling this species occurs in our Amboina col-
lections. Hebenaster has been referred to Diospyros ebenaster
420 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Retz. by various authors, but this does not seem to be the proper
disposition of it. I agree with Scott * that it conforms much
better with Diospyros ebenum Koen. than with D. ebenaster
Retz. The exact identity of Hebenaster cannot be determined
until actual Moluccan specimens are available for comparison.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 227, erroneously refers it to his
Diospyros decandra; but Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1859) 1047,
definitely reduces it to Diospyros ebenum Koen., and Roxburgh,
Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 529 expresses the same opinion. Still
another species is probably represented by Hebenaster amalyensis
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 15, casually discussed under Hebenaster.
Native names given by Rumphius are: Amboina, lolin, lorin,
secur; Banda, boa djarong; Uliassar and Ceram, ahuelli.
DIOSPYROS KAKI Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 439.
Anona sariffa Roxb. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833) 142 (type!).
Khi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 187.
Rumphius describes one of the Chinese persimmons, which
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 19, refers
to Diospyros kaki Linn., this doubtless being the correct disposi-
tion of it. Annona sariffa Roxb., as published by Henschel, does
not otherwise appear in botanical literature; it is typified by
the Rumphian description and hence becomes a synonym of
Diospyros kaki Linn. The name is not listed in Index Kewensis.
DIOSPYROS sp.?
Ebenus alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 8, t. 3.
This may ultimately prove to be no Diospyros. The descrip-
tion is fair, but the figure of the infructescence does not look
like any Diospyros known to me. The reduction follows Teys-
mann’s opinion as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 46.
SYMPLOCACEAE
SYMPLOCOS Jacquin
SYMPLOCOS JAVANICA (Blume) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 407’
(1871) 64.
Dicalyx javanicus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1117.
Dicalyx salaccensis Blume 1. c. 1118.
Symplocos ferruginea Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 40, nomen nudum;
Fl. Ind.,ed.425,2) (saz saz:
Arbor aluminosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 160, t. 100.
Symplocos javanica Kurz (S. ferruginea Roxb.) is not repres-
* Kew Bull. (1915) 65-67.
SYMPLOCACEAE A21
ented in our Amboina collection, but the species has been
reported from Amboina, two collections, by Brand. It is
barely possible, however, that the Amboina specimens I have
referred to Symplocos syringoides Brand * represent Arbor
aluminosa; one of these specimens bears the native name kayu
reha, the second and really essential part of this name manifestly
corresponding to leha cited by Rumphius as the Amboinese name
of Arbor aluminosa. In size this shrub also agrees with Rumph-
ius’s description, but the leaves are but very slightly toothed,
while Rumphius’s figure presents leaves prominently toothed.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 315, refers Arbor aluminosa to
his Decadia aluminosa, but Decadia aluminosa was actually
described from Cochin-China specimens. Loureiro’s generic
description is faulty, as shown by S. LeM. Moore in Journ. Bot.
42 (1914) 148, who has critically examined Loureiro’s type
specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum. His con-
clusion is as follows:
On the whole, I think it likely that D[icalyx] aluminosa may be S[ym-
plocos| syringoides, as such it has been written up provisionally in the
National Herbarium.
However, Symplocos syringoides Brand is a species known
only from Amboina, and as species go in Symplocos it seems
rather improbable that the Cochin-China specimen actually
described by Loureiro is identical with the Amboina plant.
Dicalyx aluminosus Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 1117, was based essen-
tially on specimens from Java and Nusa Kambangan and is
Symplocos aluminosa (Blume) Brand. Both Loureiro’s and
Blume’s specific names were from Rumphius, but the plants
actually described are not Arbor aluminosa Rumph. If the syn-
onymy given by Brand, Engl. Pflanzenreich 6 (1901) 40, is cor-
rect, the earliest valid specific name is Symplocos javanica
(Blume) Kurz, for Symplocos ferruginea Roxb., 1814, is merely
a nomen nudum.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, has suggested that
Parens muscarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 16, t. 9, f. 2, may be a
Symplocos. There is nothing in the description that would
indicate this, while the figure presents a seedling or sapling shrub
with galls on the leaves. The status of Parens muscarum
Rumph. is quite undeterminable. The native name cited by
Rumphius is ay lala.
* Philip. Journ. Sci. 11 (1916) Bot. 304.
429 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
OLEACEAE
JASMINUM Linnaeus
JASMINUM SAMBAC (Linn.) Ait. Hort. Kew. 1 (1789) 8.
Nyctanthes sambac Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 6.
Flos manorae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 52, t. 30.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 258, August 13, 1913, on
limestone formation at an altitude of about 2 meters.
The reduction to Nyctanthes sambac was made by Linnaeus in
the year following the publication of that species, Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, and appears in Linnaeus’s later publica-
tions; but in the more modern literature it is placed under
Jasminum sambac (Linn.) Ait., this being certainly its proper
disposition. Here should be referred not only Flos manorae
Rumph., but also Flos manorae plenus Rumph. I. c. 52, t. 30 A; the
latter being the commonly cultivated form of Jasminum sambac
with double flowers.
JASMINUM sp.
Jasminum litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 54 (non 2: 86, t. 46).
The species described is undoubtedly a true Jasminum, and
from the description and habitat given by Rumphius I make
the suggestion that the plant may prove to be the same as
the widely distributed Malayan species, J. bifarium Wall. This
species, however, does not appear in our Amboina collections.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 94, made the suggestion that
it might be a Jasminum, but he was not sure as to the genus
and suggested no species. The reference is unimportant, and
no other author has even suggested a possible identification for
the plant described by Rumphius. Jasminum litoreum Rumph.
Herb. Amb. 2: 84, t. 46, is Clerodendron commersonii (Lam.)
Spreng.
MYXOPYRUM Blume
MY XOPYRUM MACROLOBUM A. W. Hill in Kew Bull. (1910) 42.
Sirioides alter Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 50, t. 29, f. 1?
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 518, October 29, 1913, on trees
along the beach. A fruiting specimen.
Sirioides alter, as figured by Rumphius, was reduced by
Kosteletzky, Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1074, to Strychnos
bicirrhosa Lesch., but is certainly not the species described by
Leschenault in Roxb. Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 267=S. colubrina Linn.
There are serious objections to the reduction of Sirioides alter
to Myxopyrum, but it is certainly Myxopyrum in part. The
figure shows a plant with tendrils, which is no Myxopyrum but
—e
LOGANIACEAE 423
a Strychnos character. Sirioides, as described by Rumphius
on page 49 and in the same chapter with Szrioides alter, is
certainly a Strychnos. It is possible that the drawing is due
to the combination of Strychnos and Myxopyrum characters
from two different plants. J am under obligations to Mr. A. W.
Hill of the Royal Gardens, Kew, England, for the determination
of No. 518 with Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill. Regard-
ing it he writes: ““‘The Myxopyrum is almost certainly M. macro-
lobum A. W. Hill, but our specimens have no fruit and yours
have no flowers.”
LOGANIACEAE
STRYCHNOS Linnaeus
STRYCHNOS MURICATA Kostel. Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3 (1884) 1072
(type!).
Strychnos ligustrina Blume Rumphia 1 (1836) 68, t. 25.
Lignum colubrinum timorense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 121, t. 38.
The plant that Rumphius figured and described under the
name Lignum colubrinum timorense was not from Amboina,
but from Timor. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1° (1797) 1052, errone-
ously reduced it to Strychnos colubrina Linn., in which he was
followed by several authors. It is the whole basis of Strychnos
muricata Kostel., which, in publication, antedates Strychnos
ligustrina Blume; the two species are certainly identical.
In spite of the fact that some of the fruits were drawn by
Rumphius’s artist as somewhat muricate, there is no doubt
whatever as to the identity of his plant with Strychnos ligustrina
Blume=S. muricata Kostel. Some authors have erroneously
cited t. 37 as representing Lignum colubrinum timorense, but
this figure represents Vidara litorea Rumph.=Ximenia amenxi-
cana Linn.
The form very briefly described by Rumphius as Upas alterum,
Herb. Amb. 2: 264, under Arbor toxicaria=Antiaria toxicaria
Lesch., is considered by Blume and by Hasskarl to be the same
as Strychnos tieute Lesch., which may be the correct disposition
of it.
STRYCHNOS BARBATA A. W. Hill in Kew Bull. (1909) 359.
Sirioides Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 49?
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 611, September 18,
1913, on cliffs, altitude about 6 meters; Liang, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
612, November 29, 1913, in light forests, altitude about 15 meters.
From Rumphius’s description Sirioides is certainly a species
of Strychnos, in all probability the form represented by the
APA RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
specimens here assigned to it. Sirzoides has not previously been
definitely placed, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 94, merely
indicating that it pertains to the Piperaceae, manifestly an
entirely erroneous identification. Sirioides alter, described by
Rumphius in the same chapter and figured, t. 29, f. 1, seems to
be Myxopyrum, although the drawing may be a combination of
Myxopyrum and Strychnos characters (see p. 422, under
Myxopyrum). Iam under obligations to Mr. A. W. Hill, of the
Royal Gardens, Kew, for the identification of the above speci-
mens with Strychnos barbata A. W. Hill. The species was
previously known only from New Guinea. Mr. Hill writes that
the specific determination of No. 612 is not certain, as it is
in fruit, while the venation of the leaves is not quite the same
as in the other number cited here, which is in flower.
FAGRAEA Thunberg
FAGRAEA AMBOINENSIS Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 166.
Fagraea littoralis Blume var. amboinensis Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 28.
Funis toaccae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 481, t. 179.
AMBOINA, Mahiya and Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 519,
August, 1913, on limestone rocks and on trees, altitude 25 to 300 meters;
Hitoe lama, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 244, November, 1913, along roadsides in
light forests, altitude about 50 meters, locally known as tonki utan.
Funis toaccae Rumph. is well figured, but rather poorly de-
scribed, perhaps erroneously described as to the seeds, the seed
characters assigned perhaps pertaining to some apocynaceous
plant. The description otherwise and the figure conform very
closely to the plants here identified as Fagraea amboinensis
Blume. Blume himself discusses Funis toaccae Rumph. in the
original description of Fagraea littoralis Blume var. amboinensis
Blume. As to the status of Fagraea amboinensis Blume as a
species distinct from other described and allied forms of the
same genus, I can express no opinion, other than that I do not
consider it the same as the Javan Fagraea littoralis Blume.
GENTIANACEAE
LIMNANTHEMUM Linnaeus
LIMNANTHEMUM INDICUM (Linn.) Griseb. Gen. Sp. Gent. (1839) 343.
Menyanthes indica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 145.
Nymphaea indica minor II ceramica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 173,
b. V2 OF NB
The Rumphian species was originally reduced to Menyanthes
endica Linn., by Linnaeus in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
a __
APOCYNACEAE 425
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, and has been cited by various
authors under this name, under Villarsia indica Vent., a syn-
onym, and under Limnanthemum indicwm Griseb. It is to be
noted that in the description of the plate in Rumphius the figure
is listed as representing Nymphaea indica minor I, but the de-
scription of this is Nymphaea; the description of Nymphaea
indica minor II ceramica is unmistakably Limnanthemum and
of the plant figured.
APOCYNACEAE
- NEUBURGIA Blume
NEUBURGIA MUSCULIFORMIS (Lam.) Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 403.
Cerbera musculiformis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 62 (type!).
Banksia musculiformis Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 221 (type!).
Neuburgia tuberculata Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 157.
Fructus musculiformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 184, t. 60.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections;
Rumphius’s material was from Ceram. Fructus musculiformis
Rumph. is the whole basis of Cerbera musculiformis Lam. and
of Banksia musculiformis Gaertn., and hence of Neuburgia
musculiformis Mig. and of N. tuberculata Blume. It is not at all
clear that Newburgia tubiflora Blume, of New Guinea, is speci-
fically distinct, and Miquel reduces it as a synonym of N. muscu-
liformis (Lam.) Miq.
CARISSA * Linnaeus
CARISSA CARANDAS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 52.
Mespilus silvestris Burm. Index Univ. Herb. Amb. (1755) [14] (type!)
non [18]?
Carissa spinarum Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 559, saltem quoad syn. Rumph.
Echites spinosa Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 69.
Capparis carandas Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 118, 119, saltem quoad
syn. Rumph.
Oxyacantha javana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 39, t. 19, f. 3?
Carandas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 57, t. 25.
Carandas Rumph. is cited in the original descriptions of all
of the species listed above, except Carissa spinarum Linn. and
Mespilus silvestris Burm., and is undoubtedly referable to typical
Carissa carandas Linn. It has been almost universally cited
under the Linnean name. Oxyacantha javana Rumph. is of
doubtful status, but is possibly the same as Carissa carandas
Linn. It was placed by Linnaeus under Carissa spinarum Linn.
in the original description of that species, but Linnaeus mani-
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Arduina Mill. (1760) and Carandas
Adans. (1763) are older.
AP6 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
festly had specimens before him when writing the description.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 318, places it under Phoberos
chinensis Lour.; Endlicher placed it under Damnacanthus; and
Dietrich placed it under Canthium indicum Dietr.—Damnacan-
thus indicus Gaertn. It is the whole basis of Mespilus silvestris
Burm. as published on page 14 of his “Index Universalis,” but
Mespilus silvestris Burm. as published on page 18 of the same
work is entirely different and is Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.)
Merr. Blume reduced Oxyacantha javana Rumph. to Carissa
carandas Linn., but there are certain objections to this reduction
in Rumphius’s description. I cannot, however, suggest any more
likely reduction of it. If correctly placed, Burman’s specific name
is the oldest valid one, but no change is here made owing to the
uncertain status of Oxyacantha javana Rumph. Spina pectinata
Rumph., Herb. Amb. 7: 39, probably also belongs here.
CHILOCARPUS Blume
CHILOCARPUS sp.
Funis pulassarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 34, ft. 21.
AMBOINA, Gelala, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 484, September 19, 1913,
along small streams, altitude about 120 meters.
Rumphius’s figure is unmistakably that of a species of Chilo-
carpus; so far as I can determine from the material available
for study, it has remained undescribed in modern botanical litera-
ture. The Amboina specimen I have referred here presents
only immature flowers, and as the Rumphian figure presents no
inflorescences, but only a branch with leaves and fruits, I con-
sider it advisable for the present merely to refer F'wunis pulassa-
rius Rumph. to the genus only. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 92, considered that Funis pulassinaye
Rumph. represented a species of Chilocarpus.
LEPINIOPSIS Valeton
LEPINIOPSIS TERNATENSIS Valet. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (1895)
302, t. 28.
Pulassarius arbor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 90, t. 60.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 73, October 8, 1913,
in forests, altitude about 200 meters.
The genus Lepiniopsis Valeton, a very characteristic one, was
originally described from specimens cultivated in the botanic
garden at Buitenzorg, Java, originating m Ternate Island.
Later, what I took to be the same species was collected in
Mindanao and has now been found to be rather widely distrib-
uted in the southern and central Philippines; this has still more ©
APOCYNACEAE 427
recently been described by Elmer as Lepiniopsis philippinensis —
Elm. Pulassarius Rumph. is manifestly identical with Lepin-
iopsis ternatensis Valet.; the Rumphian plant, up to the present
time, has not been reduced to any modern genus or species.
PLUMIERA (Plumeria) Linnaeus
PLUMIERA ACUMINATA Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 2 (1811) 70.
Plumiera acutifolia Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 2 (1812) 667 (type).
Flos convolutus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 85, t. 38.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 78, October 27, 1913, on hills
behind the town of Amboina, locally known as kalan susu and kambodja.
Flos convolutus was originally reduced by Linnaeus, by error,
to Plumiera alba Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 944, but in
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 307 he placed it, with doubt, under Plumiera
obtusa Linn., in which he was followed by Lamarck, Loureiro,
Burman f., and Willdenow. Flos convolutus Rumph. is ap-
parently the whole basis of Plumeria acutifolia Poir., which,
however, although the commonly used name for the species, is
antedated by about one year by Plumiera acuminata Aiton.
ALSTONIA R. Brown
ALSTONIA SCHOLARIS (Linn.) R. Br. in Mem. Wern. Soc. 1 (1809) 75.
Echites scholaris Linn. Mant. 1 (1867) 55.
Lignum scholare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 246, t. 82.
Not represented in our Amboina collections. Lignum scholare
Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
945, to Tabernaemontana citrifolia Linn., with which species
it has very little in common. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 69,
erroneously reduced it to Tabernaemontana alternifolia Linn. It
is cited by Linnaeus in the original description of HEchites
scholaris Linn.; it is, at least in part, the basis of this species
and hence of Alstonia scholaris (Linn.) R. Br. I can see no
valid reason for considering that the plant figured by Rumphius
is other than the one described, yet various authors, following
R. Brown and A. de Candolle, have considered that the descrip-
tion refers to Alstonia scholaris R. Br. and the figure to Alstonia
spectabilis R. Br.
ALSTONIA SUBSESSILIS Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868) 140.
Cofassus citrina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 30, t. 15.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 77, October 10, 1913,
on forested limestone hills, altitude about 150 meters.
Previously no definite determination of Cofassus citrina
Rumph. has been made, other than Burman’s statement that
428 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
it belonged in the Apocynaceae and Teysmann’s opinion, quoted
by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 48, that it was doubtfully
a representative of the genus Alstonia. The species is known
only from Amboina. The specimen cited above is apparently
identical with “IV—A—55” cultivated in the botanic garden at
Buitenzorg, Java, from Amboina, under the unpublished name
Alstonia hoedti T. & B.
TABERNAEMONTANA Plumier
TABERNAEMONTANA CAPSICOIDES sp. nov.
Capsicum silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 1383, t. 67.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 76 (type), August
11, 1913, on cleared hillsides, altitude 25 to 40 meters; Hitoe messen, Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 75, October 14, 1913, in forests, altitude about 200 meters.
Frutex vel arbor parva, glabra; foliis in paribus valde inae-
qualibus, oblongis, chartaceis, usque ad 13 cm longis, utrinque
subaequaliter angustatis, basi acutis vel leviter acuminatis, apice
acuminatis, acuminis obtusis vel breviter apiculatis, nervis
tenuibus, utrinque 10 ad 12; cymis terminalibus vel in axillis
superioribus, plerumque pedunculatis, dichotomis, ebracteolatis,
paucifloris; floribus tenuiter pedicellatis, calycis lobis brevibus,
obtusis, intus glandulosis, corollae tubo circiter 14 mm longo;
folliculis 2 ad 8 cm longis, oblongis, prominente rostrato-
acuminatis, patulis, curvatis, leviter 2-carinatis, seminibus 4 ad
6.
A glabrous shrub or small tree 2 to 7 meters high, the branches
and branchlets slender, subterete, pale-gray. Leaves oblong,
those of each pair distinctly unequal in size, one one-half to
two-thirds longer than the other, chartaceous, oblong, somewhat
shining, brownish-olivaceous on the upper surface when dry,
paler beneath, 5 to 13 cm long, 1.5 to 4.5 cm wide, subequally
narrowed to the acute or somewhat acuminate base and to the
distinctly acuminate apex, the acumen blunt or shortly apiculate;
lateral nerves slender, spreading, somewhat curved, 10 to 12 on
each side of the midrib, the reticulations obscure; petioles
slender, about 5 mm long. Cymes terminal and in the upper
axils, usually peduncled, dichotomous, few-flowered, slender,
ebracteolate, 3 to 4 em long. Flowers white, their pedicels
slender, about 1 ecm long. Calyx about 3 mm long, the lobes
broadly ovate, obtuse to rounded, 1 to 1.5 mm long; glands small,
oblong, 0.5 mm long. Corolla-tube slender, cylindric, about 14
mm long, the lobes oblong, 5 to 6 mm long. Stamens inserted at
about the upper two-thirds. Follicles in pairs, spreading, some-
what curved, oblong-cylindric, 2 to 3 cm long, about 7 mm in
APOCYNACEAE 429
diameter, slightly 2-keeled, prominently rostrate-acuminate, the
acumen slender, acute, 3-angled. Seeds 4 to 6.
Previously the status of Capsicum silvestre Rumph. had not
been definitely determined, although Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 117, cites it under Tabernaemontana bufalina Lour.
Loureiro’s species, however, was described from Cochin-China
material and is manifestly not the form described and figured
by Rumphius. Some authors, following Loureiro’s suggestion,
have thought that the drawing of the fruits represented another
species, 7. bovina Lour., but this is certainly not the case. I
have described the form as a new species with some hesitation,
for I have not been able definitely to determine the status of
Tabernaemontana corymbosa Roxb. This species is described in
Roxburgh’s Flora Indica, ed. 2, 2 (1832) 25, from specimens
originating in the Moluccas. The description is entirely in-
adequate, as follows:
T. corymbosa R. Leaves petioled, oblong. Corymbs terminal, ample,
decompound, all the primary divisions dichotomous. Anthers enclosed.
A native of the Moluccas.
As interpreted by other authors, however, A. de Candolle,
Hooker f., and King and Gamble, Tabernaemontana corymbosa
Roxb. has little to do with the Amboina form above described
and is typified by specimens collected in Penang, as described by
Wallich, Bot. Reg. sub t. 1273. It seems probable that two
entirely different plants are involved in Tabernaemontana
corymbosa Roxb., and that the one described by Roxburgh him-
self, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 25, may be the same as Tabernae-
montana capsicoides Merr. In examining Rumphius’s figure of
Capsicum silvestre it should be borne in mind that the fruits
are drawn on a scale very much larger than that of the leaves.
TABERNAEMONTANA DIVARICATA (Linn.) R. Br. ex Roem. & Schultes
Syst. 4 (1819) 427.
Nerium divaricatum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 209.
Nyctanthes acuminata Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 5.
Nerium coronarium Jacq. Coll. 1 (1786) 188.
Tabernaemontana coronaria Willd. Enum. Hort. Berol. (1809) 275.
Flos manilhanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 87, t. 39.
This widely cultivated shrub is not represented in our Am-
boina collections. The form figured is the one with double
flowers and was introduced into Amboina during Rumphius’s
time. It is cited by various authors under one or another of
the synonyms listed above: by Burman f. in the original descrip-
tion of Nyctanthes acuminata; by Lamarck under Nerium coro-
430 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
narium Jacq.; by Roemer and Schultes under Tabernaemontana
divaricata R. Br., its proper name; and by Willdenow, A. de
Candolle, and Miquel under Tabernaemontana coronaria Willd.
Rumphius surmised that the species was introduced into the
Moluccas from Manila, whence his specific name; the species is
not a native of the Philippines, but is occasionally found in
cultivation here.
ALYXIA * Banks
ALYXIA LAURINA Gaudich. Bot. Freyc. Voy. (1826) 451, #. 62.
Pulassarium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82, t. 20.
AMBOINA, Salahoetoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 74, November 27, 1913,
in forests, altitude about 850 meters.
There is little doubt that Pulassarium Rumph. is the same as
Alyxia laurina Gaudich., the type of which was from Rawak
Island in the Moluccas. I am not in a position to express any
opinion as to the relationships of Alyxia laurina Gaudich. and
Alyxia stellata Roem., as I have seen no material representing
the latter species, and Forster’s original description is entirely
inadequate. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 699, referred
Pulassarvum verum Rumph. to Alyxia stellata, citing Gynopogon
stellatum Forst. as a possible synonym, and gave an ample
description from specimens grown in the botanic garden at Cal-
cutta that originated in Amboina. Gaudichaud, Bot. Freyc.
Voy. (1826) 451, thought that it was the same as his Alyxia
laurina. A. de Candolle, Prodr. 8 (1844) 347, excludes the
Rumphian synonym under Alyxia laurina Gaudich. and places
it as a possible synonym of Alyxia stellata Roem. and Schultes.
Pulassarium spurium Rumph., described in the same chapter with
Pulassarium verum, Herb. Amb. 5: 38, is indeterminable from
the data now available. It is probably a representative of the
Apocynaceae, but not an Alyzia.
RAUWOLFIA Plumier
RAUWOLFIA SERPENTINA (Linn.) Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 3 (1882) 632.
Ophioxylon serpentinum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1048.
Radix mustelae | alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 29, t. 16.
Radix mustelae Il rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 380.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
According to Rumphius it was introduced into Amboina from
Java; it may no longer occur in the island. Radix mustelae
Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ophioxylon ser-
pentinum Linn., in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Gynopogon Forst. (1776) is older.
=
APOCYNACEAE 43]
(1759) 1303, which is certainly correct, at least for the form
figured and described as Radix mustelae I alba. Linnaeus has
been followed by most authors in this reduction, but among
his contemporaries, Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 42, erroneously
placed it under Ophiorrhiza mungos Linn. MHasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 188, refers J alba to Ophioxylon serpentinum
Linn., to O. album Gaertn., a synonym, and, with doubt, to O.
majus Hassk., apparently also a synonym; and refers IJ rubra
to Ophioxylon trifoliatum Gaertn. Rumphius’s description of
II rubra agrees with the characters of Gaertner’s species, but
Ophioxylon trifoliatwm Gaertn. is generally considered to be a
synonym of O. serpentinum Linn.=Rauwolfia serpentina (Linn.)
Hook. f.
OCHROSIA Jussieu
OCHROSIA OPPOSITIFOLIA (Lam.) K. Schum. in Engl. & Prantl Nat.
Pflanzenfam. 4* (1895) 156.
Cerbera oppositifolia Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 62 (type!).
Calpicarpum ? lamarckii Don Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 100 (type!).
Ochrosia salubris Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 158.
Cerbera salutaris Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1038, non Lour.
Bleekeria salubris Hassk. Retzia 1 (1855) 41.
Lactaria salubris Rafin. Sylva Tellur. (1838) 162 (type!) ; Hassk. in
Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 4 (1859) 9.
Lactaria salubris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 255, t. 84.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Most of the above synonyms are typified by the Rumphian figure
and description; Cerbera oppositifolia Lam., Calpicarpum
lamarckti Don, Cerbera salutaris Blume (?), Lactaria salubris
Rafin., and Bleekeria salubris Hassk. wholly so. The description
of Ochrosia salubris Blume was based primarily on Amboina
specimens with the addition of a reference to the Rumphian
figure and description. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 136,
cites Lactaria salubris Rumph. as a synonym of Cerbera salutaris
Lour., but the status of Loureiro’s species is very uncertain;
from the description it cannot possibly be the same as Scaevola
frutescens (Mill.) Krause, to which it has been reduced.
Ochrosia elliptica Labill. may be identical with Ochrosa opposit-
2ond,..(Lam.), K...Schum.,, but .[. consider. that O. borbonica
Gmel. represents an entirely different species. Material from the
southern Philippines and from the Marianne Islands, agrees very
closely with Rumphius’s figure and description, and I think
certainly represents Lactaria salubris Rumph.=Ochrosia opposit-
ifolia (Lam.) K.eSchum.*
* See Valeton in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (1895) 226.
43? RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
CERBERA Linnaeus
CERBERA MANGHAS Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 208.
Cerbera odollam Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 193.
Cerbera lactaria Ham. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 358.
Tanghimia lactaria Don in Sweet Hort. Brit. ed. 3 (1839) 461.
Arbor lactaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 248, t. 81.
Arbor lactaria terrestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 245.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 72, along the seashore near the
town of Amboina, August 8, 1913; Gelala, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 71, September
26, 1913, on hills near the seashore, altitude about 6 meters, locally known
as manga berabu.
Arbor lactaria and Arbor lactaria terrestris certainly rep-
resent but a single species, and that is Cerbera manghas Linn.,
as actually described by Linnaeus from Osbeck’s Javan specimen.
Arbor lactaria Rumph. was originally reduced by Linnaeus to
Cerbera manghas Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, in which he was followed by many
early authors. Valeton, Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 12 (1895)
245, has proposed to keep Cerbera odollam Gaertn. (C. manghas
Linn.) and Cerbera lactaria Ham. distinct, but after a careful
consideration of the descriptions and of a large series of speci-
mens I am now of the opinion that but a single species is rep-
resented. I deliberately reinstate the Linnean name, Cerbera
manghas Linn., as this is manifestly the species amply described
by him in the original description of the species from Osbeck’s
specimens. Some of the references added by him include T'aber-
naemontana dichotoma R. Br.*
PARAMERIA Bentham
PARAMERIA BARBATA (Blume) K. Schum. in Engl. & Prantl Nat.
Pflanzenfam. 47 (1895) 162.
Parsonsia barbata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1042.
Ecdysanthera barbata Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 451.
Cortex consolidans Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 30, ¢. 19.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. No
previous reduction of Cortex consolidans Rumph. has been sug-
gested other than that it belongs in the Apocynaceae. The
figure, which is apparently an excellent one, and the description
agree closely with the characters of Parameria glandulifera
(Wall.) Benth., of P. philippinensis Radlk., and of P. vulneraria
Radlk., all of which are apparently forms of a single species.
Blume’s specific name, being the oldest, is here retained.
ch SE es Lak 2 ELON 2 eS ; st oe! ceeeeet = 4
*See Trimen FI. Ceyl. 2 (1895) 128, 132.
>’ 2
APOCYNACEAE 433
ICHNOCARPUS* R. Brown
ICHNOCARPUS sp.?
Funis papius parvifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 15, t. 11.
This has been reduced with Funis papius latifolius Rumph.
to Cynanchum mauritianum Lam., to Periploca mauritianum
Poir., and to Streptocaulon mauritianum Don, following
Lamarck’s original doubtful reference of it to the first. It
manifestly represents a species distinct from Funis papius lati-
folius and is perhaps a species of Jchnocarpus. The form
described as Funis papius rugosior Rumph. in this chapter is
quite undeterminable from Rumphius’s description. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 90, has suggested that it may be a species
of Melodinus.
NERIUM Linnaeus
NERIUM INDICUM Mill. Gard. Dict. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2.
Nerium odorum Soland. in Ait. Hort. Kew. 1 (1789) 297.
Oleander sinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 15, t. 9, f. 1.
This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our
Amboina collections. Oleander sinicus Rumph. was reduced by
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 115, to Neriuwm oleander Linn.
However, it appears to be Nerium indicum Mill., rather than N.
oleander Linn., and is here so placed. The form described as
II minor, Rumph. 1. c. 16, is of doubtful status. It may be a form
of this species, or it may be an entirely different plant. The
description is too short to warrant a guess at its true identity.
WRIGHTIA R. Brown
WRIGHTIA sp.? |
Andawas s. Dawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 89.
Andawas is briefly described in the chapter with Cassia fistula
silvestris=Cassia javanica Linn., and Hamilton and Miquel both
thought that it might be a species of Cassia. The description of ©
the seed characters, however, is unmistakably that of an apocy-
naceous plant. Teysmann, cited by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 30, considers that it represents Wrightia pubescens R.
Br.; this is possibly the correct disposition of it. Rumphius’s
material was from Bali Island, where it is known as andawas or
dawas, so that field work in Bali should eventually yield material
and data that will enable some botanist to determine the status
of the plant intended by the description. |
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Quirivelia Poir. (1804) is older.
144971——28
434 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
VALLARIS Burman f.
VALLARIS GLABRA (Linn.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. (1891) 417.
Pergularia glabra. Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 53.
Vallaris pergulana Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 51.
Emericia pergularia Roem. & Schultes Syst. 4 (1819) 401.
Echites hircosa Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 85, nomen nudum, FI. Ind.
ed. 2, 2:(18382) 18. !
Vallaris ovalis Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 427.
Flos pergulanus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 51, t. 29, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
According to Rumphius the plant was not a native of Amboina,
but was introduced from Java. Flos pergulanus Rumph. has
been cited under all the synonyms given above, including the
original publications of both Pergularia glabra Linn. and
Vallaris pergulana Burm. f. It commonly appears in botanical
literature as Vallaria pergulana Burm. f., but the oldest name
is here adopted. The species is of special interest in that it is
the type of the genus Vallaris.
APOCYNACEAE indet.
Funis cratium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 16, t. 12.
This figure is sufficiently characteristic, so that the species
should be readily recognized when once collected in Amboina.
It is apparently a scandent species of Apocynaceae and much
resembles Urceola. ‘unis cratium litorea Rumph., Herb. Amb. 5:
17, may belong in the same group, but the description is too
short and imperfect to warrant more than a guess at its position.
It may belong in either the Asclepiadaceae or the Apocynaceae.
ASCLEPIADACEAE
FINLAYSONIA Wallich
FINLAYSONIA OBOVATA Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 2 (1831) 48, t. 162.
Olus crepitans mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 480, t..178,.f..2.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 89, July, September, and
October, 1913, climbing over trees in mangrove swamps, locally known as
kapok kapok.
The description and figure agree perfectly with Wallich’s
species, which is found in mangrove swamps from India to the
Malay Peninsula, the Philippines, Java, Celebes, and Amboina.
No previous reduction of Olus crepitans mas has been suggested.
CALOTROPIS R. Brown
CALOTROPIS GIGANTEA (Linn.) Dryand. in Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 2
(1811) 78.
= -
ASCLEPIADACEAE A385
Asclepias gigantea Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 214.
Madorius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 24, t. 14, f. 1.
This characteristic species, fairly well figured by Rumphius,
is not represented in our Amboina collections. Madorius
-Rumph. was originally reduced to Asclepias gigantea Linn. by
Linnaeus, in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, which as Calotropis
gigantea Dry. is manifestly the correct disposition of it. It
has been very generally cited in botanical literature under Calo-
tropis gigantea Dry. ‘The form described by Rumphius in the
same chapter as Madorius II albifloris is probably merely a variant
of Calotropis gigantea Dry.
CYNANCHUM Linnaeus
CYNANCHUM OVALIFOLIUM Wight Contrib. (1834) 57.
Sussuela esculenta Il femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 467, t. 173, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe and Liang, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 86, September
and November, 1913, in thickets, altitude 15 to 100 meters, locally known
as sayor susu laki lak.
The specimen agrees perfectly with Rumphius’s figure and
description and certainly represents Sussuela esculenta mas. I
am unable from the published descriptions alone to distinguish
this Amboina specimen from Cynanchum ovalifolium Wight.
If it does not represent Wight’s species, then it represents a very
closely allied one. The only previously suggested reduction of
Rumphius’s species was Hasskarl’s doubtful reference of it to
Secamone lineata Blume, where manifestly it does not belong.
CYNANCHUM sp.?
Sussuela esculenta | mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 467, t. 173, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 85, September
30, 1913, climbing over trees, altitude about 40 meters.
The specimen probably represents the form that Rumphius
described, but this is uncertain, and its further identification is
impossible at this time as the material presents only leaves and
mature follicles. Sussuela esculenta mas Rumph. is certainly
no Dischidia, where it was doubtfully placed by Hasskarl. A
possible generic identification of it is Telosma.
GYMNEMA R. Brown
GYMNEMA SYRINGAEFOLIUM (Decne.) Boerl. Handl. Kenn. Fl. Nederl.
Ind. 2” (1899) 487.
Bidara syringaefolia Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 623.
Marsdenia syringaefolia Decne. in Ann. Sci. Nat. II 9 (1838) 275,
ts 1055 FoLG: .
Olus crudum minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 75, t. 40, f. 2?
A436 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Gymnema syringaefolium Boerl. is probably the correct dis-
position of Olus crudum minus Rumph. The first reduction was
that made by Murray, Syst. (1774) 213, who cited the Rumphian
name as a synonym of Apocynum reticulatum Linn., where it
certainly does not belong, although following Murray it has been
so listed by Loureiro, Willdenow, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes,
Henschel, Don, Dietrich, and Pritzel. Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1783)
214, placed it under Apocynum indicum Lam., a synonym of A.
reticulatum Linn. Wight and Arnott and Dietrich placed it
with doubt under Gymnema tingens W. & A.; and likewise
Decaisne and Miquel, with doubt, placed it under the synonym
Bidara tingens Decne.
GYMNEMA sp.
Olus crudum majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 76, t. 40, f. 1.
The figure represents a species apparently very similar to
Olus crudum minus Rumph., but its status cannot be determined
without material from Amboina representing it. Wight, Don,
Decaisne, and Miquel placed it with doubt under Marsdenia
angustifolia Wight, and Dietrich placed it under the synonym
Pergularia angustifolia Dietr. The species described and fig-
ured by Rumphius is probably a Gymnemda,; it certainly is not
Marsdenia angustifolia Wight.
TYLOPHORA R. Brown
TYLOPHORA sp.?
Olus crepitans | mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 469, t. 174, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 92, August and Septem-
ber, 19138, climbing over trees at low altitudes.
I am not certain that the specimen is a Tylophora, although
the specimen cited evidently represents Olus crepitans mas of
Rumphius. The only previously suggested reduction of it was
Hasskarl’s doubtful reference of it to Hoya latifolia Don, where
it certainly does not belong.
DISCHIDIA R. Brown
DISCHIDIA NUMMULARIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 461.
Nummularia lactea minor | minima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 472, ft.
176 Shot
AMBOINA, Way tommo and Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 88,
August and October, 1913, on trees in mangrove swamps and on Mela-
leuca at an altitude of about 100 meters.
This reduction was made by R. Brown in the original descrip-
tion of Dischidia nummularia R. Br. and is apparently the cor-
rect disposition of the Rumphian species. Miquel, however,
ASCLEPIADACEAE 437
Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 508, reduced it to Dischidia gaudichaudiu
Decne. Beccari, Malesia 2 (1886) 267, who made a critical
study of the Malayan species of Dischidia known up to that time,
retained it under Dischidia nummularia R. Br. and reduced D.
gaudichaudu Decne. as a variety.
DISCHIDIA RUMPHII Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 509 (type!).
Nummularia lactea minor Il major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 473, t.
BG; FB:
AMBOINA, Batoe merah River and Wakal, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 87,
August and November, 1913, on trees at low altitudes.
This reduction is made in the original description of Dischidia
rumphii Mig. So far as can be determined from Miquel’s
description, the species was based wholly on Rumphius’s descrip-
tion and figure. The dried specimens do not agree especially well
with the figure, chiefly on account of the shrinkage and wrinkling
of the leaves in drying. Doctor Robinson, who studied the fresh
material in connection with Rumphius’s description and figure,
considered that the specimens certainly represented Rumphius’s
species.
DISCHIDIA sp.
Olus crepitans I! femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 469, t. 174, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri and Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 93,
September and October, 1918, on trees, altitude 5 to 150 meters.
The specimen agrees fairly closely with Rumphius’s figure and
description, the latter being very brief. The chief differences
between the specimen and the figure appear to be duc to the
shrinking of the leaves in drying. This species of Dischidia
appears to be undescribed in modern literature. ©
CONCHOPHYLLUM Blume
CONCHOPHYLLUM IMBRICATUM Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1061.
Dischidia imbricata Steud. Nomencl. ed. 2, 1 (1840) 519.
Pustula arborum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 473, t. 175, f. 8.
AMBOINA, Paso and Wakeroe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 91, October,
1913, on trees in mangrove swamps.
Pustula arborum Rumph. was reduced by Blume to Conchophyl-
lum imbricatum in the original description of that species, and
this is apparently the correct disposition of it. Henschel placed
it with doubt under Dischidia collyris Wall., and Miquel reduced
it with Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume to Collyris major Vahl,
apparently mislead by Vahl’s erroneous reduction of Pustula
arborum Rumph. in the original description of his species;
Collyris major Vahl is a true Dischidia=Dischidia major (Vahl)
A388 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
(Dischidia collyris Wall.). Beccari, Malesia 2 (1886) 258, gives
a detailed description of Conchophyllum wmbricatum Blume with
figures. |
HOYA R. Brown
HOYA LUTEA Kostel. Algem. Med.-Pharm. FI. 3 (1834) 1083 (type!).
Hoya lutea Decne. in DC Prodr. 8 (1844) 6385 (type!).
Corona ariadnes lutea Rumph. Amb. 5: 465.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 82, August and Novem-
ber, 1913, on cliffs at low altitudes.
The specimen cited above apparently represents Corona ariad-
nes lutea Rumph. which is the whole basis of both Hoya lutea
Kostel. and Hoya lutea Decne., Decaisne overlooking the fact that
Kosteletzky had already published the binomial. The specimen
has yellow flowers and differs from Hoya sussuela (Roxb.)
Merr. (Corona ariadnes punicea Rumph.) not only in its leaf
characters, but also in its different, very much smaller flowers,
which are but about 12 mm in diameter.
HOYA RUMPHI! Blume Bijdr. (1826) 1065.
Acanthostemma rumphi Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 29, Mus. Bot. 1
(1849) 58.
Nummularia lactea major | fusca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 470, t.
D5, fos
AMBOINA, Lateri and Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 84, 605,
August and November, 1913, in forests, altitude 150 to. 200 meters, locally
known as buah tali tal.
Poiret, in Lamarck Encycl. Suppl. 1 (1810) 407, reduced the
Rumphian species with doubt to Apocynum agglomeratum Poir.,
which was based on specimens from Santo Domingo, and to
which it certainly does not refer. Blume apparently based his
description of Hoya rumphu on Javan specimens, but in the
original description of the species reduced the Rumphian illustra-
tion as a synonym, which has been accepted by most subsequent
authors. The Amboina specimens may or may not be the same
as the Javan form.
HOYA SUSSUELA (Roxb.) comb. nov.
Asclepias sussuela Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 20, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. ed: 2). 21o32) 31.
Hoya corona ariadnes Blume Rumphia 4 (1848) 31, t. 182, 185.
Hoya speciosa Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 634,
Hoya ariadna Decne. in DC. Prodr. 8 (1844) 635 (type?).
Corona ariadnes punicea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 464, t. 172.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe and Batoe merah River, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
90, August and September, 1913, on trees and rocks, sea level to 100 meters
altitude, locally known as bunga pleta.
ASCLEPIADACEAE A239
The type of Asclepias sussuela Roxb. was from the Moluccas.
While the original description is very short, the species is
certainly the same as the one later minutely described and figured
by Blume as Hoya corona ariadnes. Roxburgh reduces Corona
ariadnes punicea to his species in the original description of
Asclepias sussuela Roxb.; his species has been reduced to Hoya
imperialis Lindl. (1846), which is perhaps another synonym of
Hoya sussuela (Roxb.) Merr. The type of Hoya speciosa Decne.
was from Amboina. Hoya ariadna Decne. was apparently based
wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. Blume, Bijdr.
(1826) 1063, originally reduced the Rumphian species to Hoya
coronaria Blume, a species based on Javan material and distinct
from Hoya sussuela (Roxb.) Merr. (A. corona ariadnes Blume).
HOYA ALBA Kostel. Allgem. Med. Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1084 (type!).
‘Nummularia lactea major I! alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 470.
This species is of entirely doubtful status. It was referred by
Henschel to Hoya diversifolia Blume, while Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 148, thought that it might be Cyrtoceras multi-
flora Heynh.—Hoya multifiora Blume=Centrostemma multiflo-
rum Deene. There is no reason, however, for considering it
other than a true Hoya.
HOYA ELEGANS Kostel. Allgem. Med. Pharm. Fl. 3 (1834) 1084 (type!). —
Nummularia lactea major I!!! (albo-purpurea) Rumph. Herb. Amb.
5-471.
AMBOINA, Soja and Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 83, 604,
August and October, 1913, in hight forests, altitude 175 to 300 meters, locally
known as bunga nasi.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 148, thought that this
Rumphian form might be a synonym of Hoya macrophylla
Blume, a species originally described from Javan material.
Hoya elegans Kostel. was based wholly on the Rumphian de-
scription, and this name is here retained.
HOYA sp.
Nummularia lactea minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 471 (in expl. pl.)
bye 2.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Rebinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 81, November 1, 1913,
on trees, altitude about 150 meters.
The specimen agrees fairly closely with the figure, which was
placed by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1783) 214, with doubt under
Apocynum tiliaefoliwm Lam., where it certainly does not belong.
The species figured is manifestly a Hoya, but I cannot locate
any description of it in Rumphius, merely the name in the
explanation of the plate.
A440 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
TELOSMA Coville
(Prageluria N. E. Brown)
TELOSMA ODORATISSIMA (Lour.) Coville in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9
(1905) 384.
Cynanchum odoratissimum Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 166.
Pergularia odoratissima Sm. Ic. (1790-93) t. 16.
Apocynum odoratissimum Lour. ex Henschel Vita Rumph. (1833)
202.
Asclepias odoratissima Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 20, nomen nudum,
F]. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 46.
Flos siamicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 58, t. 26, f. 1.
This widely cultivated species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. Flos siamicus Rumph. was reduced by
Loureiro to Cynanchum odoratissimum Lour. in the original
description of that species, which, as Telosma odoratissima
Coville, is certainly the correct disposition of it. It has been cited
by various authors under all of the synonyms listed above. The
species is generally known as Pergularia odoratissima Sm.; but
Pergularia of Linnaeus is an entirely different African genus,
as pointed out independently by Coville and by N. E. Brown,
the former proposing the generic name Telosma in 1905 for the
Indo-Malayan species of Pergularia, and the latter the name
Prageluria in 1907.
ASCLEPIADACEAE indet.
Funis papius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 14, t. 10.
A woody vine, not represented in our Amboina collections.
Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1786) 236, placed it with doubt under
Cynanchum mauritianum Lam., which Poiret later referred to
Periploca mauritiana Poir., in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 188, and
Don, to Streptocaulon mauritianum Don. It is certainly not this
species, whatever it may be.
CONVOLVULACEAE
MERREMIA Dennstedt
MERREMIA UMBELLATA (Linn.) Hallier f. in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 16
(1898) 552.
Convolvulus umbellatus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 155.
Convolvulus cymosus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 556.
Ipomoea cymosa R. & S. Syst. 4 (1819) 241.
Ipomoea bifida Roth Nov. Pl. Sp. (1821) 118.
Convolvulus bifidus Vahl Symb. Bot. 3 (1794) 30.
Convolvulus laevis minor | femina, I! mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:
431, t. 158.
CONVOLVULACEAE 441
Ampoina, Hatalai Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 404, October 24, 1913,
roadsides at an altitude of about 300 meters.
The reduction of Convolvulus laevis Rumph. to Convolvulus
cymosus Desr. was made by Desrouss, in Lamarck’s Encycl. 3
(1791) 556, but the description was based on an actual specimen
collected by Sonnerat. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 30, makes the
reduction to his Convolvulus bifidus in the original description of
that species, but as was the case with Convolvulus cymosus, the
description was based on an actual specimen. There is not the
slightest doubt that the figure given by Rumphius represents the
common and well-known species, Merremia umbellata Hallier f.
. The Amboina specimen cited above is the form with white
flowers, designated by Hallier as Merremia umbellata var. orien-
talis Hallier f.; but this varietal name, if the variety be main-
tained, should BrowRhly give place to the designation cymosa,
this being the oldest name for the oriental form.
MERREMIA PELTATA (Linn.) Merr. comb. nov.
Convolvuius peltatus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1194 (type!).
Ipomoea peltata Choisy Mém. Soc. Phys. Genév. 6 (1833) 452 (type!).
Convolvulus laevis indicus major (alba) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 428,
BST. FE DO)
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 401, September
30, 1918. climbing on trees at an altitude of about 225 meters; flowers white.
Convolvulus laevis indicus major “Rumf. amb. 6. p. 428. t.
159” is the whole basis of Convolvulus peltatus Linn., and the
species must be interpreted solely from the Rumphian figure and
description. Two plants are figured on the plate, not clearly
separable, and probably both are forms of one species; but
figure 2 is indicated by Rumphius as belonging with the descrip-
tion Linnaeus designated as the type of his species. Merremia
nymphaeifoia (Blume) Hallier f. (Ipomoea nymphaerfolia
Blume) has been distinguished from the Linnean species by
Hallier f. as distinct because of its yellow flowers, the Amboina
plant having white flowers, both as described by Rumphius and
as the field note on the Amboina specimens, cited above, shows.
I cannot, however, detect a single other character by which the
two species can be distinguished; and I consider it very probable
that Merremia nymphaeifolia Hallier f. must be reduced to M.
peltata (Linn.) Merr., as a variety or form with yellow flowers.
I have for purposes of comparison a very full series of specimens
from the Philippines and some material from Java, named by
Hallier himself as Merremia nymphaetfolia. All of our numer-
ous Philippine specimens have yellow flowers. Figure 1 of
44? RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
plate 157, which is swpposed to represent the second species.
“rubra” of Rumphius, I take to represent the same form as figure
2, that is, typical Merremia pelitata (Linn.) Merr., but it may
prove to be Merremia nymphaeifolia (Blume) Hallier f. (see
below, under /pomoea rumphiu Miq.). :
OPERCULINA S. Manso
OPERCULINA TURPETHUM (Linn.) S. Manso Enum. Subst. Braz. (1836)
16.
Convolvulus turpethum Linn. Sp. Pl. (4753)4155:
Batatta mammosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 370 p. p., et ¢. 131 p. p.
Nothing corresponding to this plant as described and figured -
by Rumphius, wholly or in part, appears in our Amboina collec-
tions. Batatta mammosa Rumph. is apparently a composite
species, the flowers and leaves of a convolvulaceous plant being
figured with the tubers of a different plant attached. From
the figure of the tubers, as given by Rumphius, this part of the
drawing is almost certainly referable to Dioscorea, not to the
Convolvulaceae. The figure of the leaves and flowers agrees very
closely with the common and widely distributed Operculina tur-
pethum S. Manso, and I believe this to be the correct disposition
of Batatta mammosa Rumph., at least for the most part. The de-
scription of the flowers also applies very closely and does not
apply so well to any other species of Convolvulaceae known to
me. The following part of the description is especially signi-
ficant :
Flores primo sunt oblonga, acuminata, & viridia capita instar Capsici
fructus, diuque clausa manent, dein sese aperiunt in albos campaniformes
flores uti in Batatta, sed majores sunt, ac longiore tubo donati, qui profundo
insident ac viridi calici, ante meridiem tantum aperti.
The stems, however, characteristically winged in Operculina
turpethum, are described as ‘‘rotunda, & glabra,’’ the leaves as
resembling those of Ipomoea batatas Poir., but:
flaccidiora, * * * glabriora, magisque sinuosa, inferius nullos gerunt
angulos, sed rotundas auriculas instar foliorum Sirii [Piper].
As to the origin of the plant, note:
Naturalis ejus patria sunt Manilhae, & magna inprimis Mindanau,
vulgo Magendanau [i. e. Mindanao] dicta, ex qua Pampangenses quidam
hance in Amboinam adduxerunt.
The first reduction of Batatta mammosa was suggested by
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 108, who placed it under his
Convolvulus mammosus. While the specific name is manifestly
CONVOLVULACEAE 443
taken from Rumphius, the plant actually described was a cul-
tivated specimen known in Cochin-China as khoai tu, in all
probability a cultural variety of Jpomoea batatas Poir. Choisy
transferred it to Ipomoea, as I. mammosa (Lour.) Choisy, in
Mém. Soc. Phys. Genev. 6 (1833) 475, and in de Candolle’s Pro-
dromus, 9 (1854) 389, retained it as an Ipomoea under his
‘Species non satis notae.” Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 620,
compiled his description from Rumphius and Loureiro and placed
it at the end of the genus under the heading “Species denuo ex-
aminandae.” No previous author has suggested that the plant
figured and described by Rumphius was based on material from
more than one species, and nobody has previously suggested that
it is, for most part, referable to Operculina turpethum S. Manso,
an explanation that is on the whole fairly satisfactory. Prain *
suggests that the form figured by Rumphius may be the same as
Convolvulus platypeltis Span., of Timor, which Choisy placed
as a doubtful synonym of /pomoea campanulata Linn. ; Spanoghe’s
species is entirely unknown to me, nor do I understand the
status of the form interpreted by Hallier f. as Merremia
mammosa Hallier f. In regard to Rumphius’s statement as to
the Philippine origin of the plant he figured and described I
can merely add that. no known Philippine species agrees with
' the description and figure in toto.
IPOMOEA Linnaeus
IPOMOEA BATATAS (Linn.) Poir. in Lam. Encyel. 6 (1804) 14.
Convolvulus batatas Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 154.
Batatas edulis Choisy Cony. Or. (1834) 58.
Batatta Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 367, t. 130.
AMBOINA, Hoenoet, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 402, October 8, 1918,
cultivated, altitude about 125 meters, locally known as batatas.
The reduction of Batatta to Convolvulus batatas Linn. was
first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 922, Sp. Pl. ed.
2 (1762) 220, and this has been followed by numerous other
authors, some under the Linnean name Convolvulus batatas,
others under the name /Jpomoea batatas (Linn.) Poir. There is
no doubt whatever as to the American origin of this plant, but
Rumphius’s opinion is well worth quoting in connection with
the matter. He states:
Communis opinio est, quam etiam sequor usque ad ulteriorem decisionem,
Batattas primum per Castilienses ex Americanis regionibus in Manilhas,
inde in Moluccas, ac Portugalos in reliquas porro Indiae Orientalis regiones
* Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 74° (1905) Extra Number 307.
A444 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
fuisse introductas, quod nomen etiam testatur apud omnes fere Orientales
populos, qui Batattas colunt.
The names cited by Rumphius, batattas, uby castila, ima castila
(that is, Spanish yam), lutu castila, castela, and camotes, are all
of American origin or refer to the origin of the plant in the
Moluccas through the agency of the Spaniards.
IPOMOEA REPTANS (Linn.) Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 460.
Convolvulus reptans Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 158, p. p. quoad syn. Rheed.
Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. Fl. Aegypt. Arab. (1775) 44.
Olus vagum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 419, t. 155, f. 1.
This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina
collections, but Olus vagum Rumph. is unmistakably identical
with Ipomoea reptans Poir. (I. aquatica Forsk.) as currently
interpreted. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus himself,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 225, which is additional evidence in support
of the idea that Linnaeus’s conception of Convolvulus reptans
was based on, Ballel, Rheed. Hort. Malabar. 11: 107, ¢. 52, rather
than on the actual specimen so named in his herbarium. Hallier
f., Meded. Rijks Herb. (1910) 21, states that the actual specimen
in the Linnean herbarium is Merremia caespitosa Hallier f.,
a species totally different from Ipomoea reptans Poir. as cur-
rently interpreted.*
I accept the plate and description of Rheede, cited by Linnaeus,
as typifying Convolvulus reptans Linn., as this interpretation
will avoid the change of the specific name for the plant now
called Merremia caespitosa Hallier f. Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 922, erroneously reduces Olus vagum to Convolvulus
medium Linn., with which species it has little in common.
Choisy considers Convolvulus medium to be Anisaea medium
(Linn.) Choisy, but Index Kewensis reduces it to Ipomoea
denticulata Choisy.
IPOMOEA PES-CAPRAE (Linn.) Roth Nov. Pl. Sp. (1821) 109.
Convolvulus pes-caprae Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 159.
Convolvulus bilobatus Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, Fl. Ind. ed. 2,
1 (1832) 485.
Convolvulus maritimus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 550.
Convolvulus marinus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 438, t. 159, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 400, September 13, 1913, on the
beach near the town of Amboina.
* See Merrill in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 244, for a discussion of
the synonymy involved.
CONVOLVULACEAE 445
The reduction of Convolvulus marinus Rumph. to Convolvulus
pes-caprae Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
924, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 226, which is certainly the correct
disposition of it, although it is now placed in Ipomoea rather
than in Convolvulus. The figure, which is good, has very gen-
erally been cited by subsequent authors either under the Linnean
name or under the various synonyms cited above.
IPOMOEA GRACILIS R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 484; House in Ann. N. Y. Acad.
Sci. 18 (1908) 248.
Ipomoea denticulata Choisy in Mém. Soc. Phys. Genev. 6 (18338) 447.
Ipomoea littoralis Blume Bijdr. (1826) 713.
Convolvulus denticulatus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 540, non
Ipomoea denticulata R. Br.
Ipomoea choisyana W. F. Wight in Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 9 (1905)
298.
Convolvulus riparius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 485, t. 159, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Paso and Batoe gadjah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 399, August
5, 1913, in thickets back of the beach and on grassy hillsides, altitude about
200 meters.
No definite reduction has been suggested for Convolvulus ri-
parius Rumph. other than that it represents a species of Ipomoea.
The figure corresponds closely with Ipomoea gracilis, but the
description as given by Rumphius does not agree so well. It
is probable that more than one species was included by Rumphius
in his description, as he indicates two forms under the names
minor and major. Again this may be the correct disposition of
Convolvulus marinus minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 433, that
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 148, suggests may be the same
as Ipomoea rugosa Choisy or Convolvulus flagelliformis Roxb.
Both of these, however, are synonyms of Ipomoea beladamboe R.
& S., a species known only from India and Ceylon, so that the
Rumphian plant has nothing to do with the latter species, what-
ever else it may be.
IPOMOEA INDICA (Burm.) comb. nov.
Convolvulus indicus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [6]
(type!).
Ipomoea congesta R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 485.
Convolvulus caeruleus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 432.
The Rumphian species is the whole basis of Convolvulus indicus
Burm., which is not listed in Index Kewensis. Hasskarl, Neue
Schlussel (1866) 148, reduced it to Ipomoea nil (Linn.) Roth.
While Roth’s species occurs in Amboina, Rumphius’s description
AAG RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
conforms much more closely to Ipomoea congesta R. Br. than
to I. nil Roth, and I believe that it is here correctly placed.
[IPOMOEA RUMPHII Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 605 (type!).
Convolvulus laevis indicus major Il rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:
AZO CCXCW LT. 107, 72 Le
Ipomoea rumphu Mig. is a species of doubtful status and is
based wholly on Rumphius, from whose description it must be
interpreted. Our Amboina specimens do not include sufficient
material to solve the status of the species. The figure, t. 157,
f. 1, supposed to represent Convolvulus laevis indicus major
rubra of Rumphius, is discussed under Merremia peltata (Linn.)
Merr. above, as almost certainly representing that species; there
are no characters in the two figures by which two species can
be distinguished. The description, however, calls for a plant
with cordate leaves, usually solitary flowers, the corolla purplish
toward the apex, and the tube white within and deep purple at
the base. I suggest that the description for the most part applies
to Stictocardia campanulata (Linn.) Merr. (S. tiliaefolia Hallier
f.), and that Ipomoea rumphii Miq. may thus be a synonym of
this species. Additional material from Amboina will be neces-
sary before the matter can be definitely settled, for no Sticto-
cardia appears in our collections, although the species is certainly
to be expected in Amboina.
!IPOMOEA PELTATA Choisy var. NIGRICANS Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf.
Gesellsch. 19 (1866) 284 (Neue Schliissel (1866) 142) (type!).
Convolvulus laevis indicus major II! nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5:
429,
The variety proposed by Hasskarl is based solely on Rumphius,
and an exact interpretation of it must wait for a more intensive
botanical exploration of Amboina. It may prove to be Sticto-
cardia campanulata Merr. :
QUAMOCLIT Tournefort
QUAMOCLIT PENNATA (Desr.) Bojer Hort. Maurit. ee: 224.
Ipomoea quamoclit Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 159.
Convolvulus pennatus Desr. in Lam. Encycl. 3 (1791) 567.
Quamoclit vulgaris Choisy in Mém. Soc. Phys. Genév. 6 (1833) 4384.
Flos cardinalis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 421, t. 155, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Soeli, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 408, November 25, 1913, in
roadside thickets, altitude about 10 meters..
The Rumphian figure is an excellent one, thus rendering the
accurate identification of his Flos cardinalis very definite. It
was first reduced by Linnaeus to his Ipomoea quamoclit, in
BORAGINACEAE 4A7
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 227, which reduction has been followed by
numerous other authors, either under the Linnean name or under
the various synonyms cited above. It is to be noted that Rumph-
ius describes both the red- and the white-flowered forms. The
species is a native of tropical America, introduced into the East
at an early date in colonial history.
BORAGINACEAE
- CORDIA Linnaeus
CORDIA SUBCORDATA Lam. Ill. 1 (1791-97) 421.
Cordia orientalis R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 498.
Cordia campanulata Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 17 (type!), Fl. Ind.
Sawn) L832) 090, 593.
Cordia rumphii Blume Bijdr. (1826) 848.
Novella nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 226, t. 75.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 385, October 31, 1913, along
the seashore, locally known as kanawa.
— Novella ngra was originally, but erroneously, reduced by Lin-
naeus to Cordia sebestena Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
10, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 936, Sp. PI.
ed. 2 (1762) 274, in which he was followed by Burman f. and
by Willdenow. Cordia sebestena Linn. is, however, a different
species, confined to tropical America. Cordia subcordata Lam.
was based entirely on a specimen collected by Commerson on
Pralin or Praslin Island, but Poiret cites the Rumphian name
under this species, as doubtfully representing it, in Lamarck’s
Encycl. 7 (1806) 41. Novella nigra is the whole basis of Cordia
campanulata Roxb., as definitely published in the Hortus Ben-
galensis (1814) 17, by citation of Rumphius; and it is also wholly
or in part the basis of Cordia rumphii Blume Bijdr. (1826) 843.
The species is of wide distribution in Malaya and Polynesia,
always growing along the seashore.
CORDIA MYXA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 190.
Arbor glutinosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 155, t. 97.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 383, November 29, 1913,
along roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as gandal.
This was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Cordia myxa Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 936, and after examining abundant
material from various parts of India, the Philippines, and Malaya
and the Amboina specimens, I am inclined to consider this dis-
position of Arbor glutinosa the correct one. The species is
AAS RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
rather variable, and it certainly includes the Philippine form
described as Cordia blancoi Vidal. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 61, considers that the species described by Rumphius is
Cordia subpubescens Spanogh., which de Candolle, Prodr. 9
(1845) 482, retains as a valid species, the description of which
does not appear to me to apply to Arbor glutinosa Rumph.
TOURNEFORTIA Linnaeus
TOURNEFORTIA ARGENTEA Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 133.
Buglossum lanuginosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 119, t. 55. (err. t. 45).
AMBOINA, Latoe halat, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 884, September 22,
1918, along the seashore, locally known as kol laut.
This was reduced, with doubt, by Linnaeus to Touwrnefortia
foetidissima Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 127, but Tournefortia foetidissima Linn. is an
American species entirely different from T. argentea Linn. f.
The reduction of the Rumphian name Buglossum lanuginosum
to Tournefortia argentea Linn. f. seems first to have been made
by Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 12 (1797) 793, which is certainly the
correct disposition of it.
VERBENACEAE
CALLICARPA Linnaeus
CALLICARPA CUSPIDATA Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1882) 394.
Mamanira alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 124, t. 59.
AMBOINA, Hitoe messen, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 299, November 6, ©
1918, in forests at an altitude of about 100 meters, ‘“‘buds lilac but flowers
white, fruit deep lilac, not white.”
Doctor Robinson notes on the field label that he considers the
identification of this specimen with Mamanira alba as certain;
the only discrepancy between the specimen and the description
is that the fruits are deep lilac, not white. Hasskarl,. Neue
Schliissel (1866) 84, has suggested that Mamanira alba is Sponia
pubigera Miq. (=Trema), but this cannot possibly be the case
in view of the ample data given by Rumphius in the description.
The inflorescences in Rumphius’s figure are very poorly drawn.
Schauer * has reduced Callicarpa cuspidata Roxb., which was
very briefly described by Roxburgh from specimens originating
in the Moluccas (probably Amboina), to the Indian Callicarpa
lanata Linn.—Callicarpa tomentosa (Linn.) Murr., in which he:
is certainly in error. Nor is the Australian Callicarpa pedun-
* De Candolle Prodromus 11 (1847) 644.
VERBENACEAE AA9
culata R. Br., which Schauer cites as a synonym, properly placed,
as it is very distinct from both Callicarpa tomentosa (Linn.)
Murr. and C. cuspidata Roxb. Callicarpa cuspidata Roxb. is
manifestly allied to C. longifolia Lam., but it differs in many
characters and is certainly specifically distinct from Lamarck’s
species.
Possibly referable here also is Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 300,
from Binting, Amboina, August 13, 1913, but the leaves are less
pubescent, less acuminate, and the flowers are described by
Doctor Robinson as being pale lilac. Doctor Robinson thought
that this might be Mamanira Rumph., Herb. Amb. 4: 123, t. 58,
but it does not agree very well with the figure, which represents
a plant with 4- and 5-nerved leaves.
CALLICARPA CANA Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 198?
- Mamanira Rumph. Herb Amb. 4: 1238, t. 58.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, thought that this might
possibly be Sponia amboinensis Planch.=Trema amboinensis
Blume, while Teysmann, I. c., suggested that it might be a species
of Callicarpa. I consider that Teysmann is correct in his sup-
position, as the description is unmistakably that of a Callicarpa,
while the figure is a fair representation of Callicarpa except for
the very poorly drawn inflorescences. I am of the opinion that
the widely distributed Callicarpa cana Linn. was the species
intended, but nothing approaching this species is represented in
our Amboina collections, although Rel. Robins. 2465, from
. Macassar, Celebes, is unquestionably referable to it. Further
field work in Amboina will doubtless clear up any doubt there
may exist as to the exact identity of Mamanira.
‘CALLICARPA sp.
Frutex ceramicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 124, t. 60.
This was described from material originating in Ceram and
Banda and is undoubtedly a species of Callicarpa. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, suggested that it might be Grewia
anaequalis Blume, but the drawing certainly represents no
Grewia, while the description seems to conform to Callicarpa.
Field work is necessary in Ceram and Banda before the position
of Frutex ceramicus can be definitely settled.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 84, also suggests that Perlarius
alter silvestris may be a species of Callicarpa, but the description
is too incomplete to warrant a definite reference of this to any
particular genus.
144971——_29
A50 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
TECTONA * Linnaeus f.
TECTONA GRANDIS Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 151.
Tectona theka Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 187.
Jatus s. caju jati Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 34, ¢. 18.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 298, July 29, 1913, on
open hillsides at low altitudes, locally known as jatt.
The teak tree is too well known to need discussion here. The
Rumphian description and figure are unmistakably Tectona
grandis, and the figure has been very generally cited by various
authors under one or the other of the synonyms listed above.
The species is widely distributed in the Indo-Malayan region;
in some countries it is very extensively cultivated.
PREMNA Linnaeus
PREMNA OBTUSIFOLIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 512.
Premna cyclophylla Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 899?
Premna laevigata Miq. F1. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 895?
Premna integrifolia auct. plur. non Linn.
Gumira litorea (G. silvestris) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 209 t. 134.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 307, August 8, 1913, along the
beach near the town of Amboina, locally known as gumira laut, that is,
gumira of the beach or ocean.
The specimen cited above is unmistakably Gumira litorea
Rumph., as it agrees perfectly with his description and figure,
in its habitat, and in its native name, gumira laut. -Its proper
name in our present system of classification is not so certain,
but it appears to me to be identical with Premna obtusifolia R. |
Br., also a coastal shrub or small tree, of northeastern Australia;
the two species described by Miquel, cited above as doubtful syn-
onyms; and the widely distributed coastal form in the Indo-
Malayan region that has very consistently, but erroneously, been
called Premna integrifolia Linn. The name “Folium hircinum”
of Rumphius, another species of Premna, has been confused by
several authors with plate 134. The first reduction of Gumira
laut was by Linnaeus in the original publication of his Premna
integrifolia, Mant. 2 (1771) 252, who cites Rumphius as “Folium
hirct Rumph. amb. 3. p. 28. t. 134,” thus originating the confusion
between the description of Folium hircinum and t. 134 of Rumph-
ius, the figure cited being that of Gumira laut; t. 133 pertains
to Folium hircinum. However, Premna integrifolia Linn. is
based on Cornutia corymbosa Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 1382, f.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Theka Adans. (1763) is older.
VERBENACEAE 451
41, f. 1, which in turn was based wholly on Ceylon material,
“Cornutoides Linn. Fl. Zeyl. 195, ubi descr.” and “Sambucus
zeylanica odorata aromatica Herm. herb. Burm. zeyl. 209.”
Hermann’s specimens, as noted by Trimen, FI. Ceyl. 3 (1895)
352, are Premna serratifolia Linn.; and according to strict prior-
ity Premna corymbosa (Burm. f.) Rottl. & Willd., in Gesell. Nat.
Freunde Neue Schr. 4 (1803) 187, 188, is the correct name for
the plant that Linnaeus named Premna integrifolia, even though
C. B. Clarke and Trimen have retained Premna corymbosa
Rottl. & Willd. as a species entirely distinct from Premna integ-
rifolia Linn. and P. serratifolia Linn.; all three are typified by
the same material. Roxburgh, FI]. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 77, placed
Gumira litorea under his Premna spinosa, but Premna spinosa
Roxb. was described from Indian specimens. C. B. Clarke re-
duced Premna spinosa to Premna integrifolia Linn. with which
Gumira litorea has been confused. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2
(1858) 894, repeats the confusion between Gumira litorea and
Folium hircinum, citing as a synonym of Premna corymbosa
(Burm. f.) Rottl. & Willd. “Gumira litorea vel Folium hireci
Rumph. Herb. Amb. III. p. 289. tab. 134.”
PREMNA NITIDA K. Sch. Fl. Kaiser Wilhelmsl. (1889) 121.
Premna subglabra Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 234?
Folium hircinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 208, t. 132.
AMBOINA, various. localities, such as Amahoesoe, Paso, and Soja, from
sea level to an altitude of about 375 meters, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 308,
August to October, 1913, locally known as gumira and gumira dara.
The identity of the cited material with Foliwm hircinum is
certain, but as is the case with the preceding species, its proper
name under our present system of classification is uncertain. It
seems to be the same as both the comparatively recently described
Premna nitida K. Sch., of New Guinea, and P. subglabra Merr.,
a common and widely distributed Philippine species, but it is
very probable that it has an older published name, perhaps
several. Suggested reductions by various authors have been to
Premna integrifolia Linn. (see above under Premna obtusifolia
R. Br.), to Premna cordifolia Roxb., to P. tomentosa Willd., to
P. foetida Reinwardt, and to Gumira foetida Hassk., with none
of which it agrees sufficiently to warrant considering Foliwm
hircinum referable to any of them. Whatever else it may be,
Folium hircinum is certainly very closely allied to Premna gaudi-
chaudu Schauer, of the Marianne Islands, and definitely seems
to be identical with the New Guinea Premna nitida K. Schum.
452 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
VITEX Linnaeus
VITEX MOLUCCANA Blume Bijdr. (1826) 813.
Tittius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 388, ¢. 20.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 296, August 23, November 26 and
29, 1918, in light woods at Liang, Gelala, and Waé, altitude 15 to 20 meters,
locally known as titta and daun titti.
This very characteristic species is known only from Amboina
and Banda, the specimens cited above agreeing perfectly with
Rumphius’s figure and description and with a series of speci-
mens collected in Amboina by Botter, Heyne, Teysmann 5031,
and Binnendyck and with Teysmann 5158 from Banda. , Poiret,
in Lamarck Encycl. 5 (1804) 163, suggested that ¢. 20 might
be Clerodendron infortunatum Linn., but erroneously cites the
description of Tittiws litorea. It has nothing in common with
that species. The plate is Vitex moluccana, but the description
cited is a Clerodendron. Blume cites the Rumphian plant in the
original description of his Vitex moluccana, in which he has been
followed by later authors. It seems very probable that the two
forms indicated by Rumphius as Tittius alba and Titiws rubra
are merely slight variants of the same species.
VITEX COFASSUS Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1826) 813.
Cofassus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 28, t. 14B.
AMBOINA, Liang, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 302, November 29, 1913, in
open fields at an altitude of about 15 meters, locally known as gofassa.
This is unquestionably Cofassus of Rumphius for the most part.
The description includes at least two forms, and the figure pre-
sents a species of Vitex with simple and trifoliolate leaves on
the same plant. Cofassus mas, C. alba, and C. femina should
probably all be referred here, although C. mas, described as
having simple and trifoliolate leaves may be due to a mixture
of material, and as Teysmann suggests, in Hasskarl Neue
Schliissel (1866) 48, the trifoliolate-leaved form may be Vitex
timoriensis Walp.=V. littoralis Dcene.=V. parviflora Juss.
Cofassus is cited by Reinwardt in the original description of
Vitex cofassus. The material cited above agrees with a series
of specimens from Amboina, from Celebes (Heyne), and with
material from New Guinea collected by Hollrung and by
Weinland. It is strongly suspected that Vitex monophylla K.
Sch., Fl. Kaiser Wilhelmsl. (1889) 121, of New Guinea, will
prove to be identical with Vitex cofassus Reinw.
VERBENACEAE 458
VITEX TRIFOLIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 638.
Lagondium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 48, #. 18.
AmBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 304, August 13, 1912, along the
beach at Binting, locally known as lagondi. The same form is also repre-
sented by Rel. Robins. 2449 from Macassar, Celebes, and Rel. Robins. 2493
from Boeton.
The reduction of Lagondium vulgare to Vitex trifolia Linn.
was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1122, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 890, which is certainly the correct disposition
of it. It is very widely distributed along. the seashore through-
out the Indo-Malayan region.
VITEX NEGUNDO Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 638.
Lagondium litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 50, t. 19.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 805, September 18,
19138, along the beach, locally known as lagondi.
The specimen, as Doctor Robinson notes, shows every inter-
gradation between what is called Vitex trifolia Linn. and V.
negundo Linn., a character that is also presented by many
herbarium specimens sometimes placed under one name, some-
times under the other. It is strongly suspected that the two
species, at least as currently interpreted, are really not distinct.
The reduction of Lagondium litoreum Rumph. to Vitex negundo
Linn. was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1122, which
disposition of it has been accepted by practically all authors.
Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1788) 612, placed it under his Vitex pani-
culata, but Vitex paniculata Lam. is a synonym of Vitex negundo
Linn. The “species” has the range of Vitex trifolia Linn.
Lagondium nigrum Rumph., extensively treated by Rumphius,
Herb. Amb. 3: 52, and supposed to grow in Buru Island, is
probably purely an imaginary plant. Regarding it, Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 75, states: “‘fabula, nec arboris descriptio
enarratur; arbor ex hac fabula intelligi haud potest.”
PETRAEOVITEX Oliver
PETRAEOVITEX MULTIFLORA (Sm.) comb. nov.
Petrea multiflora Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 27 (1817) no. 2.
Petraeovitex riedelit Oliver in Hook. Ic. 15 (1888) 16, t. 1420.
Funis quadrifidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 4, t. 3.
This characteristic species is not’ represented in our Amboina
collections. Rumphius’s description and figure agree closely
A54 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
with those of Petraeovitex riedelit Oliver, the type of which was
from the neighboring island, Buru. I have here adopted what
is manifestly the oldest valid specific name for the species.
Petrea multiflora Sm. was based on a specimen gathered by
Christopher Smith on Honimoa Island, one of the Moluccas,
in the original description of which Funis quadrifidus Rumph.
is cited as a synonym. I am indebted to Dr. A. B. Rendle, of
the British Museum, who has kindly looked up both the original
description and the type specimen of Smith’s species and informs
me, under date of July 22, 1916, that there is no doubt as to
its identity with Petraeovitex riedelii Oliver. Smith’s species,
which has been previously considered as one of doubtful status,
was excluded from the Verbenaceae by Schauer, in DC. Proar.
11 (1857) 620, where, however, it manifestly belongs. The only
other suggested reductions of Funis guadrifidus Rumph. was
Teysmann’s opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
89, that it was an Illigera (Hernandiaceae) and Hasskarl’s own
opinion that it was possibly a species of Vitis; both of these
suggested reductions are manifestly wrong.
GMELINA Linnaeus
GMELINA VILLOSA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 46, nomen nudum, FI. Ind.
ed. 2, 3 (1832) 86.
Radix deiparae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 124, t. 39.
Radix deiparae spuria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 125, sed 1: t. 40.
AMBOINA, near Paso, common everywhere, and at Batoe mera, Robinson
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 306, July 20, 1913, locally known as kranjang, kelanjan,
and daun kranjang. ;
This is certainly Radix deiparae Rumph. and is equally
certainly Gmelina villosa Roxb. Roxburgh’s description was
based on specimens from Penang, but he also cites Radix devparae
Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 124, t. 39, as representing his species.
Radix deiparae spuria, which Rumphius thought distinct from
his R. deiparae, undoubtedly is also referable to Gmelina villosa
Roxb., although by many authors it has been referred to Gmelina
asiatica Linn. The former was erroneously reduced by Lin-
naeus to Gmelina asiatica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
9, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, while the latter also has been
very generally referred to the same species. It is to be noted
that in the Herbarium Amboinense ¢t. 40 of Volumes I and JI
have been transposed.
— a
VERBENACEAE 455
CLERODENDRON Linnaeus
CLERODENDRON SPECIOSISSIMUM Paxt. Mag. Bot. 3 (1837) 217, 271.
Clerodendron fallax Lindl. in Bot. Reg. (1844) sub. t. 19.
Petasites agrestis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 108, t. 49.
AMBOINA, Paso and near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 803, July 20 and 23, 1913, along the banks of streams, locally known
as daun picha piring.
This was reduced by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 423, followed
by Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 483, to Clerodendron infortunatum
Linn., which it somewhat resembles; it is, however, quite distinct
from the Linnean species. This reduction was followed by
Willdenow, Blume, Walpers, Hasskarl [Retzia 1 (1855) 59],
Schauer, and Miquel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 388,
placed it under his Volkameria petasites, apparently taking his
specific name from Rumphius. However, Volkameria petasites
Lour., as described, is very different from Petasites agrestis
Rumph. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 82, suggests that
it may be the same as Clerodendron viscosum Vent., which,
however, has been considered by all recent authors as a synonym
of Clerodendron infortunatum Linn.
In adopting the name Clerodendron speciosissimum Paxt. I
have followed the synonymy as given by Schauer, in DC. Prodr.
11 (1847) 666, but have had no opportunity to examine the
original description of either Clerodendron speciosissimum Paxt.
or C. fallax Lindl. The Amboina specimens, however, agree
perfectly with Javan material named C. speciosissimum Lindl.
as well as with material from the Caroline Islands, Samoa, and
Cuba (cultivated) named Clerodendron fallax Lindl. Neither
is given for Java by Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 3 (1912)
137-139, although Clerodendron fallax Lindl. was apparently de-
scribed from Javan specimens; perhaps this form is included
in Koorders’s work under Clerodendron paniculatum Linn.
CLERODENDRON COMMERSONI! (Poir.) Spreng’. Syst. Veg. 2 (1825)
758.
Volkameria commersonii Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 688.
Volkameria nereifolia Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 64.
Clerodendron nerufolium Wall. Cat. (1829) no. 1789.
Clerodendron inerme auct. plur. p. p.
Jasminum litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 86, t. 46.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 297, July 28, 1913,
along tidal streams.
This widely distributed coastal plant is commonly named Cler-
odendron inerme (Linn.) Gaertn., but several authors have
456 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
maintained the Malayan-Polynesian form specifically distinct
from the typical Indian Clerodendron inerme (Linn.) Gaertn.
If this distinction be maintained, the Malayan-Polynesian form
must be called Clerodendron commersoni (Poir.) Spreng., which
is the oldest valid name for it. Jasminum litoreum was first
reduced by Linnaeus to Volkameria inermis Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 19, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 129, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1122, and all succeeding authors have followed Linnaeus,
citing the Rumphian figure under either Volkameria inermis
Linn. or Clerodendron inerme Gaertn.
CLERODENDRON RUMPHIANUM DeVriese & Teysm. in Flora 43 (1860)
622, ex Hassk.; DeVriese in Mig. Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. 3 (1867) 252.
Petasites amboinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 107, t. 48.
Nothing resembling this plant occurs in our Amboina collec-
tions. There can be no doubt whatever that the Rumphian
Petasites amboinensis represents the same species as the plant
described by DeVriese, who reduces the Rumphian name as
a synonym. The type material of Clerodendron rumphianum
DeVr., as described in Miquel’s Annales, was from Amboina and
Ceram.
AVICENNIA Linnaeus
AVICENNIA OFFICINALIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 110.
Mangium album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 115, t. 76.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 801, October 29, 19138, in
Mangrove Swamps.
Mangium album, as figured, is certainly the typical form of
Avicennia officinalis Linn., which is found along the seashore
throughout the tropics of the Old World. Early authors gen-
erally made no attempt to reduce this species; Linnaeus, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 13, merely indicating that it per-
tained to the genus Rhizophora. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 57, considers that the description included both Avicen-
nia officinalis Linn. and the allied A. alba Blume. The species
is enormously variable in size, often flowering when less than
one meter high, but it is normally a tree, frequently reaching a
large size. }
LABIATAE
ROSMARINUS Linnaeus
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 23.
Rosmarinus verus sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 26.
This is merely mentioned by Rumphius, under the description
of Crategonum amboinicum Rumph., but is unquestionably the
LABIATAE 457
true European Rosmarinus officinalis Linn., which is cultivated
for medicinal purposes in sandy soil near the sea in the Philip-
pines and, probably, in various parts of Malaya. It is very
generally known in the Philippines by its Spanish name, roméro.
LEUCAS Burman
LEUCAS ZEYLANICA (Linn.) R. Br. ex Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 472
(ceylanica).
Phlomis zeylanica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 586.
Herba admirationis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 389 quoad descr., excl.
HOLGy? fc 7. :
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 475, July 20, 1913, in
open places at low altitudes.
The description appears to me to apply unmistakably to the
widely distributed Leucas zeylanica R. Br., but the plant figured
is certainly the next species, Leucas lavandulifoia Sm. Burman
f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 127, originally reduced Herba admirationis
to Leonurus indicus Linn., which is correct as to the plant figured.
Murray, Syst. (1774) 450, placed it under Phlomis zeylanica
Linn., in which he was followed by Willdenow, Persoon, Poiret,
Henschel, and Pritzel, while Don and Dietrich cite it under
Leucas zeylanica R. Br.; Walpers, Repert. 3 (1845) 877, refers
it to Leucas linifolia Spreng.—Leucas lavandulifolia Sm., the
correct disposition of the figure, but scarcely of the description.
LEUCAS LAVANDULIFOLIA Sm. in Rees Cyclop. 20 (1818) no. 2.
Leonurus indicus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1101, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
817, non Leucas indica R. Br.
Leucas linifolia Spreng. Syst. 2 (1825) 748.
Herba admirationis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: ¢. 16, f. 1, excl. descr.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure of Herba admirationis Rumph. unmistakably rep-
resents this species, but the description applies to Leucas zeyla-
nica (Linn.) R. Br., above.
SALVIA Linnaeus
SALVIA PLEBEIA R. Br. Prodr. (1810) 501.
Tschintschau Javanense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 90; 7: ¢. 21, f. 2.
This reduction of Tschintschau javanense is probably correct.
The plant described was from China and from Semarang, Java.
The Chinese name is given by Rumphius as tsinsau and siénthau.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 167, merely placed it in the
Labiatae. It is, at least, a Salvia, whether or not Salvia plebeia
it. Br.
A58 - RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
MENTHA Linnaeus
MENTHA ARVENSIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 577.
Mentha crispa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 267, t. 93, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The form figured and described by Rumphius, however, of which
he never saw flowers or fruits, is the common mint introduced
into the orient by the early Portuguese and Spanish explorers,
and now widely, but not extensively, cultivated by the natives
and Europeans in the Philippines (here known as yerba buena),
and probably in other parts of the Indo-Malayan region. By
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, it was erroneously reduced to
Ocimum menthoides Linn.—Geniosporum prostratum Benth.
POGOSTEMON Desfontaines
POGOSTEMON CABLIN (Blanco) Benth. in DC. Prodr. 12 (1848) 156;
Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 345.
Mentha cablin Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 473. _
Pogostemon patchouly Pellet. in Mém Soc. Sci. Orléans 5 (1845) 277
ae
Pogostemon suavis Ten. in Giorn. Bot. Ital. 2 (1847) 56.
Pogostemon patchouli Hook. Kew Journ. Bot. 1 (1849) 328, €. 11.
Melissa lotoria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 292, t. 102, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure is poor and presents only a leafy branch greatly
reduced in size. From the description, however, the plant is
unmistakably Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth., which is
widely cultivated in the Indo-Malayan region. Walpers, Repert.
3 (1845) 516, thought that it might be the same as Coleus
atropurpureus Benth., while Don reduced it to Coleus aromaticus
Benth.—Coleus amboinicus Lour., perhaps by confusion with the
latter species, which is figured on the same plate. It is mani-
festly no Coleus, but is certainly referable to Pogostemon cablin
Benth.
DYSOPHYLLA Blume
DYSOPHYLLA AURICULARIA (Linn.) Blume Bijdr. (1826) 826.
Mentha auricularia Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 81.
Mentha foetida Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 126.
Majana foetida Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 41, ¢. 16, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure and the description unmistakably represent this
well-known species. The reduction was made by Linnaeus in
the original publication of Mentha auricularia Linn., and also by
Burman f. in the original publication of Mentha foetida Burm. f.
Henschel erroneously referred it to Cyclostegia strobilifera
Benth.
LABIATAE A59
COLEUS Loureiro
COLEUS AMBOINICUS Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 372.
Plectranthus aromaticus Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 22, non Hort.
Beng. (1814) 465.
Coleus aromaticus Benth. in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 2 (1831) 16.
Coleus suganda Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 483.
Marrubium album amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 294, t. 102, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The plant figured and described by Rumphius is certainly the
same species as that described by Loureiro as Coleus amboinicus,
the type of the genus Coleus. Loureiro described the species
from specimens cultivated in Cochin-China and quotes the
Rumphian figure and description as representing his species, also
taking his specific name from this source; the plate, by error,
is cited as 72 instead of 102. It was originally reduced by Lin-
naeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 131, to Nepeta indica Linn.—Anisomeles indica (Linn.)
O. Kuntze (A. ovata R. Br.), an entirely wrong disposition of it.
Later authors have cited it under Coleus aromaticus Benth.,
a synonym of Loureiro’s species. Plectranthus aromaticus
Roxb., as originally published in Hort. Beng. (1814) 45, by
citation of Rumphius Herb. Amb. 5: ¢t. 101, is a synonym of
Coleus scutellaroides (Linn.) Benth., but as described by Rox-
burgh, Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 22, it is a synonym of Coleus
amboinicus Lour.*
COLEUS TUBEROSUS (Blume) Benth. Lab. Gen. Sp. (1832) 59.
Plectranthus tuberosus Blume Bijdr. (1826) 838.
Coleus parviflorus Benth. in DC. Prodr. 12 (1848) 72.
Glans terrestris costensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 372, t. 132, f 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, but
Rumphius’s figure and description apply unmistakably to Coleus
tuberosus. The reduction seems first to have been made by Don,
Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 685, and the Rumphian figure has been
cited under this species, sometimes with doubt, by Walpers,
Dietrich, Bentham, and Miquel. Some authors have abandoned
the name Coleus tuberosus (Blume) Benth. (1832) in favor of
Coleus parviflorus Benth. (1848), on account of the use of the
same specific name for another species by Richard, but Coleus
tuberosus Richard dates from 1851 and is, of course, invalidated
by Coleus tuberosus Benth.
* See Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 414, 418.
460 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
COLEUS SCUTELLAROIDES (Linn.) Benth. in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 2
(1831) 16.
Ocimum scutellaroides Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 834 (type!).
Plectranthus scutellaroides Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (18382) 21.
Majana (alba et rubra) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 291, t. 101.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 478, July 18, 19138, in wet places in
woods and along roadsides near the town of Amboina, locally known as
mayana, mariana, and johanna.
Majana rubra Rumph. was originally and erroneously reduced
by Linnaeus to Ocimum frutescens Linn., in Stickman Herb.
Amb. (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759)
1105. Recognizing this error, however, Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. ed. 2
(1763) 834, made the Rumphian description and figure the whole
basis of Ocimum scutellaroides Linn., which in turn is the basis
of Coleus scutellaroides Benth. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129,
erroneously referred it to Ocumum gratissimum Linn.
COLEUS BLUME! Benth. Lab. Gen. Sp. (1832) 56.
Majana aurea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 296, t. 102, f. 3.
The form described and figured is one of the common cul-
tivated types of Coleus with variegated leaves, commonly known
as Coleus blumei Benth. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 130, placed
it under Ocimum scutellaroides Linn.—Coleus scutellaroides
Benth., from which, however, it appears to be sufficiently distinct.
Miquel thought that this cultivated form was merely a variety
- of Coleus scutellaroides Benth. and considered it as Coleus
scutellaroides Benth. var. blumei Migq. FI. Ind. Bat. 2 (1759) 950.
COLEUS sp.?
Marrubium album semisilvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 294.
This form was briefly described by Rumphius, who compared
it with Marrubium album amboinense=Coleus amboinicus Lour.
It may represent a species of Coleus, as suggested by Hasskarl,
but its exact status is indeterminable from data now available.
OCIMUM Linnaeus
OCIMUM BASILICUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 597.
Basilicum indicum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 268 ft. 92, f. 1.
Rumphius’s figure is a fairly good representation of Ocimum
basilicum Linn. The reduction to this species seems first to
have been made by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 129, in which he
was followed by Lamarck and by Loureiro. Henschel placed
it under Ocimum sanctum Linn., while Hasskarl placed it under
Ocimum basilicum Linn. var. pilosum Benth. Hasskarl, Neue
SOLANACEAE A61
Schliissel (1866) 118, 119, disposes of the three forms described
by Rumphius as follows: fuscum=—Ocitmum sanctum Linn.?;
album=—O. basilicum Linn. var. album Benth. and var. pilosum
Benth.; nigrum=—O. basilicum Linn. var. purpurascens Benth.
With no material from Amboina for study, no modifications of
these reductions, which may or may not be correct, can be
suggested.
OCIMUM SANCTUM Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 85.
Basilicum agreste Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 265, t. 92, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
It was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1105,
to Ocimum gratissimum Linn.; but in the Species Plantarum, ed.
2 (1763) 833, he reduced it to Octmum tenucflorum Linn., which
may not be specifically distinct from O. sanctum Linn. The
plant figured is apparently a form of the common Ocimum
sanctum Linn., where it was placed by Don, Dietrich, Walpers,
Bentham, and Miquel. The figure is a very poor one.
OCIMUM sp. aff. basilicum Linn.
Ozimum citratum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 266, t. 93, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
It was originally reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) -
1105, to Ocimum tenuiflorum Linn.; by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
129, to Ocimum minimum Linn.; by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 870, it was discussed under Ocimum africanum Lour.;
and by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 119, it was thought to
be Ocimum basilicum Linn., either the var. anisatum Benth. or
the var. difforme Benth. I suspect that Hasskarl is correct and
that it is a form of Ocimum basilicum Linn.
SOLANACEAE
PHYSALIS Linnaeus
PHYSALIS ANGULATA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 183.
Halicacabus indicus | major s. albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 60.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 282,
August 8, 1913, in ditches.
The specimen appears to be typical Physalis angulata Linn.
and agrees well with Rumphius’s description. The reduction
of the Rumphian plant is in agreement with Nees, Henschel,
Walpers, Hasskarl, and Dunal, as cited by Hasskarl, Neue
Schlissel (1866) 168. The figure, t. 26, f. 1, given by Rumphius
462 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
as representing the second form, minor s. niger, distinctly re-
sembles this plant.
PHYSALIS MINIMA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 183?
Halicacabus indicus H minor s. niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 61,
BDG AFI TE
The description seems to apply to Physalis minima Linn., at
least as that species is now understood. It was reduced to
Physalis pubescens Linn., an American species, by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 93838, which is certainly incorrect. By
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 1383, it was placed under Physalis
alkekengi Linn., but Loureiro’s description apparently applies
to Physalis minima Linn.; at any rate, the Rumphian plant has
nothing to do with Physalis alkekengi Linn. Authors generally
have considered it as representing Physalis indica Lam., which
is apparently a synonym of P. minima Linn.
CAPSICUM Linnaeus >
CAPSICUM FRUTESCENS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 189.
Capsicum indicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 247, t. 88, f. 1-4.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 283, August 16, 1918,
locally known as chili and representing Capsicum II minus rubrum Rumph.
EIS. uha 2.
Four forms of this common Capsicum are figured by Rumph-
ius, which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 116, 117, refers
to various described varieties of this widely distributed and
variable species. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130,
who included all the figures given by Rumphius, but later, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 271, definitely excluded fig. 2. Irish, Rept.
Mo. Bot. Gard. 9 (1908) 99, places Capsicum indicum II minus
rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 247, t. 88 f. 2, under Capsicum
frutescens Linn. var. baccatum (Linn.) Irish, which is probably
its correct disposition, if it be considered worth while to attempt
the distinction of varieties in this polymorphous species.
SOLANUM Linnaeus
SOLANUM MELONGENA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 186.
Trongum hortense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 288, t. 85.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 288,
July 26, 1918, locally known as trong; Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 287, August 16, 1913, representing’ Trongum hortense album amboi-—
mense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 238.
SOLANACEAE A463
Several forms of this commonly cultivated plant are described
by Rumphius, notably I fuscum, the variety with purplish fruits,
and II album, the variety with pale or nearly white fruits. All
are certainly referable to Solanum melongena Linn. The reduc-
tion was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 266, which
has been very generally followed by later authors. Some, how-
ever, for example, Murray, Syst. (1774) 188, Lamarck, Willde-
now, and others, referred it to Solanum insanum Linn., which
is apparently merely a form of Solanum melongena Linn. Other
synonyms to which the Rumphian figure has been referred are
Solanum melongena Linn. var. esculentum Walp. Repert. 3 (1844)
81 and S. esculentum Dunal Hist. Solan. (1813) 208, t. 3.
The form described by Rumphius under Trongum hortense II
album as “tamatte,” page 238, to which Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 115, refers ¢t. 88, f. A (apparently a typographical error
for t. 85, f. A), was thought by Hasskarl to represent Solanum
aethiopicum Lour. or its variety violaceum Dunal. It is probably
merely a small-fruited form of Solanum melongena Linn.
SOLANUM TRONGUM Poir. in Lam. Encycl. 4 (1797) 308 (type!).
Solanum trongum Poir. var. rumphti Dunal in DC. Prodr. 13 * (1852)
361 (type!).
Trongum agreste spinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 240, t. 86, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Binting, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 285, September 25, 1913,
along roadsides at low altitudes, locally known as trong.
Solanum trongum Poir. was based wholly on the Rumphian
reference, and I consider that the specimen cited above represents
the plant described and figured by Rumphius. However, I am
not prepared to state whether or not the species is a valid one,
although it has been very generally recognized as such. It has
been referred by some authors to Solanum indicum Linn., while
Roxburgh referred the Rumphian figure to Solanum insanum
Linn.
SOLANUM ALBUM Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 129.
Solanum album Lour. var. rumphii Dunal in DC. Prodr. 13* (1852)
361.
Solanum pressum Dunal Hist. Solan. (1818) 217 (type!)?
Trongum agreste album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 241.
Trongum agreste rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 241, t. 86, f. 2?
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 286, November 1,
1918, in forests on limestone formations, altitude about 150 meters, locally
known as trong baduri.
464 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
The specimen almost certainly represents Solanum agreste
album Rumph., but S. agreste rubrum may be different. I am
not prepared to state that it is the actual form described by
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 129, as Solanum album, although
he cites the Rumphian name as a synonym. It is, at any rate,
the whole basis of Solanum album Lour. var. rumphi Dunal.
Solanum pressum Dunal was based wholly on Trongum agreste
rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 241, t. 86, f. 2, and must be inter-
preted from the Rumphian figure and description. It may prove
to be specifically distinct from the form I have here placed under
Solanum album Lour., but no botanical material is available
to assist in determining this point.
SOLANUM NIGRUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 186.
Solanum triangulare Lam. Encycl. 4 (1789) 290.
Solanum rumphii Dunal Hist. Sol. (1818) 157 (type).
Solanum nigrum Linn. var. rumphii Mig. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 636.
Halicacabus baccifer Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 62, t. 26, f. 2.
This common and widely distributed species is not represented
in our Amboina collections. Halicacabus baccifer was cited
by Lamarck in the original description of Solanum triangulare,
but is not the actual type. It seems, however, to be the whole
basis of Solanum rumphi Dunal. The Rumphian figure was
first reduced to Solanum nigrum Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, and this is
certainly the correct disposition of it.
SOLANUM VERBASCIFOLIUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 184.
Adulterina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 58, t. 25, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 289, November 26, 1913.
The figure cited by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
26, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 162, is not that of
Adulterina, but of Lappago laciniata; that is, t. 25, f. 2, which
is Urena lobata Linn. (p. 357) and Triumfetta bartramia
Linn. (p. 354). The reference by Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch.
(1790) 229, under Lawsonia falcata Lour. is apparently a pure
error, for the plant Loureiro describes is totally different from
the one that Rumphius figures. It was reduced by Hamilton in
Wight and Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 307, to Solanum verbascifolium
Linn. and is S. verbascifolium Linn. var. adulterinwum Ham. in:
Walp. Repert. 3 (1844) 53. The plant figured by Rumphius
appears to be typical Solanum verbascifolium Linn.
ge ee he NE ST ne
SOLANACEAE 465
LYCOPERSICUM Hill
LYCOPERSICUM ESCULENTUM Mill. Gard. Dict. ed. 8 (1768) no. 2.
Solanum lycopersicum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 185.
Pomum amoris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 416, t. 154, f. 1.
The common tomato, cultivated and wild in most parts of the
Malayan region, is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The form figured is one of the cultivated types with medium-
sized fruits; the form indicated by Rumphius as II rotundum is
apparently the small-fruited wild form with fruits 1 to 2 cm in
diameter ; that is, the common wild form of the plant that occurs
in the Malayan region. The reduction of Pomum amoris to
Solanum lycopersicum Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 265, which, as Lycopersicum esculentum
Mill., is the correct disposition of it.
DATURA Linnaeus
DATURA FASTUOSA Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 932.
Stramonia indica II] dutra rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 2438, t. 87,
hia 2.
No representative of the genus Datura occurs in our Amboina
collections, but the form figured and described by Rumphius is
certainly Datura fastuosa Linn. The figure presents a form
occasionally found in cultivation in the Malayan region with a
double corolla. Both forms figured by Rumphius on plate 87
were erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to Datura metel Linn.,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 932, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 256, in which he
was followed by numerous other authors. ‘Other names involved
are Datura hwummatu Bernh. and D. fastuosa var. rubra Dunal.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 53, first made the correct reduction to
Datura fastuosa Linn.
DATURA FASTUOSA Linn. var. ALBA (Nees) C. B. Clarke in Hook. f.
Fl. Brit. Ind. 4 (1883) 243.
Datura alba Nees in Trans. Linn. Soc. 17 (1834) 78.
Datura nigra Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 142 (type!).
Stramonia indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 242, t. 87, f. 1 (incl. Dutra
alba et Dutra nigra).
This was originally reduced with Stramonia indica III to
Datura metel Linn. by Linnaeus, as noted above. It is, however,
the common, white-flowered form described by Nees as Datura
alba, which is apparently merely a variant of the common Datura
144971——_-30
466 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
fastuosa Linn. Dutra nigra Rumph., on which Datura nigra
Hassk. was wholly based, is manifestly only a form of the com-
mon, white-flowered plant with colored branches.
NICOTIANA Linnaeus
NICOTIANA TABACUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 180.
Tabacus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 225.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 284, October 8, 1913,
cultivated, locally known as tabak.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 111, referred this to Nicotiana
fruticosa Linn., but the commonly cultivated Nicotiana tabacum
Linn. was undoubtedly the plant described by Rumphius and is
so considered by Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 670.
SCROPHULARIACEAE
LIMNOPHILA * R. Brown
LIMNOPHILA AROMATICA (Lam.) comb. nov.
Ambulia aromatica Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 128.
Gratiola aromatica Pers. Syn. 1 (1805) 14.
Limnophila punctata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 750.
Terebinthina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 150, t. 67, f. 2.
No Limnophila occurs in our Amboina collections, yet
Rumphius’s figure and description are unmistakably the form
described by Blume as Limnophila punctata, but which manifestly
is a synonym of the much older Ambulia aromatica Lam. Am-
bulia aromatica Lam. was Henschel’s reduction of the Rumphian
plant and figure, while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 177,
thought that it might be either Limnophila punctata Blume or
L. conferta Benth.
LIMNOPHILA RUGOSA (Roth) comb. nov.
Herpestis rugosa Roth Nov. Pl. Sp. (1821) 290.
Capraria gratissima Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 92.
Stemodia menthastrum Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1835) 23.
Limnophila roxburghii G. Don Gen. Syst. 4 (1838) 543.
Menthastrum amboinicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 151, t. 68, f. 1.
The Rumphian figure is very characteristic and, unquestion-
ably, is referable to the present species. Henschel erred in refer-
ring it to Nepeta malabarica Linn.—Anisomeles. Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 177, considered that it was Limnophia
balsamea Benth.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Ambulia Lam. (1783), Diceros Lour.
(1790), and Hydropiton Gaertn. (1805) are older.
SCROPHULARIACEAE 467
ADENOSMA R. Brown
ADENOSMA CAPITATUM Benth. ex Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 4 (1884) 264.
Stemodia capitata Benth. in Wall. Cat. (1831) no. 3926, nomen nudum,
Bot. Reg. sub. t. 1470, fide C. B. Clarke.
Pterostigma capitatum Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1885) 21.
Erinus bilabiatus Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1882) 92.
Stoechas pilosa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 51, t. 22, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The figure and description, however, both refer unmistakably to
Adenosma capitatum Benth. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
190, referred it, with doubt, to Acrocephalus capitatus Benth.,
which is manifestly wrong. The whole plant is pleasantly aro-
matic when crushed. Clarke states that Hrinus bilabiatus Roxb.
and Stemodia capitata Benth. were published in the same year.
ILYSANTHES Rafinesque
(Bonnaya Reichenbach)
ILYSANTHES ANTIPODA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Ruellia antipoda Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 635.
Ruellia anagallis Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 135.
Gratiola veronicaefolia Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 8.
Bonnaya veronicaefolia Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 41.
Ilysanthes veronicaefolia Urban Berich. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. 2
(1884) 486.
Crusta ollae major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 460, t. 170, f. 2.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 261,
August 20, 1913, in a sago swamp near sea level.
Ruellia antipoda Linn., typified by Fl. Zeyl. 235, supplies the
oldest specific name for this common, well-known, and widely
distributed species. The reduction to Ruellia antipoda Linn. was
first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, in
which he was followed by Willdenow, Loureiro, Poiret, and other
authors. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, referred it to his
Ruellia anagallis, while various other authors have cited it under
one or another of the synonyms mentioned above. The species
appears in most recent botanical literature as Bonnaya veronicae-
folia Spreng.
CURANGA Jussieu
CURANGA FEL-TERRAE (Lour.) comb. nov.
Picria fel-terrae Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 398.
Caranga amara Vahl Enum. 1 (1804) 100.
Curanga amara Juss. in Ann. Mus. Paris 9 (1807) 319.
Curania amara R. & S. Syst. 1 (1817) 138.
Gratiola amara Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 80, nomen nudum, FI. Ind.
ed. 2, 1 (1832) 135.
A68 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Herpestis amara Benth. Scroph. Ind. (1835) 30.
Serratula amara Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 459, t. 170, f. 1,
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 263, October 17, 1913, in
wet. meadows and in cleared places near streams, altitude about 70 meters,
locally known as kakuran mera.
Serratula amara was erroneously reduced by Linnaeus to
Scutellaria indica Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1838, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 836, in which
he was followed by Burman f., Willdenow, Poiret, Persoon, and
Pritzel. Vahl, however, placed it under his Caranga amara,
Enum. 1 (1804) 100, given by all authors since Jussieu as Cu-
ranga amara Juss. Various authors have cited the figure under
the other synonyms given above. I can see no reason for not
accepting Loureiro’s specific name, for Picria fel-terrae Lour.
is manifestly the same as Curanga amara Juss., and Loureiro’s
specific name is at least fourteen years older than that proposed
by Vahl. It is also to be noted that the generic names Picria and
Caranga are both older than Curanga of Jussieu.
LINDERNIA Allioni
(Vandellia Linnaeus)
LINDERNIA CRUSTACEA (Linn.) F. Muell. Census (1882) 97.
Capraria crustacea Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 87.
Vandellia crustacea Benth. Scroph. Ind. (18385) 35.
Crusta ollae minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 461, ¢t. 170, f. 3.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 262, July 20, 1913,
in various habitats, altitude 5 to 15 meters.
In Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759)
133, Linnaeus reduced ‘‘170 Crusta ollae” to his Ruellia antipoda,
overlooking the fact that two distinct species are described and
figured. Of these Crusta ollae major, t. 170, f. 2, is Ruellia anti-
poda Linn.—Ilysanthes antipoda (Linn.) Merr. (see p. 467) ;
while Crusta ollae minor, t. 170, f. 3, is Capraria crustacea Linn.
=Lindernia crustacea (Linn.) F. Muell. Burman f., Fl. Ind.
(1768) 134, refers Crusta ollae minor, t. 170, f. 3, to Ruellia anti-
yoda Linn., but also on the preceding page refers the same figure
to Capraria crustacea Linn. where it properly belongs. Other
names concerned in the reduction of the Rumphian figure are —
Gratiola lucida Willd., Torenia crustacea Cham. & Schlecht., and
T. edentula Griff. The plant figured and described by Rumphius
is manifestly the common, well-known, and widely distributed
Lindernia (Vandellia) crustacea (Linn.) F. Muell., which ap-
pears in most recent botanical literature as Vandellia crustacea
Benth. |
BIGNONIACEAE—PEDALIACEAE , A69
BIGNONIACEAE
DOLICHANDRONE Fenzl
DOLICHANDRONE SPATHACEA (Linn. f.) K. Schum. FI. Kaiser Wilhelms
Land (1889) 123.
Bignonia spathacea Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 288.
Dolichandrone rheedii Seem. in Journ. Bot. 8 (1870) 380.
Lignum equinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 78, t. 46.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. 86, October 17, 1913, along
the seashore.
Lignum equinum was originally reduced to Bignonia spathacea
by the younger Linnaeus in the original description of the species.
The first reference is to Rumphius, but the actual type was
material collected by Koenig. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790)
380, referred it to his Bignonia longissima, but B. longissima
- Lour. is an exact synonym of Dolichandrone spathacea K. Schum.
PANDOREA Spach
PANDOREA sp.?
Campana rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 42.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 190, has suggested that Cam-
pana rubra is a bignoniaceous plant and gives a description com-
prising the essential characters of the plant after Rumphius. I
consider that he is correct in his surmise as to the family, and I
further suggest Pandorea as the possible correct disposition of
the Rumphian plant. At any rate, the species described by
Rumphius should be critically compared with authentic botanical
material of the species described as Tecoma amboinensis Blume
and T. dendrophila Blume, the former from Amboina, the latter
from New Guinea, both of which are apparently referable to
Pandorea.
PEDALIACEAE
SESAMUM Linnaeus
SESAMUM ORIENTALE Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 634.
Sesamum indicum Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 634.
Sesamum indicum nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 204, t. 76, f. 1.
Sesamum indicum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 204.
The common sesame is not represented in our Amboina collec-
tions, but it doubtless still occurs in Amboina, as it is a plant of
wide distribution in cultivation and in cultivated lands in the
Indo-Malayan region. Rumphius’s illustration was first reduced
to Sesamum indicum Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 180, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1120,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 884. Sesamum orientale Linn. has page
priority over the more commonly used Sesamum indicum Linn.
A70 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
GESNERIACEAE
CYRTANDRA Forster
CYRTANDRA DECURRENS DeVriese Pl. Ind. Bat. Or. (1845) 14.
Macuerus femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 1382, t. 58, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Halong, Batoe merah, Soja, and Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 210, September, 1918, along river banks, in thin forests, and on
wooded hillsides, altitude 20 to 300 meters.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 174, thought that this might
be Cyrtandra nemorosa Blume, a species known only from Java.
The Amboina specimens agree perfectly with the Rumphian
figure and description and with the description of Cyrtandra
decurrens DeVriese, which was based on Amboina material.
Clarke, DC. Monog. Phan. 5 (1883) 232, cites Amboina material
collected by DeVriese, Zippel, Barclay, C. Smith, Dolleschal, and
Lahaie; and Doctor Robinson collected it in four different locali-
ties, so the species is apparently common in Amboina. The
typical form is also known from Buru, with varieties in Penang,
Borneo, Celebes, and New Guinea.
ACANTHACEAE
HEMIGRAPHIS Nees
HEMIGRAPHIS ANGUSTIFOLIA Hallier f. in Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf.
70° (1897). 203, £710, fs
Pruneila molucca hortensis angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 30,
GTS OT PAA AB
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 99, August 20, 1913, in a sagio
swamp near the town of Amboina, locally known as biana. .
Linnaeus referred “Prunella molucca Rumph. amb. 6. p. 30.
t. 13. f. B.” to Ruellia repanda Linn. in the original description
of that species, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 886, in which he has been
followed by all authors, until very recently, some of whom added
also fig. 2 of the same plate. The species was based primarily on
Javan specimens. Hallier, however, has distinguished the form
described and figured by Rumphius as Hemigraphis angustifolia,
describing the species from a specimen collected by Treub in
Amboina and citing the Rumphian name and illustration as given
above. This is undoubtedly the correct disposition of it. 4
HEMIGRAPHIS PETOLA Hallier f. Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 70 (1897) 206, -
OG bE
Prunella molucca hortensis II! lire petola Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 31.
The reduction follows Hallier’s suggestion, his species being
ACANTHACEAE A471
based on specimens from Ceram Island; Rumphius’s material
was from Ternate. The forms described by Rumphius, l. c.,
as Lire papua and Lire kitsjil are probably representatives of Hemi-
graphis, at least of the Acanthaceae; but their exact status is
indeterminable from data and material now available.
HEMIGRAPHIS REPTANS K. Schum. var. GLAUCESCENS Hallier f. in
Nov. Act. Akad. Naturf. 70 (1897) 207.
Prunella silvestris alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 31, t. 13, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 100, July 20, 1913, in
wet soil at low altitudes. :
The specimen is apparently referable to the variety described
by Hallier, the type of which was from Amboina. It is not so
certain that it represents Prunella silvestris alba Rumph., but
it agrees with the description rather better than with the figure.
It was reduced by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 135, to Ruellia
alternata Burm. f. (I. discolor Nees), a species known only from
Java; and by Nees and Miquel it was placed under Ruellia discolor
Nees=Hemigraphis alternata T. And.
HEMIGRAPHIS sp.
Prunella molucca silvestris I! rubra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 32, ft.
189 F.8)
This is clearly a species of Hemigraphis, but beyond this its
exact status is indeterminable at the present time from want of
material representing it. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 1385, re-
duced it to Ruellia alternata Burm. f.—Hemigraphis alternata
T. Andr.; while Nees, in DC. Prodr. 11 (1857) 145, placed it
under Ruellia colorata Blume=Hemigraphis colorata Hallier f.
Prunella molucca silvestris III rotunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 32
is certainly a species of Hemigraphis, apparently close to the
preceding, but its status cannot be definitely determined at
present.
HEMIGRAPHIS sp.
Prunella molucca hortensis latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 30, ft.
1B), fotle
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 157, thought that this might
be a species of Strobilanthes or Lepidagathis. The figure is
unmistakably that of a species of Hemigraphis, but the plant is
not represented in our Amboina collections and cannot be prop-
erly placed within the genus until more extensive collections of
Amboina material are available for study.
A472 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
~ RUELLIA Plumier ~
RUELLIA REPENS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89; Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768)
135, Ey Way FNS!
Dipteracanthus lanceolatus Nees in Wall. Pl. As, Rar. 3 (1832) 82.
Justicia moretiana Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 10 p. p., quoad syn.
Rumph. |
Moretiana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 58, t. 28, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 101, July 20, 1913, in
rocky soil and along ditches at low altitudes; also represented by Rel.
Robins. 2500 from Baoebaoe, Boeton, July 13, 1918.
The specimen cited above certainly represents Moretiana as
described and figured by Rumphius and is likewise Ruellia repens
Linn., as currently interpreted. C. B. Clarke * states regarding
Ruellia repens Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89:
The plate of Burmann (FI. Ind. t. 41, fig. 1) is good, and represents a
plant not of the genus Ruellia. In the Addit. to Mant. 515 (1771), Lin-
naeus says his Ruellia repens was Burmann, t. 41, fig. 1.
I consider that the figure given by Burman f. is a crude rep-
resentation of Ruellia repens Linn. as currently interpreted; but
at any rate it has no bearing on the interpretation of Ruellia
repens Linn., which was published one year before Burman’s
work was issued. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 10, referred More-
tiana Rumph. to Justicia moretiana Burm. f., taking his specific
name from Rumphius. This species was based primarily on
Burman Thes. Zeyl. 7, t. 3, f. 1, an entirely different plant, which
has little in common with Moretiana as figured and described by
Rumphius.f
BARLERIA Linnaeus
BARLERIA PRIONITIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 636.
Barleria hystrix Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 89.
Prionitis hystrix Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1858) 809.
Hystrix frutex Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22, t. 12.
This common and well-known species is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The reduction of Hystrix frutex Rumph.
to Barleria prionitis Linn. was first made by Linnaeus, in Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1386, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1121, Sp.’ PEVet
(1763) 887. Barleria hystrix Linn. is a synonym of B. prionitis
Linn. and was based primarily on a specimen collected by Royen,
with a reference to Hystrix frutex Rumph. and one to Plukenet
added.
* Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 747% (1907) Extra Number 649.
+See Trimen FI]. Ceyl. 3 (1895) 335.
ACANTHACEAE A773
LEPIDAGATHIS Willdenow
LEPIDAGATHIS RUMPHII sp. nov.
Bungum mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 52, t. 22, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Way tommo and near the town of Amboina, Robinson PI.
Rumph. Amb. 97 (type), July and August, 1913, along river banks and in
thickets, altitude 5 to 50 meters.
Erecta vel suberecta, circiter 50 cm alta, ramosa, inflorescentiis
exceptis glabra vel subglabra, ramis ramulisque quadrangulatis;
foliis longe petiolatis, chartaceis, oblongis ad oblongo-lanceolatis,
aequilateralibus, usque ad 7 cm longis, utrinque subaequaliter an-
gustatis acuminatisque, nervis utrinque circiter 5, tenuibus;
inflorescentiis terminalibus, spicis numerosis, anguste oblongis,
1.5 ad 2.5 cm longis, aggregatis, bracteis bracteolisque subaequi-
magnis, oblongo-ovatis, 4 mm longis, breviter mucronato-acumi-
natis, extus pubescentibus, eglandulosis; calycis 5-partitis, 5 mm
longis, pubescentibus.
An erect or suberect, branched, nearly glabrous herb about 50
em high, the branches and branchlets prominently 4-angled.
Leaves opposite, those of each pair subequal in size, oblong to
oblong-lanceolate, chartaceous, olivaceous, dull, paler beneath, 4
to 7 em long, 1.5 to 2.5 em wide, the upper ones smaller, sub-
equally narrowed to the acuminate base and apex, equilateral,
entire,. the cystoliths small, numerous on both surfaces; petioles
slender, 1.2 to 2.5 cm long. Spikes terminal, numerous, mostly
in threes on each ultimate branchlet, cylindric, continuous, 1.5
to 2.5 em long, about 6 mm in diameter, pale when dry, pubescent,
many-flowered, secund. Bracts and bracteoles similar in size
and shape, oblong-ovate, apiculate-acuminate, about 4 mm long,
uniformly pubescent with rather long pale hairs, the indumentum
on the calyx quite similar. Calyx about 5 mm long, the upper
segment 2 mm wide, the two lateral ones nearly free, less than
one-half as wide as the upper one, the lower segment cleft about
one-third. Corolla 5 mm long. Capsule narrowly oblong, nar-
rowed upward, obtuse, about 5 mm long.
This species is manifestly in the group with Lepidagathis
mucronata Nees, L. parviflora Blume, and L. javanica Blume,
but is apparently distinct from all of these and from the other
allied species. It is well characterized by its oblong to oblong-
lanceolate, relatively long-petioled leaves; its equal bracts and
bracteoles; its short, dense, somewhat crowded spikes; and its
small flowers.
The species manifestly represents Bungum mas as figured and
described by Rumphius, a form that previously has not been
A474 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
correctly placed, even as to its genus. In the early literature
Bungum mas was confused with Justicia purpurea Linn. and with
Justicia bivalvis Linn. (see Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr.,
page 476). It has also been referred by various authors to
Hypoestes purpurea R. Br., to Rostellularia purpurea R. Br.,
and to FR. diffusa Nees, with none of which it has much in
common.
ACANTHUS Linnaeus
ACANTHUS EBRACTEATUS Vahl Symb. 2 (1791) 75, t. 40; 3 (1794) 85.
Dilivaria ebracteata Pers. Syn. 2 (1807) 179.
Aquifolium indicum | mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 163, t. 71, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 106, October 29, 1913, in
mangrove swamps, flowers white, with a faint tinge of violet.
Both forms of Aquifolium indicum Rumph. were reduced by
Linnaeus to Acanthus tlicifolius Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1123,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 892, in which he was followed by Burman f.
and by Loureiro. However, two species are described and fig-
ured; I mas, clearly the form characterized by Vahl as Acanthus
ebracteatus, and II femina, equally clearly the form characterized
by Wallich as Acanthus volubilis (see the following species).
The Rumphian figure and description were referred by Vahl,
Symb. 3 (1794) 85, to Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl, in which he
was followed by Willdenow. Poiret, Henschel, Dietrich, Nees,
Pritzel, and Miquel cite it under Dilivaria ebracteata Pers., but
in the more modern literature it is cited under Acanthus ebract-
eatus Vahl.
ACANTHUS VOLUBILIS Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 2 (1832) 56, t. 172.
Dilivaria volubilis Nees in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 3 (1833) 98.
Dilivaria scandens Nees in DC. Prodr. 11 (1857) 269.
Aquifolium indicum Il femina Rumph. Herb. Amb..6: 163, t. 71, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Ayer putri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 107, July 28, 1918,
along tidal streams, subscandent.
As noted above under Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl, Linnaeus
originally reduced this form to Acanthus ilicifolius Linn. Nees
and Miquel cite it under Dilivaria scandens Nees; which, as Acan-
thus volubilis Wall., is certainly the correct disposition of it.
GRAPTOPHYLLUM Nees
GRAPTOPHYLLUM PICTUM (Linn.) Griff. Notul. 4 (1854) 1389.
Justioa: pictas Linn, (Sp. Uredia2) sGliiG2)| aie
Graptophyllum hortense Nees in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 102.
Folium bracteatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 73, ¢. 30 (incl. vulgare,
rubrum, et igneum Rumph. I. c. 738, 74).
ACANTHACEAE AT5
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. ‘Amb 108, November 1, 1918,
from cultivated plants, altitude about 175 meters, locally known as telaga.
Folium bracteatum is cited by Linnaeus as a synonym of Justi-
cia picta Linn. in its original place of publication; which, as
Graptophyllum pictum Griff., is certainly the correct disposi-
tion of it. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 78, has referred
the several color forms, vulgare, rubrum, and igneum, to the
varieties album Hassk., rubrum Hassk., and igneum Hassk.,
respectively.
PSEUDERANTHEMUM Radlkofer
PSEUDERANTHEMUM PULCHELLUM (Hort.) Merr. in Philip. Journ.
Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 248.
Eranthemum pulchellum Hort. Gartenmag. (1810) 176, t. 17.
Eranthemum bicolor Schrank Hort. Monac. (1819) t. 8.
Pseuderanthemum bicolor Radik. ex Lindau in Engl. & Prantl Nat.
Pflanzenfam. 4°” (1895) 3830.
Bungum femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 52, t. 21, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 96, August 30, 1913,
at low altitudes, locally known as bunga burong.
The specimen cited above agrees closely with Rumphius’s
description and figure and certainly represents Bungum femina
Rumph. It is also unmistakably the form commonly known as
Eranthemum bicolor Schrank or Pseuderanthemum bicolor
Radlk., for which Pseuderanthemum pulchellum (Hort.) Merr.
is an older name. The Rumphian species has not been previous-
ly determined in connection with modern taxonomy. Hass-
karl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 161, suggested that Bungum femina
might be Dipteracanthus ventricosus Nees or D. patulus Nees.
PSEUDERANTHEMUM CURTATUM (C. B. Clarke) comb. nov.
Eranthemum curtatum C. B. Clarke in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35
(1905) 89.
Ophiocolla altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 34.
AMBOINA, Lateri and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 94,
August and September, 1913, in forests, altitude not indicated.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 157, thought that possibly
Ophiocolla altera Rumph. might be referable to Justicia echolium
Linn., but this suggested reduction is certainly wrong. The
specimen cited above agrees fully with Rumphius’s description
and with our very large series of Hranthemum curtatum C. B.
Clarke, a species of wide distribution in the Philippines, this
species in turn being allied to Hranthemum malaccense C. B.
Clarke and EH. crenulatuwm Nees; all of these species must be
referred to Pseuderanthemum.
476 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
PSEUDERANTHEMUM RACEMOSUM (Roxb.) Radlk. ex Lindau in Engl.
& Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 4’ (1895) 330.
Eranthemum racemosum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 3, nomen nudum,
Fl Ind? ed. °2, 11. C18aZ)qade:
Olus caprinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 54.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 95, August 30, 1913,
along roadsides at low altitudes, flowers pale purplish.
No previous identification of Olus caprinum Rumph. has been
suggested, other than Hasskarl’s reference of it to the Acan-
thaceae. The specimen cited above agrees very closely with
Rumphius’s description and even better with that of Roxburgh.
The type of Hranthemum racemosum Roxb. was from the
Moluccas.
PERISTROPHE Nees
PERISTROPHE BIVALVIS (Linn.) comb. nov.
Justicia bivalvis Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 850 (type!). ;
Justicia, tinctoria Roxb. Fl. Ind. 1 (1820).;124,
Peristrophe tinctoria Nees in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 118.
Folium tinctorium Rumph.-Herb. Amb. 6: 51, t. 22, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Soja and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 98,
August, 1913, in light woods, altitude 200 to 400 meters.
The synonymy of this species is especially complicated, but
Justicia bivalvis Linn. as originally published, not as currently
interpreted in modern botanical literature, is clearly based wholly
on Folium tinctorium Rumph. and nothing else. In Stickman’s
Herb. Amb. (1754) 26, Linnaeus erroneously referred it to
Jussiaea [sic!] purpurea Linn., a manifest error for Justicia
purpurea Linn., this species having been based on specimens
collected by Osbeck in China. In Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134
it appears thus: “22 Folium tinctorium=—ZJusticia bivalvis,”
clearly indicating from the cited name, Folium tinctorium, that
t. 22, f. 1, was indicated. However, in the same year, Linnaeus
published Justicia bivalvis with a short description, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 850, with an erroneous reference to ‘“Rumph. VI.
t. 29,” which is a fern, Athyrium esculentum Copel; the descrip-
tion unmistakably applies to Folium tinctorium Rumph. from
which it was apparently taken. In the same place Linnaeus
erroneously referred t. 22, f. 1 (Folium tinctorium), to Justicia
purpurea Linn., following his first treatment of it in Stickman’s
Herbarium Amboinense. Again, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 23, Lin-
naeus referred to Justicia purpurea the Rumphian Folium tinc-
torium Herb. Amb. 6: 51, t. 22, f. 1, and on the same page he
referred to Justicia bivalvis the Rumphian Bungum Herb. Amb.
ACANTHACEAE ATT
6:55, t. 22, f. 1 [f. 2 intended], Bungum being a species of Lepi-
dagathis (see p. 473). Burman f., Lamarck, Loureiro, and
Poiret followed Linnaeus and apparently interpreted Justicia
purpurea Linn. from Folium tinctorium Rumph., citing the
Rumphian name and figure as a synonym. Vahl, Murray,
Willdenow, Poiret, Roemer and Schultes, and Roxburgh cite
the Rumphian name and figure under Justicia bivalvis Linn.,
which, as Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., is certainly the
correct disposition of it. More recent authors cite Molium
tinctorium Rumph. under Peristrophe tinctoria Nees, a syn-
onym of P. bivalvis (Linn.) Merr.
Justicia purpurea Linn. was described from specimens col-
lected by Osbeck in the vicinity of Canton, China, and has not
been definitely placed, although a simple examination of the
specimen in the Linnean herbarium should settle its status;
it is probably a species of Rostellularia. Justicia bivaliais Linn.
has been misinterpreted by modern authors. It is described
as Dicliptera bivalvis Juss., a species that has nothing to do
with the Linnean species as originally published. Additional
synonyms of Peristrophe bivalvis Merr. are Sautiera tinctorium
Span. and Justicia roxburgiana R. & S.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 161, refers Folium tincto-
rium I to Peristrophe tinctoria Nees var. concolor Hassk. and
Folium tinctorium II to Peristrophe tinctoria Nees var. rubri-
nervis Hassk., but the two are manifestly merely color variants
of a single species.
RHINACANTHUS Nees
RHINACANTHUS NASUTA (Linn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 39”
(1870) 79.
Jusvicia, nasuta Linn. Sp. Pl. "(1753) “16.
Rhinacanthus communis Nees in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 109.
Gendarussa femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 72, t. 29.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 105,
September 13, 1913, in hedge rows.
Linnaeus referred this to Justicia nasuta Linn., in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126; which,
as Rhinacanthus nasuta (Linn.) Kurz, I consider to be the cor-
rect disposition of Gendarussa femina Rumph. In the Systema
ed. 10 (1759) 850, Linnaeus erroneously refers ‘“Rumph. amb.
IV. ¢t. 17,’ =Lawsonia inermis Linn., to Justicia nasuta; and at
the same time he refers ‘“Rumph. VI. t. 29” to Justicia bivalvis.
Justicia bivalvis Linn. is Peristrophe tinctoria Nees=Peristrophe
bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., while ““Rumph. VI. t. 29” is Rhinacanthus
A78 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
nasuta (Linn.) Kurz. Other authors, however, have referred it
to Justicia gendarussa Burm. f., which is represented by Genda-
russa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 70, t. 28 (see below). The form
described as Gendarussa femina II from Bali is indeterminable from
the data at present available and may not even belong to the
Acanthaceae.
JUSTICIA Linnaeus
JUSTICIA GENDARUSSA Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 10.
Justicia gendarussa Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 85.
Gendarussa vulgaris Nees in Wall. Pl. As. Rar. 3 (1832) 104.
Gendarussa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 70, ¢. 28 (incl. vulgaris alba,
vulgaris nigra, and vulgaris fusca Rumph. 70, 71).
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 104, October 31, 1913, near the
seashore, locally known as gandarussa mera; Hitoe messen, in light forests,
Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 108, November 5, 1913, altitude about 100
meters, locally known as gandarussa puti.
Gendarussa Rumph. was reduced by Burman f. to Justicia
gendarussa Burm. f., in the original description of the species,
which was primarily based on actual specimens in Burman’s
hands. The species is Burman’s and was not originally described
by Linnaeus as credited in most modern publications. Most
authors have followed Burman in citing Rumphius’s Gendarussa
under Justicia gendarussa Burm. f., but a few have followed Nees
and have cited it under Gendarussa vulgaris Nees, a synonym of
Justicia gendarussa Burm.f. The forms described by Rumphius
are hardly worthy of note, although Hasskar] referred the first
to the variety viridis Hassk. and the second to the variety nigra
Hassk.
RUBIACEAE *
DENTELLA Forster
DENTELLA REPENS (Linn.) Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 26, t. 18.
Oldenlandia repens Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 40.
Crusta ollae III angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 461, t. 170, f. 4.
This common and widely distributed herb is not represented in
our Amboina collections. The Rumphian figure and description,
however, unmistakably apply to Dentella repens Forst. The
reduction to Dentella repens was first made by Loureiro, Fl.
Cochinch. (1790) 78 (Oldenlandia repens Linn.). All authors,
since Willdenow, who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian
*T am indebted to Dr. Th. Valeton for assistance in identifying our
Amboina Rubiaceae, and for critical notes regarding Rumphian species
of this family.
ty
RUBIACEAE A79
illustration, have placed it where it manifestly belongs, under
Dentella repens Forst.
HEDYOTIS Linnaeus
HEDYOTIS VERTICILLATA (Linn.) Lam. Ill. 1 (1791) 271.
Oldenlandia verticillata Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 40.
Hedyotis hispida Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 28.
Spermacoce articularis Linn. f. Suppl. (1781) 119.
Hedyotis crateogonum Spreng. Pl. Min. Cog. Pugillus 2 (1815) 35.
Crateogonum amboinicum Il majus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25, ft. 10.
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 158, July 20, 1913,
on coral rocks, altitude 5 meters.
Oldenlandia verticillata Linn. was based primarily on speci-
mens cultivated in the botanic garden at Upsala, with an
additional reference to Crateogonum amboinicum Rumph. The
description applies in all particulars to the widely distributed
plant commonly known as Hedyotis hispida Retz. Spermacoce
articularis Linn. f. was likewise based on specimens cultivated
at Upsala, also with a reference to Rumphius, and is undoubtedly
correctly placed as a synonym of Hedyotis verticillata Lam.
Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 338, erroneously referred it to Sper-
macoce tenuior Linn.; and Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. 5 (1804) 17,
considered that the Rumphian figure represented Parietaria
indica Linn., which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it.
Hedyotis crateogonum Spreng. was based, at least in part, on
Rumphius and is unquestionably a synonym of Hedyotis verti-
cillata (Linn.) Lam. as here interpreted.
HEDYOTIS TENELLIFLORA Blume Bijdr. (1826) 971.
Crateogonum amboinicum | minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 25.
This was reduced by the younger Linnaeus to Spermacoce
stricta Linn. f. in the original description of that species, Suppl.
(1781) 120, in which he was followed by Willdenow, Roemer and
Schultes, Poiret, and Henschel. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857)
182, thought that it might be the same as the Philippine Hedyotis
angustifolia Miq., which is entirely improbable. The reduction
to Hedyotis tenellifiora Blume was suggested by Doctor Valeton,
which in all probability is the correct disposition of the Rumph-
lan species.
UNCARIA * Schreber
UNCARIA CORDATA (Lour.) comb. nov.
Restiaria cordata Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 6389.
Uncaria pedicellata Roxb. Hort. Bene. (1814) 86, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. 2 (1824) 128.
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Ourouparia Aubl. (1775) is older.
ASO RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Nauclea lanosa Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl.:4 (1816) 64 (type!).
Funis uncatus lanosus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 65, t. 34, f. 3 (fig. C,
in expl. pl.).
AMBOINA, Ermes, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 154, August 9, 1913, along’
the edges of forests, altitude about 250 meters.
Funis uncatus lanosus Rumph. is apparently the whole basis
of Nauclea lanosa Poir., which Haviland reduces to Uncaria
lanosa Wall., although Poiret’s species may have been based on
actual specimens. Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 126, referred
t. 24, f. 2, 3, of Rumphius to Uncaria gambir (Hunter) Roxb.,
which is certainly an erroneous disposition of both figures. The
type of Uncaria pedicellata Roxb. was from the Moluccas. I
have adopted Loureiro’s specific name for the species as it is much
older than any of the others and as there is no doubt as to the
identity of Restiaria cordata Lour.; for Haviland, who cites it
as a synonym of Uncaria pedicellata Roxb., examined Loureiro’s
original specimen in the herbarium of the British Museum.
Rumphius’s reduced figure of F'unis uncatus lanosus is rather
poor, but his description applies unmistakably to the plant here
interpreted as Uncaria cordata (Lour.) Merr. Dr. Valeton
thinks that fig. 3 may go with Uncaria pteropoda Miq. and fig. 1
with U. cordata Merr.
UNCARIA SETILOBA Benth. in Hook. Lond. Journ. Bot. 2 (1843) 223.
Uncaria florida Vid. Phan. Cuming. Philip. (1885) 176.
Funis uncatus angustifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 68, t. 34, f. 2 (fig.
B. in expl. pl.).
AMBOINA, Batoe merah and Way tommo, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 149,
August, 1918, on river banks and hillsides, altitude 5 to 80 meters.
Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 126, referred this to Uncaria
gambir Roxb., which is certainly wrong. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat.
2 (1857) 150, thought that it might be Uncaria ferrea DC. It
is unquestionably the same as Uncaria setiloba Benth., the type
of which was from Amboina, and which is identical with the
rather widely distributed Philippine form later described by
Vidal as Uncaria florida. The species is known only from the
Philippines and Amboina.
UNCARIA LONGIFLORA (Poir.) comb. nov. .
Nauclea longiflora Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 4 (1816) 63 (type!).
Uncaria pteropoda Migq. FI. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 3438.
Funis uncatus latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 63, t. 34, f..1 isa: A.
in expl. pl.).
AMBOINA, Way tommo and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
153, August and October, 19138, in thickets, altitude 80 to 225 meters.
en ee
RUBIACEAE 48]
Nauclea longiflora Poir. was based wholly on Funis uncatus
latifolius Rumph. and has been reduced to Uncaria acida Roxb.,
where it certainly does not belong. Under no. 1538, cited above,
two species are involved, one of which is apparently a form of
Uncaria pteropoda Miq. Unfortunately the specimens are sterile.
Dr. Valeton states that the Amboina specimen closely resembles
those of Malacca and the Philippines in which the petioles are
mostly destitute of the wings that are characteristic of the
typical form of Uncaria pteropoda Miq., but that in the form
and nervation of the leaves they are almost identical with those
of the typical Sumatran and Javan form with large wings.
ADINA Salisbury
ADINA FAGIFOLIA (Teysm. & Binn.) Valeton in herb. comb. nov.
Nauclea fagifolia Teysm. & Binn. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1866) 117, nomen
nudum; Havil. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 33 (1897) 68.
Neonauclea fagifolia Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 539.
Ulassium mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 42, t. 22.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections,
yet unquestionably Ulasstwm mas is identical with Nauclea fagi-
folia Teysm. & Binn., a species of which the flowers and fruits
have not as yet been described. Dr. Valeton has studied the
species and finds it to be an Adina; it will be figured and de-
scribed by him in a forthcoming number of Icones Bogoriensis.
Teysmann, quoted by MHasskarl, referred the Rumphian
species to Nauclea fagifolia Teysm. and Binn.; but Loureiro,
Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 633, was entirely wrong in reducing it to
Echinus trisulcus Lour., with which it has nothing in common.
The species is cultivated in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg,
Java, and is known from Celebes and Buru.
The two forms described in the same chapter with Ulassium
mas, U. femina and U. lapideum, are too inadequately treated to
warrant even a surmise as to their identity. One or both may
be referable to Adina fagifolia Val., or they may represent
entirely different species.
NEONAUCLEA Merrill
(Nauclea auct., non Linnaeus)
NEONAUCLEA MOLUCCANA (Miq.) Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5
(1915) 541.
Nauclea moluccana Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lug’d.-Bat. 4 (1868-69) 183.
Laharus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 44, t. 24.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Liang, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 148, 161, 162, August and November, 1918, hillsides and light
woods at low altitudes, locally known as laharong and nessat karang.
144971——-1
482 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
This is manifestly the form Rumphius described as Laharus,
which Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 49, thought might rep-
resent Nauclea parvifolia Roxb.—Mitragyna parvifolia Korth.
of India and Ceylon. The Amboina plant is a true Neonauclea
and is identical with Neonauclea moluccana (Miq.) Merr., the
type of which was from Buru. Dr. Valeton has indicated to me
that this species, although closely resembling Nauclea purpuras-
cens Korth., can be distinguished by its linear-lanceolate stipules,
which in Korthals’s species, as in the Philippine Neonauclea
calycina (Bartl.) Merr., are obovate-spatulate; Nauclea purpu-
rascens Korth. is apparently a synonym of Neonauclea calycina
(Bartl.) Merr. <A large-leaved form, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 162,
from coral limestone cliffs at Amahoesoe, August 28, 1913,
locally known as laharing, was thought by Doctor Robinson to
represent Laharus femina Rumph.
Under Laharus Rumphius described three forms, distinguished
wholly on wood characters; these are Laharus lapideus, L. femina,
and L. mixta. The first two are certainly Neonauclea, and I con-
sider both to be Neonauclea moluccana Merr.; the status of the
third is very doubtful, and it probably does not belong in
Neonauclea.
NEONAUCLEA sp.
Nessatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 465, t. 25.
Regarding this form, Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49,
states: ‘““Nauclea spec.? s. forsan Anthocephalus indicus Rich.?”
The figure is poor and is greatly reduced in size. The leaves
are described as 7 to 8 inches long, 24 to 3 inches wide, with
few nerves (5 to 7 in the figure), the heads solitary, long-
peduncled, and smaller than those of Laharus (Neonauclea
moluccana Merr.). Nessatus can scarcely be Anthocephalus
indicus Rich., but is apparently a species of Neonauclea allied to
N. moluccana Merr.
NAUCLEA Linnaeus
(Sarcocephalus Afzelius)
NAUCLEA UNDULATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind: 22(93824)) 187
Sarcocephalus undulatus Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 138.
Cadamba nocturna Ham. ex Hensch. Vita Rumph. (1833) 156 (type!).
Arbor noctis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 82, t. 54.
AMBOINA, Negri lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 150, September 8, 1913,
in light forests, altitude about 30 meters, locally known as humeleng.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 141, placed this under Nauclea
RUBIACEAE 483
orientalis Linn., to which Nauclea undulata Roxb. is manifestly
very closely allied. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 53, placed
it with doubt under Sarcocephalus undulatus Miq.—Nauclea
undulata Roxb., and I consider that he was correct in this reduc-
tion; Roxburgh’s type was from the Moluccas. The species can
be distinguished from the very closely allied Nauclea orientalis
Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Mig.) only by some relatively
unimportant characters. Arbor noctis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3:
83 is probably merely a form of the same species.
NAUCLEA MITRAGYNA (Miq.) Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915)
536.
Sarcocephalus mitragynus Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868-69)
180.
Bancalus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 84, ¢. 55.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
Linnaeus originally reduced Bancalus to Cephalanthus orientalis
Linn.—Nauclea orientalis Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq.),
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 128,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 887, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 243, in which he was
followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Poiret, de Candolle, Henschel,
and Pritzel. Willdenow, Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, and
other authors have referred it to Nauclea purpurea Roxb.; but
Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 1238, explicitly states that Bancalus
Rumph. is not the same as Nauclea purpurea Roxb.—Neonauclea
purpurea (Roxb.) Merr. The identification of ‘““Bancalus mas
sive parvifolius’” Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 83, t. 55, f. 1, 2, with
Sarcocephalus mitragynus Miq. was made by Miquel, his type
being from Ceram. I first referred it to Nauclea (Sarcocepha-
lus) subdita (Korth.) Merr., a species that is not definitely
known from the Moluccas. Nauclea mitragyna Miq. is in cul-
tivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, the specimen
having been secured by Teysmann in Amboina. Dr. Valeton
writes that it greatly resembles Sarcocephalus subditus Korth.,
and that he doubts whether or not it is specifically distinct from
Korthals’s species.
Rumphius included in his description what he took to be two
“species,” Bancalus mas and Bancalus media (major in expl. pl.) ;
but no definite characters are indicated, either in the descriptions
or in the figures, by which two distinct species can be recognized,
and it is suspected that the entire description and both figures
are referable to Nauclea mitragyna (Miq.) Merr. It is a true
Nauclea (Sarcocephalus), not a Neonauclea.*
*Merrill, E. D. On the application of the generic name Nauclea of
Linnaeus. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 530-542.
A84 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ANTHOCEPHALUS A. Richard
ANTHOCEPHALUS MACROPHYLLUS (Roxb.) Haviland in Journ. Linn.
Soe. Bot. 33 (1897) 28, t. 4, 7. $2=37.
Nauclea macrophylla Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 14, nomen nudum, FI.
Ind. 2 (1824) 120.
Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf.
Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 190 (Neue Schliissel 48) (type!).
Samama Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 36, t. 19.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 156, October 20, 1913,
on hillsides, altitude about 50 meters, locally known as samama.
Nauclea macrophylla Roxb. was originally described from
specimens cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta and
received from Amboina, the original tree still existing at Calcutta
as late as 1897. Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 122, placed
Samama, with doubt, under Cephalanthus orientalis Linn., which
was manifestly an erroneous disposition of it. Hasskarl, Neue:
Schliissel (1866) 48, thought that it might be the same as Antho-
cephalus morindifolius Korth., but also quoted Teysmann to the
effect that it was Nauclea elegans Teysm. & Binn., a name that
otherwise seems never to have been published and which must
be typified by Samama Rumph.; it is not included in Index
Kewensis. Samama is manifestly the same as Anthocephalus
macrophyllus Havil.
MUSSAENDA Linnaeus
MUSSAENDA FORSTENIANA Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Ludg.-Bat. 4 (1868-69)
188.
Folium principissae angustifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 111.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 165, August 25, 19138, in
forests, altitude about 160 meters.
Rumphius does not indicate to which of the two forms de-
scribed the illustration pertains, but after a study of the two
descriptions I have concluded that it goes with Folium princi-
pissae latifoium, not with Folium principissae angustifolium,
the reverse of Hasskarl’s consideration of the two. Folwm prin-
cipissae angustifolium as described is certainly represented by
the specimen cited above, which differs radically from the illus-
tration in its inflorescence. See the following species for a
historical discussion of Foliwm principissae.
MUSSAENDA REINWARDTIANA Mig. FI. Ind. Bat. 2 (1856) 211.
Mussaenda dasyphylla Mig. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868-69)
ipl hs
Folium principissae latifolilum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 111, t. 51.
AMBOINA, Batoe gadjah, Batoe merah, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson
RUBIACEAE 485
Pl. Rumph. Amb. 168, August, 1913, on wooded hillsides and in ravines,
altitude 25 to 250 meters.
The specimens agree entirely with Rumphius’s description of
Folium principissae latifolium and, except for the shape of the
leaves, with the illustration of Folium principissae. The Rumph-
ian plant manifestly has been interpreted by most authors
largely by the figure, and Hasskarl has referred the figure to
Folium principissae angustifolium, citing under this name the
various species to which it has been reduced. Linnaeus placed
it under Mussaenda frondosa Linn., a species typified by Ceylon
specimens, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 931, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 251,
in which he was followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Willdenow,
Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, and Pritzel. Lamarck, followed
by Poiret, placed it under Gardenia frondosa Lam., a synonym
of the Linnean species. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 38, in dis-
tinguishing Mussaenda glabra Vahl from M. frondosa Linn.
states: “Rumph. Folium Principissae huc potius pertinere vi-
detur,” in which disposition of it he was followed by Persoon,
Roemer and Schultes, de Candolle, Don, Henschel, Wight and
Arnott, and Dietrich; while Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 212,
placed it under Mussaenda frondosa Linn. var. glabra (Vahl)
Miq. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1759) 211, suggested that Folium
principissae latifolium Rumph. was the same as Mussaenda
reinwardtiana Miq. and in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 4 (1868-69)
187 that Folium principissae ‘““maius” (that is, latefoliwm), might
be Mussaenda dasyphylla Miq. Dr. Valeton states that the spe-
cimen cited above agrees absolutely with the description of
Mussaenda dasyphylla Miq., as well as with specimens collected
by Teysmann and by Boerlage, and that, although he has not
seen the type specimen of Mussaenda reinwardtiana Miq., he can
detect no real differences between the two descriptions.
GARDENIA Linnaeus
GARDENIA AUGUSTA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Varneria augusta Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 136 (type!).
Gardenia jasminoides Ellis in Philos. Trans. 51 * (1761) 935.
Gardema florida Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 305.
Catsjopiri Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 26, t. 14, f. 2.
This commonly cultivated shrub is not represented in our
Amboina collections. The form figured by Rumphius is the one
with double flowers and has been very generally cited as a syn-
onym of Gardenia florida Linn. since it was thus reduced by
Linnaeus in the original description of the species. However,
A86 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Gardenia jasminoides Ellis is older than the Linnean name G.
florida; and both are antedated by Varneria augusta Linn., which
was based wholly on the Rumphian illustration and description,
but which involves a generic name never taken up by Linnaeus
in his later writings, and one that has been entirely overlooked
by all authors.
GUETTARDA Linnaeus
GUETTARDA SPECIOSA Linn: Sp. Pl. (1753) 991.
Tittius litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 39.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 167, August 28, 1913,
along the seashore.
The only previously suggested identification of Tittius litorea
is Henschel’s reference of it to Clerodendron infortunatum Linn.,
which is manifestly wrong. The description applies very closely
to Guettarda speciosa Linn., and I am confident that this is the
correct disposition of it. The wood from Ternate that is de-
scribed in the same chapter, under the name Bololo maluhi, prob-
ably belongs to this species.
TIMONIUS * de Candolle
TIMONIUS SERICEUS (Desf.) K. Sch. Fl. Kaiser Wilhelmsland (1889)
131.
Polyphragmon sericeum Desf. in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 6 (1820)
Gf. 2.
Timonius rumphit DC. Prodr. 4 (1830) 461 (type!).
Erithalis timon Spreng. Pl. Min. Cog. Pugillus 1 (1813) 18 (type!).
Timonius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 216, t. 140.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 166, July 20, 1913, on grassy
hillsides, altitude about 10 meters, locally known as timon.
Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1°? (1800) 997, made the first reduction
of Timonius, placing it as a variety of E'rithalis polygama Forst.
It is the type and whole basis of H'rithalis timon Spreng. and
of Timonius rumphu DC. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 234,
correctly reduced it, with Timonius rumphi DC., to Polyphrag-
mon sericeum Desf., the type of which was from Timor. By
other authors it has been erroneously reduced to Polyphragmon
minus Rich. and to Bobea wallichiana Kostel. The species is
known from Timor, Banda, Amboina, Ternate, and New Guinea
with varieties in Timor, New Guinea, and Queensland.+
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Nelitris Gaertn. (1788), Porocarpus
Gaertn. (1791), Polyphragmon Desf. (1820), Helospora Jack (18238), and
Burneya C. & S. (1829) are older.
+ See Valeton in Bull. Dépt. Agr. Ind. Néerl. 26 (1909) 52.
RUBIACEAE AS7
IXORA Linnaeus
IXORA CHINENSIS Lam. Encycl. 3 (1789) 344.
Ixora stricta Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 10 (type!).
Flamma silvarum peregrina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 107, t. 47.
AMBOINA, Ermes, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 159, ‘August 9; 1913, from
cultivated plants.
Linnaeus originally reduced this to Pavetta indica Linn., in
Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 894, Mant. 2 (1771) 331, in which erroneous
disposition of it he was followed by Burman f., Murray, Willde-
now, and Pritzel. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 75, discusses
it under [xora coccinea Linn., to which it is allied, but from
which it is manifestly distinct. Lamarck cites it in the original
description of Ixora chinensis, his actual type being a specimen
collected by Sonnerat, supposed to have come from China. It
is the whole basis of Ixora stricta Roxb. as originally published
in the Hortus Bengalensis * and is undoubtedly the form later
described under this name by Roxburgh, FI. Ind. 1 (1820) 388,
ed. 2, 1 (18382) 3879, from specimens cultivated in the botanic
garden in Calcutta, which were introduced from the Moluccas in
1798. Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 268, placed it under Pavetta
stricta Blume, which is a synonym of Ixora stricta Roxb. The
species is not a native of Amboina, but according to Rumphius
it was introduced from Java about 1675.
IXORA FULGENS Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 10 (type!).
Flamma silvarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 105, t. 46.
AMBOINA, Soja, Mahija, and Koesoekoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph.
Amb. 169, August, 1913, in light forests, altitude 250 to 450 meters, locally
known as daun pichapiring.
Flamma silvarum Rumph., representing a very characteristic
species, was originally reduced by Linnaeus to Ixora coccinea
Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 893, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 159, a
species with which it has little in common, and to which it is not
at all closely allied. This disposition of it was accepted by
Burman f., Loureiro, Willdenow, and Persoon. Roemer and
Schultes, Syst. 3 (1818) 179, erroneously placed it under Ixora
mmearnata Roxb. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 348, placed it under
Ixora lanceolata Lam., but the species described is certainly not
the same as the Amboina plant. Flamma silvarum is the whole
* C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413.
A488 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
basis of I[xora fulgens Roxb. as originally published in the Hortus
Bengalensis (1814) 10, * while the species that Roxburgh later
described under this name, FI. Ind. 1 (1820) 387, is probably
the same as the plant here referred to Jxora fulgens Roxb. The
specimens on which the description was based were grown in the
botanic garden at Calcutta, introduced from the Moluccas, and
under it Roxburgh cites “Flamma silvarum Rumph. Amb. IV.
105. t. 46? pretty good.” It has also been cited under Jxora
longiflora Sm., Pavetta longiflora Sm., and by Miquel under
Pavetta amboinica Blume. I strongly suspect that the last is
a synonym of Ixora fulgens Roxb., but not having access to-the
original publications, I am unable to settle the status of Ixora
longiflora Sm. (Pavetta longiflora Sm.) in connection with Ixora
fulgens Roxb. Ixora. macrothyrsa Teysm. & Binn. should be
critically compared.
PSYCHOTRIA Linnaeus
PSYCHOTRIA sp.
Caju panu Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 12, t. 6, f. 2.
The figure represents a rather characteristic species of Psycho-
tria, and the description of the seeds confirms this generic
identification of Caju panu. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl,
Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, placed it in Psychotria. It is not
represented in our Amboina collections, and further identifica-
tion of it is impossible at this time. The only species of the
genus known from Amboinia is Psychotria leptothyrsa Miq. (Rel.
Robins. 1736, 1749, det. Valeton), but Caju panu cannot be re-
ferred to Miquel’s species.
HYDNOPHYTUM Jack
HYDNOPHYTUM AMBOINENSE Becc. Malesia 2 (1885) 188, t. 32, f. 1-7.
Nidus germinans formicarium niger Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119,
t. 55, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Wakeroe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 164, October 7, 1913, on
trees in a mangrove swamp.
In the original description of Hydnophytum formicarium Jack
the Rumphian species was reduced as a synonym, but Jack’s
species is entirely distinct from the Amboina form. Miquel,
Fl]. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 309, placed it under Hydnophytum monta-
num Blume, which Beccari considers as a form or variety of
H. formicarium Jack. Hydnophytum amboinense Becc. was de-
scribed from Amboina specimens and is certainly the form that
Rumphius described as Nidus germinans formicarium niger,
which Beccari reduced to Hydnophytum amboinense Becc.
* See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 418.
RUBIACEAE 489
MYRMECODIA Jack
MYRMECODIA RUMPHII Becc. Malesia 2 (1884) 117, t. 12, f. 1-6.
Nidus germinans formicarium ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 119,
fe. fF. 2.
AMBOINA, Hoetoemoeri road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 152, September
24, 1913, epiphytic on Melaleuca, altitude about 200 meters, locally known
as laru.
Jack, Trans. Linn. Soc. 14 (1823) 123, reduced the Rumphian
plant to Myrmecodia tuberosa Jack in the original description
of that species, but Myrmecodia tuberosa Jack is a species known
from Sumatra, Singapore, Java, and Borneo and is quite dif-
ferent from the Amboina plant. De Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830)
450, referred it to Myrmecodia inermis Gaudich., which is Hyd-
nophytum gaudichaudiw Bece. Beccari’s description of Myrme-
codia rumphiit was based on an Amboina specimen collected by
him in January, 1873, and to this species he reduced Nidus
germinans formicarium ruber Rumph., which is certainly the
correct disposition of it. Myrmecodia amboinensis Becc., Ma-
lesia 2 (1884) 97, nomen nudum, is apparently merely a misprint
for Myrmecodia rumphii Becc.
PAEDERIA * Linnaeus
PAEDERIA FOETIDA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 52.
Apocynum foetidum Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 71.
Paederia amboinensis Miq. in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1869) 254.
Convolvulus foetidus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 436, t. 160.
AMBOINA, Wakal, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 163, November 5, 1913, in
thickets near the seashore, locally known as daun konto konto.
Convolvulus foetidus Rumph. was reduced by Linnaeus to
Paederia foetida Linn. and by Burman f., to Apocynum foetidum
Burm. f., although the types of both species were actual speci-
mens. Practically all authors have cited Convolvulus foetidus
as a synonym of Paederia foetida Linn., but there is nothing
in the description or figure by which it can be distinguished
from Paederia tomentosa Blume; for that matter there is nothing
in the original description of either Paederia foetida Linn. or
P. tomentosa Blume by which the two can be distinguished,
yet authors generally agree in retaining them as distinct ; Convol-
vulus foetidus Rumph. could with equal propriety be referred
to Paederia foetida Blume. The actual Amboina specimen, cited
above, is quite glabrous, with lanceolate leaves, and unfortun-
* Retained name, Vienna Code; Hondbessen Adans. and Dauncontu
Adans. (1763) are older.
490 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
ately presents no fruits. The fruit characters are the ones
depended upon by modern botanists for distinguishing the two
species here discussed. Whatever else it may prove to be, it is
certainly the form described by Miquel as Paederia amboinensis.
MORINDA Linnaeus
MORINDA CITRIFOLIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 176.
Bancudus latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 158, t. 99.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 151, August 30, 1918,
along the seashore, locally known as binkudong.
Bancudus latifolia Rumph. was first reduced to Morinda citri-
folia Linn., in Stickman Herb: Amb. (1754) 138, Amoen. Acad.
4 (1759) 124, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 930, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 250,
which disposition of it is manifestly correct and has been accepted
by all authors. Morinda latifolia Rumph. is certainly the same
as Bancudus latifolia Rumph. and accordingly is placed here,
following Miquel and Hasskarl. |
MORINDA BRACTEATA Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 15, nomen nudum,
Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 198.
Bancudus angustifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 157, t. 98.
AMBOINA, Hatiwe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 155, September 14, 1918,
in formerly cultivated lands, altitude about 10 meters.
Linnaeus erroneously reduced Bancudus angustifolia Rumph.
to Morinda umbellata Linn., Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1762) 250, in which
he was followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Lamarck, Roemer and
Schultes, and Pritzel. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 1 (1798) 992, thought
that it might be a variety of Morinda citrifolia Linn.; while
Roemer and Schuites, Syst. 5 (1819) 215, placed it with doubt
under Morinda angustifolia Roth. Roxburgh cites it in the
original description of Morinda bracteata Roxb., with the state-
ment that it ‘thas the process of the calyx of my plant, but I
cannot say they agree in other respects.” It seems to be the
same as Morinda bracteata Roxb. var. celebica Miq.*
CUCURBITACEAE
MELOTHRIA Linnaeus
MELOTHRIA INDICA Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 35.
Cucumis murinus viridis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 463, t. 171, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Robinson, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 394, July 22, 1913, along the banks
of the river, locally known as daun pepinyu tikus.
This reduction was made by Loureiro in the original descrip-
* See Valeton Ic. Bogor. 3 (1908) ¢#. 269.
CUCURBITACEAE AQ]
tion of Melothria indica and is apparently correct. As noted
by Rumphius, the fresh plant has quite the odor and taste of
the ordinary cucumber, Cucumis sativus Linn.
MELOTHRIA JAVANICA (Mig.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881)
625, ex descr.
Karivia javanica Migq. FI. Ind. Bat. 1* (1856) 661.
Cucumis murinus ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 463, t. 171, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 398, October 28, 1913, in
open ravines, altitude about 70 meters, the fruit red, locally known as
pepinyo tikos.
The identity of the specimen with Cucumis murinus ruber is
quite certain, although the petioles are shorter than indicated
by Rumphius’s figure. Its identification with Melothria javanica
has been made from the description alone, as I have seen no
authentic specimens of that species; it is, however, reported
from Amboina by Cogniaux. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
147, suggests that it is Aechmandra blumeana Roem.=Melothria
marginata (Blume) Cogn. Just what species is represented is
possibly doubtful, but there is no question as to the correctness
of the generic identification.
LUFFA (Tournefort) Linnaeus
LUFFA ACUTANGULA (Linn.) Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 70, Fl. Ind. ed.
Pano, Cloog) +f ld.
Cucumis acutangulus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1011.
Petola bengalensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 408, t. 149.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collection, but
is generally cultivated in the Indo-Malayan region and probably
still occurs in Amboina. Petola bengalensis was reduced by
Linnaeus to Cucumis acutangulus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 24, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768)
1486, and by many subsequent authors it was cited under Luffa
acutangula (Linn.) Roxb. Rumphius’s figure is excellent.
LUFFA CYLINDRICA (Linn.) Roem. Syn. 2 (1846) 68.
Momordica luffa Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1009.
Momordica cylindrica Linn. 1. ec.
Luffa sylvestris Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat 1* (1856) 666 (type!).
Luffa petola Ser. in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 303 (type!).
Petola seu Petola Tschina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 405, t. 147.
Petola silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 409, t. 150.
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 395, climbing on trees near
the beach, locally known as kalabasa utan.
The specimen cited is the ordinary wild form, which differs
from the commonly cultivated form in its somewhat smaller
492 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
leaves and much smaller fruits. This wild form is of wide
distribution in the Malayan region, especially in thickets near
the seashore. Plate 147 of Rumphius is an excellent representa-
tion of the cultivated form, while plate 150 is a fair representa-
tion of the wild form. Petola of Rumphius was reduced by
Linnaeus to his Momordica luffa, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, but
in Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1433 he cites ¢t. 148. It is the whole basis
of Luffa petola Ser. in DC. Prodr. 3 (1828) 303. Another syn-
onym is Luffa pentandra Roxb. FI. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 712,
this author also citing Petola Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: t. 147 as
representing his species. Petola silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb.
5: 409, t. 150, is the whole basis of Luffa sylvestris Migq. FI.
Ind. Bat. 11 (1856) 666, which was erroneously reduced by
Cogniaux, DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 461, to Luffa acutangula
Roxb.; this synonym should be transferred to Luffa cylindrica
Roem., the actual Amboina specimen cited above being a topotype
of Miquel’s species.
CITRULLUS Necker
CITRULLUS VULGARIS Schrad. in Linnaea 12 (1838) 412.
Cucurbita citrullus Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1010.
Anguria indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 400, t. 146, f. 1.
Anguria indica altera Rumph. 1. c. 400.
AMBOINA, in waste places near Castle Victoria, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. |
892, November 13, 1913, locally known as pateka.
The figure given by Rumphius is a good representation of
the common watermelon. It was first reduced to Cucurbita
citrullus by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 28,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, Sp. Pl.
ed. 2 (1763) 1435, this reduction being followed by all early
authors.
CUCUMIS Linnaeus
CUCUMIS SATIVUS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1012.
Cucumis ? rumphii Hassk. in Abh. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866)
280 (Neue Schliissel (1866) 138) (type!).
Cucumis indicus | vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404.
Cucumis indicus III sinensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404, t. 146, f. 2.
The common cucumber is not represented in our Amboina
collections, but is widely cultivated in the Malay Archipelago.
There is no doubt whatever as to the correctness of the reduc-
tion of Cucumis indicus vulgaris, while I am equally certain
that C. indicus sinensis is but a small form of the same species;
CUCURBITACEAE 4923
the latter is the whole basis of Cucumis ? rumphiu Hassk.,
which, incidentally, is not listed in Index Kewensis. The figure
is very poor. Cucumis indicus II boetonensis Rumph. |. c. 404 is
probably another form of Cucumis sativus Linn. with somewhat
3-angled fruits; Hasskarl suggests that it may be C. trigonus
Roxb. or C. turbinatus Roxb. (= trigonus Roxb.), which can
hardly be accepted on account of the geographic range of
Roxburgh’s species, while Rumphius’s description does not agree
with the characters of C. trigonus Roxb. Cucumis indicus IV
maximus Rumph. is referred by Hasskarl to Cucumis conomon
Thunb.—C. melo Linn., and is probably a form of the latter.
CUCUMIS MELO Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1011.
Melo Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 404.
The description doubtless applies to this Linnean species, to
which Melo Rumph. was reduced by Henschel. The major part
of the description in this chapter, however, refers to the
common cucumber, Cucumis sativus Linn.
BENINCASA Savi
BENINCASA HISPIDA (Thunb.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 518.
Cucurbita hispida Thunb. Fl. Jap. (1784) 322.
Benincasa cerifera Savi in Bibl. Ital. 9 (1818) 158.
Camolenga Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3895, t. 143.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 896, August 23, 19138, along road-
sides, locally known as labu.
The identity of Camolenga is so evident that it scarcely needs
discussion, for Rumphius’s figure is an excellent one of this
commonly cultivated plant. By Linnaeus it was erroneously
reduced to Cucurbita pepo Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb.. (1754)
28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1859) 132, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, but
generally it has been correctly placed by modern authors.
LAGENARIA Seringe
LAGENARIA LEUCANTHA (Duch.) Rusby in Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 4: 43.
Cucurbita leucantha Duch. in Lam. Encycl. 2 (1782) 150.
Cucurbita lagenaria Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1010.
Lagenaria vulgaris Ser. in Mém. Soc. Phys. Genév. 3* (1825) 25.
Cucurbita lagenaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 397, t. 144.
This commonly cultivated plant is not represented in our
Amboina. collections. The reduction was made by Linnaeus,
in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 23, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1859) 132,
Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278, has been very generally followed by
other authors, and is certainly the correct disposition of the
Rumphian plant. It is suspected that the plant described as
494 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Cucurbita indica vulgaris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 398, is also a
form of Lagenaria leucantha Rusby; although Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 1387, does not definitely place it. It has been
confused with Cucurbita pepo Linn. and C. melopepo Linn.
TRICHOSANTHES Linnaeus
TRICHOSANTHES TRIFOLIA (Linn.) comb. nov.
Momordica trifolia Linn. in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 182, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1278 (type!).
Momordica trifoliata Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 1484 (type!); Burm. f.
Fl. Ind. (1768) 309; Willd. Sp. Pl. 4 (1805) 604.
Trichosanthes trifoliata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 986; Cogn. in DC. Monog.
Phan. 3 (1881) 388.
Involucraria trifoliata Roem. Syn. (1846) 99.
Poppya sylvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 414, t. 152, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
The change of name is necessary as Momordica trifolia Linn.
antedates M. trifoliata Linn.; both are based wholly on the
Rumphian figure and description. It is to be noted, however,
that while Linnaeus in his first and second references correctly
cited the plate, he gave as the name Olus vespertilionis, which
appears, not in the descriptive text, but as a secondary name
on page 413 in the explanation of the plate. Trichosanthes
trifoliata Blume was based on Momordica trifoliata Linn., with
the addition of Javan specimens. It is barely possible that the
Amboina plant is not specifically identical with the Javan one,
a point for the future monographer to determine.
TRICHOSANTHES ANGUINA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1008.
Cucumis anguinus Linn. Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1279, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1437 (type!).
Petola anguina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 407, t. 148.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
There is no doubt, however,-as to the identity of Petola anguina
with the widely cultivated Trichosanthes anguina Linn. It is
to be noted that Cucumis anguinus Linn. was based wholly on
the Rumphian reference and. published quite independently of
Trichosanthes anguina Linn., both appearing in the second
edition of the Species Plantarum, the former on page 1437, the
latter on page 14382.
CUCURBITA Linnaeus
CUCURBITA PEPO Linn. Sp. Pl. (17538) 1010 p. p.
Pepo indicus Burm. Index Universalis Herb. Amb. 7 (1755) [6]
(type!).
Pepo indicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 399, t. 145.
CUCURBITACEAE 495
Three forms are described by Rumphius, all of which I consider
to represent variants of Cucurbita pepo Linn. The figure rep-
resents a form of the common squash, but was thought by
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 138, to
represent Lagenaria hispida Ser.—Benincasa hispida Cogn.,
which is figured and described by Rumphius under the name
Camolenga (see p. 493). Hasskarl thought that it was pos-
sibly intended for Cucurbita cantalupensis Haberle. Pepo in-
dicus Burm. does not appear in Index Kewensis.
COCCINEA Wight and Arnott
*COCCINEA CORDIFOLIA (Linn.) Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 3 (1881) 529.
Bryonia cordifolia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 1012.
Bryonia grandis Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 126.
Momordica monadelpha Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 708.
Vitis alba indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 448, t. 166, f. 1.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections;
according to Rumphius it was an introduced and cultivated
plant in Amboina. Vitis alba indica Rumph. was originally
reduced by Linnaeus to Bryonia cordifolia Linn. Syst. ed. 10
(1759) 1279; but later, Mant. 1 (1767) 126, it was placed under
Bryonia grandis Linn., which, however, is a synonym of Coccinea
cordifolia (Linn.) Cogn. It is cited by Roxburgh in the orig-
inal description of Momordica monadelpha Roxb.; and by other
authors it has been cited under Coccinea indica W. & A.,
C. loureiriana Roem., and C. grandis Roem., all synonyms of
Coccinea cordifolia (Linn.) Cogn. The species is widely dis-
tributed in the Indo-Malayan region in cultivation and is prob-
ably a native of British India.
MOMORDICA (Tournefort) Linnaeus
MOMORDICA CHARANTIA Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 1009.
Momordica indica Linn. in Stickm. Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 1382 (type!).
Amara indica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 410, t. 151.
Amara sinica Rumph. 1. c. 411.
Amara silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 413, t. 152, f. 1?
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 391, on trees near the beach,
October 31, 1918, locally known as papari.
The reduction of Amara indica Rumph. to Momordica char-
antia Linn. is manifestly correct and scarcely needs discussion.
It is to be noted, however, that the Rumphian figure is the
whole basis of Momordica indica Linn., published in 1754, re-
peated in 1759, but which does not appear in subsequent liter-
ature; it is not included in Index Kewensis. Amara sinica
496 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Rumph. is manifestly one of the cultivated forms with long
fruits. Amara sylvestris may be the wild form with greatly
reduced fruits, but there are some points in Rumphius’s descrip-
tion that militate against this reduction. The figure of the
latter iS very poor, presenting a habit sketch only, without
flowers or fruits.
MOMORDICA COCHINCHINENSIS (Lour.) Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 14.
Muricia cochinchinensis Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 596.
Poppya rotunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 414, t. 158.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 890, November 29, 19138, climb-
ing on trees along small streams near sea level, the fruit orange-red,
locally known as pepinyu tikus.
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1' (1856) 676, has placed this under
Trichosanthes cucumerina Linn.; but the description, especially
of the characteristic bracts and of the flower, is manifestly ap-
plicable to Momordica, not to Trichosanthes. Poppya oblonga —
Rumph., |. c. 414, is unquestionably also a species of Momordica,
from the description; although Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866)
140, suggests that it is Involucaria palmata Roem.=—Trichosan-
thes bracteata Voigt.
GOODENIACEAE
SCAEVOLA Linnaeus
SCAEVOLA FRUTESCENS (Mill.) Krause in Eng]. Pflanzenreich 54 (1912)
125.
Lobelia frutescens Mill. Gard. Dict. ed. 8 (1768) no. 1.
Lobelia taccada Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1788) 119, t. 25.
Scaevola koenigu Vahl Symb. Bot. 3 (1794) 36.
Buglossum litoreum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 116, ¢. 54.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 214, September 18,
1918, on rocks along the seashore, locally known as bapacheda.
Buglossum litorewm Rumph. was first reduced by Linnaeus
to Lobelia plumiert Linn.—Scaevola plumiert Vahl, in Stickman
Herb. Amb. (1754) 17, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed.
10 (1759) 1237, which is a species distinct from Scaevola fru-
tescens Krause, not the same as Buglossum litorewm Rumph.
Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 178, referred it to Scaevola lobelia
Murr., a synonym of S. plumierz Vahl. Other authors have re-
duced it as follows: Poiret to Lobelia taccada Gaertn.; Vahl to
Scaevola koenigit Vahl; Roxburgh to Scaevola taccada Roxb.;
and de Candolle to Scaevola velutina Presl; all are synonyms of
Scaevola frutescens (Mill.) Krause.
COMPOSITAE 497
COMPOSITAE
VERNONIA Schreber
VERNONIA CINEREA (Linn.) Less. in Linnaea 4 (1829) 291.
Conyza cinerea Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 862.
Senecio amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 36, ft. 14, f. 2.
AMBOINA, in and about the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb.
426, August 4, 1913, in waste places, along roadsides, on walls, etc.
Senecto amboinicus was first reduced by Linnaeus, Amoen.
Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1218, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763)
1208, to Conyza chinensis Linn., which is supposed to be Blumea
chinensis (Linn.) DC. Lamarck, Encycl. 2 (1768) 83, correctly
reduced it to Conyza cinerea Linn.—Vernonia cinerea Less.
Blume, Bijdr. (1826) 893, places it under his Vernonia linifolia,
while de Candolle, Prodr. 5 (1836) 25, places it under Vernonia
leptophylla DC.; both of these are synonyms of Vernonia cinerea
(Linn.) Less.
ADENOSTEMMA Forster
ADENOSTEMMA LAVENIA (Linn.) O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 1 (1891) 304.
Verbesina lavenia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 902.
Adenostemma viscosum Forst. Char. Gen. (1776) 90.
Olus scrofinum album Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 34, t. 14, f. 1.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 427,
July 25, 1913, in wet places.
Linnaeus, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 134, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768)
1208, followed by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 179, erroneously
reduced Olus scrofinum to Conyza cinerea Linn.—Vernonia
cinerea Less. The description given by Rumphius is unmis-
takably applicable to Adenostemma, while the figure is a fair
representation of this common and widely distributed species.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 158, considered that Olus
scrofinum album was in all probability Adenostemma viscosum
Forst.
AGERATUM Linnaeus
AGERATUM CONYZOIDES Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 889.
Olus scrofinum rubrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 35.
AMBOINA, roadsides in and about the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl.
Rumph. Amb. 428, August 4, 1913.
The description agrees sufficiently well with Ageratum cony-
zoides Linn. to render this determination of Olus scrofinum
rubrum fairly certain. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 158,
has suggested that it may be a species of Conyza (Blumea) or
Vernonia.
144971——32
A98 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
BLUMEA * de Candolle
BLUMEA BALSAMIFERA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1886) 447.
Conyza balsamifera Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1208.
Conyza odorata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 55, t. 24, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 417, August 25, 1913, in
open woods, altitude about 100 meters.
The Rumphian reference given by Linnaeus in the original
publication of Conyza balsamifera Linn. is presumably the type
of the species. It is the first citation given by Linnaeus, and
there is no evidence that he had an actual specimen before him.
The species has very generally been correctly interpreted by
succeeding authors, Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC. being a
rather well-marked and characteristic species of wide Indo-
Malayan distribution. Loureiro placed the Rumphian figure
under his Baccharis salvia, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 494, but Baccha-
ris salvia Lour. is a synonym of Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC.
Another synonym is Pluchea balsamifera Less. in Linnaea 6
(1831) 150. It is to be noted that the actual Amboina specimens
are much less pubescent than are Indo-Malayan specimens gener-
ally placed under Blumea balsamifera DC.; the leaves are more
lobed at the base, as shown in Rumphius’s figure, and in aspect
approach the Malayan species generally known as Blumea
appendiculata (Blume) DC. The involucral bracts, however,
are densely pubescent.
BLUMEA APPENDICULATA (Blume) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 447.
Conyza appendiculata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 895, non Lam.
Conyza mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56?
Conyza cadaverum Rumph. l. c.?
AMBOINA, Lateri, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 416, August 25, 1913, in wet
places at an altitude of 100 meters, the plant 1 to 2.5 meters high.
The specimen probably represents both Conyza mas and C.
cadaverum as described by Rumphius and is the same as the
Philippine plant that has been interpreted as Blumea appen-
diculata (Blume) DC. The specific name appendiculata is
invalidated by Conyza appendiculata Lam., but no change is
made here in consideration of the fact that the status of
Blumea appendiculata DC. is very uncertain; it may prove to
be merely a form of Blumea macrophylla (Blume) DC. or of
Blumea aromatica (Wall.) DC., or both of these may prove to
be but a single species. An examination of the actual types
and a critical revision of the entire genus are desirable.
*Retained name, Vienna Code; Placus Lour. (1790) is older.
COMPOSITAE 499
BLUMEA CHINENSIS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 444.
Conyza chinensis Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 862.
Conyza pubigera Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 118, saltem quoad syn. Rumph.!
Sonchus volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 299, t. 108, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Way tommo, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 421, August 17, 1913, in thickets
along the river, altitude about 50 meters, flowers yellow.
Conyza chinensis Linn. was based solely on a specimen col-
lected in China by Toren, and must be interpreted from that
specimen. Later, Linnaeus himself referred to it Sonchus volu-
bilis Rumph.; and, as Blumea chinensis DC. is at present inter-
preted, this reduction seems to be correct. At least the Amboina
plant is identical with the Philippine and Malayan form that
appears in herbaria as Blwmea chinensis DC. The reduction
was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22,
but is excluded in the reprint of this work in Amoen. Acad. 4
(1759) 181. The figure is again cited by Linnaeus, Mant. 1
(1767) 113, under Conyza pubigera Linn.; but the species was
based primarily on specimens cultivated in the botanic garden
at Upsala, and these specimens, in all probability, were not of
the same species as the plant Rumphius described and figured.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 485, placed it under his Cacalia
procumbens, but Cacalia procumbens Lour. is supposed to be
identical with Gynura sarmentosa DC. De Candolle, Prodr. 6
(18387) 298, places it under Gynura sarmentosa (Blume) DC.
with the following statement:
Icon. Rumph. 5 t. 1038, f. 2 nostram plantam non male refert et ideo forte
Cacalia procumbens Lour. coch. 2. p. 592 huc referenda?
Sonchus volubilis Rumph. is certainly not the same as Gynura
sarmentosa (Blume) DC.
BLUMEA sp.
Conyza indica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56?
AMBOINA, Kati-kati, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 415, October 19, 1913, in
grasslands, altitude about 70 meters.
The identity of Conyza indica minor with Blumea is merely
possible, the description being too indefinite to warrant a positive
identification at this time. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 180,
mentions it under Conyza hirsuta Linn., but it certainly is not
this species. It can hardly be Blumea balsamifera DC. as sug-
gested by Henschel, and it certainly cannot be Vicoa indica DC.
var. attenuata DC. as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 162. Even if the specimen cited above represents the
Rumphian Conyza indica minor, which is very doubtful, I cannot
500 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
refer it definitely to any species of Blwmea, although it doubtless
represents some described species of this difficult genus.
PLUCHEA Cassini
PLUCHEA INDICA (Linn.) Less. in Linnaea 6 (1831) 150.
Baccharis indica Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 861.
Sonchus volubilis javanicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 299, t. 104, f. 1.
AMBOINA, near the town of Amboina, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 422,
September 25, 1913, along borders of tidal swamps, locally known as
biluntas.
The Rumphian species was correctly reduced to Baccharis in-
dica by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 178; but Loureiro, FI.
Cochinch. (1790) 495, erroneously referred it to Conyza pubigera
Linn., which is a species of Blwmea (see p. 499). Lamarck,
Encycl. 2 (1768) 84, suggested that it might be the same as Cony-
za prolifera Lam.—Vernonia cinerea (Linn.) Less.; and, finally,
de Candolle, Prodr. 5 (1836) 320, placed it under Microglossa
volubilis DC. Pluchea indica (Linn.) Less. is certainly the
correct disposition of Sonchus volubilis javanicus Rumph. and
the figure cited above, but Sonchus volubilis Rumph. 1. c. 5:299,
t. 108, f. 2, is Blumea chinensis DC.
ECLIPTA * Linnaeus
ECLIPTA ALBA (Linn.) Hassk. Pl. Jav. Rar. (1848) 528.
Verbesina alba Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 902.
Ecliptica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 438, t. 18, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 428, July 29 and August 30, 1913,
near the town of Amboina, in sago swamps and in wet places, locally known
as gandarussa utan.
This was erroneously reduced by Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768)
184, to Verbesina biflora Linn. (= Wedelia biflora DC.), in which
he was followed by Linnaeus, Mant. 2 (1771) 475, and by
Murray, Syst. Veg. (1774) 648. Other names involved are
Eclipta erecta Linn., E’. prostrata Linn., and FH. alba Hassk. var.
erecta Hassk., all of which are properly synonyms of Eclipta
alba (Linn.) Hassk.
WEDELIA Jacquin
WEDELIA BIFLORA (Linn.) DC. in Wight Contrib. (1834) 18.
Verbesina biflora Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768) 1272.
Verbesina aquatica Burm. Index Alt. Herb. Amb. (1769) [18] (type!).
Seruneum aquatile Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 423, t. 156, f. 1.
* Retained name, Brussels Congress; Hupatoriophalacron Adans. (1763)
is older.
a
COMPOSITAE 5O1
AMBOINA, Caju poeti, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 419, August 2, 1913,
borders of light forests, ascending to an altitude of about 400 meters.
Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 2 (1857) 73, suggests that Seruneum
aquatile is nearly allied to Wollastonia strigulosa DC.; while
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 142, places it under Wedelia
scaberrima DC. I cannot see why the Amboina plant, which
certainly represents Seruneum aquatile, should not be referred
to the common and widely distributed Wedelia biflora (Linn.)
DC. The forms mentioned by Rumphius, |. c. 423, 426, as I al-
bum, II rubrum, and III album lanuginosum are all apparently
referable to Wedelia and may be forms of Wedelia biflora DC.
SPILANTHES Jacquin
SPILANTHES ACMELLA (Linn.) Murr. Syst. (1774) 610.
Verbesina acmella Linn. Sp. Pl. (1758) 901.
ABCdaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 145, t. 65.
AMBOINA, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 418, August 20, 1918, in a sago
swamp near the town of Amboina.
This common and widely distributed species was unquestion-
ably correctly reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 28, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 185, Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1768)
1271, to Verbesina acmella Linn. = Spilanthes acmella Murr.
Through error it is cited as a synonym of Hedysarum gangeticum
Linn. (= Desmodium gangeticum DC.) by Linnaeus in his
Systema ed. 10 (1759) 1169. Other names involved, to which
ABCdaria has been reduced, are Bidens acmella Lam., Spilan-
thes pseudo-acmella Murr., and Spilanthus tinctorius Lour.; the
first two being proper synonyms of Spilanthes acmella Murr.,
the latter supposed to be Adenostemma viscosum Forst., with
which ABbCdaria of Rumphius has little in common.
BIDENS Linnaeus
BIDENS CHINENSIS Willd. Sp. Pl. 3 (1804) 1719.
Bidens pilosa Linn. var. chinensis Linn. Mant. 3 (1771) 281?
Agrimonia molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 38, t. 15, f. 2.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 424, July 30, 1913, in
rocky soil, altitude about 10 meters.
Linnaeus originally reduced Agrimonia molucca Rumph. to
Bidens bipinnata Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 26,
Amoen Acad. 4 (1759) 134, where it certainly does not belong.
Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 488, transferred it to Bidens
pilosa Linn., a species closely allied to B. chinensis Willd., and
one to which Willdenow’s species has very generally been reduced
by most authors. Willdenow cites Agrimonia molucca in the
502 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
original description of Bidens chinensis, this being manifestly —
the correct disposition of it. De Candolle, Prodr. 5 (1836) 596,
placed it with doubt under Bidens wallichit DC., which is a
synonym of B. chinensis Willd.; while Miquel, Fl]. Ind. Bat. 2
(1857) 78, placed it under Bidens peduncularis Gaudich. The
form described by Miquel under this name is not Gaudichaud’s
species, but is Bidens chinensis Willd. As noted above Bidens
chinensis Willd. has very generally been sunk in B. pilosa Linn.,
but it is specifically distinct.* The Amboina material has been
determined as Bidens chinensis Willd. by Mr. E. E. Sherff, who
is making a critical study of the genus.
CHRYSANTHEMUM Linnaeus
CHRYSANTHEMUM INDICUM Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 889.
Matricaria sinensis Rumph. Herb. Aap: 5: 259, ¢. 92," fast mela
alba, II lutea, III rubra).
This widely distributed, cultivated plant is not represented
in our Amboina collections. The figure is an excellent represen-
tation of one of the commonly cultivated Malayan forms. It was
first reduced by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 21,
Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 1380, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1221, Sp. Pl.
ed. 2 (17638) 1253, and this reduction has been followed by all
subsequent authors.
ARTEMISIA Linnaeus
ARTEMISIA VULGARIS Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 848.
Artemisia latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 261, t. 91, f. 2.
Artemisia latifolia rubra Rumph. 1. c. 261?
There is no specimen of this widely distributed and well-known
species in our Amboina coliections. The figure is an excel-
lent representation of Artemisia vulgaris. The reduction of the
Rumphian figure and description was first made by Burman —
f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 177, in which he was followed by Loure-
iro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 491. Willdenow, Sp. Pl. 3 (1800)
1846, placed it under his Artemisia indica, which he considered
to represent a species distinct from the common European A7rte-
misia vulgaris Linn.; it is, however, a synonym of Artemisia
vulgaris Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 118, suggested
that Artemisia latifolia rubra Rumph. might be the same as
Artemisia grata Wall.=A. roxburghiana Bess.; the range of
the latter makes this suggested reduction an impossible one. It
* See Schulz, O. E. Bidens chinensis (L.) Willd. und verwandte Arten.
Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 50 (1914) Suppl. 176-187.
COMPOSITAE F023
may be a form of the common Artemisia vulgaris Linn., or it
may be an entirely different species. The description is too
indefinite to permit of its certain determination. It was not
from Amboina, but from a small island, Tagoelanda, near the
northern end of Celebes.
CARTHAMUS Linnaeus
CARTHAMUS TINCTORIUS Linn, Spy) (1753) 8380.
Cnicus indicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 215, t. 79, f. 2.
This species is not represented in our Amboina collections.
It is found in scattered cultivation throughout the Malayan
region, and Rumphius’s figure is a fair representation of this
common and well-known plant. Cnicus indicus was first reduced
to Carthamus tinctorius by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb.
(1754) 21, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 180, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1202,
Sp. Pl. ed. 2 (1763) 11638, in which he has been followed by
numerous other authors. This is unquestionably the correct
disposition of the plant figured and described by Rumphius.
EMILIA Cassini
EMILIA SONCHIFOLIA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 6 (1887) 302.
Cacalia sonchifolia Linn. Sp. Pl. (1753) 835.
Sonchus amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 297, t. 108, f. 1.
AMBOINA, Batoe merah and Roemah tiga, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 420,
July 20, 1918, in rocky and sandy soil, sea level to an altitude of about 15
meters, locally known as buka manis.
Sonchus amboinicus Rumph. was first reduced to Cacalia
sonchifolia Linn. by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754)
22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1204, Sp.
Pl. ed. 2 (17638) 1169, in which he was generally followed by later
authors until de Candolle transferred the species to Emilia. In
the more recent literature it appears under Emilia sonchifolia
DC., to which species it manifestly belongs.
CREPIS Linnaeus
CREPIS JAPONICA (Linn.) Benth. Fl. Hongk. (1861) 194.
Prenanthes japonica Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 107. -
Olus scrofinum luteum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 35?
AMBOINA, Batoe mera, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 425, in ditches,
altitude about 5 meters, July 20, 19138.
The description given by Rumphius is not sufficient to de-
termine whether or not Crepis japonica is the plant intended by
him. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 158, has suggested that
the description applies to some species of Bluwmea. The most
504 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
that can be definitely said regarding the Rumphian plant is that
it was a small composite with yellow flowers and pappiferous
achenes. |
COMPOSITAE ? indet.
Pilosella amboinica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 148.
The description is not sufficiently definite to warrant an identi-
fication of the plant. Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 177,
thought that it might be a species of Vernonia. Two forms are
described, with blue and with white flowers.
SPECIES DESCRIBED OR MENTIONED BY RUMPHIUS THAT CANNOT
BE DEFINITELY REFERRED TO THEIR PROPER FAMILIES
Below are listed forty-six Rumphian species that cannot, from
data at present available, be definitely referred to species de-
scribed under the binominal system. Other species of somewhat
similar doubtful status occur in the Herbarium Amboinense;
but those that can be definitely referred to their proper families,
genera, or probable species are discussed under the family,
generic, or specific names, as the case may be, in the preceding
systematic enumeration. It is very doubtful if many of the
species listed below can be definitely determined, yet some of
them can be certainly placed through field work carried on with
special reference to the native names cited by Rumphius. From
a systematic standpoint, however, these remaining doubtful
Rumphian species are of no importance, as in no case has a
binominal been based on any of the descriptions.
Lignum moschatum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 41.
Under this name three kinds of wood are described. There
is no description of the plants themselves. The only suggested
reduction is that of Henschel, Vita Rumph. (1833) 146, who
quotes Hamilton’s opinion that at least one of the species is
Limonia acidissima Linn. There is little or no authority for this
reduction. )
Lignum tsjidji Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 50.
Under this name a wood is described, which according to
Rumphius came from Kwangtung, Cambodia, and Siam. The
only suggested reduction is that made by Henschel, Vita Rumph.
(1833) 146, who referred it to Erythroxylum monogynum Roxb.
The range of Roxburgh’s species, India and Ceylon, makes this
reduction an impossible one.
——_—”
DOUBTFUL SPECIES 505
Pseudo-Sandalum buroense Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 55.
The description is sufficiently long and detailed, but I am
unable to recognize the family to which the plant belongs. It
was from Buru, there known as roweyl, lowelle, rawelle, and
bahamalosey. An exploration of Buru will doubtless yield
material by which its status can be determined. The other
plant described in this chapter, Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense,
is Osmoxylon umbelliferum (Lam.) Merr.
Jamtsja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 17.
The description is of the wood only. No data are given by
which it can be identified.
Metrosideros molucca femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 25, t. 12.
I do not recognize the group to which this species belongs,
although the description is good, as is also the figure. It is
not represented in our Amboina collections. It has nothing to
do with the two other forms described in this chapter, of which
Metrosideros molucca mas is Homalium foetidum Benth., and
Metrosideros molucca fungosa is apparently Harpullia arborea
Radlk.
Morfalla Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 46.
A tree from the Sula Islands and Ceram, briefly described.
From the digitate leaves Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49,
suggested that it might belong in the Araliaceae. The wood
characters given by Rumphius make this reduction an impos-
sible one. The flowers and fruits were unknown to Rumphius.
Corius mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 48, t. 27.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 49, quotes Teysmann’s opinion
that this may be a species of Tanghinia=Cerbera. This sug-
gested reduction is certainly incorrect. The description is ample,
and the figure presents a characteristic plant that should be
easily recognized when once collected in Amboina. The native
names cited are ekora, ekore, cajyu kore, aykole, and kole. It
probably belongs in the Apocynaceae.
Corius femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 48.
This description, forming a part of the same chapter as
Corius mas, applies to a quite different form. No suggestion
has been made as to its status, and I do not recognize the group
to which it belongs.
Carbonaria mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 52, t. 29.
A species of doubtful status. Thouars, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl.
3 (1813) 727, placed it under Monimia, where is certainly does
506 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
not belong. Hasskarl thought that it belonged in Hlaeocarpus,
while Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866)
50, placed it in Aglaia. If an Aglaia, which is very improbable,
it belongs in the group of very few species with simple leaves.
It cannot possibly be an Elaeocarpus. The figure represents a
characteristic species, and it should be readily recognized when
once collected in Amboina.
Carbonaria femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 58.
Hasskarl, Neue Schltissel (1866) 50, has suggested that this
may be a species of Elaeocarpus. There is nothing in the de-
scription to indicate that this reduction is the correct disposition
of it.
Carbonaria altera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 54.
Poiret, in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 3 (1813) 727, thought that this
might be some species of Monimia; it possibly belongs in the
Monimiaceae. The native names cited are hanet and uwlit
halewan. The form described in the same chapter as angustt-
folia may belong in the same group as Carbonaria altera, what-
ever this may prove to be.
Carbonaria altera litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3% 5o.
Undeterminable from any data given by Rumphius. Possibly
in the same group as Carbonaria altera Rumph.
Mangium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 57, t. 31.
This has been considered by several authors as possibly re-
presenting a species of Garcinia; while Henschel, Vita Rumph.
(1838) 154, placed it, with doubt, under Mangifera laxiflora
Desr., where it certainly does not belong. The figure looks
suspiciously like Buchanania arborea Blume, and the species
may ultimately prove to be a Buchanania. The description of
the fruits, however, does not at all apply to Buchanania, although
the figure of them conforms well to those of this genus. It is
possible that the description is a mixture of two different species.
Buchanania amboinensis Miq., represented by Rel. Robins. 1776,
1777, should be compared with this.
Lignum salis minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 61.
Undeterminable from any data given by Rumphius. The
description includes data regarding the habit of the plant, its
leaves, and its wood, with no data regarding the flowers or the
fruits. The native names cited are aytassi, aytassi laun maun,
and aytassi kitsjil.
DOUBTFUL SPECIES 507
Arbor facum minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 79, t. 51.
The description is very short, and the figure presents merely
a leafy branch. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel
(1866) 58, placed it in the Sapotaceae; but there is no warrant
for this reduction.
Cauda felis saxatilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 84,
Undeterminable from the description alone. The species has
nothing to do with the other forms described in this chapter,
which pertain to the genus Acalypha.
Kowackil Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 91.
The description is very brief and applies chiefly to the vege-
tative characters of the plant. It is compared with Pulasarius
arbor, described in the same chapter, which is Lepiniopsis ter-
natensis Valet. Its status is quite undeterminable.
Arbor palorum nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 99, t. 66.
Unrecognizable, yet the figure represents a sufficiently charac-
teristic plant, which should be readily detérminable when once
collected in Amboina.
Vertifolia alba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 100.
Under Vertifolia Rumphius described two forms, V. alba and
V. rubra, and figured one (t. 67), but did not indicate to which
of the two the figure pertained. Our Amboina material shows
conclusively that the figure belongs with Vertifolia rubra, which
is Perrottetia moluccana (Blume) Loesen.; see p. 335. Hass-
karl, apparently judging chiefly from the figure, thought
that the species might belong in the Huphorbiaceae, while
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 55, de-
finitely placed it in Hhretia, where it manifestly does not belong.
Vertifolia alba, as described, is entirely different from V. rubra,
and its status is undeterminable from any data at present
available.
Olus catappanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 182.
The status of this form is unrecognizable from the data given
by Rumphius. The form very briefly described in the same
chapter as Olus catappanicum aliud may be a Barringtonia.
Tanarius major Il Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 192.
Undeterminable. The other form described in this chapter,
and of which a figure is given, is Schizomeria serrata Hochr.
Daun parawas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 208.
This was from Batavia, Java. It is probably some rutaceous
plant, as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866). 67,
and is possibly a species of Clausena.
BOs RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Frutex carbonarius ! albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126, t. 62.
The figure is rather characteristic, but might represent either
a rubiaceous or a melastomataceous plant. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 85, thought that it might be a species of
Marumia; while Teysmann, as quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in
the Rubiaceae. Its status cannot be definitely determined with-
out more material from Amboina. The same name, without
description, is given by Rumphius Herb. Amb. 3: 383.
- Frutex carbonarius II ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126.
Perhaps a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by
Hasskarl.
Frutex carbonarius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127.
Probably a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by
Hasskarl.
Frutex carbonarius asper Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127.
Probably a species of the Melastomataceae. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 85, suggested that it might be a Rhodamnia, of
the Myrtaceae.
Frutex cerasiformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 184, t. 68.
The figure represents a very characteristic species, which,
however, I do not recognize. It has much the appearance of
Mimusops, but the description does not conform to this genus.
Limonellus litoreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 24.
Undeterminable from the very brief description given by
Rumphius.
Sinapister Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 73, t. 39, f. 1.
Undeterminable from data at present available. The draw-
ing presents a leafy branch with mature and juvenile leaves,
but no flowers or fruits. Sinapister minor described in the same
chapter may or may not belong to the same genus, whatever this
may prove to be. |
Funis butonicus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 77, t. 41, f. 1.
Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 97,
considered this to be a species of Artabotrys, but the special
characters of Artabotrys are entirely wanting in both the de-
scription and the figure. I do not recognize the group to which
the form figured belongs.
Serratula amara parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82.
Undeterminable from the description alone. Hasskarl, Neue
Schliissel (1866) 98, thought it was a scandent species of
Compositae.
DOUBTFUL SPECIES | 509
Funis pinguis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 83.
Hasskar! thought this was a species of Huphorbiaceae. The
description is not sufficiently definite to warrant a guess as to its
identity.
Blitum brasilianum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 238.
The brief discussion probably applies to a species of Amaran-
thus.
Herba timoris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 462.
This small herb is not determinable from the brief description
given by Rumphius. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 147,
placed it under Callitriche verna Linn., to which it cannot pos-
sibly be referred. Whatever else it may be, it cannot be a
Callitriche.
Aylilin Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 384.
Undeterminable from the brief description given by Rumphius.
It has nothing to do with the other plant described in this
chapter, Ophiocolla altera, which is Pseuderanthemum curtatum
Merr.
Radix etter Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 6, t. 4.
The description is inadequate, while the figure presents only
a leafy branch and the roots. It may possibly be a species of
Connarus. The plant was not from Amboina, but from Timor,
Etter, and Kisser.
Cortex acris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 9.
A tree, the flowers and fruits not described. The plant was
from Ceram, there known as sapela and appacau, from which
it may later be possible to determine the status of the plant
described.
Camean Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 14, t. 8, f. 1.
This possibly belongs to the Sapindaceae; Teysmann, quoted
by Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 186, placed it in Evodia,
where it can scarcely belong. The tree was known in Amboina
as camean.
Ay assa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 20.
The description is suggestive of the Sapindaceae, but is scarce-
ly definite enough to warrant a reduction of Ay assa at the
present time. It has been referred to Tetracera assa DC., and
in fact the specific name of that species seems to have been
derived from Ay assa Rumph. It has, however, nothing what-
ever to do with Tetracera, the description not applying in any
particular. It may prove to be an Evodia, of the Rutaceae.
510 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Lignum vinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 21. .
The material that Rumphius had was from Rotte, an island
southeast of Timor, the plant there being known as caju larat
or caju laro. The only possible way of determining its status
is through the native name and uses of the plant. The plant
itself is not described, the data given by Rumphius applying
chiefly to its uses.
Pangel boaja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22.
The material was from Bali. Undeterminable from the data
given by Rumphius.
Stercus squillarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22.
The status of this plant cannot be determined from the data
given by Rumphius. <A further exploration of Amboina may
yield material by which it can be determined.
Nanium calapparium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 55, t. 28, f. 2.
The figure presents only a leafy branch, the drawing being
rather crude. There is nothing in the description by which the
proper. place of the plant described can be determined.
Malum aruanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 585, t. 24, f. 1.
This plant was from the Aru Islands, there known as caim
gulur. It should be readily determined from a study of botanical
material from that region, as from the description it must be
a very characteristic species. The figure is very crude and
presents only a branchlet with four alternate, oblong leaves.
Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 191, suggested that it might
be a Hydnocarpus.
Caju gora aruana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 56, t. 24, f. 2.
There is no description, and the figure, which is very crude,
presents only a leafy branchlet. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl,
thought that it might be a species of Uvaria. There is no reason
for considering that this suggested reduction is correct.
Scrotum cussi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 59, t. 26, f. 2.
The status of this plant probably can be determined when it
is once collected in Amboina, as the figure is fairly good, and
the description is ample. Hasskarl, Neue Schlitissel (1866) 192,
thought that it might belong in the Apocynaceae, a reduction
that I consider to be an impossible one from the data given by
Rumphius. |
SEQUENCE OF SPECIES IN RUMPHIUS’S HERBA-
RIUM AMBOINENSE WITH THEIR BINOMIAL
EQUIVALENTS
This list of Rumphian species is presented in order to make
the present work more complete in itself. The list is arranged
as the names appear in the Herbarium Amboinense, with the
page and the plate references added, with also the binomial equiv-
alent for each species as determined in the preceding systematic
enumeration. The Rumphian names are in general those used
by Hasskarl, but I have not thought it necessary to give the
native names, which are often included by Rumphius in his
designations.
VOLUME I
Palma indica major: calappa 1-25, t. 1-3=Cocos nucifera Linn. (Palmae).
Pinanga (incl. alba et nigra) 26, t. 4=Areca catechu Linn. (Palmae).
Pinanga calapparia 28=Actinorhytis calapparia H. Wendl. & Drude
(Palmae).
Pinanga silvestris globosa 38, t. 5, f. 1=Calyptrocalyx spicatus Blume
(Palmae).
Pinanga silvestris glandiformis | 388, t. 6=Areca glandiformis Lam.
(Palmae).
Pinanga silvestris glandiformis Il 89=Pinanga sp. (Palmae).
Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis 40, t. 5, f. 2=Pinanga globulifera Merr.
(Palmae). ,
Pinanga silvestris e Buro 41=Mischophloeus paniculata Scheff. (Palmae).
Pinanga silvestris saxatilis 42, t. 7=Drymophloeus sp. (Palmae).
Saribus 42, t. 8=Livistona rotundifolia Mart. (Palmae).
Licuala arbor 44, t. 9=Licuala rumphii Blume (Palmae).
Lontarus domestica 45, t. 10=Borassus flabellifer Linn. (Palmae).
Lontaro simile lignum 52=Lusideroxylon zwageri T. & B. (Lauraceae).
Lontarus silvestris | 53, t. 11=Corypha utan Lam. (Palmae).
Lontarus silvestris e Philipp. 54=Corypha elata Roxb. (Palmae).
Lontarus silvestris s. cabang 55=Corypha gebanga Blume (=C. elata
Roxb.?) (Palmae).
Lontarus silvestris altera 56, t. 12—=Pholidocarpus ihur Blume (Palmae).
Palma indica vinaria 57, t. 13=Arenga pinnata Merr. (Palmae).
Arbor tsjang 63=ILvistona sp. (Palmae).
Saguaster major 64, t. 14=Caryota rumphiana Mart. (Palmae).
Saguaster minor 67, t. 15=Saguaster olivaeformis Mart. (Palmae).
Sargile 68=Drymophloeus appendiculatus Bece. (Palmae).
Nypa 69, t. 16=Nipa fruticans Wurmb (Palmae).
Sagus genuina 72, 75, t. 17, 18=Metroxylon sagu Rottb. (Palmae).
Sagus genuina II 75=Metroxylon micranthum Mart. (=? M. sagu Rottb.)
(Palmae).
511
512 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Sagus silvestris 75—=Metroxylon silvestre Mart. (=? M. sagu Rottb.)
(Palmae).
Sagus longispinus 75=Metroxylon longispinum Mart. (=? M. sagu Rottb.)
(Palmae).
Sagus laevis 76=Metroxylon laevis Mart. (=? M. sagu Rottb.) (Palmae).
Sagus filarius 84, t. 19=Pigafettia filifera Merr. (Palmae).
Wanga 85=Pigafettia elata H. Wendl. (Palmae).
Bissula 85=Jivistona ? bissula Mart. (Palmae).
Olus calappoides 86, t. 22, 23=Cycas rumphiu Miq. (Cycadaceae).
Olus calappoides II e Celebes 87, t. 20, 21=Cycas rumphii Mig. (Cyca-
daceae).
Arbor calappoides sinensis 92, t. 24—=Cycas revoluta Thunb. (Cycadaceae).
Manga domestica (incl. 1, 2, 3, 6) 938, t. 25, 26=Mangifera indica Linn.
(Anacardiaceae).
Manga domestica 4 minor 94=Mangifera minor Blume (Anacardiaceae).
Manga domestica 5 simiarum 94=Mangifera laurina Blume (Anacar-
diaceae).
Manga silvestris 97, t. 27=Mangifera utana Ham. (Anacardiaceae).
Manga silvestris e Banda 98=Mangifera tapia Ham. (Anacardiaceae).
Manga foetida 98, t. 28=Mangifera foetida Lour. (Anacardiaceae).
Manga foetida II s. wani 99=Mangifera caesia Jack (Anacardiaceae).
Durio 99, t. 29=Durio zibethinus Murr. (Bombacaceae). .
Saccus arboreus major 104, t. 30=Artocarpus integra (Thunb.) Merr.
(Moraceae).
Saccus arboreus minor 107, t. 31=Artocarpus champeden Spreng. (Mor-
aceae).
Caju bandaa 109 Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae).
Soccus lanosus 110, t. 32=Artocarpus communis Forst. (Moraceae).
Soccus granosus 112, t. 33=Artocarpus communis Forst. (Moraceae).
Soccus silvestris 114, t. 34—=Artocarpus elastica Reinw. (Moraceae).
Soccus silvestris 11 115—Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae).
Prunum stellatum 115, t. 35=Averrhoa carambola Linn. (Oxalidaceae).
Blimbingum teres 118, t. 36=Averrhoa bilimbi Linn. (Oxalidaceae).
Jambosa domestica 121, t. 37=EHugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa domestica I! minor 122—FEugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa domestica rosacea 122=—FHugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa domestica calapparia 122—Hugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myr-
taceae).
Jambosa rosacea 123=Hugenia jambos Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa nigra 125, t. 38, f. 1=Eugenia malaccensis Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa aquea 126, t. 38, f. 2=Eugenia aquea Burm. f. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa silvestris alba 127, t. 39=Eugenia sp. aff. jambos Linn. (Myr-
taceae).
Jambosa silvestris parvifolia 129, vol. 2: t. 40*=Hugenia javanica Lam.
(Myrtaceae).
Jambosa silvestris ayer utan 129=Hugenia stipularis Miq. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa ceramica 130, t. 41=Eugenia cumini Merr. (Myrtaceae).
Jambolana 131, t. 42=Eugenia cumini Merr. (Myrtaceae).
Mangostana 132, t. 43=Garcinia mangostana Linn. (Guttiferae).
Mangostana celebica 134, t. 44=Garcinia celebica Linn. (Guttiferae).
* Plate 40 is interchanged between Volumes I and II.
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME I 513
Arbor mundo 1385=Garcinia dulcis Kurz (Guttiferae).
Anona 135, t. 45=Annona reticulata Linn. (Annonaceae).
Khi 187=Diospyros kaki Linn. (Hbenaceae).
Anona tuberosa 188, t. 46—=Annona squamosa Linn. (Annonaceae).
Cujavus domestica 140, t. 47=—Psidium guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Cujavus agrestis 142, t. 48=Psidiwm guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Cujavus silvestris 143—Psidium guajava Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Cujavillus 145, t. 49=Psidium cujavillus Burm. f. (Myrtaceae).
Papaja mas et femina 145, t. 50, 51=Carica papaya Linn. (Caricaceae).
Papaja silvestris 149, t. 53, f. 1=Polyscias nodosa Seem. (Araliaceae).
Papaja silvestris minor 150, t. 58, f. 2=Jagera serrata Radlk. (Sapin-
daceae). ;
Papaja litorea 150, t. 52=Schefflera sp. (Brassaia littorea Seem.!) (Ara-
liaceae).
Lansium 151, t. 54=Lansium domesticum Correa (Meliaceae).
Lansium silvestre 153, t. 55=Aglaia silvestris Merr. (Meliaceae).
Lansium montanum 154, t. 56=Aglaia sp. (Meliaceae).
Cussambium 154, t. 57=Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Merr. (Sapindaceae).
Linkeng 157=Euphoria longana Lam. (Sapindaceae).
Pomum draconum 157, t. 58=Dracontomelum mangiferum Blume (Anacar-
diaceae).
Pomum draconum silvestre 159, t. 59=Dracontomelum silvestre Blume
(Anacardiaceae).
Condondum 161, t. 60=Spondias dulcis Forst. (Anacardiaceae).
Condondum malaccense 162, t. 61=Spondias pinnata Kurz (Anacar-
diaceae).
Cynomorium 163, t. 62=Cynometra cauliflora Linn. (Leguminosae).
Cynomorium silvestre 167, t. 63=Cynometra ramiflora Linn. (Legumi-
nosae).
Sandoricum domesticum 167, t. 64=Sandoricum koetjape Merr. (Meliaceae).
Gajanus 170, t. 65=Inocarpus edulis Forst. (Leguminosae).
Atunus 171, t. 66=Parinarium glaberrimum Hassk. (Rosaceae).
Vidoricum domesticum 173=Garcinia sp. (Guttiferae).
Vidoricum silvestre 173, t. 67 =Meliaceae indet.
Catappa domestica 175, t. 68=Terminalia catappa Linn. (Combretaceae).
Catappa silvestris litorea 173=Terminalia catappa Linn. (Combretaceae).
Catappa silvestris altera 175=Terminalia catappa Linn. (Combretaceae).
Cassuvium 177, t. 69=Anacardium occidentale Linn. (Anacardiaceae).
Cassuvium silvestre 179, t. 70=Semecarpus cassuvium Roxb. (Anacar-
diaceae).
Cassuvium silvestre p. p. (e Ternate) 180—=Semecarpus forsteni ‘Blume
(Anacardiaceae).
Gnemon domestica mas 181, t. 72=Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae).
Gnemon domestica femina 181, t. 71=Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae).
Gnemon silvestris 183, t. 72=Gnetum gnemon Linn. (Gnetaceae).
Morunga (incl. mas et femina) 185, t. 74, 75=Moringa oleifera Lam.
(Moringaceae),
Turia 188, t. 76=Sesbania grandiflora Pers. (Leguminosae).
Turia minor 190, t. 77=Sesbania grandiflora Pers. (Leguminosae).
Olus album domesticum 191, t. 78=Pisonia alba Span. (Nyctaginaceae).
Olus aibum insulare 193, t. 79, f. 1=Pisonia grandis R. Br. (Nyctagi-
naceae).
14497138
014 - RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Sajor volubilis 194, t. 79, f. 2=Pluckenetia volubilis Sm. (Euphorbiaceae).
Eriophorus javana 194, t. 80=Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. (Bombacaceae).
Bilacus 197, t. 81=Aegle marmelos Correa (Rutaceae).
Bilacus taurinus 199=Aegle marmelos Correa (Rutaceae).
Bilacus amboinensis silvestris 200, t. 82=? (sub Aegle, Rutaceae).
VOLUME II
Caryophyllum 1, t. 1=Hugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myrtaceae).
Caryophyllum regium 10, t. 2=Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myrtaceae).
Caryophyllum silvestre 12, t. 8=EHugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Myr-
taceae).
Nux myristica 14, t. 4=Myristica fragrans Houtt. (Myristicaceae).
Nux myristica mas 24, t. 5=Myristica fatua Houtt. (Myristicaceae).
Palala secunda 26, t. 6=Horsfieldia sylvestris Warb. (Myristicaceae).
Palala tertia 27, t. 7=Horsfieldia sp. (Myristicaceae).
Palala quarta 27, t. 8=Horsfieldia canariformis Merr. (Myristicaceae).
Palala quinta 28, t. 9=Gymnacranthera zippeliana Warb. (Myristicaceae).
Palala sexta 28=Knema tomentella Warb. (Myristicaceae).
Agallochum s. calambac 29=Aquilaria agallocha Roxb. (Thymelaeaceae).
Agallochum secundarium coinamense 34=Aquilaria malaccensis Lam.
(Thymelaeaceae).
Agallochum secundarium malaicense 35, t. 10=Aquilaria malaccensis Lam.
(Thymelaeaceae).
Agalilochum spurium 40=Gonystylus bancanus Baill. (Gonystylaceae).
Agallochum spurium album 40=? (sub Gonystylus, Gonystylaceae).
Agallochum spurium III 41> «coecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Lignum moschatum 41=
Sandalum 42, t. 11=Santalum album Linn. (Santalaceae).
Sandalum rubrum 47=Pterocarpus santalinus Linn. (Leguminosae).
Lignum tsjidji 5}0=?
Pseudo-sandalum amboinense 54, t. 12=Osmoxylon umbelliferum Merr.
(Araliaceae).
Pseudo-sandalum buronense 55=?
Lignum papuanum 57=? Altingia excelsa Noronha (Hamamelidaceae).
Lignum papuanum II 58=? (sub Altingia excelsa Noronha).
Lignum papuanum III 58=?
Caju galedupa 59, t. 18=Sindora galedupa Prain (Leguminosae).
Cortex oninius 62—Massoia aromatica Becc. (Lauraceae).
Cortex oninius I! 62= ? Massoia aromatica Becc. (Lauraceae).
Cortex caryophylloides albus 65, t. 14=Cinnamomum culilawan Blume
(Lauraceae).
Cortex caryophylloides ruber 66=Cinnamomum culilawan Blume var.
rubrum Blume (Lauraceae).
Culitlawan ex Papuanis insulis 66=Cinnamomum xanthoneurum Blume
(Lauraceae).
Sintoc 69=Cinnamomum javanicum Blume (Lauraceae).
Lauraster amboinensis maxima 70, t. 15=Cryptocarya sp. (Lauraceae).
Lauraster amboinensis minor 70=? Cryptocarya sp. (Lauraceae).
Arbor alba major 72, t. 16, 17, f. 1=Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Myr-
taceae).
Caju-kelam 74=Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor koring 74=? Dipterocarpus sp. (Dipterocarpaceae).
= . e
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME II 515
Arbor alba minor 76, t. 17, f. 2=Melaleuca leucadendra Linn. (Myrtaceae).
Myrtus amboinensis 77, t. 18=Leptospermum flavescens Sm. (Myrtaceae).
Pigmentaria 79, t. 19=Bixa orellana Linn. (Bixaceae)
Alliaria 81, t. 20=Dysoxylum euphlebium Merr. (Meliaceae).
Cassia fistula 83, t. 21—=Cassia fistula Linn. (Leguminosae).
Canna fistula javanica 86=Cassia javanica Linn. (Leguminosae).
Cassia fistula silvestris 88, t. 22—Cassia javanica Linn. (Leguminosae). .
Andawas 89=Wrightia sp. (Apocynaceae).
Bilalangh 89=? Leguminosae.
Ke ule 89=? Leguminosae.
Tamarindus 90, t. 28=Tamarindus indica Linn. (Leguminosae).
Tamarindus altera 98=Dialum indum Linn. (Leguminosae).
Malum granatum 94, t. 24, f. 1=Punica granatum Linn. (Punicaceae).
Limo decumanus 96, t. 24, f. 2=Citrus maxima Merr. (Rutaceae).
Malum citrium 99, t. 25=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Limo tuberosus 101, t. 26, f. 1=Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae).
Limo ventricosus 102, t. 26, f. 2=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Limo unguentarius 108=Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae).
Limo agrestis 104, t. 27=Citrus hystrix DC. (Rutaceae).
Limo taurinus 105=Citrus bergamia Risso (Rutaceae).
Limo ferus 106, t. 26, f. 3, t. 28=Citrus obversa Hassk. (Rutaceae).
Limonellus 107, ¢. 29=Citrus aurantifolia Swingle (Rutaceae).
Limonellus fructu acutissimo 108, t. 29, f. A=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Limonellus aurarius 109, t. 830=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Limonellus madurensis 110, t. 31=Fortunella japonica Swingle (Rutaceae).
Limoneilus angulosus 110, t. 32=Merope angulata Swingle (Rutaceae).
Aurantium acidum | t. 88=Citrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium acidum II 112=Citrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium acidum II! 112=Citrus aurantium Linn. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium sinense 113, t. 84=Citrus nobilis Lour. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium sinense II 113=Citrus nobilis Lour. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium verrucosum 115, t. 85=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium verrucosum e Banda 116=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Aurantium pumilum madurense 116=Citrus sp. (Rutaceae).
Malum indicum 117, t. 36=Zizyphus jujuba Lam. (Rhamnaceae).
Vidara littorea 119, t. 37=Ximenia americana Linn. (Olacaceae).
Lignum colubrinum timorense 121, t. 38=Strychnos muricata Kostel. (Lo-
ganiaceae).
Radix deiparae 124, t. 39=Gmelina villosa Roxb. (Verbenaceae).
Radix deiparae spuria 125, Vol. 1: t. 40 *=Gmelina villosa Roxb. (Verbe-
naceae).
Rex amaroris 129, t. 41=Soulamea amara Lam. (Simarubaceae).
Anisum moluccanum 182, t. 42=Fagara avicennae DC. (Rutaceae).
Anisifolium 133, t. 43=Feronia limonia Swingle (Rutaceae).
Saponaria 134=Sapindus rarak DC. (Sapindaceae).
Pharmacum sagueri 136, t. 44=Garcinia picrorhiza Miq. (Guttiferae).
Pharmacum limonicum 137, t. 44, f. B=Garcinia picrorhiza Miq. var. limon-
orhiza Boerl. (Guttiferae).
Capraria 139=Garuga abilo Merr. (Burseraceae).
Songium 140, t. 45=Dillenia elliptica Thunb. (Dilleniaceae).
* Plate 40 is interchanged between Volumes I and II.
516 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Sangius mas et femina 142, t. 46=Dillenia serrata Thunb. (Dilleniaceae).
Canarium vulgare 145, 146, ¢. 47=Canarium commune Linn. (Burseraceae).
Canarium vulgare majus rotundum 146, ¢t. 47, f. H=Canarium commune
Linn., var. (Burseraceae).
Canarium vulgare parvum oblongum 146, t. 47, f. F=Canarium commune
Linn., var. (Burseraceae).
Canarium vulgare parvum rotundum 146, t. 47, f. G=Canariwm commune
Linn., var. (Burseraceae).
Canarium zephyrinum 151, t. 48=Canarium zephyrinum Blume (Burse-
raceae).
Arbor zeylanica 1583=Canarium zeylanicum Blume (Burseraceae).
Canarium sinense | 154=Canarium pimela Koenig (Burseraceae).
Canarium sinense I! 154=Canarium album Rausch (Burseraceae).
Canarium sinense III| 154—Pimela caryophyliacea Blume=Canarium sp.
(Burseraceae).
Canarium silvestre 11 155, t. 49=Canarium sylvestre Gaertn. (Burse-
raceae.)
Canarium odoriferum leve 156, t. 5|0=Canarium balsamiferum Willd. (Bur-
seraceae.)
Canarium odoriferum leve, var. 156=Canarium sp. (Canartopsis paucijuga
Mig.) (Burseraceae).
Canarium odoriferum hirsutum 157, t. 51=Canarium hirsutum Willd.
(Burseraceae).
Dammara nigra 160, t. 52=Canarium acutifolium Merr. (Burseraceae).
Dammara nigra II femina 161=Canarium sp. (Burseraceae).
Dammara nigra legitima 162, t. 53=Canarium legitimum Blume (Burse-
raceae).
Nanarium minimum s. oleosum 162, t. 54=Canarium oleosum Engl. (Burse-
raceae).
Canarium decumanum 166, t. 55=Canarium decumanum Gaertn. (Burse-
raceae).
Dammara selanica mas 168, t. 56=Shorea selanica Blume (Dipterocar-
paceae).
Dammara selanica femina 169=Shorea selanica Blume var. latifolia Blume
(Dipterocarpaceae).
Dammara leucomelaena 172=?
Dammara alba 174, t. 57=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae).
Dammara alba mas 174=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae).
Dammara alba femina 175=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae).
Dammara alba regia 178=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae).
Dammara celebica 179=Agathis alba Foxw. (Pinaceae).
Camirium 180, t. 58=Aleurites moluccana Willd. (Euphorbiaceae).
Pangium 182, t. 59=Pangium edule Reinw. (Flacourtiaceae).
Fructus musculiformis 184, t. 60=Neuburgia musculiformis Miq. (Apocy-
naceae).
Ampacus latifolia 186, ¢. 61=Evodia latifolia DC. (Rutaceae).
Ampacus angustifolia 188, t. 62=Hvodia amboinensis Merr. (Rutaceae).
Ampacus litorea | 188=Allophyllus timorensis Blume (Sapindaceae).
Ampacus litorea angustifolia minor 189=Allophyllus ternatus Radlk. (Sa-
pindaceae).
Flos cuspidum 189, t. 623=Mimusops elengi Linn. (Sapotaceae).
Tanjonus litorea 193, t. 64=Mimusops parvifolia R. Br. (Sapotaceae).
a
Qe Ce eS eee
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME II 517
Cananga 195, t. 65=Canangium odoratum Baill. (Annonaceae).
Cananga silvestris | 197, t. 66, f. 1=Goniothalamus sp. (Annonaceae).
Cananga silvestris II 198, t. 66, f. 2=Polyalthia sp. (Uvaria ligularis Lam.)
(Annonaceae).
Cananga silvestris III! latifolia 198—=Melodorum latifolium Hook. f. & Th.
(Annonaceae).
Sampacca 199, t. 67=Michelia champaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca II parvifolia 200=Michelia parvifolia DC.=Michelia champaca
Linn. (Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca II! coerulea 200=Michelia coerulea DC.=M. champaca Linn.
(Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca IV alba 200=Michelia alba DC. (Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca silvestris 202, t. 68=Michelia tsiampaca Linn. (Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca silvestris luteo-viridis 202—Michelia tsiampaca Linn. (Magno-
liaceae).
Arbor violaria 203=? (sub Talauma, Magnoliaceae).
Sampacca montana 204, t. 69=Talauma rumphu Blume (Magnoliaceae).
Lingoum rubrum 205, t. 70=Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae).
Lingoum II album 206=Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae).
Lingoum III rubrum 209=Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae).
Lingoum saxatile 210—Pterocarpus indicus Willd. (Leguminosae).
Lingoum saxatile (e Ceram) 210=? Pterocarpus papuanus F. Muell. (Le-
guminosae).
Bintangor maritima 211, t. 71=Calophyllum wophyllum Linn. (Gutti-
ferae).
Bintangor silvestris 216, t. 72=Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f. (Guttiferae).
Bintangor montana II 217=Calophyllum soulattri Burm. f. (Guttiferae).
Bintangor montana III 217=Calophyllum sp. (Guttiferae).
Novella 218, t. 78=Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae).
Novella repens 222, t. 78, f. A=Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae).
Novella rubra 223=Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn. (Malvaceae).
Novella litorea 224, t. 74=Thespesia populnea Corr. (Malvaceae).
Novella nigra 226, t. 75=Cordia subcordata Lam. (Boraginaceae).
Novella cinerea 227=? Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae).
Gelala litorea 230, t. 76=Erythrina variegata Linn. var. orientalis Merr.
(Leguminosae).
Gelala litorea (e Java et e China) 2382, 2832—? Hrythrina variegata Linn.
var. orientalis Merr. (Leguminosae).
Gelala alba 234, t. 77=Erythrina variegata Linn. (Leguminosae).
Gelala alba (e Java) 234=LHrythrina variegata Linn. (Leguminosae).
Gelala aquatica 235, t. 78 =Hrythrina fusca Lour. (Leguminosae).
Arbor excoecans 237, t. 79, 80=Excoecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphorbia-
ceae).
Arbor excoecans II variegata 239=LExcoecaria agallocha Linn. (Euphor-
biaceae).
Arbor lactaria 243, t. 81=Cerbera manghas Linn. (Apocynaceae).
Lignum scholare 246, t. 82=Alstonia scholaris (Linn.) R. Br. (Apocy-
naceae).
Arbor bindaus 248=—?
Arbor pinguis 249, t. 83=Pimeleodendron amboinicum Hassk. (EHuphor-
biaceae) .
Gutta cambodja 251=Garcinia cambogia Desr. (Guttiferae).
518 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Lactaria salubris 255, t. 84=Ochrosia oppositifolia K. Sch. (Apocynaceae).
Arbor regis 257, t. 85=Endospermum moluccanum Bece. (Huphorbiaceae).
Arbor vernicis 259, t. 86=Gluta benghas Linn. (Anacardiaceae).
Arbor toxicaria 263, t. 8?7=Antiaris toxicaria Lesch. (Moraceae).
Arbor toxicaria femina 264=Antiaris toxicaria Lesch. (Moraceae).
Upas alterum 264=Strychnos sp. (Loganiaceae).
VOLUME III
Ebenus 1, t. 1=Maba buxifolia Pers. (HKbenaceae).
Ebenus e Madagascar 6=? Maba sp. (Ebenaceae).
Ebenus molucca 6, t. 2=Diospyros maritima Blume (Ebenaceae).
Ebenus alba 8, t. 3=? Diospyros sp. (Ebenaceae).
Arbor nigra parvifolia 10, 11, ¢. 4, f. 2, t. 5=Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae).
Arbor nigra latifolia 10=? Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae).
Arbor nigra maculosa 12, t. 4, f. 1=? Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae).
Hebenaster 13, ¢. 6=Diospyros ebeneum Koen. (Ebenaceae).
Hebenaster amalyensis 15—=Diospyros sp. (Hbenaceae).
Metrosideros vera parvifolia 16, t. 7—Metrosideros vera Roxb. (Myrtaceae).
Metrosideros vera latifolia 16—=Metrosideros vera Roxb. (Myrtaceae).
Jamtsia 17=?
Metrosideros macassarensis 19, t. 8=Mimusops kauki Linn. (Sapotaceae).
Nani hua 21, t. 9=Baccaurea nanithua Merr. (Euphorbiaceae).
Metrosideros amboinensis mas 21, t. 10=Intsia bijuga O. Kuntze OMe gas
minosae).
Metrosideros amboinensis femina 22=? Intsia sp. (Leguminosae).
Metrosideros molucca mas 25, t. 11=Homalium foetidum Benth. (Flacour-
tiaceae).
Metrosideros molucca femina 25, t. 12=?
Metrosideros molucca fungosa 25—Harpullia arborea (Blanco) Radlk.
(Sapindaceae).
Metrosideros spuria | mas 26, t. 13, f. A=Artocarpus fretissi T. & B.
(Moraceae).
Metrosideros spuria I! femina 27, t. 13, f. B=Artocarpus sp. (Moraceae).
Coffassus mas 28, t. 14, f. A=Vitex cofassus Reinw. (Verbenaceae).
Coffassus albus (et femina) 28=—Vitex cofassus Reinw. (Verbenaceae).
Cofassus citrina 30, t. 15=Alstonia subsessilis Miq. (Apocynaceae).
Dabanus lapidea 31, t. 17=Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae).
Dabanus rubra 382, t. 16=Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae).
Dabanus mollis 32=Pometia pinnata Forst. (Sapindaceae).
Jatus 34, t. 18=Tectona grandis Linn. f. (Verbenaceae).
Samama 36, t. 19=Anthocephalus macrophyllus Havil. (Rubiaceae).
Tittius rubra 38, t. 20=Vitex moluccana Blume (Verbenaceae).
Tittius alba 38=Vitex moluccana Blume (Verbenaceae).
Tittius litorea 39=Guettarda speciosa Linn. (Rubiaceae).
Sicchius | mas 40, t. 21=? Palaquium sp. (Sapotaceae).
Sicchius II femina 41, t. 22=? Sideroxylon sp. (Sapotaceae).
Sicchius III intermedia 41=?
Ulassium mas 42, t. 283=Adina fagifolia Valeton (Rubiaceae).
Ulassium femina 42=? Adina sp. (Rubiaceae).
Ulassium lapideum 43=? Adina sp. (Rubiaceae).
Laharus lapideus (incl. femina et mixta) 44, t. 24—Neonauclea moluccana
Merr. (Rubiaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME III 519
Nessatus 45, t. 25—Neonauclea sp. (Rubiaceae).
Morfalla 46=?
Lignum emanum 47, t. 26=Podocarpus rumphii Blume (Taxaceae).
Corius mas et femina 48, t. 27=? (cf. Sapotaceae).
Lignum murinum majus 50, t. 28=Albizzia procera Benth. (Leguminosae).
Lignum murinum minus 50=Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae).
Lignum murinum parvifolium 51=Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae).
Arbor pete 51=Parkia speciosa Hassk. (Leguminosae).
Caju ticcos leytimorensis 52—? Albizzia procera Benth. (Leguminosae).
Carbonaria mas 52, t. 29=? (cf. Hlaeocarpus, Elaeocarpaceae) .
Carbonaria femina 53=?
Frutex carbonarius 538=?
Carbonaria altera 54=?
Carbonaria litorea 55=?
Lignum corneum 55, t. 30=Garcinia cornea Linn. (Guttiferae).
Lignum corneum angustifolium 56=Garcinia sp. (Guttiferae).
Mangium silvestre 57, t. 31=? (cf. Buchanania, Anacardiaceae).
Folium acidum majus 58, t. 82=Garcinia amboinensis Spreng. (Gutti-
ferae.)
Folium acidum minus 60, t. 38=? Garcinia ceramica Boerl. (Guttiferae).
Lignum salis minus 61=?
Ulet 62, t. 34=Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vid. (Moraceae).
Lignum eurinum 63, t. 35=Sideroxylon sp. (Sapotaceae).
Sirifolia 64, t. 36=Celtis philippensis Blanco (Ulmaceae).
Sirifolia litorea 65, t. 37=Celtis philippensis Blanco (Ulmaceae).
_ Arupa alba 66, t. 38=Payena leerti Kurz (Sapotaceae).
Arupa rubra 66=? Payena leerit Kurz (Sapotaceae).
Surenus 67, t. 39=Toona sureni Merr. (Melvaceae).
Machilus | mas 68, t. 40, f. A=Litsea sp. (Lauraceae).
Machilus II femina 69, t. 40 f. B.=Litsea sp. (Lauraceae).
Machilus III media 70, t. 41—Dehaasia media Blume (Lauraceae).
Machilus IV minima 70, t. 42=Machilus sp. (Lauraceae).
Lignum leve latifolium 71, t. 43—Intsea stickmanti Merr. (Lauraceae).
Lignum leve angustifolium 71, t. 44—Litsea sp. (Lauraceae).
Lignum leve alterum 72, t. 45=Litsea rumphii F.-Vill. (Lauraceae).
Lignum equinum 73, t. 46=Dolichandrone spathacea (Linn. f.) K. Schum.
(Bignoniaceae).
Arbor rubra | 74, t. 47 =Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor rubra | angustifolia minor 75, t. 48=Hugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor rubra Il 76=Eugenia melastomifolia Merr. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor rubra II saxatilis 76=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor rubra Ill 76=Eugenia rumphii Merr. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor rubra IV 77=Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Arbor facum major 77, t. 49=Sideroxylon microcarpum Burck (Sapo-
taceae).
Caju lape 78, t. 50=Huonymus sp. (Celastraceae).
Lignum salis 79, t. 51=?
Perticaria ferrea parvifolia 80, t. 52—? Hugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Perticaria ferrea latifolia 80=? Hugenta sp. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa litorea 81, t. 53=Hugenia subglauca K. & V. (Myrtaceae).
Jambosa silvestris alba 81=Hugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
520 | RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Arbor noctis 82, t. 54=Nauclea (Sarcocephalus) undulata Roxb. (Ru-
biaceae).
Bancalus mas 84, t. 55, f. 2=Nauclea (Sarcocephalus) mitragyna Merr.
(Rubiaceae).
Bancalus media 84, t. 55, f. 1=Nauclea mitragyna Merr. (Rubiaceae).
Quercus molucca 85, t. 56=Quercus molucca Linn. (Fagaceae).
Quercus molucca II 85=Quercus sp. (Fagaceae).
Casuarina litorea 86, t. 57=Casuarina equisetifolia Linn. (Casuarinaceae).
Casuarina montana 87, t. 58=Casuarina rumphiana Mig. (Casuarinaceae).
Casuarina celebica 87, t. 58, f. A=Casuarina sumatrana Mig. (Casuari-
naceae).
Arbor nuda 89, t. 59=Antidesma stipulare Blume (Euphorbiaceae).
Pulassarius arbor 90, t. 60—Lepiniopsis ternatensis Val. (Apocynaceae).
Kowackil 91=?
Granatum litoreum latifolium 92, t. 62—Xylocarpus moluccensis Roem.
(Meliaceae).
Granatum litoreum II latissimum 92—Xylocarpus moluccensis Roem. (Me-
liaceae). |
Granatum litoreum III parvifolium 93, t. 61=Xylocarpus granatum Koenig
(Meliaceae).
Atunus litorea 95, t. 68=Heritiera litoralis Dry. (Sterculiaceae).
Lignum clavorum 97, t. 64—=Sapotaceae.
Arbor palorum alba parvifolia 98, t. 65=? Lepisanthes sp. (Sapindaceae) .
Arbor palorum alba latifolia 99, t. 65, f. A=Mischocarpus fuscescens Blume
(Sapindaceae).
Arbor palorum nigra 99, t. 66=?
Vertifolia alba 100=—?
Vertifolia rubra 100, t. 67=Perrottetia moluccana Loesen. (Celastraceae) .
Mangium celsum 102, t. 68=Bruguiera conjugata Merr. (Rhizophoraceae).
Mangium minus 106, ¢t. 69 (excl. fls. et fig. A, B.) =Bruguiera conjugata
Merr. (Rhizophoraceae).
Mangium digitatum 107, t. 70=Bruguiera sexangula Poir. (Rhizopho-
raceae).
Mangium candelarium 108, t. 71, 72=Bruguwiera candelaria DC. (Rhizopho-
raceaeé.)
Mangium caseolare album 111, t. 78=Sonneratia alha Sm. (Sonneratia-
ceae).
Mangium caseolare rubrum 112, t. 74, 75—=Sonneratia caseolaris Engl.
(Sonneratiaceae).
Mangium album 115, t. 76=Avicennia officinalis Linn. (Verbenaceae).
Mangium fruticans | corniculatum 117, t. 77=Aegiceras corniculatum
Blanco (Myrsinaceae).
Mangium fruticans II parvifolium 117=Aegiceras floridum R. & S. (Myr-
sinaceae).
Mangium caryophylloides | 119, t. 78=Brugwiera cylindrica Blume (Rht-
zophoraceae).
Mangium caryophylloides I! parvifolium 119=Ceriops tagal C. B. Rob.
(Rhizophoraceae).
Mangium caryophylloides III latifolium 119=Ceriops tagal C. B. Rob.
(Rhizophoraceae).
Mangium ferreum mas 120, t. 79=Pemphis acidula Forst. (Lythraceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME III 591
Mangium ferreum mas 120, t. 79, fig. A, B=Aegiceras floridum R. & S.
(Myrsinaceae).
Mangium ferreum femina 120=? Aegiceras floridum R. & S. (Myrsi-
naceae).
Arbor versicolor 122, t. 80=Eucalyptus deglupta Blume (Myrtaceae).
Arbor versicolor s. Caju Sarassa=Hucalyptus sarassa Blume=? E. deg-
lupta Blume (Myrtaceae).
Mangium montanum 1238, t. 81=Acacia mangium Willd. (Leguminosae).
Umbraculum maris ceramense 124, t. 82=Aegiceras corniculatum Blanco
(Myrsinaceae).
Umbraculum maris amboinense 124=Aegiceras corniculatum Blanco (Myr-
sinaceae).
Mangium floridum 125, t. 88=Aegiceras floridum R. & 8S. (Myrsinaceae).
Mangium porcellanicum 126, t. 84—=Pemphis acidula Forst. (Lythraceae).
Surenus alba 126=Toona sureni Merr. (Meliaceae).
Surenus rubra 126=Toona sureni Merr. (Meliaceae).
Varinga latifolia 127, t. 84 bis=Ficus altissima Blume (Moraceae).
Varinga repens 134, t. 85=Ficus sp. aff. calophylla Blume (Moraceae).
Varinga supa 135, t. 86=? Ficus forstenu Miq. (Moraceae).
Varinga pelal 185=? Ficus forstenu Miq. (Moraceac).
Grossularia domestica 136, t. 87, 88=Ficus trematocarpa Miq. (Moraceae).
Grossularia domestica, longifolia 1836—=F cus sp. (Moraceae).
Grossularia domestica parvifolia 136—=F%icus sp. (Moraceae).
Varinga funicularis 137=F%cus sp. (Moraceae).
Varinga nounouck 187=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Grossularia silvestris 138, t. 89=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Varinga parvifolia alta 139, t. 90=Ficus benjamina Linn. (Moraceae).
Varinga parvifolia humilis 140=? Ficus benjamina Linn. (Moraceae).
Arbor eusanda 141=F%cus sp. (Moraceae).
Arbor conciliorum 142, t. 91, 92=Ficus rumphii Blume (Moraceae).
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta latifolia 145, t. 98=Ficus racemifera
Roxb. (Moraceae).
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta angustifolia 146—Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta silvestris 148=F%cus sp. (Moraceae).
Caprificus s. sycomorus chartaria 149=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Caprificus aspera latifolia 150, t. 94=Ficus wassa Roxb. (Moraceae).
Caprificus aspera II angustifolia 151—F%cus wassa Roxb. (Moraceae).
Caprificus aspera III glabra 151=F%cus moseleyana King (Moraceae).
Caprificus viridis major 152, t. 95=F cus conora King (Moraceae).
Caprificus viridis minor 152—F%cus adenosperma Mig. (Moraceae).
Ficus septica 153, t. 96=Ficus septica Burm. f. (Moraceae).
Ficus septica silvestris 1583=F%cus sp. (Moraceae).
Ficus septica angustifolia 154=F%cus sp. (Moraceae).
Arbor glutinosa 155, t. 97=Cordia myxa Linn. (Boraginaceae).
Bancudus angustifolia 157, t. 98=Morinda bracteata Roxb. (Rubiaceae).
Bancudus latifolia 158, t. 99=Morinda citrifolia Linn. (Rubiaceae).
Morinda latifolia 159=Morinda citrifolia Linn. (Rubiaceae).
Arbor aluminosa 160, t. 100=Symplocos javanica Kurz (Symplocaceae) .
Ganitrus 160, t. 101=? Elaeocarpus amboinensis Merr. (Elaeocarpaceae).
Ganitrum oblongum 163, t. 102=? Elaeocarpus oblongus Gaertn. (Elaeo-
carpaceae).
522 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Ganitrum 163=Elaeocarpus sp. (Elaeocarpaceae).
Lignum momentaneum 164. t. 103=? EHlaeocarpus sp. (Hlaeocarpaceae).
Arbor rediviva 165, t. 104=Elaeocarpus rumphii Merr. (EH laeocarpaceae).
Fructus bobae 166, t. 105=Stemonurus sp. (Icacinaceae).
Arbor spiculorum latifolia 167=Actinodaphne moluccana Blume (Lau-
raceae).
Arbor spiculorum brevifolia 167=? Actinodaphne moluccana Blume (Lau-
raceae).
Arbor spiculorum aeruginea 167, t. 106=Actinodaphne rumphii Blume
(Lauraceae).
Clompanus major 168, t. 107=Sterculia foetida Linn. (Sterculiaceae).
Clompanus minor 169, t. 107 bis=Sterculia treubii Hochr. (Sterculiaceae).
Clompanus ternatensis femina 170=Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae).
Clompanus ternatensis mas 170=Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae).
Clompanus silvestris 171=? Sterculia sp. (Sterculiaceae).
Folium mappae 172, t. 108=Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg. (Euphor-
biaceae).
Corallaria parvifolia 173, t. 109=Adenanthera pavonina Linn. (Legumi-
nosae).
Corallaria latifolia 175, t. 101=Ormosia calavensis Azaola (Leguminosae).
Clypearia alba 176, ¢. 111=Albizzia falcata Backer (Leguminosae).
Clypearia rubra 176, t. 112—=Pithecolobium clypearia Benth. (Leguminosae).
Clypearia rubra s. Sye Il 177=Albizzia sp. (Leguminosae).
Catti marus 177, t. 118=Kleinhovia hospita Linn. (Sterculiaceae).
Butonica 179, ¢t. 114=Barringtonia asiatica Kurz (Lecythidaceae).
Butonica terrestris rubra 181, ¢. 115=Barringtonia racemosa Blume (Lecy-
thidaceae).
Butonica terrestris alba 181, t. 116—=Barringtonia racemosa Blume (Lecy-
thidaceae).
Olus catappanicum 182=?
Olus catappanicum aliud 182=?
Malaparius 188, t. 117=Pongamia pinnata Merr. (Leguminosae).
Malaparius e Nussanive 184=Pongamia pinnata Merr. (Leguminosae).
Vidoricum silvestre | 184=? Diospyros sp. (Ebenaceae).
Vidoricum silvestre II-IlV 184, t. 118=Sapotaceae indet.
Restiaria alba 187, t. 119=Commersonia bartramia Merr. (Sterculiaceae).
Restiaria nigra 188=Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tiliaceae).
Perticaria Ill parvifolia 189, t. 120=Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tilia-
ceae).
Perticaria III latifolia 189=Columbia subobovata Hochr. (Tiliaceae).
Tanarius minor alba 190, t. 121=Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. (EHu-
phorbiaceae).
Tanarius minor rubra 190=Macaranga tanarius Muell.-Arg. (Huphor-
biaceae).
Tanarius major 192, t. 122=Schizomeria serrata Hochr. (Cunoniaceae).
Tanarius major I1 192=?
Arbor ovigera femina 193, t. 128=Hernandia ovigera Linn. (Hernan-
diaceae).
Arbor ovigera mas 193=Hernandia peltata Meisn. (Hernandiaceae).
Lanius 194, t. 124—=Samadera indica Gaertn. (Simarubaceae).
Palacca 195, t. 125=Octomeles swmatrana Migq. (Datiscaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME IV 523
Halecus litorea 196, t. 126=Mallotus tiliifolius Muell-Arg. (Euphor-
biaceae).
Halecus terrestris vulgaris 197, t. 127=Macaranga involucrata Baill, (Eu-
phorbiaceae).
Halecus terrestris alba 198, t. 127 bis=Macaranga involucrata Baill.
(Euphorbiaceae).
Halecus rugosa 198=Macaranga hispida Muell.-Arg. (H'uphorbiaceae).
Clypearia maritima 199=Albizzia retusa Benth. (Leguminosae).
Solulus arbor 200, t. 128=Ormocarpum orientale Merr. (Leguminosae).
Arbor radulifera 201, t. 129=Flindersia amboinensis Poir. (Rutaceae).
Folium intinctus 202—Eugenia sp. (Myrtaceae).
Daun parawas 203=?
Lignum muscosum 203, t. 180=Gordonia rumphii Merr. (Theaceae).
Lignum muscosum parvifolium 203=? Gordonia rumphii Merr. (Theaceae).
Bunius domestica 204, t. 131=Antidesma bunius Spreng. (Hurphorbiaceae).
Bunius agrestis 204, t. 131, f. A=Antidesma bunius Spreng. (EHuphor-
biaceae).
Arbor coeli 205, t. 1832=Ailanthus integrifolia Lam. (Simarubaceae).
Aalius parvifolia 207=Breynia cernua Muell.-Arg. (Huphorbiaceae).
Folium hircinum 208, t. 1833=Premna nitida K. Sch. (Verbenaceae).
Folium hircinum femina 208=Premna nitida K. Sch. (Verbenaceae).
Gumira litorea (silvestris) 209, t. 184—=Premna obtusifolia R. Br. (Verbe-
naceae).
Cicadaria angustifolia 210—? Palaquium sp. (Sapotaceae).
Cicadaria latifolia 210, t. 135=? Palaquium amboinense Burck (Sapo-
taceae).
Cicadaria zeylanica 210=?
Caryophyllaster albus 211—Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. (Myrtaceae).
Caryophyllaster ruber 211, t. 136—=Decaspermum fruticosum Forst. (Myr-
taceae).
Cortex papetarius 212, t. 137=Weinmannia fraxinea Sm. (Cunoniaceae).
Ichthyoctonos litorea 213, t. 138=Sapium indicum Willd. (Huphorbiaceae).
ichthyoctonos montana 214, t. 139=Ternstroemia robinsonii Merr. (Thea-
ceae).
Ichthyoctonos litorea silvestris latifolia 214—? Ternstroemia robinsoni
Merr. (Theaceae).
Timonius 216, t. 140=Timonius sericeus K. Sch. (Rubiaceae).
Folium urens latifolium 217, t. 141=Laportea amplissima Miq. (Urtica-
ceae).
Folium urens angustifolium 217=Laportea sp. (Urticaceae).
Folium urens rubrum 218=Laportea sp. (Urticaceae).
Phallus daemonum 218=Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. (Phallineae).
VOLUME IV
Arundarbor tenuis 1, ¢t. 1 (incl. alba, nigra, prava, picta, lineata) =Bam-
busa atra Lindl. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor tenuis amahussana 3=Bambusa atra Lindl. var. amahussana
Merr. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor cratium 5=Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz (Gramineae).
Arundarbor spiculorum 7=Bambusa longinodis Mig.=Schizostachyum sp.
(Gramineae).
524 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Arundarbor vasaria 8=? Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor vasaria cho 10=? Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor aspera 11, t. 2—Gigantochloa aspera (Schultes) Kurz (Gra-
mineae).
Arundarbor maxima 12=Bambusa excelsa Mig. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor spinosa 14, t. 3=Bambusa spinosa Roxb. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor fera flava 16, t. 4=Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor fera silvestris 16, 18=Bambusa sp. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor fera elegantissima 16=Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. var. striata
Gamble (Gramineae).
Arundarbor ferae adf. 18=Bambusa sp. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor fera nigra 18=Bambusa sp. (Gramineae).
Arundarbor fera s. cha. 18=Bambusa sp. (Gramineae).
Canna palustris 20, t. 5=Phragmites vulgaris Trin. (Gramineae).
Arundo farcta | 21=Miscanthus sinensis Anders. (Gramineae).
Arundo farcta II 21, t. 6=Miscanthus japonicus Anders. (Gramineae).
Arundastrum 22, t. 7=Donax canniformis K. Sch. (Marantaceae).
Flos festalis (incl. ruber simplex, plenus, albus simplex, flavus plenus)
24, t. 8= Hibiscus rosa sinensis Linn. (Malvaceae).
Flos meutan 26=Paeonia meutan Sims (Ranunculaceae).
Flos horarius 27, t. 9=Hibiscus mutabilis Linn. (Malvaceae).
Abutilon hirsutum 29, t. 10=Abutilon hirtum Sweet (Malvaceae).
Abutilon laeve 31, t. 11=Abutilon indicum Sweet (Malvaceae).
Abutilon montanum 32=Sida cordifolia Linn. (Malvaceae).
Abutilon litoreum 33=? Abutilon indicum Sweet (Malvaceae).
Gossypium 33, t. 12=Gossypium indicum Lam. (Malvaceae).
Gossypium fl. fusco-rubentibus 34=Gossypium purpurascens Poir. (Mal-
vaceae).
Gossypium latifolium 37, t. 183 =Gossypium brasiliense Macf. (Malvaceae).
Gossypium daemonis 38, t. 14=Abroma fastuosa Jacq. (Sterculiaceae).
Granum moschatum 88, t. 15=Abelmoschus moschatus Medik. (Malvaceae).
Granum moschatum agreste 38=Abelmoschus mindanaensis Warb. (Mal-
vaceae).
Herba crinalium domestica 40, ¢. 16=Hibiscus surattensis Linn. (Mal-
vaceae).
Herba crinalium silvestris 41=Hibiscus surattensis Linn. (Malvaceae).
Cyprus 42, t. 17=Lawsonia inermis Linn. (Lythraceae).
Lagondium vulgare 48, t. 18=Vitex trifolia Linn. (Verbenaceae).
Lagondium litoreum arborescens 50, t. 19=Vitex negundo Linn. (Verbe-
naceae).
Lagondium nigrum 52=? (sub Vitex negundo Linn., Verbenaceae).
Crista pavonis 53, t. 20=Caesalpinia pulcherrima Sw. (Leguminosae).
Soffera 55=Cassia sophera Linn. (Leguminosae).
Lignum sappan 56, t. 21—Caesalpinia sappan Linn. (Leguminosae).
Anticholerica 60, t. 22=Sophora tomentosa Linn. (Leguminosae).
Flos flavus 638, t. 23=Cassia glauca Lam. (Leguminosae).
Gajatus niger 64, t. 24—Sesbania sesban Merr. (Leguminosae).
Gajatus luteus 64=Sesbania cannabina Pers. (Leguminosae).
Codiaeum simplex 65, t. 25=Codiaeuwm variegatum Blume (Euphorbiaceae).
Codiaeum taeniosum 68, t. 26=Codiaeum variegatum var. taeniosum Muell.—
Arg. (Euphorbiaceae).
Codiaeum silvestre 69, t. 27=Codiaewm bractiferum Roxb. (Huphorbiaceae).
‘
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME IV 525
Gendarussa (incl. alba, nigra, fusca) 70, t. 28=Justicia gendarussa Linn.
(Acanthaceae).
Gendarussa femina 72, t. 29=Rhinacanthus nasuta (Linn.) Kurz (Acan-
thaceae).
Involucrum cusci 73=Euphorbiaceae indet.
Folium bracteatum (incl. vulgare, rubrum, et igneum) 73, t. 30=Grap-
tophyllum pictum Griff. (Acanthaceae).
Scutellaria prima 75, t. 31=Nothopanax scutellarium Merr. (Araliaceae).
Scutellaria secunda latifolia 76—=Nothopanax tricochleatum Mig. (Ara-
liaceae) .
Scutellaria secunda angustifolia 76, t. 32—Nothopanax pinnatum Maiq.
(Araliaceae).
Scutellaria tertia 78, t. 33=Nothopanax fruticosum Mig. (Araliaceae).
Terminalis alba domestica 79, t. 34, f. 1=Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Lil-
iaceae).
Terminalis alba silvestris 80=Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae).
Terminalis rubra 80, t. 34, f. 2=Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae).
Terminalis angustifolia 81, t. 35=Pleomele angustifolia N. E. Br. (Li-
liaceae).
Cauda felis domestica 82, t. 36=Acalypha hispida Burm. f. (Euphorbia-
ceae). '
Cauda felis agrestis rubra 84, t. 37, f. 1=Acalypha amentacea Roxb.
(Euphorbiaceae).
Cauda felis agrestis alba 84, t. 37, f. 2=Acalypha amentacea Roxb. (Eu-
phorbiaceae) .
Cauda felis agrestis saxatilis 84=?
Flos convolutus 85, t. 38=Plumiera acuminata Ait. (Apocynaceae).
Flos manilhanus 87, t. 39=Tabernaemontana divaricata R. Br. (Apocy-
naceae).
Ligularia lactea 88, ¢ 40=Huphorbia nerwfolia Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Ligularia iactea e Java 88=? Huphorbia nerifolia Linn. (Huphorbiaceae).
Ficus indica 89=Opuntia sp. (Cactaceae).
Ligularia minor 90=Euphorbia neriifolia Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Ricinus albus domesticus (incl. agrestis et ruber) 92, 97, t. 41=—Ricinus
communis Linn. (Huphorbiaceae).
Ricinus americanus 92—Jatropha curcas Linn. (Huphorbiaceae).
Granum moluccanum 98, t. 42=Croton tiglium Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Folium polypi mas (et femina) 101, t. 43=Boerlagiodendron palmatum
Harms (Araliaceae).
Frutex aquosus mas 102, t. 44=Leea aculeata Blume (Vitaceae).
Frutex aquosus femina 103, t. 45=Leea aequata Linn. (Vitaceae).
Flamma sylvarum 105, t. 46=Ixora fulgens Roxb. (Rubiaceae).
Flamma sylvarum peregrina 107, t. 47=Ixora chinensis Lam. (Rubiaceae).
Petasites amboinensis 107, t. 48=Clerodendron rumphianum De Vr. &
Teysm. (Verbenaceae).
Petasites agrestis 108, t. 49=Clerodendron speciosissimum Lindl. (Verbe-
naceae).
Caryophyllaster litoreus 110, t. 5|0=Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. (Sapindaceae).
Folium principissae latifolium 111, t. 51=Mussaenda reinwardtiana Miq.
(Rubiaceae).
526 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Folium principissae angustifolium 111=Mussaenda forsteniana Mig. (Ru-
biaceae).
Folium crocodili latifolium (et parvifolium) 112, t. 52=Desmodium um-
bellatum DC. (Leguminosae).
Frutex lintearius 114, t. 53=Broussonetia papyrifera Vent. (Moraceae).
Buglossum litoreum 116, t. 54—=Scaevola frutescens Krause (Goodeniaceae).
Buglossum lanuginosum 119, t. 55=Tournefortia argentea Linn. (Boragi-
naceae).
Perlarius (incl. parvifolius) | 120, t. 56=Pipturus argenteus Wedd. (Urti-
caceae). |
Perlarius latifolius 121=Robinsoniodendron ambiguum Merr. (Urticaceae) .
Perlarius II 122, t. 57=Maesa tetrandra A. DC. (Myrsinaceae).
Perlarius Ill 122=? Maesa sp. (Myrsinaceae).
Mamanira 1238, t. 58=Callicarpa cana Linn. (Verbenaceae).
Mamanira alba 124, t. 59=Callicarpa cuspidata Roxb. (Verbenaceae).
Frutex ceramicus 124, t. 60=Callicarpa sp. (Verbenaceae).
Cortex piscatorum 125, t. 61=Trema amboinensis Blume, non auctt. (T.
virgata Blume) (Ulmaceae).
Frutex carbonarius | albus 126, t. 62=?
Frutex carbonarius II ruber, latifolius, asper 126, 127=? (Melastoma-
taceae).
Folium politorium vulgare fruticosum 128, t. 63=Ficus ampelos Burm.
f. (Moraceae).
Folium politorium arborescens 128=—Ficus coronata Reinw. (Moraceae).
Folium politorium flagellare 128=F%icus ampelos Burm. f. (Moraceae).
Folium calcosum 129, t. 64=Melanolepis multiglandulosa Rehb. f. & Zoll.
(Euphorbiaceae).
Frutex excoecans 130, t. 65=Homalanthus populneus Pax (Huphorbiaceae).
Cortex saponarius 131, t. 66=Albizzia saponaria Blume (Leguminosae).
Capsicum silvestre 133, t. 67=Tabernaemontana capsicoides Merr. (Apo-
cynaceae).
Frutex cerasiformis 134, t. 68=?
Pharmacum papetarium 134, t. 69=Astronia papetaria Blume (Melasto-
mataceae).
Lignum aquatile 135, t. 70=Oreocnide rubescens Mig. (Urticaceae).
Fragarius ruber 135, t. 71=Otanthera cyanoides Triana (Melastomataceae).
Fragarius ruber grandifolius 136—=Melastoma sp. (Melastomataceae).
Fragarius niger 137, t. 72=Melastoma polyanthum Blume (Melastoma-
taceae).
Blimbingum silvestre 138, t. 72?=Hlaecocarpus oppositifolius Miq. (Elaeocar-
paceae).
Pandanus verus 139, t. 74=Pandanus tectorius Soland. (Pandanaceae).
Pandanus spurius 142, t. 75=Pandanus robinsonii Merr. (Pandanaceae).
Pandanus humilis 148, t. 76=Pandanus polycephalus Lam. (Pandanaceae).
Pandanus montanus silvestris 145=Pandanus terrestris Warb. (Panda-
naceae).
Pandanus silvestris terrestris 145, t. 77=Pandanus amboinensis Warb.
(Pandanaceae).
Pandanus latifolius 146, t. 78=Pandanus hasskarlii Merr. (Pandanaceae).
Pandanus moschatus 147=Pandanus tectorius Soland. var. moschatus Merr.
(Pandanaceae).
Pandanus ceramicus 149, t. 79=Pandanus conoideus Lam. (Pandanaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 527
Folium baggea verum 150=Pandanus bagea Mig. (Pandanaceae).
Folium baggea quoad t. 81=Pandanus tectorius Soland. (Pandanaceae).
Folium baggea maritimum 151, t. 80=Pandanus dubius Spreng. (Panda-
naceae).
Pandanus repens 152=Pandanus repens Mig. (Pandanaceae).
Pandanus funicularis 153, t. 82—Freycinetia funicularis Merr. (Panda-
naceae).
Pandanus caricosus 154=Scirpiodendron ghaeri Merr. (Cyperaceae).
VOLUME V
Folium linguae 1, t. 1=Bauhinia lingua DC. (Leguminosae).
Folium linguae litorea alba 2—Bauhinia sp. (Leguminosae).
Funis viminalis 3, t. 2=Ventilago sp. (Rhamnaceae).
Funis quadrifidus 4, t. 3=Petraeovitex multiflora Merr. (Verbenaceae).
Faba marina 5, t. 4=Entada phaseoloides Merr. (Leguminosae).
Parrana nigra Rumph. 7=? Hntada sp. (Leguminosae).
Parrana rubra 9, t. 5=Dioclea reflexa Hook. f. (Leguminosae).
Lobus litoralis 10, t. 6=Mucuna gigantea DC. (Leguminosae).
Parrana miniata 10=Mucuna miniata Merr. (Leguminosae).
Funis gnemoniformis 11, t. 7=Gnetum gnemonoides Brongn. (Gnetaceae).
Gnemon funicularis 12, t. 8=Gnetum indicum Merr. (Gnetaceae).
Funis urens aspera 13, t. 9=Tetracera scandens Merr. (Dilleniaceae).
Funis urens glabra 183=Tetracera boerlagei Merr. (Dilleniaceae).
Funis papius latifolius 14, t. 10—=Asclepiadaceae indet.
Funis papius parvifolius 15, t. 11=Ichnocarpus sp. (Apocynaceae).
Funis cratium 16, t. 12=Apocynaceae indet.
Lacca lignum 17, t. 13=Dalbergia parviflora Roxb. (Leguminosae).
Spina vaccarum 21, t. 14=Artabotrys suaveolens Blume (Annonaceae).
Cudranus bimanus 22, t. 15, f. 2=Cudrania javanensis Tréc. (Moraceae).
Cudranus amboinicus 22, t. 15, f. 1=Cudrania javenensis Tréc. (Moraceae).
Limonellus litoreus 24=?
Cudranus amboinensis silvestris 25, t. 16—=Cudrania javanensis Tréc. (Mo-
raceae).
Limonellus funicularis montanus 25=Pisonia aculeata Linn. (Nyctagi-
naceae).
Camunium vulgare 26, t. 17=Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae).
Camunium javanicum 27=Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae).
Camunium sinense 28, t. 18, f. 1=Aglaia odorata Lour. (Meliaceae).
Camunium japonense 29, t. 18, f. 2=Murraya paniculata Jack (Rutaceae).
Cortex consolidans 30, t. 19=Parameria barbata K. Sch. (Apocynaceae).
Pulassarium 382, t. 20=Alyxia laurina Gaudich. (Apocynaceae).
Pulassarium spurium 88=? Apocynaceae indet. (sub Alyxia).
Funis pulassarius 34, t. 21—Chilocarpus sp. (Apocynaceae).
Tuba baccifera 35, t. 22—=Anamirta cocculus W. & A. (Menispermaceae).
Tuba radicum alba 37, t. 28=Derris elliptica Benth. tagummnosac):
Tuba radicum nigra 88=? Derris sp. (Leguminosae).
Tuba flava 38, t. 24=Arcangelisia flava Merr. (Menispermaceae).
Folium lunatum minus 40, t. 25, f. 1=Pericampylus glaucus Merr. (Menis-
permaceae).
Tuba siliquosa 41, t. 25, f. 2=Derris trifoliata Lour. (Leguminosae).
Pharmacum magnum vulgare 42, t. 26, f. 1=Piper retrofractum Vahl
(Piperaceae).
528 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Pharmacum magnum parvifolium 42, t. 26, f. 2=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Pharmacum magnum marinum 42=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Gumi susu 43=? Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Sirium decumanum 45, t. 27=Piper decumanum Linn. (Piperaceae).
Sirium decumanum album 45=Piper reinwardtianum C. DC. (Piperaceae).
Sirium arborescens tertium 46, t. 28, f. 1=Piper arborescens Roxb. (Pipera-
ceae).
Sirium arborescens tertium alterum 48=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Piper caninum 49, t. 28, f. 2=Piper caninum Blume (Piperaceae).
Sirioides 49—Strychnos barbata A. W. Hill (Loganiaceae).
Sirioides alter 50, t. 29, f. 1=Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill (Olea-
ceae).
Flos pergulanus 51, t. 29, f. 2=Vallaris glabra O. Kuntze (Apocynaceae).
Flos manore (incl. plenus) 52, t. 30=Jasminum sambac Ait. (Oleaceae).
Jasminum litoreum 54=? Jasminum sp. (Oleaceae).
Flos coeruleus 56, t. 31=Clitoria ternatea Linn. (Leguminosae).
Abrus frutex 57, t. 32=Abrus precatorius Linn. (Leguminosae).
Viscum amboinicum album 60, t. 83=Loranthus rumphii Merr. (Loran-
thaceae.)
Viscum amboinicum rubrum 61=Elytranthe amboinensis Merr. (Loran-
thaceae).
Viscum amboinicum II! 62=Loranthus sp. (Loranthaceae).
Funis uncatus latifolius 63, t. 34, f. 1=Uncaria longifolia Merr. (Rubia-
ceae).
Funis uncatus angustifolius 63, t. 34, f. 2=Uncaria setiloba Benth. (Ru-
biaceae).
Funis uncatus lanosus 65, t. 34, f. 8=Uncaria cordata Merr. (Rubiaceae).
Funis muraenarum mas 66, t. 35, f. 1=Medinilla crispata Blume (Melas-
tomataceae).
Funis muraenarum femina 67, t. 35, f. 2=Medinilla macrocarpa Blume
(Melastomataceae) .
Funis muraenarum II! 67=Medinilla sp. (Melastomataceae).
Aylaun nya femina 67=Pipturus repandus Wedd. (Urticaceae).
Funis muraenarum latifolius 68, t. 36=Conocephalus amboinensis Warb.
(Moraceae).
Funis convolutus 69, t. 37, f. 1=Derris heptaphylla Merr. (Leguminosae).
Clompanus funicularis 70, t. 37, f. 2=Connarus sp. (Connaraceae).
Quis qualis 71, t. 38=Quisqualis indica Linn. (Combretaceae).
Sinapister 73, ¢. 39, f. 1=?
Sinapister minor 74=?
Amara litorea 74, t. 39, f. 2=Colubrina asiatica Rich. (Rhamnaceae).
Olus crudum minus 75, t. 40, f. 2=Gymnema syringaefolium Boerl. (Ascle-
piadaceae).
Olus crudum majus 76, t. 40. f. 1=? Gymnema sp. (Asclepiadaceae).
Funis butonicus major 77, t. 41, f.1=?
Funis butonicus minor 77, t. 41, f. 2=Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr.
(Dichapetalaceae).
Funis musarius latifolius 78, t. 42=Uvaria musaria DC. (Annonaceae).
Funis musarius angustifolius 78=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae).
Funis dentarius 79=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae).
Funis dentarius niger 79=Uvaria sp. (Annonaceae).
Rudens silvaticus latifolius 80, t. 43, f. 1=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
—_
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 529
Rudens silvaticus parvifolius 80, t. 43, f. 2=Ficus recurva Blume (Mo-
raceae).
Rudens silvaticus rugosus 80=F cus sp. (Moraceae).
Rudens silvaticus 1V 81=? Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Funis felleus 82, t. 44, f. 1=Tinospora rumphii Boerl. (Menispermaceae) .
Serratula amara parvifolia 82—Compositae indet.
Funis quadrangularis 83, t. 44, f. 2=Cissus quadrangularis Linn. (Vita-
ceae).
Funis pinguis 883=?
Crusta arborum minor 84, t. 45=Ficus punctata Thunb. (Moraceae).
Crusta arborum II alba 84=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
Crusta arborum III odorata 85=Ficus sp. (Moraceae).
-Crusta arborum IV minima 85=?
Jasminum litoreum 86, t. 46=Clerodendron commersonu Spreng. (Verben-
aceae).
Rubus moluccus parvifolius 88, t. 47, f. 1—Rubus fraxinifolius Poir. (Ros-
aceae).
Rubus moluccus Jatifolius 88, t. 47, f. 2=Rubus moluccanus Linn. (Rub-
taceae.)
Frutex globulorum femina 89, t. 48=Caesalpinia jayabo Maza (Legumi-
nosae).
Frutex globulorum majorum 92, t. 49, f. 1=Caesalpinia crista Linn. (Leg-
uminosae).
Nugae silvarum litoreae et terrestres 94, t. 50=Caesalpinia nuga Ait.
(Leguminosae).
Nugae silvarum minimae 95, t. 49, f. 2=Acacia rugata Ham. (Legumin-
osae).
Palmijuncus calapparius 97, t. 51=Daemonorops calapparius Blume
(Palmae).
Palmijuncus niger 101, t. 52=Daemonorops niger Blume (Palmae).
Palmijuncus albus 102, t. 53=Calamus albus Pers. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus albus graminosus 104=Calamus graminosus Blume (Palmae).
Palmijuncus verus 105=Calamus pisicarpus Blume (Palmae).
Palmijuncus verus angustifolius 105, t. 54, f. 2=Calamus rumphu Blume
(Palmae).
Palmijuncus verus latifolius 106, t. 54, f. 1=Calamus pisicarpus Blume
(Palmae).
Palmijuncus aracanicus 107=Calamus sp. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus palimbanicus 107=Daemonorops palembanicus Blume (Pal-
mae).
Palmijuncus viminalis 108, t. 55, f. 2=Calamus viminalis Willd. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus viminalis e Burone 109=Calamus buroénsis Mart. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus viminalis s. ua huay 109=Calamus sp. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus equestris 110, t. 56=Calamus- equestris Willd. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus equestris crasissimus 111=Calamus cawa Blume (Palmae).
Palmijuncus equestris s. rottang cawa 112=Calamus cawa Blume (Palmae).
Zalacca 113, t. 57, f. 2=Zalacca edulis Reinw. (Palmae).
Palmijuncus draco 114, t. 58, f. 1, A-D.=Daemonorops draco Blume (Pal-
mae).
Palmijuncus draco e Bantam 116=Daemonorops ruber Blume (Palmae).
Palmijuncus acidus 119, t. 58, f. 2, H=Calamus acidus Becc. (Palmae).
Boeloe rottang 119=? Dinochloa sp. (Gramineae).
14497134
530 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Palmijuncus laevis 120, t. 59, f. 1=Flagellaria indica Linn. (Flagellar-
1aceae).
Cantharifera 121, t. 59, f. 2=Nepenthes mirabilis Merr. (Nepenthaceae).
Cantharifera alba 122—Nepenthes maxima Reinw. (Nepenthaceae).
Nugae silvarum silvestris 124—F'agara torva Engi. (Rutaceae).
Musa domestica 125-133, t. 60=Musa paradisiaca Linn. (Musaceae).
Musa uranoscopos 137, t. 61, f. 2=Musa paradisiaca Linn. var. (Musa-
ceae).
Musa alphurica 138, t. 61, f. 8=Musa paradisiaca Linn., var. (Musaceae).
Musa simiarum 1388, t. 61, f. 1=Musa acuminata Colla (Musaceae).
Musa silvestris 1389=Musa textilis Née (Musaceae).
Musa silvestris mindanauensis 139—Musa textilis Née (Musaceae).
Musa silvestris amboinensis 139—Musa sp. (Musaceae).
Folium mensarium album 140, t. 62, f. 2=Heliconia bihai Linn. (Musa-
ceae).
Folium mensarium nigrum 140=Heliconia bihai Linn. (Musaceae).
Folium mensarium rubrum 141=Cominsia rubra Val. (Marantaceae).
Folium buccinatum album 142=Phacelophryniuwm robinsonii Val. (Marant-
aceae).
Folium buccinatum asperum 142, t. 62, f. 1=Cominsia gigantea K. Sch.
(Marantaceae).
Galanga major 143, t. 68=Alpinia galanga Sw. (Zingiberaceae).
Galanga minor 144, t. 68. f. D=? Alpinia galanga Sw. (Zingiberaceae).
Lampujum majus domesticum 148, t. 64, f. 1=Zingiber zerumbet Sm.
(Zingiberaceae).
Lampujum zerumbed silvestre 148=Zingiber zerumbet Sm. (Zingibera-
ceae).
Lampujum zerumbed minus 148=Zingiber zerumbet Sm., var. amaricans
Val. (Zingiberaceae).
Lampujum silvestre minus 150, t. 64, f. 2=Globba marantina Linn. (Zingt-
beraceae).
Lampujum silvestre amarum 151=Zingiber zerumbet Sm. (Zingiberaceae).
Cardamomum minus 152, t. 65, f. 1=Amomum cardamomum Willd. (Zing7-
beraceae).
Cardamomum verum 153=Elettaria cardamomum Maton (Zingiberaceae).
Cardamomum majus 153=Amomum maximum Roxb. (Zingiberaceae).
Bangleum 154, t. 65, f. 2=Zingiber cassumanar Roxb. (Zingiberaceae).
Zingiber majus album 156, t. 66, f. 1=Zingiber officinale Rosc. (Zingi-
beraceae).
Zingiber majus rubrum 156=? Zingiber officinale Rosc. (Zingiberaceae).
Zingiber minus 161, t. 66, f. 2=Zingiber officinale Rosc., var. minor Val.
(Zingiberaceae).
Curcuma domestica major 162, t. 67=Curcuma longa Linn. (Zingiber-
aceae).
Curcuma domestica minor 164=Curcuma longa Koenig (Zingiberaceae).
Curcuma agrestis 164=Curcuma petiolata Roxb. (Zingiberaceae).
Zerumbed majus 168=Curcuma zedoaria Rose. (Zingiberaceae); t. 68=?
Curcuma viridiflora Roxb.
Zerumbed album, giring, et frigidum 169=Curcuma spp. (Zingiberaceae).
Zerumbed nigrum Rumph. 169=Curcuma aeruginosa Roxb. (Zingiberaceae) -
Zerumbed manga Rumph. 169=Curcuma sp. (Zingiberaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 531
Zerumbed claviculatum 172, t. 69, f. 1=Kaempferia pandurata Roxb.
(Zingiberaceae).
Soncorus 178, t. 69, f. 2=Kaempferia galanga Linn. (Zingiberaceae).
Gandasulium 175, t. 69, f. 3=Hedychium chrysoleucum Hook. f. (Zingiber-
aceae).
Galanga malaccensis 176, t. 71, f. 1=Alpinia malaccensis Rosc. (Zingi-
beraceae).
Cannacorus 177, t. 71, f. 2=Canna indica Linn. (Cannaceae).
Acorum palustre-178, t. 72, f. 1=Acorus calamus Linn. (Araceae).
Acorum terrestre 180—=Acorus calamus Linn. (Araceae).
Schoenanthemum armboinicum 181, t. 72, f. 2=Andropogon citratus DC.
(Gramineae).
Schoenanthemum alterum 182=Andropogon exaltatus R. Br. (Gramineae).
Gladiolus odoratus indicus 185, t. 78=Dianella odorata Blume (Liliaceae).
Arundo saccharifera (incl. alba, fusca, nigra, et rottanga) 186, t. 74=Sac-
charum officinarum Linn. (Gramineae).
Ova piscium 191, t. 75, f. 1=Saccharum officinarum Linn., var. (Gram-
neae).
Lachryma jobi indica 193, t. 75 f. 2=Coix lachryma jobi Linn. (Gram-
neae).
Sorghum s. Battari 194, t. 75 bis, f. 1=Andropogon sorghum Brot.
(Gramineae).
Oryza vulgaris 196=Oryza sativa Linn. (Gramineae).
Oryza glutinosa 201=Oryza sativa Linn. (Gramineae).
Panicum indicum 202, t. 75 bis, f. 2=Setaria italica Beauv. (Gramineae).
Frumentum indicum 202=Zea mays Linn. (Gramineae).
Panicum gramineum 203, t. 76, f. 2=Eleusine corocana Gaertn. (Grami-
neae).
Sesamum indicum nigrum et album 204, t. 76, f. 1=Sesamum orientale
Linn. (Pedaliaceae).
Cannabis indica 208, t. 77=Cannabis satiwa Linn. (Ulmaceae).
Ganja sativa 212, t. 78, f. 1=Corchorus capsularis Linn. (Tiliaceae).
Ganja agrestis 213, t. 78, f. 2=Corchorus olitorius Linn. (Tiliaceae).
Ramium majus 214, t. 79, f. 1=Boehmeria nivea Gaudich. (Urticaceae).
Cnicus indicus 215, t. 79, f. 2=Carthamus tinctorius Linn. (Compositae).
Indicum 220=Indigofera tinctoria Linn. (Leguminosae).
Indicum 220, quoad t. 80=Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. (Leguminosae).
Indicum silvestre 222—Indigofera sp. (Leguminosae).
Indicum silvestre e Madagascar 223=Indigofera sp. (Leguminosae).
Indicum brasilianum 224=Indigofera sp. (Leguminosae).
Indicum spurium 224=Indigofera sp. (Leguminosae).
Tabacus 225=Nicotiana tabacum Linn. (Solanaceae).
Anassa domestica 227, t. 81=Ananas comosus Merr. (Bromeliaceae).
Anassa silvestris 230—Pandanus terrestris Warb. (Pandanaceae).
Blitum indicum domesticum (album et maculosum) 231, t. 82, f. 1=Ama-
ranthus viridis Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Blitum indicum II maculosum amboinicum 281=Amaranthus viridis Linn.
(Amaranthaceae).
Blitum indicum III rubrum 2382=Amaranthus tricolor Linn. (Amaran-
thaceae).
582 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Blitum Indicum IV terrestre 232, t. 82, f. 2=? Amaranthus gangeticus
Linn. (Amaranthaceae). .
Blitum peruvianum 232=Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Chenopodiaceae).
Blitum brasiliense 233=?
Blitum spinosum 234, t. 88, f. 1=Amaranthus spinosus Linn. (Amaran-
thaceae).
Blitum frutescens 235, t. 88, f. 2—Deeringia amaranthoides Merr. (Ama-
ranthaceae).
Amarantus japonicus 236, t. 84—Celosia cristata Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Amarantus vulgaris 236=Celosia cristata Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Amarantus caudatus 237=—Celosia argentea Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Amarantus versicolor 237=Amaranthus tricolor Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Trongum hortense (incl. fuscum et album) 238, t. 85=Solanum melongena
Linn. (Solanaceae).
Trongum agreste spinosum 240, t. 86, f. 1=Solanum trongum Poir. (Sola-
naceae).
Trongum agreste album verum 241=Solanum album Lour. (Solanaceae).
Trongum agreste rubrum 241, t. 86, f. 2=Solanum album Lour. (Sola-
naceae).
Stramonia indica 242, t. 87, f. 1=Datura fastuosa Linn. var. alba C. B.
Clarke (Solanaceae).
Stramonia indica III rubra 243, t. 87, f. 2=Datura fastuosa Linn. (Sola-
naceae).
Capsicum indicum 247, t. 88, f. 1-4=Capsicum frutescens Linn. (Sola-
naceae).
Mirabilis mexicana 2538, t. 89=Mirabilis jalapa Linn. (Nyctaginaceae).
Lacca herba 256, t. 90=Impatiens balsamina Linn. (Balsaminaceae).
Matricaria sinensis 259, t. 91, f. 1=Chrysanthemum indicum Linn. (Com-
positae).
Artemisia latifolia 261, t. 91, f. 2=Artemisia vulgaris Linn. (Compositae).
Artemisia latifolia rubra 261=? Artemisia vulgaris Linn. (Compositae).
Basilicum indicum hortense 263, t. 92, f. 1=Ocimum basilicum Linn.
(Labiatae).
Ocimum agreste 265, t. 92, f. 2=Ocimum sanctum Linn. (Labiatae).
Ozimum citratum indicum 266, t. 93, f. 1=Ocimum sp. aff. O. basilicum
Linn. (Labiatae).
Mentha crispa 167, t. 93, f. 2=Mentha arvensis Linn. (Labiatae).
Portulaca indica I, Il 268=Portulaca oleracea Linn. (Portulacaceae).
Portulaca indica III, IV 268=Portulaca quadrifida Linn. (Portulacaceae).
Portulaca indica V, 268=? Crithamum maritimum Linn. (Umbelliferae).
Levisticum indicum 269, t. 98, f. 3=? Antheriscus sp. (Umbelliferae).
Carum 270=Carum copticum Benth. (Umbelliferae).
Amudium 270=Carum copticum Benth. (Umbelliferae).
Mussi 271=Umbelliferae indet.
Sempervivum majus indicum 271—Aloe vera Linn. (Liliaceae).
Aloe americana 272=Agave cantala Roxb. (Amaryllidaceae).
Aloe americana parva 278, t. 9=Agave cantala Roxb. (Amaryllidaceae) .
Planta anatis 275, t. 95=Kalanchoe laciniata DC. (Crassulaceae).
Oxys lutea indica 277=Oxalis repens Thunb. (Ovxalidaceae).
Lapathum hortense 277=Rumex patentia Linn. (Polygonaceae).
Crotalaria | major 278, t. 96, f. 1=Crotalaria retusa Linn. (Leguminosae).
Crotalaria I! minor 278=Crotalaria quinquefolia Linn. (Leguminosae). ;
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 5383
Crotalaria II! agrestis 279=Crotalaria chinensis Linn. (Leguminosae).
Lagansa alba 280, t. 96, f. 3=Polanisia viscosa DC. (Capparidaceae).
Lagansa rubra 280 t. 96, f. 2=Gynandropsis pentaphylla DC. (Cappari-
daceae).
Sinapi sinense album 282—Brassica juncea Coss. (Cruciferae).
Sinapi sinense nigrum 282—Brassica juncea Coss. (Cruciferae).
Sinapi indigenum 282=—Nasturtiwm indicum DC. (Cruciferae).
Gallinaria acutifolia 283, t. 97, f. 1=Cassia occidentalis Linn. (Legumi-
nosae). ;
Gallinaria rotundifolia 283, t. 97, f. 2=Cassia tora Linn. (Leguminosae).
Amica nocturna 285, t. 98—Polianthes tuberosa Linn. (Amaryllidaceae).
Flos susannae 286, t. 99=Platanthera susannae Lindl. (Orchidaceae).
Maccabuhay 287=Tinospora sp. (Menispermaceae) quoad nomen=? Orchid-
aceae indet. quoad descr.
Flos susannae minor 287=Habenaria rumphii Lindl. (Orchidaceae).
Satyria 287=Orchidaceae indet.
Flor inpius 288, t. 100, f. 1=Pentapetes phoenicea Linn. (Sterculiaceae).
Flos globosus 289, t. 100, f. 2=Gomphrena globosa Linn. (Amaranthaceae).
Majana (incl. alba et rubra) 291, t. 101=—Coleus scutellaroides Benth.
(Labiatae).
Melissa lotoria 292, t. 102, f. 1=Pogostemon cablin Benth. (Labiatae).
Marrubium album amboinicum 294, t. 102, f. 2=Coleus amboinicus Lour.
(Labiatae).
Marrubium album semisilvestre 294—Coleus sp. (Labiatae).
Majana aurea 296, t. 102, f. 3=Coleus blumei Benth. (Labiatae).
Sonchus amboinicus 297, t. 103, f. 1=Emilia sonchifolia DC. (Compo-
sitae).
Sonchus volubilis 299, t. 103, f. 2=Blumea chinensis DC. (Compositae).
Sonchus volubilis javanicus 299, t. 104, f. 1=Pluchea indica Less. (Com-
positae) .
Herba sentiens 301, t. 104, f. 2=Biophytum sensitivum DC. (Oxalidaceae).
Herba mimosa 303=Mimosa pudica Linn. (Leguminosae).
Caban cabanan 3804=Leguminosae indet. sub. Mimosa.
Aeschynomene theophrasti 304—=Leguminosae indet.
Similis planta peruana 304=Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa.
Altera planta peruana etc.:304=Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa.
Pina hui huitzli 304—=Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa.
Planta sentiens hispanorum 304=Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa.
Arbor pudica 305=Leguminosae indet. sub Mimosa.
Herba viva 305=indet. sub Mimosa.
Tulipa javana 3806, t. 105=Crinum zeylanicum Linn. (Amaryllidaceae).
Arum indicum sativum 308, t- 106=Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott (Araceae).
Arum silvestre | latifolium 310=Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott (Araceae).
Arum silvestre Il medium 310, t. 107=? Alocasia longiloba Miq. (Araceae).
Arum aquaticum 312, t. 108=Aglaonema oblongifolium Kunth (Araceae) -
Arum aegyptium 313, t. 109=Colocasia esculenta Schott (Araceae).
Caladium aquatile 318, ¢t. 110, f. 1=Colocasia esculenta Schott (Araceae).
Arisarum amboinicum 319, t. 110, f. 2=Typhonium divaricatum Dene.
(Araceae).
Arisarum esculentum 321, t. 111, f. 1=Schizmatoglottis calyptrata Z. & M.
(Araceae).
534 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Dracunculus amboinicus | niger 322, t. 111, f. 2=Homalomena cordata
Schott (Araceae).
Dracunculus amboinicus I! albus 322—Homalomena sp. (Araceae).
Dracunculus amboinicus III ruber 323=Homalomena sp. (Araceae).
Tacca sativa 324, t. 112=Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae) and Amor-
phophallus campanulatus Blume (Araceae).
Yucca 325=Manihot utilissima Pohl (Euphorbiaceae).
Erva de Sta Maria 326=Araceae indet.
Tacca phallifera 326, t. 113, f. 1=Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae). ~
Taccae fungus 326, t. 113, f. 2=Amorphophallus campanulatus Blume
(Araceae).
Itelpou 327=Araceae indet.
Tacca litorea 328, t. 114—=Tacca pinnatifida Forst. (Taccaceae).
Tacca montana (incl. minor et major) 329, t. 115=Tacca palmata Blume
(Araceae).
Piper longum 338, t. 116, f. 1=Piper retrofractum Vahl (Piperaceae).
Piper longum americanum 334=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Piper e philippinis (sabia) 334=Piper retrofractum Vahl (Piperaceae).
Piper e philippinis (samo) 8835=Piper betle Linn. (Piperaceae).
Piper album & nigrum 885=Piper nigrum Linn. (Piperaceae).
Sirii folium 3386, t. 116, f. 2=Piper betle Linn. (Piveraceae).
Siriboa 340, t. 117=Piper betle var. siriboa C. DC. (Piperaceae).
Sirium silvestre 342 ¢. 118, f. 1, 2=Piper caducibracteum C. DC. (Pipera-
ceae).
Sirium terrestre 344, t. 119, f. 1=Piper sarmentosum Roxb. (Piperaceae).
Sirium frigidum rotundifolium 345, t. 119, f. 2=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Sirium frigidum latifolium 845—=Piper sp. (Piperaceae).
Ubium vulgare 346, t. 120=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium digitatum 350, t. 121=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium draconum 351, t. 122, f. D, H=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium anniversarium 353, t. 123=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium pomiferum (incl. silvestre) 354, t. 124—Dvuoscorea bulbifera Linn.
(Dioscoreaceae).
Inhame St. Thome 855=Dvioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium ovale 356, t. 125=Dioscorea alata Linn. (Dioscoreaceae).
Combilium 327, t. 126=Dioscorea esculenta Burkill (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium quinquefolium 359, t. 127=Dioscorea pentaphylla Linn. (Dviosco-
reaceae).
Mandihoca 3860=Manihot utilissima Pohl (Huphorbiaceae).
Ubium silvestre 361, t. 128=Dioscorea hispida Dennst. (Dioscoreaceae).
Colot 364=Dioscorea hispida Dennst. (Dioscoreaceae).
Ubium polypoides | album 364, t. 129=Stemona tuberosa Lour. (Stemon-
aceae).
Ubium polypoides II nigrum 865=Stemona moluccana C. H. Wright (Ste-
monaceae).
Batatta 367, t. 180=Ipomoea tuberosa Poir. (Convolvulaceae).
Batatta mammosa 370, t. 181=? Operculina turpethum S. Manso (Convol-
vulaceae).
Glans terrestris costensis 372, t. 132, f. 1=Coleus tuberosus Benth. (La-
biatae).
Cacara bulbosa 373, t. 132, f. 2=Pachyrrhizus erosus Urb. (Leguminosae).
— ane <
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 535
Lobus quadrangularis 374, t. 133=Psophocarpus tetragonolobus DC. (Leg-
uminosae).
Dolichos sinensis 375, t. 134—=Vigna sinensis Endl. (Leguminosae).
Lobus machaeroides 376, t. 135, f. 1=Canavalia gladiata DC. (Legumi-
nosae).
Phaseolus balicus 377, t. 135, f. 2—=Cajanus cajan Millsp. (Leguminosae) .
Cacara 378, t. 126=Dolichos lablab Linn. (Leguminosae).
Cacara alba 380, t. 137=Dolichos lablab Linn. (Leguminosae).
Cacara nigra 381, t. 138=Mucuna aterrima Merr. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus scriptus 382—? Phaseolus vulgaris Linn. (Leguminosae).
Faba rubra 382=? Phaseolus vulgaris Linn. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus minor 3838, t. 139, f. 1=Vigna cylindrica Merr. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus minimus 386, t. 139, f. 2=Phaseolus aureus Roxb. (Legumi-
nosae). ;
Phaseolus minimus silvestris 387=Pueraria phaseoloides Benth. (Legumi-
nosae). ;
Cadelium 388, t. 140=Glycine max Merr. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus cylindraceus 389=Phaseolus calcaratus Roxb. (Leguminosae).
Cacara litorea 390, ¢t. 141, f. 1=Canavalia microcarpa Merr. (Leguminosae).
Cacara litorea 390, p. p.=Canavalia lineata DC. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus maritimus 391, t. 141, f. 2—=Vigna marina Merr. (Leguminosae).
Cacara pilosa 392=Mucuna aterrima Merr. (Leguminosae).
Cacara pruritus 3938, t. 142—=Mucuna pruriens DC. (Leguminosae).
Comolenga 395, t. 143=Benincasa hispida Cogn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Cucurbita lagenaria 397, t. 144—=Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi-
taceae).
Cucurbita lagenaria silvestris 398—=Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi-
taceae). !
Cucurbita indica vulgaris 398=? Lagenaria leucantha Rusby (Cucurbi-
taceae).
Pepo indicus 399, t. 145=Cucurbita pepo Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Anguria indica (incl. altera) 400, t. 146, f. 1=Citrullus vulgaris Schrad.
(Cucurbitaceae).
Melo 404=Cucumis melo Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Cucumis indicus 404 (incl. vulgaris, butonensis, sinensis) =Cucumis sa-
tivus Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Cucumis indicus IV maximus 404=Cucumis melo Linn., var. (Cucurbi-
taceae).
Petola s. Petola Tschina 405, t. 147=Luffa cylindrica Roem. (Cucurbita-
ceae).
Petola anguina 407, t. 148=Trichosanthes anguina Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Petola bengalensis 408, ¢t. 149=Luffa acutangula Roxb. (Cucurbitaceae).
Petola silvestris 409, t. 150=Luffa cylindrica Roem. (Cucurbitaceae).
Amara indica 410, t. 151=Momordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Amara sinica 411=Momordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbitaceae).
Amara silvestris 413, t. 152, f. 1=? Momordica charantia Linn. (Cucurbi-
taceae).
Poppya rotunda 414, t. 158=Momordica cochinchinensis Spreng. (Curcur-
bitaceae).
Poppya oblonga 414=? Momordica cochinchinensis Spreng. (Cucurbita-
ceae).
536 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Poppya silvestris 414, t. 152, f. 2=Trichosanthes trifolia Merr. (Cucurbi-
taceae).
Pomum amoris 416, t. 154, f. 1=Lycopersicum esculentum Mill. (Solana-
ceae).
Gandola (incl. alba et rubra) 417, t. 154, f. 2=Basella rubra Linn. (Basel-
laceae).
Olus vagum (incl. palustre) 419, t. 155, f. 1=Ipomoea reptans Poir. (Con-
volvulaceae).
Flos cardinalis (incl. albus) 421, ¢t. 155, f. 2=Quamoclit pennata Boj.
(Convolvulaceae).
Seruneum aquatile 423, t. 156, f. 1=Wedelia biflora DC. (Compositae).
Chamaebalanus japonica 426, t. 156, f. 2=Arachis hypogaea Linn. (Legu-
minosae).
Convolvulus laevis indicus major 428, t. 157, f. 1, 2—=Merremia peltata
Merr. (Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus laevis indicus rubra 429=IJpomoea rumphii Mig.=? Sticto-
cardia campanulata Merr. (Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus laevis indicus nigra 429=Ipomoea rumphii Mig.=? Sticto-
cardia campanulata Merr. (Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus laevis minor (incl. Il femina et mas) 481, ¢t. 158=Merremia
umbellata Hallier f. (Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus laevis Ill ampas ampas 4382=Stephania forsteri A. Gray
(Menispermaceae).
Convolvulus coeruleus 432=I/pomoea indica Merr. (Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus marinus major 4338, t. 159, f. 1=Ipomoea pes-caprae Roth
(Convolvulaceae).
Convolvulus marinus I! minor 433=Ipomoea pes-caprae Roth (Convol-
vulaceae).
Convolvulus riparius 435 t. 159, f. 2=Ipomoea gracilis R. Br. (Convol-
vulaceae).
Convolvulus foetidus 486, t. 160=Paederia foetida Linn. (Rubiaceae).
Pseudochina amboinensis 4387, t. 161=Smilax javensis A. DC. (Liliaceae).
Pseudochina amboinensis II nigra 489=Smilax leucophylla Blume (Lil-
iaceae).
Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph. 4388=? Smilax leucophylla var. platy-
phylla Merr. (Liliaceae).
Radix chinae 441=? Smilax china Linn. (Liliaceae).
Ubium nummularium 444, t. 162=Dioscorea nummularia Lam. (Diosco-
reaceae).
Ubium nummularium floriferum 445, t. 163=? Dioscorea nummularia Lam.
(Dioscoreaceae).
Funis crepitans | major 446, ¢. 164, f. 1=Cissus repens Lam. (Vitaceae).
Funis crepitans II minor 446, t. 164, f. 2=Cissus repens Lam. (Vitaceae).
Funis crepitans III trifolia 447, t. 165=Columella geniculata Merr. (V7-
taceae).
Funis crepitans IV 447=Cissus sp. (Vitaceae).
Vitis alba indica 448, t. 166, f. 1=Coccinea cordifolia Cogn. (Cucurbit-
aceae).
Folium causonis 450, t. 166, f. 2=Columella trifolia Merr. (Vitaceae).
Folium causonis litoreum 450=Tetrastigma sp. (Vitaceae).
Labrusca molucca 452, t. 167=Ampelocissus arachnoidea Planch. (Vitaceae).
Radix vesicatoria 453, t. 168=Plumbago indica Linn. (Plumbaginaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME V 527
Pes equinus 455, t. 169, f. 1=Centella asiatica Urb. (Umbelliferae).
Empetrum acetosum | album 457, t. 169, f. 2=Begonia tuberosa Lam.
(Begoniaceae).
Empetrum acetosum II rubrum 457=Begonia sp. (Begoniaceae).
Empetrum acetosum III cordatum 457=Begonia sp. (Begoniaceae).
Serratula amara 459, t. 170, f. 1=Curanga fel-terrae Merr. (Scrophula-
riaceae) .
Crusta ollae | major 460, t. 170, f. 2=Ilysanthes antipoda Merr. (Scrophu-
lariaceae) .
Crusta ollae II minor 461, t. 170, f. 3=Lindernia crustacea F. Muell. (Scro-
phulariaceae).
Crusta ollae III angustifolia 461, ¢. 170, f. 4=Dentella repens Forst. (Rubia-
ceae).
Herba timoris 462=—?
Cucumis murinus ruber 4638, t. 171, f. 1=Melothria javanica Cogn. (Cucur-
bitaceae).
Cucumis murinus viridis 463, t. 171, f. 2=Melothria indica Lour. (Cucur-
bitaceae).
Corona ariadnes | punicea 464, t. 172—=Hoya sussuela Merr. (Asclepia-
daceae).
Corona ariadnes I! lutea 465—=Hoya lutea Dene. (Asclepiadaceae).
Apocynum 466=Periploca graeca Linn. (Asclepiadaceae).
Sussuela esculenta | mas 467, t. 178, f. 1=Cynanchum sp. (Asclepiadaceae).
Sussuela esculenta I! femina 467, t. 178, f. 2=Cynanchum ovalifolium
Wight (Asclepiadaceae).
Olus crepitans | mas 469, t. 174, f. 1=Tylophora sp. (Asclepiadaceae) .
Olus crepitans II femina 469, t. 174, f. 2=Dischidia sp. (Asclepiadaceae).
Nummularia lactea major | fusca 470, t. 175, f. 1—Hoya rumphu Blume
(Asclepiadaceae).
Nummularia lactea major II alba 470=Hoya alba Kostel. (Asclepiadaceae).
Nummularia lactea major minor 471, t. 175, f. 2=Hoya sp. (Ascleya-
daceae).
Nummularia lactea major IIIl albo-purpurea 471=Hoya elegans Kostel.
(Asclepiadaceae).
Nummularia lactea minor | minima 472, t. 176, f. 1=Dischidia nummu-
laria R. Br. (Asclepiadaceae).
Nummularia lactea minor II major 478, t. 176, f. 2=Dischidia rumphu
Mig. (Asclepiadaceae).
Pustula arborum 4738, t. 175, f. 8=Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume
(Asclepiadaceae) .
Peponaster major 474=Amristolochia sp. (Aristolochiaceae) .
Radix puloronica s. peponaster minor 476, t. 177=Aristolochia rumphii
Kostel. (Aristolochiaceae).
Oculus astaci 479, t. 178, f. 1=Cissus aristata Blume. (Vitaceae).
Olus crepitans mas 480, t. 178, f. 2=Finlaysonia obovata Wall. (Asclep-
iadaceae).
Funis toaccae 481, t. 179=Fagraea amboinensis Blume (Loganiaceae).
Olus sanguinis 482, t. 180=Cardiopterix moluccana Blume (Icacinaceae).
Adpendix arborum (incl. parvifolia et media) 483, t. 181, f. 1, 2=Pothos
latifolius Linn. (Araceae).
Adpendix porcellanica 485, t. 182, f. 1=Pothos rumphu Schott (Araceae).
588 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Adpendix erecta 487, t. 182, f. 2=Aglaonema oblongifolium Kunth (Ara-
ceae).
Adpendix cuscuaria | angustifolia 488=F'reycinetia sp. (Pandanaceae).
Adpendix cuscuaria II latifolia 489, ¢. 183, f. 1=Scindapsus marantaefolia
Mig. (Araceae).
Adpendix laciniata 489, t. 183, f. 2=EHpipremnum pinnatum Engl. (Ara-
ceae).
Adpendix duplo folio 490, t. 184, f. 1, 2—Pothos longifolius Pres] (Araceae).
Adpendix Il 490, ¢t. 184, f. 3=Pothos longifolius Presl (Araceae).
Cussuta v. Cussutha indica 491, t. 184, f. 4=Cassytha filiformis Linn.
(Lauraceae).
VOLUME VI
Cyperus rotundus l, ¢. 1, f. 1=Cyperus rotundus Linn. (Cyperaceae).
Cyperus rotundus II fioridus, 2, t. 1, f. 2=Pycreus odoratus Urb. (Cyp-
eraceae).
Cyperus rotundus (vars.) 8, 4=Cyperaceae indet.
Cyperus longus 5, t. 2, f. 1=Remirea maritima Aubl. (Cyperaceae).
Cyperus littoreus 6, t. 2, f. 2=Spinifex littoreus Merr. (Cyperaceae).
Cyperus dulcis 7, t. 3, f. 1=Hleocharis dulcis Trin. (Cyperaceae).
Gramen capitatum 8, t. 3, f. 2=Kyllinga monocephala Rottb. (Cyperaceae).
Gramen vaccinum femina 9, t. 4, f. 1=Dactyloctenium aegyptium Richt.
(Gramineae).
Gramen vaccinum mas 10, t. 4, f. 2=Hleusine indica Gaertn. (Gramineae).
Goddam 10=E£leusine corocana Gaertn. (Gramineae).
Gramen repens minus 11=Cynodon dactylon Pers.
Gramen caninum 11=Digitaria sanguinalis Scop., var. (Gramineae).
Gramen fumi 11, t. 4, f. 3=EHragrostis amabilis W. & A. (Gramineae).
Champeu 11=Panicum stagninum Retz. (Gramineae).
Gramen supplex 12=—Digitaria sanguinalis Scop. (Gramineae).
Gramen roris (incl. litoreum) 12=Thuarea involuta R. Br. (Gramineae).
Gramen anatum 138=Panicum reptans Linn. (Gramineae).
Gramen aciculatum 13, t. 5, f. 1=Andropogon aciculatum Retz. (Gram-
aneae).
Hippogrostis amboinica | major 14, t. 5, f. 2=Ischaemum timorense Kunth
(Gramineae) .
Hippogrostis amboinica II minor 14, t. 5, f. 3=Oplismenus compositus
Beauv. (Gramineae).
Gramen arguens 15, t. 6, f. 1=Themeda frondosa Merr. (Gramineae).
Calamagrostis 16, t. 6, f. 2=Anthistiria gigantea Hack. (Gramineae).
Gramen polytrichum amboinense 17, t. 7, f. 1=Fimbristylis setacea Benth.
(Cyperaceae).
Gramen caricosum 17, t. 7, f. 2=Imperata cylindrica Beauv. var. koenigu
(Retz.) Benth. (Gramineae).
Gramen vulpinum 18, t. 7, f. 2 B=Setaria flava Kunth (Gramineae).
Phoenix amboinica montana 19, t. 7, f. 3=Andropogon amboinicus Merr.
(Gramineae).
Carex amboinica | major 20, t. 8, f. 1=Scleria bancana Mig. (Cyperaceae).
Carex amboinica II minor 20=Scleria lithosperma Sw. (Cyperaceae).
Carex amboinica Ill 20—=Cyperaceae indet.
Carex amboinica laevis major 21=Mapania macrocephala K. Sch. (Cyp-
eraceae). |
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 539
Carex amboinica laevis minor 21=Hypolytrum latifolium L. C. Rich.
(Cyperaceae).
Carex arborea 21, t. 8, f. 8=Freycinetia graminea Blume (Pandanaceae).
Carex culmaris 21=Gahnia rawacensis Steud. (Cyperaceae).
Lithospermum amboinicum 22, t. 9, f. 1=Coix lachryma jobi (Linn.)
(Gramineae).
Arundinella | minor 23, t. 9, f. 2=Commelina nudiflora Linn. (Commeli-
naceae).
Arundinella Il major 24=Commelina benghalensis Linn. (Commelinaceae).
Arundinella Ill aquatica 24=Cyanotis moluccana Merr. (Commelinaceae).
Arundinella IV adhaerens 25=—Aneilema vitiense Seem. var. petiolata C. B.
Clarke (Commelinaceae).
Arundinella V albiflora 25=F'loscopa scandens Lour. (Commelinaceae).
Crateogonum amboinicum | minus 25=Hedyotis tenelliflora Blume (Rubia-
ceae).
Crateogonum amboinicum II majus 25, t. 10=Hedyotis verticillata Lam.
(Rubiaceae).
Rosmarinus verus sinensis 26—Rosmarinus officinalis Linn. (Labiatae).
Auris canina | femina 26, t. 11=Cyathula prostrata Blume (Amaran-
thaceae).
Auris canina II mas 27, t. 12, f. 1=Achyranthes aspera Linn. (Amaran-
thaceae).
Herba memoriae 29, t. 12, f. 2=Pouzolzia zeylanica Benn. (Urticaceae).
Prunella molucca hortensis | latifolia 30, t. 13, f. 1=Hemigraphis sp.
(Acanthaceae).
Prunella molucca hortensis II angustifolia 30, t. 13, f. A. B.=Hemigraphis
angustifolia Hallier f. (Acanthaceae).
Prunella molucca hortensis II! 31=Hemigraphis petola Hallier f. (Acan-
thaceae).
Prunella molucca silvestris | alba 31, t. 13, f. 2=Hemigraphis reptans var.
glaucescens Hallier f. (Acanthaceae).
Prunella molucca silvestris II] rubra 32, t. 13, f. 3=Hemigraphis sp. (Acan-
thaceae).
Prunella molucca silvestris Ill rotunda 32—=Hemigraphis sp. (Acanthaceae).
-Ophiocolla altera 84=Pseuderanthemum curtatum Merr. (Acanthaceae).
Aylilin 84=indet.
Olus scrofinum | album 34, t. 14, f. 1=Adenostemma lavenia O. Kuntze
(Compositae).
Olus scrofinum II rubrum 85=Ageratum conyzoides Linn. (Compositae).
Olus scrofinum III luteum 85=Crepis japonica Benth. (Compositae).
Senecio amboinicus 36, t. 14, f. 2=Vernonia cinerea Less. (Compositae).
Olus squillarum 37, ¢. 15, f. 1=Alternanthera sessilis R. Br. (Amaran-
thaceae).
Agrimonia molucca 388, t. 15, f. 2=Bidens chinensis Willd. (Compositae).
Herba admirationis 839—Leucas zeylanica R. Br. (Labiatae).
Herba admirationis, quoad t. 16, f. 1=Leucas lavandulifolia Sm.
Majana foetida 41, t. 16, f. 2=Dysophylla auricularia Blume (Labiatae).
Herba moeroris alba 41, t. 17, f. 1=Phyllanthus miruri Linn. (Huphor-
biaceae).
Herba moeroris rubra 41, t. 17, f. 2=Phyllanthus urinaria Linn. (Huphor-
biaceae). . ;
Ecliptica 43, t. 18, f. 1=EHclipta alba (Linn.) Hassk. (Compositae).
5AO RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Sigalurium | rotundum 44, t. 19=Sida retusa Linn. (Malvaceae).
Sigalurium II longifolium 45, ¢t. 18, f. 2=Sida acuta Burm. f. (Malvaceae).
Sigalurium Ili album 45=Sida sp. (Malvaceae).
Urtica decumana (incl. alba et rubra) 47, t. 20, f. 1=Laportea decumana
(Roxb.) Wedd. (Urticaceae)..
Urtica decumana III vulgaris 48—Fleurya interrupta Gaudich. (Urtica-
ceae).
Urtica mortua 49, ¢. 20, f. 2=Micrococca mercurialis Benth. (Euphor-
biaceae).
Herba vitiliginum 49, t. 21, f. 1=Jussiaea suffruticosa Linn. (Gawaeuen
raceae).
Folium tinctorium (incl. album et rubrum) 51, t. 22, f. 1=Peristrophe
bivalvis Merr. (Acanthaceae).
Bungum I mas 52, ¢t. 22, f. 2=Lepidagathis rumphui Merr. (Acanthaceae).
Bungum II femina 52, t. 21, f. 2=Pseuderanthemum pulchellum ERE
(Acanthaceae).
Moretiana 538, t. 28, f. 1=Ruellia repens Linn. (Acanthaceae).
Olus caprinum 54=Pseuderanthemum racemosum Radlk. (Acanthaceae).
Esula esculenta 54, t. 23, f. 2=Euphorbia hirta Linn. (Huphorbiaceae).
Conyza odorata 55, t. 24, f. 1=Blumea balsamifera DC. (Compositae).
Conyza indica mas 56=? Blumea appendiculata DC. (Compositae).
Conyza cadaverum 56=? Blumea appendiculata DC. (Compositae).
Conyza indica minor 56=Blumea sp. (Compositae).
Adulterina 58, t. 25, f. 1=Solanum verbascifolium Linn. (Solanaceae).
Lappago amboinica laciniata 59, t. 25, f. 2=Urena lobata Linn. (Mal-
vaceae).
Lappago amboinica silvestris 60=Triumfetta bartramia Linn. (Tiliaceae).
Halicacabus indicus | major 60=Physalis angulata Linn. (Solanaceae).
Halicacabus indicus I! minor 61, t. 26, f. 1=Physalis minima Linn. (Sola-
naceae).
Halicacabus peregrinus 61, t. 24, f. 2=Cardiospermum halicacabum Linn.
(Sapindaceae).
Halicacabus baccifer 62, t. 26, f. 2=Solanum nigrum Linn. (Solanaceae).
Palmifilix | nigra 63, t. 27=Cyathea amboinensis (v. A. v. R.) Merr. (Cya-
theaceae).
Palmifilix I] alba 683—=Cyathea rumphiana (v. A. v. R.) Merr. (Cyathe-
aceae).
Palmifilix II1 postium 63—Cyathea sp. (Cyatheaceae).
Filix canarina 64=Polypodiaceae indet.
Filix aquatica 65, t. 28=Angiopteris amboinensis De Vr. (Marattiaceae).
Filix aquatica Il mas 66=Polypodiaceae indet.
Filix esculenta 67, t. 29=Athyrium esculentum Copel. (Polypodiaceae).
Filix amboinica mas 69=Dryopteris ferox O. Kuntze (Polypodiaceae).
Filix amboinica urens 69=Polypodiaceae indet.
Filix lanuginosa 69=Cibotium baranetz J. Sm. vel Dicksonia sorbifolia Sm.
Lonchitis amboinica recta | major rubra 70, t. 30, f. 1=Blechnum orientale
Linn. (Polypodiaceae).
Lonchitis amboinica recta | major alba 70, t. 30, f. 2=? Polypodium
pallens Blume (Polypodiaceae).
Lonchitis amboinica recta II minor nigra 71=Tectaria crenata Cav. (Poly-
podiaceae).
Lonchitis amboinica recta I| minor alba 71—Polypodiaceae indet.
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 5A1
Lonchitis amboinica III volubilis 71, ¢. 31=Stenochlaena palustris Bedd.
(Polypodiaceae).
Lonchitis saguaria 72—Polypodiaceae indet.
Lonchitis amara 72=Polypodiaceae indet.
. Lonchitis pilosa 72—Polypodiaceae indet.
Lonchitis muscosa 62—Polypodiaceae indet.
Dryopteris triplex arborea 73, t. 32, f. 1=Davallia elata erie (Polypo-
diaceae).
Dryopteris triplex silvestris | terrestris 74—Tapeinidium amboynense C.
Chr. (Polypodiaceae).
Dryopteris triplex silvestris arborea 74—Polypodiaceae indet.
Dryopteris triplex silvestris petraea 74—Adiantum or Lindsaya sp. (Poly-
podiaceae).
Dryopteris campestris 74, t. 34, f. 2=Cheilanthes tenuifolia Sw. (Polypo-
diaceae).
Adianthum volubile | polypoides 75, t. 33=Lygodium circinatum Sw. (Schi-
zaeaceae).
Adianthum volubile Il medium 75=Lygodium circinatum Sw. (Schizae-
aceae).
Adianthum volubile II! minus 75, t. 32, f. 2, 8=Lygodium scandens Sw.
(Schizaeaceae).
Capillus veneris amboinicus 77, t. 34, f. 1= Adiantum sp. (Polypodiaceae) .
Filix florida 78, t. 35, f. 1=Stenosemia aurita Presl (Polypodiaceae).
Polypodium indicum | pilosum s. majus 78, t. 36=Drynaria sparsisora
Moore (Polypodiaceae).
Polypodium indicum II minus 80, t. 35, f. 2=Polypodium phymatodes Linn.
(Polypodiaceae).
Phyllitis amboinica | arborea 82 (t. 37, f. 12) =Asplenium nidus Linn.
(Polypodiaceae).
Phyllitis amboinica II terrestris 82=Asplenium nidus Linn. (Polypodia-
ceae).
Simbar majangan 83=Platycerium coronarium Desv. (Polypodiaceae).
Scolopendria major 84, t. 37, f. 3=Ophioglossum pendulum Linn. (Ophio-
glossaceae).
Scolopendria minor 84=? Polypodium sinuosum Wall. (Polypodiaceae).
Filix calamaria 85, t. 38=Gleichenia linearis Clarke (Gleicheniaceae).
Muscus frutescens femina 86, t. 39, f. 1=Selaginella plana Hieron. (Selagi-
nellaceae).
Muscus frutescens mas 87, t. 39, f. 2=Selaginella @urvillei A. Br. (Sela-
ginellaceae).
Muscus frutescens il! muscagineus 87=F'ungi indet.
Cingulum terrae 87, t. 40, f. 1=Lycopodium cernuum Linn. (Lycopodiaceae).
Barba saturni 88=Usnea sp. (Lichenes).
Muscus capillaris 89, t. 40, f. 2=Usnea sp. (Lichenes).
Muscus gelatinus japonicum 90, ¢. 40, f. 3=Gelidium amansii Kiitz. (Rhodo-
phyceae).
Capillus nympharum 90=Chaetomorpha javanicum Kiitz. (Chlorophyceae) .
Alga coralloides sinensium 90=—Algae indet. (Rhodophyceae).
Tschintschau javanense 90=Salvia plebeia R. Br. (Labiatae).
Equisetum amboinicum 91, ¢t. 41, f. 1=Lycopodium phlegmaria Linn. (Ly-
copodiaceae).
542 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Equisetum amboinicum minor 92=? Lycopodium nummularifolium Blume
(Lycopodiaceae).
Equisetum secundum 92=Psilotum triquetrum Sw. (Psilotaceae).
Equisetum silvestre 92—Schizaea dichotoma Sw. (Schizaeaceae).
Folium petolatum | mas 92, t. 41, f. 2=? Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm. .
(Orchidaceae).
Folium petolatum II femina 938, t. 41, f. 3=Anoectochilus reinwardtii
Blume (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum scriptum 95, t. 42=Graptophyllum pictum Blume (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum II mangarum 96=Orchidaceae indet.
Angraecum III cocorum 96=Orchidaceae indet.
Angraecum album majus 99, t. 48=Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume (Orchi-
daceae).
Angraecum album majus flore purpureo 99=Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum album majus var. altera 99=Phalaenopsis amabdilis Blume
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum album minus 99, t. 44, f. 1=Dendrobium ephemepuen J. J. Sm.
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum rubrum 101, t. 44, f. 2=Renanthera moluccana Blume (Orchi-
daceae).
Angraecum quintum 102=Vandopsis lissochiloides Pfitz. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum flavum sextum moschatum 102=—Dendrobium rumphianum
Teysm. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum flavum septimum 108, ¢t. 45 (et t. 46, f. 2?) =Dendrobium
mirbelianum Gaudich. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum flavum octavum 104, t. 46, f. 1=Vanda furva Lindl. (Orchi-
daceae).
Angraecum flavum nonum 104=? Dendrobium rumphianum T. & B. (Orchi-
daceae).
Angraecum flavum decimum 104=Luisia confusa Rchb. f. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum caninum undecimum 105, t. 47, f. 1=Dendrobium anosmum
Lindl. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum nervosum 106, t. 48=Coelogyne rumphii Lindl. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum pungens 106=Sarcanthus subulatus Reichb. f. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum saxatile 107, t. 49, f. 1=Vanda sp. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum crumenatum t. 47, f. 2=Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm.
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum angustis crumenis 107=Eria moluccana Schltr. & J. J. Sm.
(Ochidaceae).
Angraecum sediforme 107=Orchidaceae indet.
Angraecum uniflorum 107=Bulbophyllum sp. (Orchidaceae). |
Angraecum gajang 108=Liparis treubti J. J. Sm. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum jamboe 108=Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum taeniosum 108=Orchidaceae indet.
Angraecum lanuginosum 108=Eria sp. (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum purpureum et nudum 109, t. 49, f. 2=Dendrobium sp. (Orchi-
daceae). |
Angraecum purpureum II silvestre 109, t. 50, f. 1= Dendrobium purpureum
Roxb. (Orchidaceae).
Herba supplex | minor 110, t. 50, f. 2=Dendrobium moluccense J. J. Sm.
(Orchidaceae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI 543
Herba supplex major femina s. secunda II1=Dendrobium acinaciforme
Roxb. (Orchidaceae).
Herba supplex major femina s. secunda t. 51, f. 1=Dendrobium sp. (Orchi-
daceae).
Herba supplex major secunda 111=? Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae).
Herba supplex major tertia 111=? Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae).
Herba supplex major quarta 111=Dendrobium sp. (Orchidaceae).
Herba supplex major quinta 111, t. 51, f. 2=Dendrobium calceolum Roxb.
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum terrestre primum I! purpureum 112=Spathoglottis plicata
Blume (Orchidaceae).
Angraecum terrestre alterum 118, t. 52, f. 1=Phaius amboinensis Blume
(Orchidaceae).
Angraecum terrestre primum album 118, t. 50, f. 8=Phaius gratus Blume
(Orchidaceae).
Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre tertium 114, t. 583=Curculigo capitulata
O. Kuntze (Amaryllidaceae).
Involucrum s. angraecum terrestre alterum 115=Panicum palmifolium
Koenig (Gramineae).
Flos triplicatus 115, ¢. 52, f. 2=Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br. (Orchidaceae).
Orchis amboinica major | 116=? Hulophia sp. (Orchidaceae).
Orchis amboinica major II 117, t. 54, f. 1=Curculigo orchoides Gaertn.
(Amaryllidaceae) . |
Orchis amboinica minor 118, t. 54, f. 2=Habenaria rumphii Lindl. (Orchi-
daceae).
Orchis amboinica minor altera.118, t. 54, f. 3=Peristylus sp. (Orchidaceae).
Nidus germinans formicarum I nigrarum 119, t. 55, f. 1=Hydnophytum
amboinense Becc. (Rubiaceae).
Nidus germinans formicarum II rubrarum 119, t. 55, f. 2=Myrmecodia
rumphii Bece. (Rubiaceae).
Tuber regium 120, t. 57, f. 4=Lentinus tuber regium Fries (Hymenomy-
cetineae) and Pachyma tuber regium Fries (Fungi, incert.).
Hoelen 122—Pachyma hoelen Fries (Fungi, incert.).
Tuber sampadarium 123=Polygaster sampadarius Fries (Plectobasidtineae).
Boletus moschocaryanus 124=Agaricus moschocaryanus Fries (Hymenomy-
cetineae).
Boletus saguarius 124—Hymenomycetineae indet.
Boletus infundibuli forma [figura] 125, t. 56, f. 1=Lentinus sajor-caju
Fries (Hymenomycetineae).
Boletus infundibuli forma altera 125=? Lentinus sajor caju Fries (Hyme-
nomycetineae) .
Boletus II arboreus 125, t. 56, f. 2, 3=Lentinus djamor Fries (Hymenomy-
cetineae).
Boletus Ill umbraculi forma 126—Hymenomycetineae indet.
Boletus IV terrestris 126—Hymenomycetineae indet.
Boletus V auris murina 126, t. 56, f. 4=Hirneola auricula judae Berk.
(Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus arboreus | 127=Polyporus sp. (Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus arboreus I! 128=Polyporus sp. and Polystictus sanguineus Fries
(Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus arboreus III 128=Favolus sp. (Hymenomycetineae).
5A4 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Fungus elatus petasoides 128—Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.) Pat.
(Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus elatus cochlearis 129, t. 57, f. 1=Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.)
Pat. (Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus elatus digitatus 129, t. 57, f. 2, 3=Ganoderma cochlear (Nees)
Merr. (Hymenomycetineae).
Fungus igneus 180, t. 56, f. 5=Hymenomycetineae indet.
Fungus arborum tuberosus 130=? Lycoperdon sp. (Lycoperdineae).
Crepitus lupi verus 131—Lycoperdon sp. (Lycoperdineae).
Phallus daemonum 181, t. 56, f. 7=Dictyophora phalloidea Desv. (Phalli-
neae).
Macuerus femina 182, t. 58, f. 1=Cyrtandra decurrens DeVr. (Cana
ceae).
Macuerus mas 133, t. 58, f. 2=Pellionia sinuata Boerl. (Urticaceae).
Lomba 133, t. 59, f. 1= Piper subpeltatum Willd. (Piperaceae).
Globba longa 134, t. 60, f. 1 A=Amomum rumphii Sm. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba crispa | viridis 137, t. 61, f. 1=Amomum sp. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba crispa II rubra 187, t. 60, f. B-D; t. 61, f. 2=Amomum roseum
Benth. & Hook. f. Waaegiberdecaey
Globba uviformis 138, t. 59, f. 2=Alpinia uviformis Horan. (vel Plagios-
tachys) (Zingiberaceae).
Globba hatuana 1388=? Amomum aculeatum Roxb. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba uviformis Il Lawassi malacca 1389—Riedelia lanata K. Sch. (Zingi-
beraceae).
Globba acris 140=Amomum acre Val. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba silvestris major 140, t. 62, 623=Alpinia nutans Horan. (Zingibe-
raceae).
Globba silvestris minor 141=Alpinia gigantea Blume (Zingiberaceae).
Globba silvestris sekala 141=? Amomum sp. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba silvestris sulica 141=? Amomum magnificum Benth. & Hook. f.
(Zingiberaceae).
Globba silvestris pada kanka 142=Alpinia sp. (Zingiberaceae).
Globba silvestris subterranea 142=Amomum sp. (Zingiberaceae).
Herba spiralis | hirsuta 148, t. 64, f. 1=Costus speciosus Blume var.
lirsutus Blume (Zingiberaceae).
Herba spiralis I! laevis 143, t. 64, f. 2=Costus speciosus Blume (Zingibe-
raceae).
ABCdaria 145, t. 65=Spilanthes acmella Linn. (Compositae).
Phaseolus montanus I, Il 146=Tephrosia sp. (Leguminosae).
Phaseolus montanus III, IV 146=Crotalaria linifolia Linn. f. (Legum-
mosae).
Crotalaria montana V 146=Desmodium gangeticum DC. (Leguminosae).
Crotalaria montana V quoad t. 66=Desmodium ormocarpoides DC. (Legu-
minosae).
Crotalaria montana VI, VII 146=Desmodium triquetrum DC. (Legum-
imosae).
Crotalaria montana VIII Tsjeme-tsjeme 146—Leguminosae indet.
Amoena moesta 147, t. 67, f. 1=Cassia mimosoides Linn. (Leguminosae).
Pilosella amboinica 148=Compositae indet.
Rhabarbarum sinense 148=Rheum rhabarbarum Linn. (Polygonaceae).
Phaseolus adhaerens 150—Pseudarthria viscida W. & A. (Leguminosae).
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VI BA5
Terebinthina 150, t. 67, f, 2=Limnophila aromatica Merr. (Scrophula-
riaceae).
Menthastrum amboinicum 151, t. 68, f. 1=Limnophila rugosa Merr. (Scro-
phulariaceae).
Ophioglossum simplex indicum 152, t. 68, f. 2=Ophioglossum peduncu-
losum Desv. (Ophioglossaceae).
Ophioglossum laciniatum 158, t. 68, f. 3=Helminthostachys zeylanica Hook.
(Ophioglossaceae).
Radix toxicaria | major 155, t. 69=Crinum asiaticum Linn. (Amarylli-
daceae).
Radix toxicaria II] terrestris 156=Crinum rumphi Merr. (Amaryllidaceae).
Cepa silvestris 160, t. 70, f. 1=Eurycles amboinensis Herb. (Amarylli-
daceae).
Lilium indicum 161, t. 70, f. 2=Pancratium zeylanicum Linn. (Amarylli-
daceae).
Lilium indicum javanicum 162=Amaryllidaceae indet.
Aquifolium indicum | mas 163, t. 71, f. 1=Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl
(Acanthaceae).
Aquifolium indicum II femina 163, t. 71, f. 2=Acanthus volubilis Wall.
(Acanthaceae). '
Crithamus indicus | ruber 165, t. 72, f. 1=Sesuvium portulacastrum Linn.
(Aizoaceae).
Crithamus (Kaly articulatum) 166=Salicornia herbacea Linn. (Chenopod-
taceae).
Crithamus verus 166, t. 72, f. 2=Crithamum maritimum Linn. (Umbelli-
ferae).
Nymphaea indica major 168, t. 723=Nelumbium nelumbo Druce (Nym-
phaeaceae). |
Nymphaea indica minor 172=Nymphaea pubescens Willd. & N. stellata
Wilid. (Nymphaeaceae).
Nymphaea indica minor I! ceramica 1738, t. 72, f. 3=Limnanthemum
indicum Griseb. (Gentianaceae).
Millefolium aquaticum 176, t. 74, f. 1=Ceratopteris thalictroides Brongn.
(Parkeriaceae).
Plantago aquatica 177, t. 74, f. 2=Pistia stratiotes Linn. (Araceae).
Olus palustre 178, t. 75, f. 1=Monochoria vaginalis Presl (Pontederiaceae).
Olus palustre femina 178=Monochoria vaginalis Presl, var. (Pontederia-
ceae).
Lens palustris 178=Lemna sp. (Lemnaceae).
Capillus nympharum 179=Chaetomorpha javanica Kiitz. (Chlorophyceae).
Alga coralloides 181, t. 74, f. 8; t. 76, f. A, B, C=Gracilaria lichenoides
Harv. (Rhodophyceae).
Acetabulum marinum 185, t. 76, f. 1=Sargassum polycystum J. Ag. (Phaeo-
phyceae). ‘
Acetabulum marinum infundibuliforme 185=Turbinaria ornata J. Ag.
Phaeophyceae).
Acetabulum marinum e Macassar 186=Turbinaria sp. (Phaeophyceae).
Agarum Il s. bracteatum 186=-Mastocarpus klenzeanus Kitz. (Phaeo-.
phyceae).
144971——35
5AG RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Agarum III funiculare s. foliatum 186=Sargassum aquifolium Ag. (Phaeo-
phyceae).
Agarum IV lactucarium 186=Rhodophyceae indet.
Agarum V corticosum 186=Algae indet.
Bodelha 187=F'ucus vesiculosus Linn. (Phaeophyceae).
Bodelha altera 187=Himanthalia lorea Lyng. (Rhodophyceae).
Sargasso s. Wier 187=Sargassum flavifolium Kiitz. (Phaeophyceae).
Sargassum pelagium 188, ¢t. 76, f. 2=Sargassum bacciferum Ag. (Phaeo-
phyceae).
Acorus marinus 191, t. 75, f. 2=Enhalus acoroides Steud. (Hydrochari-
taceae).
Cocus maldivicus 210, t. 81=Lodoicea maldivica Pers. (Palmae).*
Compar mangae 217, t. 82, f. 1=Palmae indet.
Cocus maldivicus minor 218, t. 82, f. 2, 3=Palmae indet.
Cocus melindanus verus 219, t. 82, f. 4=Palmae indet.
Calapput laut 219=Palmae indet.
VOLUME VII (AUCTUARIUM)
Mangostana celebica 1=Garcinia celebica Linn. (Guttiferae).
Mirobalanus embilica 1, t. 1=Phyllanthus emblica Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Nagassarium 3, t. 2=Mesua ferrea Linn. (Guttiferae).
Boa massy 5, t. 3=Cubilia cubili Merr. (Sapindaceae).
Radix etter 6, t. 4=indet.
Arbor sebi 7=Dysoxylum sp. (Meliaceae).
Morus indica 8, t. 5=Morus alba Linn. (Moraceae).
Cortex acris 9=?
Cortex igneus 10, t. 6, f. 1=? Pittosporum sp. (Pittosporaceae).
Caja panu 12, t. 6, f. 2=Psychotria sp. (Rubiaceae).
Cortex foetidus 12, t. 7=Pittosporum moluccanum Mig. (Pittosporaceae).
Cortex filarius 13=Gyrinopsis brachyantha Merr. (Thymelaeaceae) .
Camean 14, t. 8, f. 1=?
Arbor nussalavica 14, t. 8, f. 2=Dysoxylum sp. (Meliaceae).
Oleander sinicus 15, t. 9, f. 1=Nerium odorum Mill. (Apocynaceae).
Pariens muscarum 16, t. 9, f. 2=? (sub. Symplocos).
Arbor vespertilionum 17=Helicia serrata R. Br. (Proteaceae).
Arbor vespertilionum II oppositifolia 17, t. 10=Schizomeria serrata Hochr.
(Cunoniaceae).
Pauw (incl. maxima, minima, media) 18, t. 11=Mangifera rumphii Pierre.
(Anacardiaceae).
Xylophyllos ceramica 19, t. 12=Exocarpus epiphyllanthus Merr. (Santa-
laceae).
Ayassa 20=? (sub. Tetracera, Dillenaceae is prob. E'vodia sp., Rutaceae).
Lignum vinosum 21=?
Bangel boaja 22=?
Stercus squillarum 22—?
Hystrix frutex 22, t. 13=Barleria prionitis Linn. (Acanthaceae).
Madorius 24, t. 14, f. 1=Calotropis gigantea Dry. (Asclepiadaceae).
* Book 12, pages 198-256, tt. 77-90, is entitled “De arbusculis agens
marinis & plantis saxosis seu de Lithodendris & Lithophytis.” The forms
described and figured are various alcyonarians, corals, sponges, ete., with
the exception of the fruits of certain palms here listed.
SEQUENCE OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES, VOLUME VII BAT
Catsjopiri 26, t. 14, f. 2=Gardenia augusta Merr. (Rubiaceae).
Lussa radja 27, t. 15=Brucea amarissima Merr. (Simarubaceae).
Radix mustelae 29, t. 16=Rauwolfia serpentina Hook. f. (Apocynaceae).
Fructus regis 32, t. 17, f. 1=Helicteres isora Linn. (Sterculiaceae).
Cheramela 34, t. 17, f. 2=Cicca acida Merr. (Euphorbiaceae).
Herpetica 35, t. 18=Cassia alata Linn. (Leguminosae).
Spina spinarum | mas 386, t. 19, f. 1, 2=Flacourtia wndica Merr. (Flacour-
tiaceae).
Spina spinarum II femina 37=F'lacourtia indica Merr. (Flacourtiaceae).
Tsjuilang 38=Aglaia odorata Lour. (Meliaceae).
Oxyacantha javana 389, t. 19, f. 83=? Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocyna-
ceae).
Spina pectinata 39=? Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocynaceae).
Terminalis rubra silvestris 40,-t. 20=Taetsia fruticosa Merr. (Liliaceae).
Campana rubra 42=? Pandorea sp. (Bignoniaceae).
Radix sinica 42, t. 21, f. 1=Panax ginseng C. A. Mey. (Araliaceae).
Tjutsjau javanicum 50, t. 21, f. 2=Salvia plebera R. Br. (Labiatae).
Soechas pilosa 51, t. 22, f. 1=Adenosma capitatum Benth. (Scrophula-
riaceae).
Cassutha cornea 52=Marasmius sp. (Hymenomycetineae).
Tubu-tubu 52, t. 22, f. 2=Tapeinochilus ananassae K. Sch. (Zingiberaceae) .
Tingulong 54, t. 23, f. 1=Protium javanicum Burm. f. (Burseraceae).
Nanium calapparium 565, t. 23, f. 2=? Myrtaceae.
Malum aruanum 55, t. 24, f. 1=?
Caju gora aruanum 56, t. 24, f. 2=?2>
Palala aruana 56, t. 24, f. 3=Horsfieldia sp. (Myristicaceae).
Carandas 57, t. 25=Carissa carandas Linn. (Apocynaceae).
Flos siamicus 58, t. 26, f. 1=Telosma odoratissima Coville (Asclepiada-
ceae).
Scrotum cussi 59, t. 26, f. 2=?
Machilus angustifolia 60, t. 27, f. 1=Neolitsea amboinensis Merr. (Laura-
ceae).
Verbena rubra 60, t. 27, f. 2=Aerva sanguinolenta Blume (Amarantha-
ceae).
Tsjikin 61, t. 28, f. 1—Lagerstroemia indica Linn. (Lythraceae).
Ossifraga lactea 62, t. 29=Euphorbia tirucalli Linn. (Euphorbiaceae).
Laurus japanica 68=Cinnamomum sp. (Lauraceae).
Cinnamomum zeylanicum 64=Cinnamomum sp. (Lauraceae).
Culit Lawan 65=Cinnamomum culilawan Blume (Lauraceae).
Arbor camphorifera | vera 65, 68=Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees &
Eberm. (Lauraceae). }
Arbor camphorifera II occidentalis 65, 68=Dryobalanops camphora Colebr.
(Dipterocarpaceae).
Smilax sarmentis spinulosis 72, t. 30=? Smilax china Linn. (Liliaceae).
hers ete
neve
ADDENDA
As indicated in the footnote on page 168, the specimens of
Orchidaceae collected by Doctor Robinson could not be cited
under the species to which they pertain as Doctor Smith’s man-
uscript and all the specimens were left at Leiden. Doctor
Smith did not consider it advisable to take the specimens with
him on his return to Buitenzorg on account of the abnormal
conditions brought about by the war. Doctor Smith’s report
on the Orchidaceae of the Herbarium Amboinense was written
at Buitenzorg, without access to Robinson’s specimens or to his
manuscript report on Robinson’s collection. A copy of his re-
port sent from Leiden was lost in transit, but a second copy was
sent later, which reached Buitenzorg about the middle of June,
and Manila July 11, 1917. At the time of the receipt of this
report in Manila, the present work was in page proof, so that
it was impracticable to cite the specimens of Orchidaceae in
their proper places. The specimens are cited below.
Platanthera susannae (Linn.) Lindl. |
AMBOINA, Soja road and Way tommo, Robinson Pi. Rumph. Amb. 9,
August 1 and 16, 1913, terrestrial, on grassy hillsides, altitude 20 to 150
meters.
Habenaria rumphii (Brongn.) Lindl.
AMBOINA, Soja road, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 11, August 1, 1918, ter-
restrial, on grassy hillsides, altitude 100 to 300 meters.
Anoectochilus reinwardtii Blume.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 19, November 5, 1913,
sterile; from a cultivated plant originating in the adjacent hills.
Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm.
AMBOINA, Way uri, Reliquiae Robinsonianae 1616, September 9, 1913,
terrestrial, in river bottoms, altitude about 25 meters. Flowers white.
Coelogyne rumphii Lindl.
AMBOINA, Soja and Bato merah, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 7, August
24 and 31, 19138, altitude 150 to 300 meters.
Calanthe veratrifolia R. Br.
AMBOINA, Koeseokoesoe sereh, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 10, August 7
and 238, 1913, altitude 200 meters; terrestrial. Flowers white.
Spathoglottis plicata Blume.
AMBOINA, town of Amboina, Soja road, Batoe gadjah, and Hitoe messen,
Robinson, Pl. Rumph. Amb. 15, Reliquiae Robinsonianae 1628, July, August,
and November, 1918, terrestrial altitude 10 to 150 meters.
549
550 RUMPHIUS’S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE
Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm.
AMBOINA, Wakal, on Sonneratia, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 13, November,
1913.
Dendrobium ephemerum J. J. Sm.
AMBOINA, Hitoe lama, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 19, November 5, 1913,
Dendrobium moluccense J. J. Sm.
AMBOINA, Roemah tiga, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 12, July 20, 1913,
epiphytic, usually on Calophyllum inophyllum at sea level. The flowers
very dark red.
Dendrobium purpureum Roxb.
AMBOINA, Waé, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 5, November 29, 19138, altitude
about 20 meters. Epiphytic, pendant, the flowers lilac, the sepals tipped
with green.
Grammatophyllum scriptum (Linn.) Blume,
AMBOINA, Paso, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 6, October 29, 1913, epiphytic,
altitude 10 meters. The flowers green with purple blotches; native name
manumpang.
Phalaenopsis amabilis (Linn.) Blume.
AMBOINA, Amahoesoe, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 8, August 30, 1918,
epiphytic, altitude 4 to 8 meters. Flowers white, callosities on the lip with
yellow margins and lilac spots.
Luisia confusa Reichb. f.
AMBOINA, Paso, Reliquiae Robinsonianie 1626, July 20, 1913, epiphytic,
altitude 2 meters. Flowers yellowish-green, but the lip lilac-purple except
for the yellow margin.
Renanthera moluccana Blume.
AMBOINA, Soja, Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amb. 20, September 27, 1918.
Flowers orange-red, spotted all over with red, the tip of the column white.
Native names bunga karang and manumpang karang.
te gt
Gamen! as
pos
Cp Kofian PAPUA
ei ‘
Jappen if
GEELVINK
BAY
NEW
GUINEA
o>
: Nuhu Yut
a wala ap a :
vane Ser Soe ee i te FF
beh u
os £
-
BuREAU OF SCIENCE PUBLICATION No. 9.]
GULF OF
Togoan|,
TOMINI er
Tomori Gulf
E
£
os
so!
PuloSalayar
ae
a
Os" 4*
Jer?
SUMBAWA
GILOLO
ALMAHERA)
Tawala| (fas 4
“e
ran Seki. aw
Bock
Bisa!
iso Obi Mayor e
Ui (\ suns
pASBe Cl GEELVINK
yn BAY
P
o, a 4
Hefur Q “ig.
Sen
Jappent.
rs,
i GUINEA
oso Sth “it
Wewoni |.
Buton Str.
i)
2°
Pp
L
5
\
Serwatt'
TENIMBER 1S.
7 ®seron Str
{ein e
Choe eo passed
ie
Prova
SS Moa SSermota
Apaley Spr:
AUSTRALIA ¢
PLATE |. AMBOINA AND THE SURROUNDING ISLANDS.
’ - } ; > : a4.
= 4
= / "i j 3 i
— aan 5 ¢ ve d t h
seed: { :
j = ; =
= f ) = 4 if
a F : +}
es " : : , §
am ; : ; ;
das - .
c oe
* ; caf * ‘
=, ‘ ¥ ae f° 64
st oe aes
i, 5 bg ,
<4 po = ee = nk Tosa & z = a ae: <<
: ¢ RE Aa RE Oe ENB at Bo z iis 2 wid isd Sasa : puna! Se . : : : Z Se eave Sie BSED St he RE PCE
at .
Hd : " t =
128°30’
<aesMochoe Pt. ws wa —— ca = : TREE
Ran riae ~~ Honimoa Pt.
Siti ees
eailolo ales
sebaoe PME oA
- "VV
sol RAE KOT A
Bator oh
PT. chee >
68, . aed
346,,,< at aceasta |
. Kal Pt.
“Wasaibesar Pt.
HAROEROE STR 4,
° és
Batoe Kapal
oe
iLeahari
nar Pt.
Bureau oF SCIENCE PUBLICATION No. 9.]
28°00 j 28°15" ; 128°30
Sn a Fe: = SNE: WA ae ee aes os : WailmatangP a a panes i, a Tf 3°
30) 2 ER) wig ete - 30°
SetanP be [Hoehoe:- 4 :
Morela Pt
HobloenF
oe
ae asaibesar Pt
ony Pan AS =
(Noes Ela ; ‘Wala’ i! ie Poke ° Soawi Bator Kapal
Noesa Teloe eae MBs “i
NoesaHatalag
Neesa Lain
‘ae
45/
sy
“ Hatiari Pt.
att
128°30°
128°00° : : 128° 15"
PLATE II. AMBOINA ISLAND.
f.2 .ovf morragaieaod aor
mR hi tA a -vaarein A RIE PRT (el R De HD NSA RRS AN it SALA RL TA MEAS NRE ESI ec ea ovemcre «eu
A : - of *) ‘
i
elt bili re BOSS
a feoleiiaettnanlaciarae ie
Penh qe lemeiroes on Sadia capa al eh wae
BS AMR ee A ee seyret ees ih ei Sah isa Manabe so cal als
P — re pili ee eet er rip ae Dania ateleintend acess a ary hl en ha dca eri
Cs
Ca ‘S a
i a 5 ig
if ¥ re
§
44 : ‘ 74
‘
uk
She eee oy ee On se mee tere ay so eel plies Antara Sesemabcinicenn i worl etme tiie san atta lb ei
. m :
Pes
INDEX
[Synonyms and incidentally mentioned species are in ttalics.]
A
Aalius latifolia Rumph., 315.
parvifolia Rumph., 314.
ABCdaria Rumph., 501.
Abelmoschus ficulneus W. & A., 358.
haenkeanus Pres], 48.
mindanaensis Warb., 358.
moschatus Medik., 358.
Abies dammara Poir., 76.
Abroma augusta Linn. f., 365.
fastuosa Jacq., 365.
fastuosa R. Br., 365.
mollis DC., 365.
Abrus frutex Rumph., 274.
precatorius Linn., 274.
Abutilon albescens Mia., 356.
avicennae Gaertn., 355.
graveolens Wight & Arn., 356.
hirsutum Rumph., 355.
hirtum (Lam.) Sweet, 355.
indicum (Linn.) Sweet, 355.
laeve Rumph., 355.
litoreum Rumph., 356.
montanum Rumph., 357.
montanum e Capite bonae spei Rumph.,
357.
sonneratianum Sweet, 357.
Abutua indica Lour., 77.
Acacia concinna DC., 251.
holosericea A. Cunn., 251.
hooperiana Zipp., var. subcuneata (BI.)
Mig., 252.
mangium Willd., 251.
rugata (Lam.) Ham., 251.
Acalypha amboynensis Benth., 322.
amentacea Roxb., 46, 322.
betulina Retz., 322.
bracteata Miaq., 321.
densiflora Blume, 323.
fruticosa Forsk., 322.
grandis Benth., 322.
hispida Burm., f., 322.
mappa Willd., 319.
spiciflora Burm. f., 322, 3238.
stipulacea Klotz., 322.
Acanthaceae, 470.
Acanthostemma rumphiu Blume, 438.
Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl, 474.
tlicifolius Linn., 474.
volubilis Wall., 474.
Aceratium ganitri Hassk., 352.
oppositifolium DC., 348.
Acetabulum marinum Rumph., 55.
marinum e Macassar Rumph., 56.
marinum infundibuliforme Rumph., 55.
Acetosa hispanica, 210.
Achyranthes amaranthoides Lam., 211.
aspera Linn., 46, 214.
bidentata Blume var.
215.
chinensis Osbeck, 46.
fruticosa Lam., 215.
javanica Mog., 215.
lappacea Linn., 214.
muricata Linn., 211.
prostrata Linn., 214.
sanguinolenta Linn., 214.
spiciflora Burm., 46, 322.
Acorum palustre et terrestre Rumph., 126.
Acorus calamus Linn., 126.
calamus Linn., var. terrestris Engl., 126.
calamus Lour., 126.
cochinchinensis Schott., 126.
marinus Rumph., 84.
terrestris Spreng., 126.
Acrocephalus capitatus Benth., 467.
Acronychia laurifolia Blume, 394.
serrata Hochr., 244.
Acrostichum auritum Sw., 64.
dichotomum Linn., 69.
floridum Poir., 64.
siliquosum Linn., 68.
tenue Retz., 66.
thalictroides Linn., 68.
Actinodaphne angustifolia Nees, 238.
rumphii Blume, 288.
moluccana Blume, 238.
Actinorhytis calapparia (Blume) H. Wendl,
121, 123.
Actoplanes canniformis K. Schum., 166.
ridleyi K. Schum., 166.
Adamaram Adans., 390.
Adenanthera circinalis DC., 248.
falcata Linn., 248. |
falcataria Linn., 248, 249.
pavonina Linn., 252.
Adenosma capitatum Benth., 467.
Adenostemma lavenia (Linn.) O. Kuntze, 497.
viscosum Forst., 497, 501.
Adianthum volubile I polypoides Rumph., 69.
volubile III minus Rumph., 70.
Adiantum Linn., 67.
aethiopicum Thunb., 67.
cupillus veneris Linn., 67.
opacum Copel., 67.
pulchellum, Blume, 67.
varians Poir., 66.
Adina fagifolia (Teysm. & Binn.)
481.
Adpendix arborum Rumph., 125.
cuscuaria angustifolia Rumph., 83.
cuscuaria latifolia Rumph., 126.
duplo folio Rumph., 124.
elongata Hassk.,
V aleton,
551
Do2
Adpendix—Continued.
erecta Rumph., 129.
lacintata Rumph., 127.
porcellanica Rumph., 124.
Adulterina Rumph., 464.
Aechmandra blumeana Roem., 491.
Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) Blanco, 413.
ferreum Blume, 382. 414.
floridum Roem. & Schultes, 414.
majus Gaertn., 4138.
minus Gaertn., 4138.
nigricans A. Rich., 414.
Aegle marmelos (Linn.) Correa, 293.
Aerva sanguinolenta (Linn.) Blume, 214.
Aeschynomene arborea Linn., 268.
aspera Linn., 287.
cannabina Retz., 265.
coccinea Linn., 266.
grandiflora Linn., 266.
indica Linn., 265.
indica Linn., var. aspera Hassk., 266.
moluccana Kostel., 265.
roxburghit Spreng., 265.
sesban Linn., 265.
theophrastt Rumph., 287.
Afzelia bijuga A. Gray, 255.
rhomboidea F.-Vill., 46.
Agallochum officinarum Bauh., 381.
officinarum Lam., 381.
secundarium (coinamense et malaicense)
Rumph., 381.
sive calambac Rumph., 381.
spurium album Rumph., 353.
spurium Rumph., 358.
spurium III, 353.
Aganosma acuminata G. Don, 48.
macrocarpa A. DC., 48.
velutina A. DC., 48.
Agaricus amboinensis Lam., 58.
djamor Fries, 57.
moschocaryanus Streinz, 60.
sajor caju Fries, 56.
tuber regium Fries, 57.
Agarum corticosum Rumph., 56.
lactucarium Rumph., 56.
II s. bracteatum Rumph., 56.
III funiculare s. foliatum Rumph., 55.
Agasta asiatica Miers, 384.
indica Miers, 384. ?
Agathis alba (Lam.) Foxw., 75, 76, 77.
beccarii Warb., 77.
borneensis Warb., 17.
celebica Warb., 177.
dammara Rich., 76.
loranthifolia Salisb., 76.
macrostachys Warb., 77.
Agatti cannabina Desv., 265.
grandiflora Desv., 266.
Agave cantala Roxb., 144.
cantula Roxb., 144.
rumphii Hassk., 144.
vivipara Linn., 144.
Ageratum conyzoides Linn., 497.
INDEX
Aglaia ganggo Mia., 311.
ganggo Miaq., forma amboinensis Mida.,
311.
laxiflora Miq., 811.
odorata Lour., 292, 309.
odoratissima Blume, 3810.
perviridis Hiern, 311.
pinnata Druce, 310.
silvestris (Roem.) Merr., 310.
Aglaonema cuscuaria Miq., 126.
marantifolium Blume, 129.
oblongifolium (Roxb.) Kunth, 129.
Agrimonia molucca Rumph., 501.
Ailanthus integrifolia Lam., 299.
moluccana DC., 299.
Aira arundinacea Linn., 95.
Aizoaceae, 217.
Albizzia chinensis Merr., 49.
falcata (Linn.) Backer, 249.
littoralis T. & B., 250.
moluccana Miq., 249.
procera (Roxb.) Benth., 250.
retusa Benth., 250.
saponaria (Lour.) Blume, 249.
stipulata Boiv., 49.
Aleurites ambinux Pers., 824.
laccifera Willd., 321.
moluccana (Linn.) Willd., 200, 819, 324,
882. ‘
triloba Forst., 324.
Alga coralloides I Rumph., 54.
cordlloides sinensium Rumph., 56.
Algae, 53.
Alismorchis Thou., 170.
Alismorkis Thou., 170.
Allaeanthus luzonicus F.-Vill., 46.
Alliaria Rumph., 308.
Allophylus amboinensis Blume, 336.
grossedentatus F.-Vill., 46.
ternatus (Forst.) Radlk., 336.
timorensis (DC.) Blume, 336
Alocasia indica Schott, 130.
longiloba Migq., 130.
macrorrhiza (Linn.) Schott, 130.
montana Schott, 1380.
| Aloe americana Rumph., 144.
perfoliata Linn., var. vera Linn., 136.
vera Linn., 136.
vivipara Linn., 144.
Aloexylum agallochum Lour., 381.
Alphonsea arborea Merr., 48.
philippinensis Merr., 48.
Alpinia colossea K. Schum., 155.
eremochlamys K. Sch., 153.
eubractea K. Sch., 155.
eubractea Val., 154.
galanga (Linn.) Sw., 153.
gigantea Blume, 153, 155, 161.
gigantea Val., 154.
magnifica Rosce., 159.
malaccensis Rosc., 155.
melichroa K. Schum., 161.
moluccana Gagnep., 154.
INDEX 558
Alpinia—Continued. Amomum—Continued
nobilis Ridl., 155. hypoleucum Thw., 160.
nutans (Linn.) Rosce., 154. latifolium Lam., 164.
oceanica Burkill, 154. magnificum (Rosc.) Benth. & Hook. f.,
papuana K. Schum., 154. 159.
papuana Scheff., 155. maximum Bl. 159.
pyramidata Blume, 153, 156. maximum Roxb., 157.
rufa Naves, 46. montanum Koenig, 152.
scabra Naves, 46. roseum (Teysm. & Binn.) Benth. &
speciosa (Wendl.) K. Schum., 154. Hook. f., 157, 160.
uviformis (Linn.) Horan., 156. rumphii Smith, 159, 160.
Alsophila amboinensis v. A. v. R., 63. truncatum Gagnep., 157.
rumphiana v. A. v. R., 68. uliginosum Koenig, 158.
Alstonia hoedti T. & B., 428. | villosum Lour., 157, 160.
scholaris (Linn.) R. Br., 427. zedoaria Berg., 164.
spectabilis R. Br., 427. zerumbeth Koenig, 164.
subsessilis Mia., 427. , zerumbet Linn., 152.
Altera planta peruana Rumph., 252. zingiber Linn., 151.
Alternanthera nodiflora R. Br., 215. -| Amorphophallus campanulatus (Roxb. )
modiflora R. Br. var. linearifolia Moa.,
215.
sessilis (Linn.) R. Br., 215.
Altingia excelsa Noronha, 245.
Alyxia laurina Gaudich., 430.
stellata Roem., 430.
Amara indica Rumph., 495.
litorea Rumph., 341.
silvestris Rumph., 495.
sinica Rumph., 495.
Amaranthaceae, 211.
Amaranthus gangeticus Linn., 213.
melancholicus Linn., 2138.
oleraceus Linn., 218.
polygamus Linn., 2138.
spinosus Linn., 213.
tricolor Linn., 213.
Blume, 127, 128, 145.
sativus Blume, 127.
variabilis Blume, 1338.
Ampacus angustifolia Rumph., 290.
angustifolius Rumph., 28, 336.
latifolia Rumph., 289.
litorea (angustifolia) minor Rumpa.,
»” 886.
litorea prima Rumph., 336.
Ampelocissus arachnoidea (Hassk.) Planch.,
342.
indica Planch., 342.
martini Planch., 342.
Ampelopsis indica Blume, 342.
Amphicarpaea, 275.
Amudium Rumph., 412.
Amyris oleosa Lam., 303.
tristis Linn., 212. protium Linn., 305.
viridis Linn., 212, 278. zeylanica Retz., 304.
Amarantus caudatus Rumph., 212. Anacardiaceae, 329.
japonicus Rumph., 212. Anacardium longifolium Lam., 334,
versicolor Rumph., 213. occidentale Linn., 333.
vulgaris Rumph., 212. Anamirta cocculus (Linn.) Wight. & Arn.,
Amaryllidaceae, 140. 221.
Amaryllis lineata Lam., 141. flavescens Miq., 222.
rotundifolia Lam., 142. lemniscata Miers, 222.
zeylanica Linn., 141. Ananas comosus (Linn.) Merr., 46, 133.
Ambliglottis veratrifolia Blume, 170. sativus Schultes, 46, 1383.
Ambroma augusta Linn. f., 365d. Ananassa sativa Lindl., 133.
Ambulia aromatica Lam., 466. Anassa domestica Rumph., 133.
Amerimnon P. Br., 270. silvestris Rumph., 82.
Amica nocturna Rumph., 143. Anasser moluccana Lam., 248, 880.
Ammi copticum Linn., 411. Anassera moluccana Pers., 2438, 880.
glaucifolium Blanco, 412. rumphii Span., 380.
Amoena moesta Rumph., 257. Andawas Rumph., 433.
Amomum acre Val., 158. Andropogon acicularis Willd, 87.
aculeatum Roxb., 46, 158, 159. aciculatus Retz., 87.
cardamomum Linn., 157. amboinicus (Linn.) Merr., 88.
cardamomum Willd., 157. caricosum Linn., 92.
cardamon K. Sch., 157. caricosus Linn., 85.
echinatum Baker, 160. circinnatus Hochst., 39.
echinatum Willd., 160. citratus DC., 88.
gracile Blume, 160. dulcis Burm. f., 104.
gymnocarpum Val., 159. exaltatus R. Br., 89.
hatuanum Naves, 46, 159. mardus Linn., 48, 85, 86.
hochreutineri Val., 160. schoenanthus Linn., 88.
D4
Andropogon—Continued.
serratus Thunb., 88.
serratus Thunb., var. genuinus. Hack.,
88.
serratus Thunb., subvar. major Hack.,
88.
sorghum Brot., 87, 88.
sorghum Brot., subsp. sativus Hack., 88.
sorghum bBrot., var. saccharatus (L.)
Hack., 87, 88.
Aneilema monadelphum Kunth, 134.
vitiense Seem., var. petiolata C. B.
Clarke, 134.
Angiopteris amboinensis DeVr., 71, 78.
Angiospermae, 79, 179.
Angraecum album majus Rumph., 177.
album minus Rumph., 174.
angustis crumenis Rumph., 174, 176.
caninum s. undecimum Rumph., 175.
crumenatum Rumph., 173.
decimum et angustifolium Rumph., 178.
flavum nonum Rumph., 174.
flavum septimum Rumph., 174.
flavum sextum moschatum s.
Rumph., 174
gajang Rumph., 172.
jamboe Rumph., 176.
lanuginosum Rumph., 177.
nervosum Rumph., 169.
octavum et furvum Rumph., 178.
pungens Rumph., 179.
purpureum et nudum Rumpn., 175.
purpureuwm silvestre Rumph., 175.
quintum Rumph., 178.
rubrum Rumph., 179.
saxatile Rumph., 178.
seriptum Rumph., 177.
sediforme Rumph., 179.
taeniosum Rumph., 179.
terrestre alterum Rumph., 91, 170.
terrestre primum album Rumph., 171.
terrestre primum purpureum Rumph.,
LES UTP
terrestre tertium Rumph.,
uniflorum Rumph., 177.
Anguria indica Rumph., 492.
indica altera Rumph., 492.
Anisaea medium Choisy, 444.
Anisifolium Rumph., 293.
Anisomeles indica O. Kuntze, 459.
ovata R. Br., 459.
Anisum moluccanum Rumph., 289.
Annonaceae, 225.
Annona mucosa Aubl., 229.
reticulata Linn., 229.
squamosa Linn., 229.
Anoectochilus reinwardtii Blume, 169, 549.
Anoma moringa Lour., 241.
morunga Lour., 241.
Anona Rumph., 229.
sariffa Roxb., 46, 420.
tuberosa Rumph., 229.
Antheriscus Bernh., 411.
cereifolium Hoffm., 411.
Antherura rubra Lour., 392.
odoratum
1438.
INDEX
Anthistiria frondosa R. Br., 89. .
gigantea Cav., 89.
Anthocephalus indicus Rich., 482.
macrophyllus (Roxb.) Haviland, 49, 484.
morindifolius Korth., 484.
Antiaris innoxia Bl., 192.
toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch., 192, 428.
Anticholerica Rumph., 262.
Antidesma amboinense Mia., 316.
bunius (Linn.) Spreng., 316.
rumphiit Tul., 316.
stipulare Blume, 316.
Aptos, 275.
Apium involucratum Roxb., 411.
Apocynaceae, 425.
Apocynum agglomeratum Poir., 438. -
foetidum Burm. f., 489.
indicum Lam., 436.
odoratissimum Lour., 440.
reticulatum Linn., 436.
tiliaefotium Lam., 439.
Aporetica ternata Forst., 336.
Aporum roxburghi Griff., 173.
Aquifolium indicum I mas Rumph., 474.
indicum II femina Rumph., 474.
Aquilaria agallocha Roxb., 381.
bancana Migq., 353.
malaccensis Lam.,
ovata Cav., 381.
secundaria DC., 381.
secundarium Rumph., 381.
Araceae, 124.
Arachis asiatica Lour., 267.
hypogaea Linn., 267.
Arachnis flos aeris Rehb. f., 177.
Araliaceae, 406.
Aralia chinensis Linn., 346, 347.
cochleata Lam., 409.
guilfoylei Cogn. & March., 410.
longifolia Reinw., 408.
maculata Truff., 410.
nodosa Blume, 408.
palmata Lam., 407.
spinosa Linn., 347.
umbellifera Lam., 406.
umbraculifera Roxb., 408.
Arbor alba major Rumph., 402.
alba minor Rumph., 402.
aluminosa Rumph., 420.
calappoides sinensis Rumph., 75.
camphorifera I vera Rumph., 233. .
camphorifera II occidentalis Rumph.,
376.
coeli Rumph., 299.
conciliorum Rumph., 195.
eusanda Rumph., 198.
excoecans Rumph., 327. /
facum major Rumph., 416.
facum minor Rumph., 507.
glutinosa Rumph., 447.
koring Rumph., 376.
lactaria Rumph., 4382.
lactaria terrestris Rumph., 432.
mangifera V minor Rumph., 330.
nigra latifolia Rumph., 227.
381.
Arbor—Continued
nigra maculosa Rumph., 227.
nigra parvifolia Rumph., 227.
noctis Rumph., 482.
noctis IJ Rumph., 483.
nuda Rumph., 316.
nussalavica Rumph., 309.
ovigera femina Rumph., 239.
ovigera mas Rumph., 239.
palorum alba latifolia Rumph., 339.
palorum alba parvifolia Rumph., 337.
palorum nigra Rumph., 507.
pete Rumph., 253.
pinguis Rumph., 327.
pudica Rumph., 252. |
radulifera Rumph., 291.
rediviva Rumph., 348, 349.
regis Rumph., 326.
rubra I Rumph., 399.
rubra I angustifolia Rumph., 399.
rubra II Rumph., 398.
rubra II saxatilis Rumph., 399.
rubra III Rumph., 396.
rubra IV Rumph., 399.
sebt Rumph., 309.
spiculorum angustifolia Rumph., 238.
spiculorum aeruginea Rumph., 238.
spiculorum latifolia Rumph., 238.
toxicaria femina Rumph., 192.
toxicaria mas Rumph., 192.
tsjang Rumph., 111.
vernicis Rumph., 331.
versicolor Rumph., 401.
vespertilionum Rumph., 205.
INDEX
vespertilionum II oppositifolia Rumph.,
244,
violaria Rumph., 224.
zeylamica Rumph., 304.
Arcangelisia flava (Linn.) Merr., 222.
inclyta Becc., 222.
lemniscata Becce., 222.
Ardisia disticha A. DC. 49.
Arduina Mill., 425.
Areca calapparia Blume, 121.
catechu Linn., 123.
glandiformis Lam., 123.
globulifera Lam., 122.
gracilis Giseke, 120.
humilis Willd., 121.
olivaeformis Giseke, 120.
oryzaeformis Gaertn., 122, 128.
oryzaeformis Giseke, 122.
paniculata Scheff., 121.
punicea Blume, 122.
saxatilis Burm., 121.
spicata Lam., 119.
sylvestris Lour., 122.
vaginata Giseke, 120.
vestiaria Giseke, 121.
Arenga gamuto Merr., 119.
pinnata (Wurmb) Merr., 119.
saccharifera Labill., 119.
Arisarum amboinicum Rumph., 132.
esculentum Rumph., 129.
Aristolochiaceae, 209.
Aristolochia gaudichaudii Duch., 210.
hastata Jack, 210.
indica Linn., 210.
moluccana Duchartre,
roxburghiana Klotz.,
rumphii Kostel., 209.
tagala Cham., 210.
timoriensis Decne., 210.
zollingeri Migq., 210.
Artabotrys inodorus Zipp., 228.
odoratissimus Blume, 227.
suaveolens Blume, 227, 228.
Artemisia grata Wall., 502.
latifolia Rumph., 502.
latifolia rubra Rumph, 502.
roxburghiana Bess., 502.
vulgaris Linn., 502.
Artocarpus camansi Blanco, 190.
champeden (Lour.) Spreng., 190.
communis Forst., 190, 191.
elastica Reinw., 191.
fretisii Teysm. & Binn., 46, 191.
hirsuta Lam., 192.
incisa Linn. f., 190.
integra (Thunb.) Merr., 190.
integrifolia Linn. f., 190.
jaca Lam., 190.
lakoocha Roxb., 191.
polyphema Pers., 190.
reticulata Miq., 191.
rima Blanco, 190.
Arum aegyptium Rumph., 131.
aquaticum Rumph., 129.
arborescens Linn., 1380.
campanulatum Roxb., 127, 128.
colocasia Linn., 181.
divaricatum Linn., 128, 132.
esculentum Linn., 1381.
. indicum Lour., 131.
indicum Roxb., 131.
indicum sativum Rumph., 130.
macrorrhizon Linn., 1380.
mucronatum Lam., 130.
ovatum Linn., 129.
peltatum Lam., 181.
peregrinum Linn., 129.
rumphit Gaudlich., 127.
sagittifolium Linn., 131.
silvestre I latifolium Rumph., 130.
silvestre II medium Rumph., 1380.
trilobatum Linn., 132.
trilobum Linn.. 132.
Arundarbor alba Rumph., 98.
amahussana Rumph., 99.
aspera Rumph., 101.
cratiwum Rumph., 102.
fera Rumph., 99.
fera elegantissima Rumph., 100.
fera nigra Rumph., 103.
fera silvestris Rumph.,
210.
210.
103.
D00
fera s. Arundo japanica Rumph., 103.
fera s. bulu tsjatjar Rumph., 103.
fera s. cha Rumph., 103.
lineata Rumph., 98.
maxima Lour., 100.
556
Arundarbor—Continued.
maxima Rumph., 100.
nigra Rumph., 98.
prava Rumph., 98.
spiculorum Rumph., 102, 103.
spinosa Rumph., 97.
tenuis Rumph., 98.
tenuis amahussana, Rumph., 99.
vassaria s. Bulu Java Rumph., 99.
Arundastrum Rumph., 166.
Arundinella I minor Rumph.,
II major Rumph., 134.
III aquatica Rumph.,
IV Rumph., 134.
V Rumph., 135.
Arundo agrestis Lour., 97.
arbor tenuis alba, 98.
arbor tenuis nigra, 98.
arbor tenuis prava, 98.
bambos Lour., 100.
farcta I Rumph., 85.
farcta II Rumph., 86.
fax Lour., 102.
_mitis Lour., 99, 100.
multiplex Lour., 99.
phragmites Linn., 95.
saccharifera Rumph., 86.
saccharifera III, 86.
tabacaria Lour., 102.
vulgaris Lam., 95.
Arupa Rumph., 415.
Arytera, litoralis Blume, 50.
montana Blume, 49.
Ascarina rubra Poir., 190.
Asclepiadaceae, 434.
Asclepias gigantea Linn., 435.
odoratissima Roxb., 440.
sussuela Roxb., 488.
Asparagus terminalis Linn., ,
Aspidium amboinense Willd., 738.
ferox Blume, 64.
repandum Willd., 64.
Asplenium nidus Linn., 65.
Astronia papetaria Blume, 405.
Atalantia longispina Kurz, 295.
monophylla DC., 294.
spinosa Hook. f., 295.
Athamantha macedonica Spreng., 411.
Athyrium esculentum (Retz.) Copel., 65, 476.
Atunus Rumph., 247.
albus Rumph., 248.
litorea Rumph., 365.
Aurantium acidum Rumph., 298.
acidum II, III, 298.
maximum Burm., 46, 296.
pumilum madurense Rumph., 298.
sinense Rumph., 298.
sitnense II Rumph., 298.
verrucosum Rumph., 298.
Auris canina I femina Rumph., 214.
canina II mas Rumph., 214.
Averrhoa acida Linn., 309, 314.
bilimbi Linn., 287.
carambola Linn., 287.
134.
135.
137.
INDEX
Avicennia alba Blume, 456.
officinalis Linn., 456.
Axonopus semialatus Hook. f., 49.
Ay-assa Rumph., 367, 509.
Aylaun nya femina Rumph., 208.
Aylilin Rumph., 509.
Azaola leerit Teysm. & Binn., 415.
B
Baccaurea bracteata Muell.-Arg., 316.
nanihua Merr., 315.
philippinensis Merr., 316.
ramiflora Lour., 316.
Baccharis indica Linn., 500.
salvia Lour., 498.
Baeckea virgata Andr., 402.
Baeobotrys tetrandra Roxb., 412.
Baeumerta Gaertn., 240.
Balanostreblus ilicifolia Kurz, 188.
Balsamaria inophyllum Lour., 371.
Balsaminaceae, 340.
Balsamina fasciculata DC., 341.
hortensis Desp., 341.
Hilo DC. 341%
Bambusae, 96.
Bambusa agrestis Poir., 98.
amahussana Lindl., 99.
arundinacea Willd., 97.
arundinacea Retz., 98, 100.
aspera R. & S., 101.
atra Lindl., 98.
atra Lindl. var. amahussana (Lindl.)
Merr., 99.
balcooa Roxb., 100.
bitung Roem. & Sch., 101.
blumeana Schultes f., 97.
excelsa Miq., 100.
fera Miq., 99.
lineata Munro, 98, 99.
longinodis Miq., 102.
maxima Poir., 100.
mitis Poir., 100.
multiplex Raeusch, 99.
nigra Lodd., 103.
nutans Wall., 99.
picta Lindl., 98.
prava Lindl., 98.
rumphiana Kurz, 98, 99.
spinosa Blume, 97.
spinosa Roxb., 97.
striata Lodd., 100.
tabacaria Poir., 102.
teba Mia., 97.
tenuis Munro, 98.
vasaria Munro, 99.
verticillata Willd., 98, 99.
vulgaris Schrad., 99.
vulgaris Schrad., var.
Gamble, 100.
Bancalus Rumph., 4838.
mas Rumph., 483.
mas s. parvifolius Rumph., 483.
media Rumph., 483.
Bancudus angustifolia Rumph.,
latifolia Rumph., 490.
striata (Lodd.)
490.
Bangleum Rumph., 152.
Bangle malacca Rumph., 155.
Banksia musculiformis Gaertn., 425.
speciosa Koenig, 164.
Barba saturni Rumph., 62.
Barleria hystrix Linn., 472.
prionitis Linn., 472.
Bartramia indica Linn., 355.
Barringtonia acutangula Gaertn., 385.
alba Blume, 385.
alba Kostel., 385.
asiatica (Linn.) Kurz, 384.
inclyta Miers, 385.
racemosa (Linn.) Blume, 385.
rubra Blume, 385.
speciosa Forst., 384.
Baryxylum rufum Lour., 255.
Basellaceae, 218.
Basella alba Linn., 218.
nigra Lour., 218.
rubra Linn., 218.
Basilicum agreste Rumph., 461.
indicum hortense Rumph., 460.
Bassia dubia Gaertn., 418.
longifolia Lam., 416.
Batatas edulis Choisy, 443.
Batatta Rumph., 448.
mammosa Rumph., 442.
Batis spinosa Roxb., 189.
Bauhinia glauca Wall., 256.
lingua DC., 256.
scandens Linn., 256.
Beesha fax R. & S., 102.
humilis Kunth, 102.
Begoniaceae, 379.
Begonia mollis A. DC., 380.
obliqua Linn., 379.
rubra Blume, 380.
tuberosa Lam., 379.
Belou Adans., 293.
Benincasa cerifera Savi, 493.
hispida (Thunb.) Cogn., 493, 495.
Bergera Koenig, 292.
koenigii Linn., 408.
Bidara syringaefolia Decne., 435.
tingens Decne., 436.
Bidens bipinnata Linn., 501.
chinensis Willd., 501.
peduncularis Gaudich., 502.
pilosa Linn., 501.
wallichti DC., 502.
Bignoniaceae, 469.
Bignonia longissima Lour.,
spathacea Linn., f., 469.
Bilacus Rumph., 293.
amboinensis silvestris Rumph,, 294.
marmelos O. Kuntze, 293.
taurinus Rumph., 293.
Bintangor maritima Rumph., 371.
montana Rumph., 371.
silvestris Rumph., 371.
silvestris altera Rumph., 371.
silvestris tertia Rumph., 371.
Biophytum sensitivum (Linn.} DC., 288.
Bissula Rumph., 111.
469.
INDEX
SSS eee EE eee
Dol
Bixaceae, 376.
Bixa orellana Linn., 376.
Blackwellia foetida Wall., 378.
moluccana Blume, 378.
Blatti Adans., 388.
Blechnum orientale Linn., 66.
Bleekeria saln >ris Hassk., 431.
Blimbingum si,.vestre Rumph., 348.
teres Rumph., 287.
Blitum brasilianum Rumph., 509.
frutescens Rumph., 211.
indicum domesticum Rumph., 212.
indicum I album Rumph., 212.
indicum II maculosum Rumph., 212.
indicum II maculosum amboinicum
Rumph:, 212:
indicum III rubrum Rumph., 213.
indicum IV terrestre Rumph., 218.
peruvianum Rumph., 211.
spinosum Rumph., 2138.
Blumea appendiculata DC., 498.
aromatica DC., 498.
balsamifera (Linn.) DC., 498.
chinensis (Linn.) DC., 497, 499, 500.
macrophylla DC., 498.
Boa massy Rumph., 338.
Bobea wallichiana Kostel., 486.
Bocoa edulis Baill., 273.
Bodelha Rumph., 56.
altera Rumph., 54.
Boerlagiodendron palmatum (Lam.) Harms,
407.
Boehmeria nivea (Linn.) Gaudich., 202.
tenacissima Gaudich., 202.
Boeloe rottang Rumph., 101.
Boletus II arboreus Rumph., 57.
II umbraculiforma Rumph., 60.
IV terrestris Rumph., 60.
V auris murina Rumph., 60.
moschocaryanus Rosenthal, 60.
moschocaryanus Rumph., 60.
primus infundibuli forma. (figura)
Rumph., 56.
sanguineus Linn., 59.
Bololo maluhi Rumph., 486.
Bombacaceae, 361.
Bombax aculeatum Linn., 46, 362.
pentandrum Linn., 362.
Bonnaya veronicaefolia Spreng., 467.
Boraginaceae, 447.
Borassus caudata Lour., 121.
flabellifer Linn., 112.
flabelliformis Murr.,
gomutus Lour., 119.
thur Giseke, 112.
sonnerati Giseke, 112.
sylvestris Giseke, 110.
Borreria discolor DC., 50.
Boschia Korth., 235.
Boswellia balsamifera DC., 301.
hirsuta DC., 302.
Botor tetragonoloba O. Kuntze, 286.
Botrychium zeylanicum Willd., 71.
112.
| Botrymorus paniculata Migq., 203.
Brassaia littorea Seem,, 408.
D098
Brassica juncea (Linn.) Coss., 240.
pekinensis Skeels, 240.
Breweria alsinoides F.-Vill., 46.
Breynia cernua (Poir.) Muell.-Arg., 314.
Briza elegans Osbeck, 46.
Bromeliaceae, 13838.
Bromelia ananas Linn., 1338.
comosa Linn., 46, 1388.
Broussonetia papyrifera Vent., 188.
Brucea amarissima (Lour.) Merr., 299.
sumatrana Roxb., 299.
Bruguiera caryophylloides Blume, 386, 388.
conjugata (Linn.) Merr., 386, 388.
cylindrica (Linn.) Blume, 386, 388, 389.
eriopetala W. & A., 386, 389.
gymnorhiza Blume, 389.
gymnorhiza Lam., 386, 388.
gymnorhiza Lam., var. palun Blume, 388
parviflora W. & A. 3886.
rheedi Blume, 389.
rumphit Blume, 388.
sexangula (Lour.) Poir., 386, 389.
Bryonia cordifolia Linn., 348, 495.
grandis Linn., 495.
Bryophyllum calycinum Salisb., 248.
pinnatum Kurz, 243.
Bubon macedonicus Linn., 411.
Buchanania amboinensis Mia., 506.
arborea Blume, 506.
Buglossum lanuginosum Rumph., 448.
litorewm Rumph., 496.
Bulbophyllum Thouars, 177.
carinatum Naves, 46.
grandiflorum Blume, 177.
purpureum Naves, 46.
Bulbostylis barbata Kunth., 48.
Bungum femina Rumph., 475.
mas Rumph., 478.
Bunius agrestis Rumph., 316.
sativa domestica Rumph., 316.
Burneya C. & S., 486.
Burseraceae, 300.
Bursera ? nitida F.-Vill., 47.
Butonica Rumph., 384.
rubra Miers, 385.
rumphiana Miers, 384.
terrestris Miers, 385.
terrestris alba Rumph, 3865.
terrestris. rubra Rumph., 385.
Cc
Cacalia procumbens Lour., 499.
sonchifolia Linn., 503.
Cacara Rumph., 286.
alba Rumph., 286.
bulbosa Rumph., 285.
erosa QO. Kuntze, 285.
litorea Rumph., 280, 281.
nigra Rumph., 279.
pilosa Rumph., 279, 280.
pruritus Rumph., 277.
Cactaceae, 380.
Cadamba nocturna Ham., 47, 482.
Cadelium Rumph., 274.
INDEX
Caesalpinia bonduc Auctt., 260.
bonducella. Flem., 260.
erista Linn., 260, 261.
glabra Merr., 261.
jayabo Maza, 47, 261.
jayabo Maza, var. cyanosperma Maza, 260,
nuga (Linn.) Ait., 260, 261.
pulcherrima (Linn.) Sw., 260.
sappan Linn., 259.
Cajan inodorum Medic., 282.
Cajanus bicolor DC., 282.
eajan (Linn.) Millsp., 282.
indicus Spreng., 282.
Caju bandaa Rumph., 192.
cawan e Java Rumph., 376.
djurang Rumph., 198.
galedupa Rumph., 254, 271.
gora aruana Rumph., 510.
jgatt Rumph., 450.
kelam Rumph., 408.
lape lape Rumph., 334.
lapia Rumph., 368.
lapia soyanansium Rumph.,
panu Rumph., 488.
pinnatum O. Kuntze, 271.
369.
ticos leytimorensis Rumph., 250.
Cajuputi Adans., 402.
Caladium aquatile Rumph., 131.
bicolor Vent., 182.
esculentum Vent., 131.
esculentum Vent., var. aquatilis Hassk.,
131.
nymphaeifolium Willd., 1381.
Calamagrostis Rumph., 89.
Calambac Rumph., 381.
Calamus acidus Becce., 117.
adspersus Blume, 115.
albus Pers., 115.
amboinensis Miq., 117.
aruensis Becc., 116.
barbatus Blume, 117.
buroensis Mart., 116.
calapparius Mart., 117.
cawa Blume, 116.
dioicus Lour., 116.
draco Willd., 118.
equestris Willd., 116, 117.
fasciculatus Roxb., 116.
graminosus Blume, 115.
holrungti Becc., 116.
javensis Blume, 117.
latifolius Roxb., 117.
litoralis Blume,: 116.
maritimus Blume, 117.
niger Willd., 118.
oblongus Linn., 117.
oblongus Reinw., 116, 117.
palustris Griff, 115.
petraeus Lour., 117.
pisicarpus Blume, 116. —
platyacanthos Mart., 116.
rotang Linn., 115, 116, 117, 118.
rudentum Lour., 115, 118.
rumphii Blume,: 115.
scipionum, 118.
INDEX 559
Calamus—Continued.
strictus Blume, 116,
verus Lour., 116.
viminalis Willd., 116.
viminalis e Burone Rumph., 116.
zalacca Gaertn., 114.
Calanthe furcata Batem., 170.
sylvatica Lindl., 170.
triplicata Ames, 170.
veratrifolia R. Br., 170, 549.
Calappa Rumph., 123.
Calapput laut Rumph., 124.
Calla calyptrata Roxb., 129.
oblongifolia Roxb., 129.
occulta Lour., 128.
Callicarpa cana Linn., 449.
cuspidata Roxb., 448.
lanata Linn., 448.
longifolia Lam., 449.
pedunculata R. Br., 448.
tomentosa Murr., 448.
Callista Lour., 178.
Callitriche verna Linn., 509.
Calodium cochinchinensis Lour., 2389.
Calodracon terminalis Planch., 137.
Calophyllum acuminatum Lam., 371.
bintagor Roxb., 371.
calaba Linn., 371.
inophyllum Linn., 371.
nagassarium Burm., f., 370.
soulattri Burm., f., 371.
spectabile Willd., 371.
spurium Choisy, 418.
Calostemma luteum Sims, 1438.
Calotropis gigantea (Linn.) Dryand., 434.
Calpicarpum lamarckii Don, 481.
Calyptranthes caryophyllifolia Willd., 395.
jambolana Willd., 394.
Calyptrocalyx spicatus (Lam.) Blume, 119.
Cambogia gutta Linn., 373.
Camean Rumph., 509.
Camirium Rumph., 324.
Camolenga Rumph., 493.
Campana rubra Rumph., 469.
Camunium japonense Rumph., 292.
javanicum Rumph., 292.
sinense Rumph., 309.
vulgare Rumph., 292.
Cananga Rumph., 226.
odorata Hook. f., 226.
silvestris I trifolia Rumph., 228.
silvestris II angustifolia Rumph., 226.
silvestris III latifolia Rumph., 228.
Canangium odoratum (Lam.) Baill., 226.
Canariopsis hirsuta Migq., 302.
decumana Miaq., 300.
glabra Miq., 301.
paucijuga Migq., 305. —
Canarium acutifolium (DC.) Merr., 302.
album (Lour.) Rausch, 304.
balsamiferum Willd., 301.
commune Linn., 47, 301, 304.
decumanum Gaertn., 300.
decumanum Rumph., 300.
hirsutum Willd., 302.
hispidum Blume, 302.
Canarium—Continued.
indicum Linn., 47, 301.
legitimum (Blume) Migq., 300, 302.
mehenbethene Gaertn., 301.
microcarpum Willd., 303.
moluccanum Blume, 301.
nigrum Roxhb., 302.
nigrum Engl., 304.
odoriferum hirsutum Rumph., 302.
odoriferum leve Rumph., 301, 305.
oleosum (Lam.) Engl., 303.
pimela Konig, 304.
rostratum Zipp., 302, 303.
silvestre alterum Rumph., 308.
sinense I Rumph., 304.
sinense II Rumph., 304.
sinense III Rumph., 305.
sylvestre Gaertn., 303.
vulgare Rumph., 301.
zephyrinum Blume, 47, 304.
zephyrinum Rumph., 304.
zeylanicum (Retz.) Blume, 304.
Canavalia cathartica Thouars, 282.
ensiformis DC., 282.
gladiata (Jacq.) DC., 281.
gladiata DC., var. machaeroides DC.,
281.
lineata (Thunb.) DC., 281.
machaeroides DC., 281.
microcarpa (DC.) Merr., 280.
obtusifolia DC., 281.
turgida Grah., 280, 281.
Candarum Reichb., 127.
Cannaceae, 165.
Canna angustifolia Linn., 165,
coccinea Ait., 165.
fistula javanica Rumph., 259.
indica Linn., 165.
orientalis Rosce., 16d.
palustris Rumph., 95.
patens Rosc., 165.
Cannabis indica Lam., 199.
wndica Rumph., 199.
indica tertia Rumph., 199.
sativa Linn., 199. .
sativa Linn., var. crispata Hassk., 199.
Camnacorus Rumph., 165.
Cantharifera Rumph., 242.
alba Rumph., 242.
Canthium indicum Dietr., 426.
Capellania moluccana Teysm. & Binn., 326.
Capillus nympharum Rumph., 58.
veneris amboinicus Rumph., 67.
Capparidaceae, 240.
Capparis carandas Burm. f., 425.
Capraria Rumph., 305.
crustacea Linn., 468.
gratissima Roxb., 466.
Caprificus amboinensis esculenta amngustifo-
lia Rumph., 198.
amboinensis esculenta latifolia Rumph.,
192.
amboinensis esculenta silvestris Rumph.,
198.
amboinensis esculenta s. hdhuol altera
Rumph., 198.
560
Caprificus—Continued.
aspera angustifolia Rumph., 193.
aspera latifolia Rumph., 193.
aspera tertia Rumph., 193.
sive sycomorus chartaria (amboinensis)
Rumph., 198.
sive sycomorus
Rumph., 198.
viridis major Rumph., 195.
viridis minor Rumph., 196.
Capriola dactylon O. Ktze., 93.
Capsicum frutescens Linn., 462.
frutescens Linn., var. baccatum (Linn.)
Irish, 462.
indicum Rumph., 462.
silvestre Rumph., 428.
Carandas Rumph., 425
Caranga amara Vahl, 467.
Carapa indica Juss., 306.
moluccensig Lam., 306, 307.
obovata Blume, 306.
rumphii Kostel., 307
Carbonaria altera Rumph., 506.
altera litorea Rumph., 506.
femina Rumph., 506.
mas Rumph., 505.
Cardaminium Moench., 240.
Cardamomum minus Rumph., 157.
Cardamon majus Rumph., 157.
medium sive minus Rumph., 157.
verum fructibus minimis trigonis Rumph.,
Ube
Cardiocarpus amarus Reinw., 300.
Cardiopteryx moluccana Blume, 335.
Cardiospermum halicacabum Linn., 336.
halicacabum Linn., var. microcarpum
Blume, 336.
Carex amboinica Rumph., 83.
amboinica I major Rumph., 108.
amboinica II minor Rumph., 107.
amboinica III Rumph., 108.
arborea Rumph., 83.
culmaris Rumph., 106.
laevis major Rumph., 107.
laevis minor Rumph., 106.
tuberosa Blanco, 104.
Caricaceae, 378.
Carica papaya Linn., 378.
Carissa carandas Linn., 48, 425.
spinarum Linn., 425.
Carpacanthus herbaceus Kiitz., 55.
Carpopogon giganteum Roxb., 227.
pruriens Roxb., 277.
Carthamus tinctorius Linn., 503.
Carum Rumph., 412.
copticum (Linn.) Benth., 41.
roxburghiana Benth., 412.
Carumbium amboinicum Miq., 327.
populneum Muell.-Arg., 327.
Caryophyllaster albus Rumph., 392.
litoreus Rumph., 340.
ruber Rumph., 392.
Caryophyllum Rumph., 398.
regium Rumph., 393.
silvestre Rumph., 393.
chartaria (javanica)
INDEX
Caryophyllus aromaticus Linn., 3938.
silvestris Teysm., 47, 398.
Caryospermum inoluccanum Blume, 335.
Caryota javanica Osbeck, 47.
rumphiana Mart., 118.
urens Linn., 118, 119.
Cassia alata Linn., 257.
alata Linn., var. rumphiana DC., 257.
angustissima Lam., 257.
bacillus Gaertn., 259.
chinensis Lam., 258.
fistula Linn., 259.
fistula Rumph., 259.
fistula silvestris Rumph., 259, 43838.
glauca Lam., 258.
javanica Linn., 259, 433.
marginata Roxb., 259.
mimosoides Linn., 257.
mimosoides Linn.,
(Lam.) Walp., 257.
nictitans Linn., 257.
nodosa Ham., 259.
obtusifolia Linn., 257.
occidentalis Linn., 258.
planisiliqua Burm. f., 258.
planisiliqua Linn., 258.
procumbens Linn., 257.
sophera Linn., 258.
tora Linn., 257.
Castalia pubescens Blume,
stellata Blume, 219.
Cassutha cornea Rumph., 57.
Cassumbium spinosum Ham., 47.
Cassuvium Rumph., 333.
pomiferum Lam., 333.
silvestre Rumph., 334.
silvestre s. Lau Lassi Rumph., 334,
Cassytha corniculata Burm. f., 57.
filiformis Linn., 239.
Casuarinaceae, 179.
Casuarina celebica Rumph.,
equisetifolia Linn., 180.
litorea Rumph., 180.
montana Rumph., 179.
nodiflora Forst., 180.
rumphiana Miq., 179.
sumatrana Jungh., 180.
Catappa domestica Rumph., 390.
silvestris altera Rumph., 380.
silvestris litorea Rumph., 390.
Catesbaea javanica Usbeck, 47.
Cathartocarpus fistula Pers., 259.
Catsjopiri Rumph., 485.
Catti marus Rumph., 368.
Caturus spiciflorus Linn., 322, 323.
Cauda felis agrestis alba Rumph., 322.
felis agrestis rubra Rumph., 322.
felis domestica Rumph., 323.
felis saxatilis Rumph., 507.
Caulerpa racemosa f. macrophysa Weber, 56.
Cayratia carnosa Gagnep., 345.
geniculata Gagnep., 345.
Ceanothus asiaticus Linn., 341.
var
angustissima
219.
180.
INDEX 561
Cedrela febrifuga Blume, 305. Cingulum terrae Rumph., 71.
febrifuga Blume var. inodora (Hassk.) | Cinnamomum camphora (Linn.) T. Nees &
C. DC., 206. Eberm., 2338, 376.
imodora Hassk., 306. caryophylloides ruber Rumph., 233.
toona Roxb., 306. culilawan Blume, 232
Ceiba pentandra (Linn.) Gaertn., 46, 362. culilawan Blume, var. rubrum (Blume)
Celastraceae, 334. Meissn., 233.
Celosia ‘argentea Linn. 212. dulce Nees, 233.
baccata Retz., 211. japanicum II Rumph., 233.
castrensis Linn., 212. javanicum Blume, 238.
cristata Linn., 212. kaimis Nees, 239.
cristata Linn., var. exaltata. Hassk., 212. rubrum Blume, 233.
cristata Linn., var. splendens Mogq., 212. sintoc Blume, 233.
Celtis amboinensis Willd., 187. sulphuratum Nees, 233.
philippensis Blanco, 186. .- tamala T. Nees & Eberm., 233.
Centella asiatica (Linn.) Urban, 411. xanthoneurum Blume, 233.
Centrostemma multiflorum Decne., 439. zeylanicum Nees, 2384.
Cepa silvestris Rumph., 142. , zeylanicum Rumph., 233.
Cephalanthus orientalis Linn., 483. Cissus acida Murr., 345.
Ceratolobus glaucescens Blume, 47. adnata Roxb., 344.
javanicus Merr., 47. arachnoidea Hassk., 342.
Ceratopteris thalictroides (Linn.) Brongn., 68. aristata Blume, 344.
Cerbera lactaria Ham., 432. assamica Craib, 344.
manghas Linn., 482. assamica Craib, var. pilosissima Gagnep.,
musculiformis Lam., 425. 344.
nereifolia Zipp., 75. blumeana Steud., 344.
odollam Gaertn., 432. ‘ carnosa Lam., 345.
oppositifolia Lam., 481. cinerea Lam., 346.
sadlutaris Blume, 481. cordata Roxb., 343.
Ceriops candolleana Arn., 386. crenata Vahl, 345.
jyorsteniana Blume, 387. geniculata Blume, 345.
tagal C. B. Rob., 386. glauca Roxb., 344.
zippeliana Blume, 387, 388. latifolia Lam., 348.
Cerocarpus aqueus Hassk., 393. latifolia Vahl, 343.
Chaetomorpha brachygona Harv., 53. pyrrhodasys Mia., 344.
javanica Kiitz., 53. quadrangularis Linn., 348.
Chaetospermum glutinosum Swingle, 294. repens Lam., 343.
Chalcas camuneng Burm. f., 292. rotundifolia Blume, 344.
paniculata Linn., 292. sicyoides Linn., 343.
Chamaebalanus japonica Rumph., 267. trifolia K. Sch., 345.
Chamaerops humilis Linn., 119. trifoliata Lour., 344.
Champereia manillana Merr., 48. trilobata Lam., 346.
Champeu s. Campee Rumph., 90. Citrullus vulgaris Schrad.,. 492.
Chauvinia macrophysa Kiitz., 56. Citrus acida Roxb., 296.
Chavica betle Miq., 182. amara Hassk., 298.
amboinensis Migq., 182. angulata Willd., 294.
majuscula Miq., 181. aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle, 296.
malamiris Miq., 184. aurantium Linn., 296, 298.
officinarum Migq., 188. adurantium Linn., var. grandis Linn., 296.
rumphit Miq., 181. aurantium Linn., var. limonum Risso,
sphaerostachya Miq., 185. 298.
Cheilanthes tenuifolia (Burm. f.) Sw., 66. aurantium Linn., var. vulgaris Risso, 298.
Chenopodiaceae, 211. bergamia Risso, 297.
Chenopodium quinoa Willd., 211. bergamia Risso, var. unguentaria Roem.,
Cheramela Rumph., 314. 297.
Chilocarpus Blume, 426. bergamia Risso, var. ventricosa Roem.,
Chionanthus ghaeri Gaertn., 106. 298.
Chlorophyceae, 53. bigaradia Risso, 298.
Chrysanthemum indicum Linn., 502. decumana Linn., 46, 47, 296.
Chrysobalamus icaco Linn., 332. decumana lLinn., var. racemosa Roem.,
Cibotium baranetz J. Sm., TA. 298.
Cicadaria latifolia Rumph., 415. decumana Linn., var. verrucosa Miq., 298.
Cicca acida (Linn.) Merr., 314. fusca Lour., 298.
acidissima Blanco, 314. grandis Hassk., var. oblonga Hassk., 297.
disticha Linn., 314. grandis Osbeck, 47, 296.
nodiflora Lam., 314. hystrix DC., 297, 298.
144971——36
562
Citrus—Continued.
tnermis Roxb., 294.
japonica Thunb., 294.
javanica Blume, 296.
lima Lunan, 296.
_ limetta Risso, 298.
limetta Risso, var. auraria Risso, 298.
limonellus Hassk., 296.
limonellus Hassk., var. oxycarpus Hassk.,
296.
limonia Osbeck, 47.
limonium Risso, 47, 298.
macracantha Hassk., 299.
madurensis Lour., 294.
maxima (Burm.) Merr., 46, 47, 296.
medica Linn., 297.
medica Risso, 298.
nobilis Lour., 298.
nobilis Lour., var. melanocarpa Hassk.,
298.
nobilis Lour., var. microcarpa. Hassk.,
298.
notissimus Blanco, 296.
obversa Hassk., 297.
papeda Miaq., 298.
pompelmus Risso,
298.
sinensis Osbeck, 47.
torosa Blanco, 297.
Citta nigricans Lour., 277.
Cladostachys arborescens Don, 212.
muricata Mogq., 212.
Claoxylon indicum Hassk., 200, 322.
polot (Burm. f.) Merr., 200.
Clausena punctata W. & A., 811.
Cleidion javanicum Blume, 322.
var. racemosus Risso,
spiciflorum (Burm. f.) Merr., 322.
Cleisostoma subulatum Blume, 179.
Clementea Cav., 280.
Cleome icosandra Linn., 241.
pentaphylla Linn., 241.
viscosa Linn., 240.
Clerodendron commersonii (Poir.) Spreng.,
47, $22, 455.
fallax Lindl., 455.
inerme Auct., 455.
infortunatum Linn., 452, 455, 486.
neriifolium Wall., 455.
paniculatum Linn., 455.
rumphianum DeVriese & Teysm.,
speciosissimum Paxt., 455.
viscosum Vent., 455.
Clitoria ternatea Linn., 274.
Clompanus funicularis Rumph., 248.
major Rumph., 364.
minor Rumph., 364.
molucanus Raf., 364.
paniculatus Aubl., 248.
ternatensis femina Rumph., 364.
ternatensis mas Rumph., 364.
Clypearia alba Rumph., 248, 249.
maritima Rumph.,- 250.
rubra Rumph., 248.
rubra s. sye II Rumph., 251.
Cnicus indicus Rumph., 503.
Cnidium diffusum DC., 411.
456.
| Coecinea cordifolia
INDEX
(Linn. )
grandis Roem., 495.
indica W. & A., 495.
loureiriana Roem., 495.
Cocculus angustifolius Hassk., 186.
crispus DC., 220.
flavescens DC., 222.
forstert DC., 220.
glaucus DC., 219.
incanus Colebr., 219. °
lacunosus DC., 221.
Cocos maldivica Gmel.,
nucifera Linn., 123.
Cocus maldivicus Rumph., 112.
maldivicus minor Rumph., 124.
melindanus verus Rumph., 124.
Codiaeum bractiferum Roxhb., 47, 825, 326.
brevistylum Pax & K. Hoffm., 326.
chrysosticton angustifolium Rumph., 325.
chrysosticton latifolium Rumph., 325.
chrysosticton medium Rumph., 325.
chrysosticton medium rubrum Rumph.,
325.
chrysosticton rubro-maculatum Rumph.,
325.
erythrosticton parvifolium Rumph., 325.
nigrum medium Rumph., 325.
nigrum minus Rumph., 325.
parvifolium viride Rumph., 325.
silvestre Rumph., 325, 326.
simplex Rumph., 325.
taeniosum Rumph., 325.
variegatum (Linn.) Blume, 276, 325.
variegatum (Linn.) Blume, f. taeniosum
Muell.-Arg,, 325.
Coelogyne nervosa Rich, 169.
psittacina Reichb., 169.
rumphii Lindl., 169, 549.
Cofassus Rumph., 452.
alba Rumph., 452.
citrina Rumph., 427.
femina Rumph., 452.
mas Rumph., 452.
Coix lachryma jobi Linn., 84, 86.
Coleus amboinicus Lour., 458, 459.
aromaticus Benth., 458, 459..
atropurpureus Benth., 458.
blumei Benth., 460.
parviflorus Benth., 459.
scutellaroides (Linn.) Benth.,
suganda Blanco, 459.
tuberosus (Blume) Benth., 459.
Collyris major Vahl, 487.
Colocasia antiquorum Schott, 131.
esculenta (Linn.) Schott, 131, 182.
humilis Hassk., 129.
indica Engl., 130. E
indica Kunth., var. atroviridis Hassk.,
130.
indica Kunth., var. pallida Hassk., 130.
vera Hassk., 181.
Colot e Philippinis Rumph., 148.
Colubrina asiatica (Linn.) Brongn., 341.
Columbia subobovata Hochr., 354.
Cogn., 495. ~
112.
460.
INDEX
Columella geniculata (Blume) Merr., 345,
$46.
trifolia (Linn.) Merr., 345.
Columnea chinensis Osbeck, 47.
Comacum Adans., 214.
Combilium Rumph., 147.
rubrum Rumph., 147.
tsjampadaha Rumph., 147.
Combretaceae, 390.
Cominsia gigantea (Scheff.) K. Sch., 151, 167.
rubra Val., 168.
Commelinaceae, 134.
Commelina benghalensis Linn., 134.
chinensis Osbeck, 47.
communis Linn., 134.
moluccana Roxb., 135.
nudiflora Linn., 47, 134, 135.
obtusifolia Vahl, 135.
rumphii Kostel., 134.
uniflora Hassk., 135.
Commersonia bartramia
$55, 362.
echinata Forst., 362, 368.
platyphylla Andr., 49, 3638.
Compar mangae Rumph., 124.
Compositae, 497.
Conchophyllum imbricatum Blume, 487.
Condondum Rumph., 332.
malaccense Rumph., 332.
Connaraceae, 248.
Connarus gaudichaudii Planch., 248.
monocarpus Linn., 254.
pentagynus Lam., 299.
. Conocephalus amboinensis
199.
Conophallus 2? sativus Schott, 127.
Convallaria chinensis Osbeck, 47.
fruticosa Linn., 137.
Convolvulaceae, 440.
Convolvulus batatas Linn., 443.
bifidus Vahl, 440.
bilobatus Roxb., 444.
caeruleus Rumph., 445.
cymosus Desr., 440.
denticulatus Desr., 445.
flagelliformis Roxb., 445.
foetidus Rumph., 489.
indicus Burm., 47, 445. |
laevis III Rumph., 220.
laevis indicus. major II rubra Rumph.,
446.
laevis indicus major (alba) Rumph., 441.
laevis indicus major III nigra Rumph.,
446.
laevis minor I femina, II mas Rumph.,
440.
marinus major Rumph., 444.
marinus minor Rumph., 445.
maritimus Desr., 444.
medium Linn., 444.
peltatus Linn., 441.
pennatus Desr., 446.
pes-caprae Linn., 444.
platypeltis Span., 443.
septans Linn., 444.
riparius Rumph., 445.
(Linn.) Merr., 49,
(Zipp.) Warb.,
563
Convolvulus—Continued.
turpethum Linn., 442.
umbellatus Linn., 440.
Conyza appendiculata Blume, 498.
appendiculata Lam., 498.
balsamifera Linn., 498.
cadaverum Rumph., 498.
chinensis Linn., 497, 499.
cinerea Linn., 497.
hirsuta Linn., 499.
indica minor Rumph., 499.
mas Rumph., 498.
odorata Rumph., 498.
prolifera Lam., 500.
pubigera Linn., 499, 500.
Cookia punctata Retz., 311.
Copaifera, 254.
Corchorus capsularis Linn., 353.
olitorius .Linn., 353.
Cordia blancoit Vidal, 448.
campanulata Roxb., 447.
myxa Linn., 447.
orientalis R. Br., 447.
rumphis Blume, 447.
sebestena Linn., 447.
subecordata Lam., 447.
subpubescens Spanogh., 448.
tiliaefolia Warb., 47.
Cordyline jacquinii Kunth, 138.
jacquinit Kunth, var. rubens Hassk., 138.
rumphiit Hook., 1387.
terminalis Kunth, 137.
Corius femina Rumph., 505.
mas Rumph., 505.
Cornutia corymbosa Burm. f., 450.
Corona ariadnes lutea Rumph., 4388.
ariadnes punicea Rumph., 438.
Coronilla coccinea Willd., 266.
grandiflora Willd., 266.
sesban Willd., 265.
Corallaria latifolia Rumph., 262.
parvifolia Rumph., 252.
Cortex acris Rumph., 509.
caryophylloides albus Rumph.,: 2382.
consolidans Rumph., 432.
filarius Rumph., 248, 380.
foetidus Rumph., 248, 380.
tgneus Rumph., 244.
oninius If, 239.
oninius s. massoy Rumph., 238.
papetarius Rumph., 244.
piscatorium Rumph., 187.
saponarius Rumph., 249.
Corypha elata Roxb., 110.
gebanga Blume, 110.
licuala Lam., 110. 111.
pilearia Lour., 111.
rotundifolia Lam., 111.
saribus Lour., 111.
sylvestris Mart., 110.
umbraculifera Linn., 111.
utan Lam., 110.
Costus ananassae Hassk., 47, 165.
argyrophyllus Ridl., 165.
sericea Blume, 164.
sericeus Blume, 165.
564
Costus—Continued.
speciosus Blume, 164.
speciosus Blume, var. argyrophyllus Ridl.,
164.
speciosus Blume,
164.
speciosus Blume var. hirsutus Blume, 164.
speciosus Blume, var. lasiocalyx K. Sch.,
164.
Cotyledon laciniata Linn., 248.
Covellia hispida Miq., 193.
congesta Mia., 195
Cracca Linn., 264.
Crassulaceae, 243.
Crassula scutellaria Burm., f., 409.
Crataeva marmelos Linn., 293.
religiosa Forst., 293.
tapia Linn., 293. é
Crategonum amboinicum Rumph., 456.
amboinicum I minus Rumph., 479.
amboinicum II majus Rumph., 479.
Cratoxylon, 334.
Crepis japonica (Linn.) Benth., 503.
Crepitus lupi verus Rumph., 60.
Crinum asiaticum Linn., 140.
nervosum L’Hérit., 142.
procerum Carey, 141.
rumphii Merr., 141.
toxicarium Roxb., 140.
zeylanicum Linn., 141.
Crista pavonis Rumph., 260.
Crithmum maritimum Linn., 412.
Crithmus indicus I ruber Rumph., 217.
indicus II albus Rumph., 217.
indicus III kaly articulatum Rumph., 211,
PAI
indicus IV portulaca arenosa Rumph.,
VAUE
verus Rumph., 412.
Crotalaria I major Rumph., 2638.
II minor Rumph., 268.
III agrestis Rumph., 263.
chinensis Linn., 263.
formosana Mats., 263.
linifolia Linn. f., 263.
montana V Rumph., 269.
montana VIII tsjeme _ tsjeme
287.
quinquefolia Linn., 263.
var. glabra K. Sch.,
Rumph.,
retusa Linn., 263.
stenophylla Vog., 268.
verrucosa Linn., 268.
Croton aromaticus Linn., 318.
grandifolius Blanco, 29, 320.
lacciferum Linn., 321.
mauritianum lLam.,
moluccanum lLam., 324.
moluccanus Linn., 318.
multiglandulosus Reinw.,
polot Burm. f., 200.
tiglium Linn., 317.
tiliifolius Lam., var. aromaticus Lam., 318.
variegatum var. crispum Muell.-Arg., 326.
variegatus Linn., 325.
Cruciferae, 240.
322.
318.
INDEX
| Crusta arborum II alba Rumph., 195.
arborum III odorata Rumph., 195.
arborum IV minima Rumph., 195.
arborum minor Rumph., 194.
ollae III angustifolia Rumph., 478.
ollae major Rumph., 467.
ollae minor Rumph., 468.
Cryptanthus chinensis Osbeck, 47.
Cryptocarya R. Brown, 2388.
Cubilia blancoi Blume, 338.
rumphii Blume, 3388.
Cucumis acutangulus Linn., 491.
anguinus Linn., 494.
conomon Thunb., 493.
indicus I vulgaris Rumph., 492.
indicus II boetonensis Rumph., 498.
indicus III sinensis Rumph., 492.
indicus IV. maximus Rumph., 493.
melo Linn., 493.
murinus ruber Rumph., 491.
murinus viridis Rumph., 490.
rumphii Hassk., 47, 492.
| sativus Linn., 47, 491, 492, 493.
! trigonus Roxb., 493.
| turbinatus Roxb., 498.
Cucurbitaceae, 490.
Cucurbita cantalupensis Hab.,
cttrullus Linn., 492.
hispida Thunb., 493.
indica vulgaris Rumph.,
lagenaria Linn., 493. |
lagenaria Rumph., 498.
leucantha Duch., 498.
melopepo Linn., 494.
pepo Linn., 49, 498, 494.
Cudrania javanensis Tréc.,
rumphiit Thw., 189.
spinosa Hochr., 189.
Cudranus amboinensis Mia., 189.
amboinensis sylvestris Rumph., 189, 217.
amboinicus Rumph., 189.
bimanus Rumph., 189.
spinosus O. Kuntze, 189.
Cujavillus Rumph., 391.
Cujavus agrestis Rumph., 391.
domestica Rumph., 391.
silvestris Rumph., 391.
Culitlawan Rumph., 232.
ex Papuanis et Moluccis insulis Rumph.,
Zoos
Cunoniaceae, 244.
Cupania fuscescens Migq., 334.
Curanga amara Juss., 467.
fel-terrae (Lour.) Merr.,
Curania amara R. & S., 467.
Curculigo capitulata (Lour.) O. Kuntze, 142.
143.
latifolia Dry., 1438.
orchoides Gaertn., 47, 142.
recurvata Dryander, 143.
rumphiana Schultes, 47, 142.
sumatrana Roxb., 148.
Cureuma aeruginosa Roxb., 164.
agrestis Rumph., 168.
aromatica Salisb., 163.
495.
494.
189.
467:
INDEX
Curcuma—Continued.
caesia Roxb., 164.
domestica minor Rumph., 163.
longa Koenig, 163. .
longa Linn., 47, 163.
petiolata Roxb., 163.
radice longa Herm., 163.
rotunda Linn., 163.
wiridiflora Roxb., 163.
zedoaria (Berg.) Rosc., 164.
Cuscuaria marantifolia Schott, 126.
rumphii Schott, 126.
Cuscuta chinensis Lam., 62.
Cussambium Rumph., 337.
-spinosum Ham., 337.
Cussutha Rumph., 239.
Cyanotis moluccana (Roxb.) Merr., 135.
Cyatheaceae, 63.
Cyathea amboinensis Merr., 63.
arborea Sm., 63.
rumphiana Merr., 63.
Cyathula geniculata Lour., 214.
prostrata (Linn.) Blume, 214.
Cycadaceae, 74.
Cycas celebica Migq., 75.
circinalis Linn., 74, 75.
inermis Lour., 74.
pectinata Ham., 47, 75.
revoluta Thunb., 75.
rumphii Mig., 74.
. thouarsti R. Br., 74, 75.
Cyclea peltata Hook. f. & Th., 220.
wallichii Diels, 220.
Cyclostegia strobilifera Benth., 458.
Cylindrica rubra Lour., 348.
Cylizoma Neck., 272.
Cymbidium amabile Roxb., 17
furvum Willd., 178.
ovatum Willd., 174.
scriptum Sw., 177.
wallichtt Lindl., 177.
Cymbopogon citratus Stapf, 88.
Cyminosma odorata DC., 399.
resinosa Don, 245.
Cynanchum mauritianum Lam., 433, 440.
odoratissimum Lour., 440.
ovalifolium Wight, 435.
Cynodon dactylon (Linn.,) Pers., 93.
Cynometra cauliflora Linn., 253.
ramifiora Linn., 254.
ramiflora Iinn., var. genuina Prain, 254.
od
i,
ramiflora Linn., var. heterophylla Thw.,
254.
Cynomorium Rumph., 258.
silvestre Rumph., 254.
Cynosurus aegyptius Linn., 94.
corocanus Linn., 94.
indicus Linn., 94.
Cyperaceae, 103.
Cyperus altior Rumph., 108.
dulcis Rumph., 104.
floridus II mas Rumph., 104.
gramen bufonum Rumph., 108.
humilior Rumph., 108.
tnodorus Rumph., 108.
565.
Cyperus—Continued.
kyllingioides Vahl, 104.
littoreus Rumph., 93.
longus Rumph., 104.
odoratus Linn., 104.
polystachyus Rottb., 106.
rotundus Linn., 104, 108.
rotundus bulbosus sive legitimus Rumph.,
104.
cyprus Rumph., 382.
Cyrtandra decurrens DeVriese, 470.
nemorosa Blume, 470.
Cyrtoceras multiflora Heynh., 439.
Cyrtoptera ensiformis Lindl., 172.
Cytisus cajan Linn., 282.
pinnatus Linn., 271.
pseudo-cajan Jacq., 282.
D
Dabanus Rumph., 339.
Dactyloctenium aegyptium (Linn.) Richt.,
94.
aegyptiacum Willd., 95.
Daemonorops accedens Blume, 118.
barbatus Mart., 117.
calapparius Blume, 117.
draco (Willd.) Blume, 118.
elongatus Blume, 116.
longipes Griff., 116.
melanochaetes Blume, 118.
niger (Willd.) Blume, 118.
palembanicus Blume, 118.
ruber Blume, 118.
rumphii Mart., 115.
Dalbergia arborea Willd., 271.
heterophylla Willd., 272.
parviflora Roxb., 270.
parviflora Roxb., 270.
zollingeriana Miq., 270.
Dammara alba Lam., 76.
alba Rumph., 76.
alba femina Rumph., 77.
alba Lam., var. celebica Hassk., 77.
celebica Rumph., 77.
leomelaena Rumph., 376.
nigra Hassk., 465.
nigra Rumph., 465.
rumphii Presl, -76.
selanica Rumph., 375.
selanica femina Rumph., 375.
Damnacanthus indicus Gaertn., 377, 426.
Dartus perlarius Lour., 412.
Datiscaceae, 378.
Daucus anisodorus Blanco, 412.
Daun parawas Rumph., 507.
Dauncontu Adans., 489.
Davallia amboynensis Hook., 65.
denticulata Mett., 65.
elata Spreng., 64.
patens Sw., 65.
Dawan batu Rumph., 339.
mera Rumph., 33y.
putt Rumph., 339.
Dawas Rumph., 433.
566
Datura alba Nees, 465.
fastuosa Linn., 465.
fastuosa Linn., var. alba C. B. Clarke,
465.
fastuosa Linn., var. rubra Dunal., 465.
hummatu Bernh., 465.
metel Linn., 465.
migra Hassk., 465.
Decadia aluminosa Lour., 421.
Decaspermum fruticosum Forst., 392.
paniculatum Kurz, 48, 392.
rubrum Baill., 392.
Deeringia amaranthoides (Lam.) Merr., 211.
baccata Mog., 211.
celosioides R. Br., 211.
Deguelia Aubl., 272.
Dehaasia borneensis F.-Vill., 47.
media Blume, 234.
Delima hebecarpa DC., 365.
Dendrobium acinaciforme Roxb., 173.
anosmum Lindl., 175.
atropurpureum J. J. Sm., 175.
atropurpureum Mia., 176.
bifarium Lindl., 175.
bursigerum Lindl., 174.
calceolum Roxb., 178.
concinnum Mia., 175.
confusum Schltr., 175.
crumenatum Sw., 178.
ephemerum J. J. Sm., 174, 550.
leucorhodum Schlitr., 175.
macranthum Hook., 175.
macrophyllum Lindl., 175.
minax Rehb. f., 174.
mirbelianum Gaudich., 174.
moluccense J. J. Sm., 175, 500.
papilioniferum J. J. Sm., 173, 174, 176,
550.
papilioniferum J. J. Sm., var. ephemerum
Aloe Mamsyetes: UG
prionochilum Kranzl., 174.
pruinosum T. & B., 176.
purpureum Roxb., 175, 550.
rosenbergii T. & B., 174.
roxburghii Lindl. 178.
rumphianum T. & B., 174.
scalpelliforme T. & B., 173.
scortechinii Hook. f., 175.
superbum Rchb. f., 175.
superbum Rchb. f., var. anosmum Rchb.
if. ee litib
viridiroseum Rehb. f., 175.
Dendrocalamus flagellifer Munro, 101.
Dendrolobium: cephalotes Benth., 268.
cumingianum Benth., 47.
umbellatum W. & A., 268.
Dendrophthoé incarnata Migq., 206.
indica Miq., 206.
Dentella repens (Linn.) Forst., 478.
Derris diadelpha Merr., 273.
elliptica (Roxb.) Benth., 273.
forsteniana Blume, 254, 272.
heptaphylla Merr., 262.
heptaphylla (Linn.) Merr., 273.
montana Benth., 2738.
INDEX
| Derris—Continued.
sinuata Benth., 262, 273.
trifoliata Lour., 272,
Desmochaete prostrata R. & S., 214.
Desmodium cumingianum F.-Vill., 47.
dependens Blume, 267.
gangeticum DC., 267, 501.
gangeticum (Linn.) DC., 269.
ormocarpoides DC., 267, 269.
ormocarpoides Desv., 267.
stipulaceum DC., var. aparine (Hassk.)
Migq., 269.
timoriense DC., 269.
triquetrum (Linn.) DC., 268.
umbellatum (Linn.) DC., 268.
viscidum DC., 269.
zonatum Miq., 268.
Desmos chinensis Lour., 228.
Dialum indum Linn., 244, 257.
javanicum Burm. f., 244.
Dianella nemorosa Lam., 136.
ensifolia DC., 136.
odorata Blume, 136.
Dicalyx aluminosus Blume, 421.
cochinchinensis Lour., 350.
javanicus Blume, 420.
salaccensis Blume, 420.
Diceros Lour., 466.
Dichapetalaceae, 312.
Dichapetalum moluccanum Merr., 312.
papuanum Engl., 313.
timoriense Engl., 313.
Dicksonia sorbifolia Sm., 74.
Dichiptera bivalvis Juss., 477.
Dicotyledons, 179.
Dictyophora phalloidea Desv., 61.
speciosa Klotzsch., 61.
Digera arvensis Forsk., 211.
muricata Mart., 211.
Digitaria sanguinalis (Linn.) Scop.,
Dilivaria ebracteata Pers., 474.
scandens Nees, 474.
volubilis Nees, 474.
Dilleniaceae, 365.
Dillenia elliptica Thunb., 367.
indica Linn., 368.
ochreata Teysm. & Binn., 368.
serrata Thunb., 368.
Dinochloa scandens O. Ktze., 101.
tjankorreh Biise, 101.
Dioclea reflexa Hook. f., 280.
Dioscoreaceae, 145.
Dioscorea aculeata Linn., 147.
alata Linn., 146.
bulbifera Linn., 146.
bulbifera Linn., var. sativa Prain & Bur-
kill, 146.
bulbifera Linn.,
Burkill, 146.
bulbifera Linn., var. vera Prain & Bur-
kill, 146.
cliffortiana Lam., 335.
combilium Ham., 147.
daemona Roxb., 148.
deltoidea Wall., 335.
90.
var. suavior Prain &
INDEX
Dioscorea—Continued.
esculenta (Lour.) Burkill, 147.
fasciculata Roxb., 147.
glabra Koord., 148.
hirsuta Roth, 148.
hispida Dennst., 148.
nummularia Lam., 49, 189, 148.
nummularifolia Henschel, 148.
oppositifolia Linn., 146.
pentaphylla Linn., 147, 148.
pentaphylla Linn., var. malaica Prain &
Burkill, 147.
sativa Linn., 335.
spiculata Blume, 146.
tiliaefolia Kunth, 147.
triphylla Auctt., 148.
triphylla Linn., 148.
wallichii Hook. f., 1473
Diospyros decandra Lour., 420.
ebenaster Retz., 419.
ebenum Koen., 419.
kaki Linn. f., 46, 420.
maritima Blume, 419.
Diphaca cochinchinensis Lour., 266.
Diplazium esculentum Sw., 65.
malabaricum Spreng., 65.
Diploclinium tuberosum Miaq., 379.
Dipteracanthus lanceolatus Nees, 472.
patulus Nees, 475.
ventricosus Nees, 475.
Dipterocarpaceae, 375.
Dipterocarpus Gaertn., 376.
Dischidia collyris Wall., 437.
gaudichaudii Decne., 437.
imbricata Steud., 437.
major (Vahl) Merr., 437.
nummularia R. Br., 436.
rumphii Migq., 4387.
Dittelasma rarak Hook. f., 337.
Dodonaea angustifolia Blanco, 340.
burmanniana DC., 340.
dioica Roxb., 340.
triquetra Andr., 340.
viscosa (Linn.) Jacq., 340.
viscosa Jacq., var. vulgaris Benth., forma
repanda Radlk., 340.
Dolichandrone rheedii Seem., 469.
spathacea (Linn. f.) K. Schum., 469.
Dolichos albus Lour., 286.
altissimus Lour., 286.
bulbosus Linn., 285.
catjang Linn., 284.
dasycarpus Mig., 279.
ensiformis Linn., 282.
erosus Linn., 285.
giganteus Willd., 277.
gladiatus Jacq., 281.
lablab Linn., 280, 286.
lignosus Linn., 286.
lineatus Thunb., 281.
luteus Sw., 285.
obtusifolius Lam., 281.
phaseoloides Roxb., 282.
pruriens Linn., 277.
rotundifolius Vahl, 281.
567
Dolichos—Continued.
sinensis Linn., 284,
sinensis Rumph., 284.
soja Linn., 274.
tetragonolobus Linn., 286.
unguiculatus Linn., 279.
Donacodes elongata T. & B., 160.
incarnata T. & B., 159, 160.
rosea Teysm. & Binn., 157.
Donax arundastrum Lour., 166.
canniformis (Forst.) K. Schum., 47, 166.
\ Dracaena angustifolia Roxb., 137.
ensifolia Linn., 136.
reflexa Lam., 137.
terminalis Rich., 137.
Dracontium cordatum Houtt., 128. ioe
polyphyllum Linn., 127.
Dracontomelum mangiferum Blume, 333.
sylvestre Blume, 333.
Dracunculus amboinicus II albus Rumph.,
128.
amboinicus III ruber Rumph., 128.
amboinicus niger Rumph., 128.
Drymophloeus appendiculatus Becc.,
jaculatorius Mart., 120.
olivaeformis (Giseke) Mart., 120.
rumphianus Mart., 122.
Drynaria quercifolia J. Sm., 68.
sparsisora (Desv.) Moore, 68.
Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn.,
camphora Colebr., 376.
Dryopteris campestris Rumph., 66.
ferox O. Kuntze, 64.
parasitica O. Kuntze, 73.
silvestris II arborea Rumph., 78.
silvestris III petraea Rumph., 67.
triplex Rumph., 70.
triplex arborea Rumph., 64.
triplex silvestris I terrestris Rumph., 65.
Dulcamara nigra Rumph., 302.
Dupinia Seop., 369.
Durio Rumph., 361.
zibethinus~-Murr., 361.
Dutra alba Rumph., 465.
nigra Rumph., 465.
rubra Rumph., 465.
Dysolobium dolichoides Prain, 279.
Dysophylla auricularia (Linn.) Blume, 458.
Dysoxylum ailiaceum Blume, 308.
euphlebium Merr., 308.
forsterit C. DC., 309.
hamiltonis Hiern, 309.
EK
120.
376.
Ebenaceae, 419.
Ebenoxylum verum Lour., 419.
Ebenus Rumph., 419.
alba Rumph., 420.
e Madagascar Rumph., 419.
molucca Rumph., 419.
Ecdysanthera barbata Miq., 432.
Echinus trisulcus Lour., 481.
Echites hircosa Roxb., 434.
scholaris Linn., 427.
spinosa Burm. f., 425.
568
Ecliptiea Rumph., 500.
Eclipta alba (Linn.) Hassk., 500.
alba Hassk., var. erecta Hassk., 500.
erecta Linn., 500.
prostrata Linn., 500.
Elaeagnus, 209.
Elaeocarpaceae, 348.
Elaeocarpus, 505.
amboinensis Merr., 350.
angustifolius Blume, 352.
dolichopetalus Merr., 351.
edulis T. & B., 348.
excavatus Reinw., 348.
fruticosus Roxb., 348.
ganitrus Roxb., 352.
- <tntegrifolius Lam., 352.
macrophyllus Blume, 352.
moluccanus Scheff., 348.
oblongus Gaertn., 352.
oppositifolius (DC.) Mia., 348.
rumphii Merr., 349.
serratus Linn., 351.
sphaericus K. Sch., 352.
treubii Hochr., 348.
Elatostema macrophyllum Brongn., 202.
sinuatum Hassk., 202.
Eleocharis dulcis (Burm. f.) Trin., 47, 104.
plantaginea R. Br., 105.
plantaginoidea W. F. Wight, 105.
tuberosa Schultes, 105.
Elettaria cardamomum Maton, 157.
minor Blume, 159.
musacea Horan., 159, 160.
Eleusine corocana (Linn.) Gaertn., 94.
indica (Linn.) Gaertn., 94.
Ellobocarpus oleraceus Kaulf., 69
Elodea, 334. ;
Elytranthe amboinensis Merr., 206.
Emericia pergularia Roem. & schultes, 434.
Emerus sesban O. Kuntze, 265.
Emilia ‘sonchifolia (Linn.) DC., 503.
Empetrum acetosum I album Rumph., 379.
acetosum II rubrum Rumph., 379.
acetosum III cordatum Rumph., 380.
Endospermum moluccanum (Teysm. & Binn.)
Bece., 326.
Englehardtia acerifolia Blume, 376.
selanica Blume, 3875.
spicata Blume, 375.
Enhalus acoroides (Linn. f.) Rich., 50, 84.
koenigii Rich., 84.
Entada phaseoloides (Linn.) Merr., 253.
rumphii Scheff., 253.
scandens Benth., 258.
Epicharis, 309.
Epidendrum amabile Linn., 177.
carinatum Linn., 46.
furvum Linn., 178.
nervosum Lam., 169.
spathulatum Linn.,
scriptum Linn., 177.
tenuifolium Linn., 50.
terrestre Linn., 171.
tuberosum Linn., 171. ‘.
Epipremnum pinnatum (Linn.) Engl., 127.
174.
INDEX
Equisetum amboinicum II minor Rumph..,. 72.
amboinicum 8. arboreum squamatum
Rumph., 72.
secundum Rumph., 73.
silvestre III Rumph., 69.
Eragrostis amabilis (Linn.) W. & A., 95.
amboinensis Trin., 88.
elegantula Steud., 46.
plumosa Link, 95.
tenella R. & S., 95.
unioloides Nees, 96.
Eranthemum bicolor Schrank, 475.
curtatum C. B. Clarke, 475.
malaccense C. B. Clarke, 475.
pulchellum Hort., 475.
racemosum Roxb., 476.
Eria moluccana Schltr. & J. J. Sm., 174, 176.
Erinus bilabiatus Roxb., 467.
Eriocaulon setacewm Linn., 105.
| Briochloa ramosa O. Kuntze, 48.
Eriodendron anfractuosum DC., 362.
Eriophorus javana Rumph., 362.
Erithalis polygama Forst., 486.
timon Spreng., 486.
Erndlia subpersonata Giseke, 47.
Eroteum lanigerum Blanco, 47.
Erva de Sta. Maria Rumph., 133.
Erythrina corallodendron Linn., var. orientalis
Linn., 276.
fusca Lour., 275.
indica Lam., 50, 256.
lithosperma Blume, 276.
orientalis Murr., 276.
ovalifolia Roxhb., 275.
picta Linn., 276.
variegata Linn., 276.
variegata Linn., var. orientalis
Merr., 276.
Erythroxylum monogynum Roxb., 504.
Eschewetleria palmata Zipp., 407.
Esula esculenta Rumph., 328.
Eucalyptus binacag Elm., 401.
deglupta Blume, 399, 401.
moluccana Roxb., 401.
multiflora Rich, 401.
naudiniana F. Muell., 401.
sarassa Blume, 401.
versicolor Blume, 401.
Eucheuma spinosum Ag., 54.
Eugenia acutangula Gaertn.,
alba Roxb., 397.
aquea Burm. f., 398.
aromatica Berg., 393.
binacag Elm., 401. .
caryophyllata Thunb., 47, 393.
celebica (Blume) Merr., 397..
colubcob C. B. Rob., 395.
cumini (Linn.) Merr., 394.
cymosa Lam., 395.
jambolana Lam., 394.
jambos Linn., 397.
javanica Lam., 398,
laeta Ham., 397.
longiflora F.-Vill., 48.
macrophylla DC., 398.
(Linn. )
386.
395.
INDEX
Eugenia—Continued.
malaccensis Linn., 398.
melastomifolia (Blume) Merr., 398.
mindanaensis C. B. Rob., 393.
obtusifolia Roxb., 394.
polygama Roxb., 392.
purpurea Roxb., 398.
racemosa Linn., 385, 393.
rumphii Merr., 396.
stipularis (Blume) Mia., 397.
subglauca Koord. & Valeton, 395.
Eulalia japonica Trin., 95.
Eulophia R. Brown, 172.
Euonymus Linn., 334.
Eupatoriophalacron Adans., 500. °
Euphorbiaceae, 313.
Euphorbia capitata Lam., 329.
edulis Lour., 329.
hirta Linn., 328.
ligularia Roxb., 328.
neriifolia Linn., 328.
pilulifera Linn., 328.
splendens Boj., 329.
tirucalli Linn., 329.
Euphoria cubili Blanco, 338.
longana Lam., 338.
Eupteron nodosum Migq., 408, 409.
Eurycles amboinensis (Linn.) Lindl., 49, 142.
coronata Salisb., 142.
nervosa Roem., 142.
silvestris Salisb., 142.
Eusideroxylon zwageri Teysm. & Binn., 234.
Euterpe globosa Gaertn., 119.
Euxolus polygamus Mog., 2138.
Evia acida Blume, 332.
amara Commers., 332.
amara Commers., var. tuberculosa Blume,
333.
Evodia, 509.
amboinensis Merr., 290, 337.
bintoco Blanco, 289.
latifolia DC., 289.
lunur-ankenda Merr., 291.
philippinensis Merr., 289.
pteleaefolia Merr., 291.
triphylla Auct., 337.
triphylla DC., 28, 290.
Excoecaria agallocha Linn., 327, 358.
virgata Zoll. & Mor., 328.
Exidia auricula judae Fries, 60.
Exocarpos ceramica A. DC., 208.
Exocarpus ceramicus R. Br., 208.
epiphyllanthus (Linn.) Merr., 208.
phyllanthoides Endl., 208.
EK
Faba marina major Rumph., 253.
rubra Rumph., 283.
Fagaceae, 186.
Fagara avicennae Lam., 289.
torva (F. Muell.) Engl., 288.
triphylla Lam., 28, 290.
Fagelia, 275.
Fagraea amboinensis Blume, 424.
littoralis Blume, var. amboinensis Blume,
424,
569
Favolus, 59.
Feronia elephantum Correa, 293.
limonia (Linn.) Swingle, 293.
Fibraura tinctoria Lour., 222.
Ficus adenosperma Migq., 196.
albinervia Migq., 198.
altimeraloo Roxb., 196.
altissima Blume, 194.
amboinensis Kostel., 192.
ampelos Burm. f., 196.
auriculata Lour., 192.
benghalensis Linn., 192.
benjamina Linn., 195.
cadlophylla Blume, 197.
citrifolia Willd., 197.
confusa Elm., 196.
congesta Roxb., 195.
conora King, 195.
cordifolia Roxb., 195.
coronata Reinw., 197.
cotoneaefolia Vahl, 194.
decaisneana Mia., 196.
driveri Elm., 196.
exasperata Roxb.,
forstenii Mig., 197.
_ gelderi Migq., 194.
glomerata Roxb., 1938.
gonia Ham., 197.
haematocarpa Blume, 196.
hispida Blume, 195.
inaequifolia Elm., 196.
indica Linn., 194.
indica Rumph., 380.
leucantatoma Poir,, 198, 198.
magnifica Elm., 196.
manok Miq., 198.
microcarpa Linn. f., 198.
moseleyana King, 193.
nodosa Teysm. & Binn., 192.
obscura Blume, 197.
pachyphylla Merr., 197.
parasitica Roth, 197.
philippinensis Miq., 196.
pilosa Reinw., 197.
politoria Lam., 197.
populnea Willd., 195.
pumila Linn., 197.
punctata Thunb., 194.
pyrifolia Lam., 198.
racemifera Roxb., 192, 198.
racemosa Linn., 194, 196, 198.
recurva Blume, 198.
religiosa Linn., 195.
ribes Reinw., 195:
rubra Vahl, 198.
rumphii Blume, 195.
septica Burm. f., 193.
septica Rumph., 198.
septica angustifolia Rumph., 19x.
septica silvestris Rumph., 198.
setibracteata Elm., 196.
symphitifolia Lam., 198.
trematocarpa Migq., 196, 198.
tsjela Ham., 198.
variegata Blume, 192, 198.
wassa Roxb., 193.
iS Kile
9/0
Fieldia lissochiloides Gaudich., 178.
Filix amboinica mas Rumph., 64.
aquatica I femina Rumph., 71.
aquatica II mas Rumph., 73.
calamaria Rumph., 69.
esculenta Rumph., 65.
florida Rumph., 64.
lanuginosa Rumph., 74.
urens Rumph., 73.
Fimbristylis, 108. —
acuminata Vahl, 105.
cumingii F.-Vill., 48.
polytrichoides R. Br., 105.
setacea Benth., 105, 106.
Finlaysonia obovata Wall., 434.
Flacourtiaceae, 376.
Flacourtia cataphracta Roxb., 377.
indica Merr., 48, 426.
indica (Burm. f.) Merr., 3877.
jangomas' Steud., 377.
ramontchi L’Hérit., 377.
sepiaria Roxb., 377.
sumatrana Planch., 378.
Flagellariaceae, 133.
Flagellaria indica Linn., 133.
repens Lour., 125.
Flamma silvarum Rumph., 487.
silvarum peregrina Rumph., 487.
Fleurya interrupta (Linn.) Gaudich., 201.
Flindersia amboinensis Poir., 48, 291.
radulifera Spreng., 48, 291.
Flos cardinalis Rumph., 446.
coeruleus Rumph., 274.
convolutus Rumph., 427.
cuspidum Rumph., 417.
festalis Rumph., 359.
flavus Rumph., 258.
globosus Rumph., 215.
globosus albus Rumph., 215.
horarius Rumph., 359.
inpius Rumph., 362.
manilhanus Rumph., 429.
manorae Rumph., 422.
pergulanus Rumph., 484.
siamicus Rumph., 440.
susannae Rumph., 169.
susannae minor Rumph., 169.
triplicatus Rumph., 170.
Floscopa paniculata Hassk., 135.
scandens Lour., 135.
Folium acidum majus Rumph., 372.
acidum minus Rumph., 373.
baggea Rumph., 81.
baggea maritimum Rumph., 81.
baggea verum Rumph., 82.
bracteatum Rumph., 474.
buccinatum Rumph., 151.
buccinatum album Rumph., 166.
buccinatum asperum Rumph., 151, 167.
calcosum Rumph., 318.
caleosum II Rumph., 318.
causonis I album Rumph., 345.
causonis II Rumph., 345.
causonis III litoreum Rumph., 346.
crocodili latifolium Rumph., 268.
crocodii parvifolium Rumph., 268.
Frumentum
INDEX
Folium—Continued.
hircinum Rumph., 450, 451.
intinc:us Rumph., 399.
linguae Rumph., 256.
linguae litorea alba Rumph., 256.
lunatum minus: Rumph., 219.
mappae Rumph., 29, 319.
mensarium album Rumph., 150, 151.
mensarium rubrum s. latifolium Rumph.,
168.
petolatum Rumph., 169.
petolatum femina s. vera Rumph., 169,
petolatum mas Rumph., 169.
politorium arborescens Rumph., 197.
politorium flagellare, 197. i
politorium vulgare fruticosum Rumph.,
196.
polypi mas et femina Rumph., 407.
principissae angustifolium Rumph., 484.
principissae latifolium Rumph., 484.
tinctorium Rumph., 476.
urens angustifolium Rumph., 200.
urens latifolium Rumph., 200. ,
urens rubrum Rumph., 200.
Fomes amboinensis Fries, 58.
Fortunella japonica (Thunb.) Swingle,
Fragarius niger Rumph., 408.
ruber Rumph., 403.
ruber grandifolius Rumph., 404.
294,
Freycinetia funicularis (Savigny) Merr., 83.
graminea Blume, 83.
strobilacea Blume, 83.
Fructus bobae Rumph., 335.
musculiformis Rumph.,
regis Rumph., 363.
indicum s.
nicum Rumph., 84.
Frutex aquosus femina Rumph., 346.
aquosus mas Rumph., 347.
carbonarius asper Rumph., 508.
carbonarius I albus Rumph., 508. °
carbonarius latifolius Rumph., 508.
carbonarius II ruber Rumph., 508.
ceramicus Rumph., 449.
cerasiformis Rumph., 508.
excoecans Rumph., 327.
globulorum femina Rumph., 261.
globulorum majorum Rumph., 260.
linteartus Rumph., 188.
muraenarum femina Rumph., 405.
Fucus bracteatus Ag., 56.
edulis Gmel., 54.
granulatus Linn., 55.
matans Linn., 55.
vesiculosus Linn., 56.
Fulha alacra Rumph., 177.
Fungi, 56.
Fungus arboreus I. Rumph., 59.
arboreus II (albus) Rumph., 59.
arboreus II (ruber) Rumph., 59.
arboreus III Rumph., 59.
arborum tuberosus Rumph., 61.
elatus cochlearis Rumph., 58.
elatus digitatus Rumph., 58.
elatus petasoides Rumph., 58,. >
425.
turcicum s. sdarace-
Fungus—Continued.
elatus primus Rumph., 58.
igneus Rumph., 60.
Funis butonicus major Rumph., 508.
| butonicus minor Rumph., 312.
convolutus Rumph., 199, 273.
cratium Rumph., 434.
cralium litorea Rumph., 4384.
crepitans I major Rumph., 343.
crepitans II minor Rumph., 344.
crepitans III trifolia Rumph., 345.
crepitans IV Rumph., 344.
dentarius Rumph., 225.
felleus Rumph., 220, 343.
gnemoniformis Rumph., 13.
muraenarum Rumph., 203.
muraenarum III Rumph., 405.
muraenarum latifolia Rumph., 199.
muraenarum mas Rumph., 404.
musarius angustifolius Rumph., 2265.
musarius latifolius Rumph., 225.
papius latifolius Rumph., 440.
papius parvifolius Rumph., 433.
papius rugosior Rumph., 433.
pinguis Rumph., 509.
pulassarius Rumph., 426.
quadrangularis Rumph., 343.
quadrifidus Rumph., 4658.
toaccae Rumph., 424.
uncatus angustifolius Rumph., 480.
uncatus lanosus Rumph., 480.
uncatus latifolius Rumph., 480.
urens aspera Rumph., 365.
urens glabra Rumph., 366.
viminalis Rumph., 342.
Furcraea cantala Haworth, 144.
G
Gabertia scripta Gaudich., 177.
Gahnia aspera Spreng., 106.
javanica Z. & M., 106.
rawacensis (Kunth) Steud., 106.
tristis Nees, 106.
Gajanus Rumph., 273.
edulis O. Kuntz, 278.
Gajatus luteus Rumph., 265.
niger Rumph., 265.
Galanga major Rumph., 1538.
malaccensis Rumph., 155.
minor Rumph., 153.
Galedupa elliptica Roxb., 2738.
indica Lam., 254, 271.
pimnata Taub., 271.
Galeola, 57.
Gallinaria acutifolia Rumph., 258.
rotundifolia Rumph., 257.
Gandasulium Rumph., 161.
Gandola I alba Rumph., 218.
II rubra Rumph., 218.
Ganga agrestis Rumph., 353.
sativa Rumph., 353.
Ganitrum oblongum Rumph., 348, 352.
Ganitrus Rumph., 348, 350.
sphaerica Gaertn., 351.
/
INDEX
571
Ganoderma amboinense Pat., 58.
cochlear Merr., 58.
rugosum Bres., 58.
Garcinia amboinensis Spreng., 372.
celebica Linn., 878.
ceramica Boerl., 373.
cambogia (Gaertn.) Desr., 373.
cochinchinensis Choisy, 372.
cornea Murr., 374.
dulcis (Roxb.) Kurz, 3872, 3874.
latissima Migq., 374.
mangostana Linn., 374.
morella Desr., 373.
porrecta Wall., var. schizogyna Boerl.,
ov.
Picrorhiza Migq., 38738, 374.
picrorhiza Miq., var. limonorhiza Boerl.,
375.
rumphii Pierre, 378.
Gardenia augusta (Linn.) Merr., 50, 485.
florida Linn., 50, 485.
frondosa Lam., 485.
jasminoides Ellis, 485.
Garuga abilo (Blanco) Merr., 305.
mollis Turez., 305.
Gastonia saururoides Roxb., 406.
Gastrochilus panduratum Ridl., 162.
Gelala alba Rumph., 276.
aquatica Rumph., 275.
litorea Rumph., 276.
Gelidium amansii Kutz., 54.
Gelpkea stipuwlaris Blume, 379.
Gembanga rotundifolia Blume, 110.
Gendarussa Rumph., 478.
Gendarussa femina Rumph., 477.
femina II Rumph., 478.
vulgaris Nees, 478.
Geniosporum prostratum Benth., 458.
Gentianaceae, 424.
Gesneriaceae, 470.
Gigalobium Boehm., 253.
Gigantochloa aspera (Schultes) Kurz, 101.
atter Kurz, 101.
verticillata Munro, 99, 101.
Givetia rottleriformis Griff., 319.
Glabraria tersa Linn., 235, 236.
Globba acris Rumph., 158.
crispa Rumph., 157.
crispa I viridis Rumph., 160.
crispa II rubra’ Rumph., 157.
hatuana Rumph., 159.
lawassi Malacca Rumph., 156.
longa minor Rumph., 159.
longa s. vulgaris Rumph., 159.
marantina Linn., 152, 162.
nutans Linn., 154, 155.
sckala Rumph., 161.
silvestris minor Rumph., 1538, 154.
silvestris major Rumph., 154.
silvesiris pada hanka Rumph., 156.
silvestris sublterranea Rumph., 160
silvestris sulica Rumph., 159.
uviformis Linn., 156.
uviformis Rumph., 156.
Gladiolus odoratus indicus Rumph., 136.
a72
INDEX
Glans terrestris costensis Rumph., 459.
Gleicheniaceae, 69.
Gleichenia dichotoma Hook.
Mett., 69.
hermannii R. Br., 69.
linearis (Burm. f.) Clarke, 69.
Glochidion, 38165.
Gluta benghas Linn., 331.
Glycine abrus Linn., 274.
hispida Maxim., 274, 283.
javanica Linn., 275.
max (Linn.) Merr., 274, 288.
mollis W. & A., 282.
soja S. & Z., 274.
ussuriensig Regel & Maack, 274.
Glycosmis cochinchinensis Pierre, 47.
spinosa Dietr., 295.
Gmelina asiatica Linn., 454.
indica Burm. f., 377.
villosa Roxb., 895, 454.
var, alternans
Gnemon domestica femina Rumph., 77.
domestica mas Rumph., 77.
funicularis Rumph., 77.
silvestris Rumph., 77.
Gnetaceae, 77.
Gnetum edule Blume, 78.
funiculare Blume, 77
funiculare Brongn., 77.
gnemon Linn., 177.
gnemon Linn., var.
gnemonoides Brongn., 78.
indicum (Lour.) Merr., 77, 78.
latifolium Blume, 77.
ovalifolium Poir., 17.
rumphianum Becc., 78.
scandens Roxb., 78.
ula Brongn., 78.
verrucosum Karst., 78.
Goddam Rumph., 94.
Gomutus rumphi Corr., 119.
saccharifer Spreng., 119.
Gomphrena globosa Linn., 215.
sessilis Linn., 215.
Goniothalamus Hook. f. & Th., 228.
Gonocitrus angulatus Kurz, 295.
Gonystylaceae, 353.
Gonystylus affinis Radlk., 353.
bancanus (Miq.) Baill., 353.
borneensis Gilg., 353.
calophyllus Gilg., 358.
miquelianus T. & B., 353.
pluricornis Radlk., 358.
Gonus amarissimus’ Lour., 299.
Goodeniaceae, 496.
Gordonia excelsa Blume, 369.
rumphii Merr., 368.
Gossampinus alba Ham., 362.
rumphii Schott, 362.
Gossypium Rumph., 361.
arboreum Linn., 360, 361.
brasiliense -Macf., 360. |
daemonis Rumph., 365.
floribus fusco-rubentibus Rumph.,
herbaceum Linn., 361.
indicum Lam., 361.
lucidum Blume,
361.
(he
Gossypium—Continued.
lapideum Tussac, 360.
latifolium Rumph., 360.
majus Rumph., 361.
minus Rumph., 361.
nanking Meyen, 361.
nanking Meyen var. nadam Watt., 361.
nigrum Ham., 361.
purpurascens Poir., 361.
vitifolium Lam., 360.
Govantesia malulucban Llanos, 48.
Gracilaria lichenoides Harv., 54.
Gramen aciculatum Rumph., 87.
anatum Rumph., 90.
arguens Rumph., 89.
caninum Rumph., 90.
capitatum Rumph., 1038.
caricosum Rumph., 85.
caricosum vulpinum Rumph., 92.
fumi Rumph., 95.
polytrichum Rumph., 105.
repens minus Rumph., 98.
roris (litcreum) Rumph., 92.
supplex Rumph., 90.
vaccinum Rumph., 94.
vaccinum femina Rumph., 94.
vulpinum Rumph., 91.
Gramineae, 84.
Grammatophyllum guilelmi II Kranzl., 177.
leopardinum Rchb. f., 177.
rumphianum Miq., 177.
scriptum (Linn.) Blume, 177, 550.
speciosum Lindl., 177.
Grammica aphylla Lour., 62.
Granatum litoreum I latifolium Rumph., 306,
307. '
litoreum II parvifolium Rumph., 306.
litoreum III latissimum Rumph., 307.
Granum moluccanum Rumph., 317.
moschatum Rumph., 358.
moschatum agreste Rumph., 358.
Graptophyllum hortense Nees, 474.
pictum (Linn.) Griff., 276, 474.
Graptorchis Thou., 172.’
Graptorkis Thou., 172.
Gratiola amara Roxb., 467.
aromatica Pers., 466.
lucida Willd., 468.
veronicaefolia Retz., 467.
Grewia inaequalis Blume, 449.
Grossularia domestica Rumph., 196, 198.
domestica longifolia Rumph., 198.
domestica parvifolia Rumph., 198..
silvestris Rumph., 198.
Guarea alliaria Ham., 308.
Guatteria rumphii Blume, 48, 227.
Guettarda speciosa Linn., 486.
Guiacum abilo Blanco, 305.
Guilandina bonduc Linn., 260.
bonduc Linn., var. majus DC.; 261.
bonduc Linn., var. minus DC., 260. ..
bonducella Linn., 260.
crista Small, 260.
glabra Mill., 261.
major Small, 261.
INDEX
Guilandina—Continued.
microphylla DC., 251.
moringa Linn., 241.
nuga Linn., 251, 261.
Gummi susu Rumph., 199.
Gumira foetida Hassk., 451.
laut Rumph., 450.
litorea Rumph., 450.
silvestris Rumph., 450.
Gutta cambodja Rumph., 3738.
Guttiferae, 370.
Gymnacranthera zippeliana (Miq.) Warb.,
Does
Gymnema Boerl.,
syringaefolium (Decne.)
435. ;
tingens W. & A., 436.
Gymnospermae, 74.
Gynandropsis pentaphylla (Linn.) DC.,- 241.
Gynopogon Forst., 430.
stellatum Forst., 430.
Gynura sarmentosa DC., 499.
Gyrinopsis brachyantha Merr., 380.
cumingiana Dene., 380.
H
Haasia, 237.
borneensis Meisn., 47.
media Nees, 234. ;
Habenaria cordata Naves, 48.
diphylla Dalz., 48.
gigantea Don, 169.
rumphii (Brongn.) Lindl., 169, 549.
susannae R. Br., 169.
Halecus litorea Rumph., 318.
rugosa Rumph., 320.
terrestris alba Rumph., 321.
terrestris vulgaris Rumph., 321.
Halicacabus baccifer Rumph., 464.
indicus I major Rumph., 461.
indicus II minor Rumph., 462.
peregrinus Rumph., 336.
Halopegia K. Schumann, 167.
Hamamelidaceae, 245.
Hapaloceras arupa Hassk., 48, 415.
leerti Hassk., 416.
Haplochilus amboinense J. J. Sm., 169.
Harina caryotoides Ham., 120.
rumphit Mart., 120.
Harpullia, 244.
arborea Radlk., 505.
arborea (Blanco) Radlk., 340.
Hartighsea forsteri Juss., 309.
Hasskarlia globosa Walp., 80.
Hebenaster Rumph., 419.
amalyensis Rumph., 420.
Hedera amboinensis DC., 406.
nodosa Hassk., 408.
umbellifera DC., 406.
Hedrayostylus corniculatus Hassk.,
glaberrimus Hassk., 323.
Hedychium chrysoleucum Hook. f., 161.
coronarium Koenig, 161.
lanatum Scheff., 156.
323.
Hedyotis angustifolia Miq., 479.
erateogonum Spreng., 479.
hispida Retz., 479.
tenelliflora Blume, 479.
verticillata (Linn.) Lam., 479.
Hedysarum adhaerens Poir., 267.
gangeticum Linn., 267, 269, 501.
triquetrum Linn., 268.
umbellatum Linn., 268.
viscidum Linn., 269.
Helicia serrata (R. Br.) Blume, 205, 245.
Heliconia bihai Linn., 150, 168.
buccinata Roxb., 150.
Heliconiopsis amboinensis Miq., 150.
Helicteres isora Linn., 363.
ovata Lam., 363.
Hellenia, 168.
rufa Presl, 46.
scabra Blume, 46.
Helminthostachys dulcis Kaulf., 71.
zeylanica (Linn.) Hook., 71.
Helospora Jack, 486.
Helvella mitra Linn., 59.
Hemigraphis alternata T. And., 471.
angustifolia Hallier f., 470.
colorata Hallier f., 471.
petola Hallier f., 470.
reptans K. Schum., var. glaucescens Hal-
lier f., 471.
esculenta Retz., 65.
Herba admirationis Rumph., 457.
crinalium domestica Rumph., 359.
crinalium silvestris Rumph., 359.
memoriae Rumph., 202.
mimosa Rumph., 252.
moeroris I alba Rumph., 313.
moeroris II rubra Rumph., 313.
sentiens Rumph., 252, 288.
spiralis I hirsuta Rumph., 164.
spiralis II laevis Rumph., 164.
supplex femina Rumph., 173.
supplex femina s. secunda, 176.
supplex minor Rumph., 173, 175.
supplex quinta Rumph., 173.
supplex major prima Rumph., 173.
supplex major secunda Rumph., 176.
supplex major tertia Rumph., 176.
supplex major quarta Rumph., 175.
timoris Rumph., 509.
vitilaginum Rumph.,
viva Rumph., 2652.
Heritiera littoralis Dryand., 365.
minor Roxb., 365.
406.
| Hernandiaceae, 239.
Hernandia ovigera Linn., 239.
peltata Meisn., 239.
sonora Linn., 326.
Herpetica Rumph., 257.
alata Raf., 257.
Herpestis amara Benth.,
rugosa Roth., 466.
Hesperethusa acidissima Roem., 298.
Heterospathe elata Scheff., 122.
Hexagonia, 59.
468.
573
O14
Hibiscus abelmoschus Linn., 358.
convolvulaceus. Hassk., 48, 359.
haenkeanus F.-Vill., 48.
mutabilis Linn., 359.
populneus Linn., 360.
rosa-sinensis Linn., 359.
surattensis Linn., 48, 359.
tiliaceus Linn., 358.
zeylanicus Linn., 365. -
Himanthalia lorea Lyngb., 54.
Hippogrostis amboinica I major Rumph., 87.
amboinica II minor Rumph., 91.
Hippuris indica Lour., 104.
Hirneola auricula judae Berk., 60.
Hoelen Rumph., 61.
Hoferia Scop., 369.
Holcus lanatus Linn., 88.
saccharatus Linn., 87.
sorghum Linn., 87.
Homalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax, 327.
Homalium aranga Vidal, 48.
foetidum Benth., 340, 505.
foetidum (Roxb.) Benth., 378.
grifithianum Kurz, 378.
luzonicum F.-Vill., 48.
Homalomena alba Hassk., 128.
aromatica Schott, 128.
calyptrata Kunth, 129.
cordata (Houtt.) Schott, 128.
rubescens Kunth, 128.
rubra Kunth, 128.
Hondbessen Adans., 489.
Hopea selanica W. & A., 375.
Horsfieldia aruensis Warb., 231.
eanariformis (Blume) Merr., 230.
nesophylla Warb., 231.
novo-guineensis Warb., 281.
roxburghit Warb., 230.
sylvestris (Houtt.) Warb., 230.
Hornstedtia elongata K. Schum., 159.
imperialis Ridl., 159. .
minor (Blume) K. Sch., 159.
Hoya alba Kostel., 439.
ariadna Decne., 4388.
corona ariadnes Blume, 438.
diversifolia Blume, 439.
elegans Kostel., 439:
latifolia Don, 436.
lutea Decne., 438.
lutea Kostel., 438.
multiflora Blume, 439.
rumphii Blume, 438.
speciosa Decne., 488.
sussuela (Roxb.) Merr., 4388.
Huttum Adans., 384.
Hydnocarpus, 6510.
Hydnophytum amboinense Becc., 488.
formicarium Jack, 488.
gaudichaudii Bece., 489.
montanum Blume, 488.
Hydrocharitaceae, 84.
Hydrocotyle asiatica Linn., 411.
Hydropiton Gaertn., 466.
Hymenophallus daemonum Spreng., 61.
indusiatus Vent., 61.
INDEX
Hyperanthera moringa Vahl, 241.
Hypnea divaricata J. Ag., 56.
Hypcestes cumingiana F.-Vill., 48.
purpurea R. Br., 474.
Hypolytrum latifolium Rich., 106.
macrocephalum Gaudich., 107,
Hyptis capitata Jacq., 49. .
Hysteria veratrifolia Reinw., 174.
Hystrix frutex Rumph., 472.
I
Icacinaceae, 3385.
Ichnocarpus R. Br., 433.
acuminatus F.-Vill., 48.
macrocarpus F.-Vill., 48.
velutinus F.-Vill., 48.
Ichthyoctonos litorea Rumph., 328.
litorea silvestris latifolia Rumph., 370.
montana Rumph., 369.
Iguanura, 120.
Illecebrum sanguinolentum Linn., 214.
sessile Linn., 215.
Ilysanthes antipoda (Linn.) Merr., 467.
veronicaefolia Urban, 467.
Impatiens balsamina Linn., 340.
coccinea Sims, 341.
Imperata cylindrica Beauv., 85.
eylindrica (Linn.) Beauv., var. koenigii
(Retz.) Benth., 85.
Indicum Rumph., 264.
brasilianum Rumph., 264.
silvestre Rumph., 264.
silvestre e Madagascar Rumph., 264.
Indigofera anil Linn., 264.
anil Linn., var. orthocarpa DC., 264.
linifolia Retz., var. angustissima Mia., 264.
suffruticosa Mill., 264.
tinctoria Linn., 264.
tinctoria Linn., var. brachycarpa DC., 264.
tinctoria Linn., var. macrocarpa DC., 264.
Inga clypearia Jack, 248.
saponaria Willd., 249.
Inhame St. Thome Rumph., 146.
Inocarpus edulis Forst., 2738.
Intsia amboinensis DC., 255.
bijuga (Colebr.) O. Kuntze, 48, 255.
Involucaria palmata Roem., 496.
trifoliata Roem., 494.
Involucrum Rumph., 148.
cusci Rumph., 392.
Ipo toxicaria Pers., 192.
Ipomoea aquatica Forsk., 444.
batatas Poir., 442.
batatas (Linn.) Poir., 4438.
beladamboe R. & S., 445.
bifida Roth, 440.
campanulata Linn., 448.
choisyana W. F. Wight, 445. 4
congesta R. Br., 47, 445. :
cymosa R. & S., 440.
denticulata Choisy, 444.
indica Merr., 47.
indica (Burm.) Merr., 445.
gracilis R. Br., 445.
INDEX
Ipomoea—Continued.
littoralis Blume, 445.
mammosa Choisy, 448.
nil Roth., 445.
peltata Choisy, 441.
peltata Choisy, var. nigricans Hassk., 446.
pes-caprae (Linn.) Roth, 444.
quamoclit Linn., 446.
reptans (Linn.) Poir., 444.
rugosa Choisy, 445.
rumphii Miq., 442, 446.
Irina glabra Blume, 339.
Ischaemum involutum Forst., 92.
timorense Kunth, 87 91.
Isora corylifolia Schott & Endl.,
Itelpou Rumph., 133.
Ixora chinensis Lam., 487.
coccinea Linn., 487.
tncarnata Roxb., 487.
fulgens Roxb., 487.
lanceolata Lam., 487.
longiflora Sm., 488.
macrothyrsa Teysm. & Binn., 488.
stricta Roxb., 487.
J
Jacquemontia paniculata Hallier f., 46.
Jagera serrata (Roxb.) Radlk., 339.
speciosa Blume, 339.
Jambolana Rumph., 394.
Jambolifera odorata Lour., 399.
pedunculata Linn., 394.
resinosa Lour., 245.
Jambosa alba Blume, 397.
aquea DC., 3938, 398.
aquea Rumph., 393.
aquea altera Rumph., 393.
bifaria Wight, 399.
celebica Blume, 397.
ceramica Rumph., 394.
363.
domestica Blume, 398.
domestica Rumph., 398.
domestica calapparia Rumph., 898.
domestica rosacea Rumph., 398.
domestica II minor Rumph., 398.
linearis Korth., 397.
litorea Rumph., 395.
malaccensis DC., 398.
melastomifolia Blume, 398.
nigra Rumph., 398.
purpurascens DC., 398.
rosacea Rumph., 397.
silvestris alba Rumph., 397, 400.
silvestris ayer utan Kumph., 397.
silvestris s. biawas Rumph., 397.
silvestris parvifolia Rumph., 395.
vulgaris DC., 397.
Jamtsja Rumph., 505.
Jasminum bifarium Wall., 422.
litoreum Rumph., 422, 455.
sambac (Linn.) Ait., 422.
Jatropha curcas Linn., 324.
manihot Linn., 324.
moluccana Linn., 200, 324.
Jatus Rumph., 450.
o10
Juglans camirium Lour., 324.
catappa Lour., 390.
Jussiaea purpurea Linn., 476.
angustifolia Lam., 406.
erecta Linn., 406.
suffruticosa Linn., 406.
Justicia bivalvis Linn., 474, 476.
ecbolium Linn., 475.
gendarussa Burm. f., 478.
gendarussa Linn. f., 478.
moretiana Burm, f., 472.
nasuta Linn., 477.
picta Linn., 474.
purpurea Linn., 474, 476.
roxburghiana R. & S., 477.
tinctoria Roxb., 476.
K
Kaempferia galanga Linn., 161.
pandurata Roxb., 162.
rotunda Linn., 162.
Kaju sarassa Rumph., 401.
Kalanchoe laciniata (Linn.) DC., 2438.
Kaly articulatum Rumph., 211.
Kanilia caryophylloides Blume, 388.
Karivia javanica Migq., 491.
Keratophorus leerii Hassk., 416.
Khi Rumph., 420.
Kleinhovia hospita Linn., 363.
Knema angustifolia Warb., 232.
cinerea Warb., 231.
glauca Warb., 282.
globularia Warb., 232.
misstonis Warb., 232.
tomentella Warb., 232.
Korthalsia, 117.
Kowackil Rumph., 507.
Kraunhia, 275.
Kyllinga brevifolia Rottb., 103.
monocephala Roitb., 103.
L
Labiatae, 456.
Lablab cultratus DC., 287.
microcarpus DC., 280.
perennans DC., 286.
vulgaris Savi, 281, 286.
Labrusca molucca Rumph., 342.
Lacca herba Rumph., 340.
lignum Rumph., 270.
lignum e Java Rumph., 270.
lignum femina Rumph., 270.
lignum ruffum Rumph., 270.
Lachryma jobi indica Rumph., 84.
Lactaria salubris Rumph., 4381.
salubris Rafin., 431.
Lagansa alba Rumph., 240.
rubra Rumph., 241.
Lagenaria hispida Ser., 495.
leucantha (Duch.) Rusby, 493.
vulgaris Ser., 493.
Lagerstroemia chinensis Lam., 382.
chinensis Linn., 48, 381.
indica Linn., 48, 381.
576 | INDEX
Lagondium litoreum Rumph., 458.
nigrum Rumph., 453. .
vulgare Rumph., 453.
Lagurus paniculatus Linn., 48, 86.
Laharus Rumph., 481.
femina Rumph., 482.
lapideus Rumph., 482.
mixta Rumph., 482.
Lamprocarya rawacensis Kunth, 106.
Lampujum majus domesticum Rumph., 152.
minus Rumph., 152.
silvestre minus Rumph., 152, 162.
Lanius Rumph., 299.
Lansium Rumph., 309.
domesticum Correa, 48, 309.
montanum Rumph., 311.
silvestre Roem., 310.
silvestre Rumph., 310.
Lapathum hortense Rumph., 210.
Laportea amplissima (Blume) Migq., 200.
crenulata Gaudich., 200.
decumana (Roxb.) Wedd., 201.
stimulans Miq., 201.
Lappago amboinica Rumph., 354, 357.
amboinica sylvestris Rumph., 354.
laciniata Rumph., 464.
Lasianthus Adans., 368.
Lau lassi Rumph., 334.
Lauraceae, 232.
Lauraster amboinensis maxima Rumph., 2388.
Laurus camphora Linn., 238.
culilaban Linn., 232.
culitlawan Linn., 2382.
indica Linn., 234.
japanica Rumph., 238.
malabathrum Burm. f., 233.
soncaurium Ham., 238.
Lawsonia alba Lam., 382.
faleata Lour., 464.
inermis Linn., 382, 477.
spinosa Linn., 382.
Lecythidaceae, 384.
Leea aculeata Blume, 347.
aculeata Blume, var. moluccana Miq., 347
aequata Linn., 346.
sambucina Willd., 346.
serrulata Miq., 347.
spinosa Spreng., 347.
Legnotis lanceolata Blanco, 48.
Leguminosae, 248.
Leleba alba Rumph., 98.
amahussana Rumph., 98.
lineata Rumph., 98.
nigra Rumph., 98.
prava Rumph., 98.
rumphiana Kurz, 98.
Lemnaceae, 133.
Lemna minor Linn., 138.
Lens palustris Rumph., 138.
phaseoloides Linn., 253.
Lentinus djamor Fries, 57.
sajor caju Fries, 56.
tuber regium Fries, 57.
Leontopetaloides Boehm., 144.
Leonurus indicus Linn., 457.
Lepidagathis javanica Blume, 473.
mucronata Nees, 473.
parviflora Blume, 473.
rumphii Merr., 473.
Lepiniopsis ternatensis Valet., 426, 507.
philippinensis Elm., 427.
Lepironia macrocephala Miq., 107.
Lepisanthes Blume, 337.
pallens Radlk., 337.
Leptospermum amboinense Blume, 402.
flavescens Smith, 402. |
porophyllum Cav., 402.
thea Willd., 402.
virgatum Forst., 402.
Leucas lavandulifolia Sm., 457.
linifolia Spreng., 457.
zeylanica (Linn.) R. Br., 457.
Leucojum capitulatum Lour., 142.
Levisticum indicum Rumph., 411.
Lichenes, 62.
Lichen capillaris Burm. f., 62.
rocella Lour., 54.
usnea Linn., 62.
Licuala arbor Rumph., 110.
bissula Miq., 111.
pilearia Blume, 111.
rumphii Blume, 110, 111.
rotundifolia Blume, 111.
spinosa Wurmb., 110.
Lignum aquatile Rumph., 204.
clavorum Rumph., 418.
colubrinum timorense Rumph., 423.
corneum Rumph., 374.
emanum Rumph., 75.
equinum Rumph., 469.
eurinum Rumph., 417.
leve alterum Rumph., 234,
leve angustifolium Rumph., 235.
leve latifoliwum Rumph., 235.
momentaneum Rumph., 348, 352.
moschatum Rumph., 504.
murinum majus Rumph., 250. °
murinum minus Rumph., 250.
murinum parvifolium Rumph., 250.
muscosum parvifolium Rumph., 369.
muscosum s. Caju lapia Rumph., 368.
papuanum Rumph., 245.
papuanum III Rumph., 208.
salis minus Rumph., 506.
sappan Rumph., 259.
scholare Rumph., 427.
tsjidji Rumph., 504.
vinosum Rumph., 510.
Ligularia lactea Rumph., 328.
lactea e Java, 329.
minor Rumph., 328.
Ligusticum acutilobum S. & Z., 411.
ajowan Roxb., 411.
striatum Roxb., 411.
Liliaceae, 136.
Lilium indicum Rumph., 143.
Limatodes grata Miq., 171.
Limnanthemum indicum (Linn.) Griseb, 219,
424,
Limo agrestis Rumph., 297.
decumanus Rumph., 296.
Limo—Continued.
ferus Rumph., 297.
taurinus Rumph., 297.
tuberosus Rumph., 297.
unguentarius Rumph., 297.
ventricosus Rumph., 298.
Limodorum ventricosum Steud., 170.
veratrifolium Willd., 170.
Limonellus Rumph., 296.
angulosus Rumph., 295.
aurarius Rumph., 298.
funicularis montanus Rumph., 216, 217.
litoreus Rumph., 508.
madurensis Rumph., 294. .
Limonia acidissima Houtt., 296.
acidissima Linn., 298, 504.
angulosa W. & A., 295.
aurantifolia Christm., 296.
spinosa Spreng., 294.
Limnophila aromatica (Lam.) Merr., 466.
balsamea Benth., 466.
chinensis Merr., 47.
conferta Benth., 466.
hirsuta Benth., 47.
punctata Blume, 466.
roxburghit G. Don, 466.
rugosa (Roth) Merr., 466.
Lindsaya, 67.
Lindernia crustacea (Linn.) F.-Muell., 468.
Lingoum album Rumph., 270.
rubrum Rumph., 270.
saxatile Rumph., 270.
Linkeng Rumph., 338.
Liparis amboinensis J. J. Sm., 172.
confusa J. J. Sm., var. amboinensis J. J.
Sm., 172.
treubii J. J. Sm., 172.
Liquidamber altingia Bl., 245.
Lire kitsjil Rumph., 471.
papua Rumph., 471.
Liriodendron liliifera Linn., 224.
Livistona bissula Mart., 111.
cochinchinensis Blume, 111.
rotundifolia (Lam.) Mart., 111.
Lithospermum amboinicum Rumph., 84.
Litsea ambigua Nees, 236.
cassiaefolia Blume, 237.
chinensis Lam., 235.
forsteniit Boerl., 235.
fulva F.-Vill., 235.
glabraria Pers., 235.
glutinosa C. B. Rob., 235.
luzonica F.-Vill., 235.
rumphii (Blume) F.-Vill., 234.
sebifera Pers., 235.
stickmanii Merr., 235.
tersa Merr., 235.
triplinervia Blume, 237.
Lobelia frutescens Mill., 496.
plumierit Linn., 496.
taccada Gaertn., 496.
Lobus litoralis Rumph., 277.
machaeroides Rumph., 281.
quadrangularis: Rumph., 286.
Locandi Adans., 299.
144971——37
INDEX
Lodoicea callipyge Comm., 112.
maldivica (Gmel.) Pers., 112.
seychellarum Labill., 112.
Loganiaceae, 423.
Lomaria scandens Willd., 66.
Lomba Rumph., 184.
Lonchitis amara Rumph., 73.
amboinica Rumph., 66.
amboinica recta Rumph., 64.
amboinica recta I major alba Rumph., 73.
amboinica recta I major rubra Rumph., 66.
amboinica recta II minor Rumph., 73.
amboinica volubilis Rumph., 66.
muscosa Rumph., 73.
pilosa Rumph., 78.
saguaria Rumph., 73.
Lontaro simile lignum Rumph., 234.
Lontarus domestica Gaertn., 112.
domestica Rumph., 112.
silvestris Rumph., 110.
silvestris altera s. thur Rumph., 112.
silvestris s. cabang Rumph., 110.
silvestris s. yhur e Philippin. Rumph., 110.
Loranthaceae, 205.
Loranthus evenius Blume, 207.
indicus Desr., 206.
macrophyllus Korth., 206.
rumphii Merr., 205.
Ludia foetida Roxb., 378.
Luffa acutangula (Linn.) Roxb., 491.
cylindrica (Linn.) Roem., 491.
pentandra Roxb., 492.
petola Ser., 491.
sylvestris Miq., 491.
Luisia confusa Rchb. f., 178, 550.
teretifolia Blume, 178.
teretifolia Gaudich., 178.
Lussa radja Rumph., 299.
Lycoperdon Tournefort, 60.
glomeratum Lour., 61.
Lycopersicum esculentum Mill., 465.
Lycopodiaceae, 71.
Lycopodioides Boehm., 72.
Lycopodium canaliculatum Linn., 71.
caudatum Desv., 72.
eernuum Linn., 71.
dichotomum Sw., 72.
fruticulosum Blume, 72.
nummularifolium Blume, 72.
phlegmaria Linn., 72.
phlegmarioides Spring., 72.
planum Desv., 72.
Lygodium circinnatum (Burm. f.) Sw., 69.
microphyllum R. Br., 70.
scandens (Linn.) Sw., 70.
Lythraceae, 381.
Lythrum pemphis Linn. f., 382.
M
Maba buxifolia (Rottb.) Pers., 419.
ebenus Spreng., 419.
elliptica Forst., 419.
madagascariensis A. DC., 419.
| Macanea arborea Blanco, 48.
od
5718
Macaranga glabra Pax & Hoffm., $21.
grandifolia Merr., 29, 320.
hispida (Blume) Muell.-Arg., 320.
involucrata (Roxb.) Baill., 321.
mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg., 29, 319.
porteana André, 29, 320.
tanarius (Linn.) Muell.-Arg., 320.
Maccabuhay Rumph., 179, 221.
Machilus Nees, 234.
I mas Rumph., 236.
II femina Rumph., 236.
III media Rumph., 234.
IV minima Rumph., 234.
angustifolia Rumph., 237.
odoratissima Nees, 2384.
peduncularis Nees, 234.
Macklottia amboinensis Korth., 402.
Maclura amboinensis Blume, 189.
Macodes petola Lindl., 169. ;
Macrolobium amboinense Teysm., 48, 255.
bijugum Colebr., 255.
Macropiper reinwardtianum Mia., 182.
Macropteris, 262.
Macrosolen evenius Miq., 207.
macrophyllus Miq., 206.
Macuerus femina Rumph., 470.
mas Rumph., 202.
Madorius Rumph., 435.
II albifloris Rumph., 4365.
Maesa amboinensis Scheff., 412.
tetrandra (Roxb.) A. DC., 412.
Magnoliaceae, 223.
Magnolia inodora DC., 224.
pumila Andr., 224.
Majana alba et rubra Rumph.,
aurea Rumph., 460.
foetida Rumph., 458.
Malaparius Rumph., 271.
flavus Mia., 272.
e Nussanive Rumph., 271.
Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg., 318.
tiliifolius (Blume) Muell.-Arg., 318.
Malopoenna Adans., 2384.
Malum aruanum Rumph.,
citritum Rumph., 297.
granatum Rumph., 384.
indicum Rumph., 841.
Malvaceae, 355.
460.
510.
Malvastrum coromandelianum Garcke, 357.
tricuspidatum A. Gray, 357.
Mamanira Rumph., 449.
alba Rumph., 448.
Mammea asiatica Linn., 384.
Mandihocca Rumph., 324.
Manga domestica Rumph., 330.
domestica minor Rumph., 331.
foetida Rumph., 329.
foetida II Rumph., 330.
silvestris Rumph., 330.
simiarum Rumph., 331.
Mangifera altissima Blanco, 330.
caesia Jack, 330.
foetida Lour., 329.
indica Linn., 330.
kemanga Blume, 330.
INDEX
Mangifera—Continued.
laurina Blume, 331.
laxiflora Desr., 506.
longipes Griff., 331.
membranacea Blume, 330.
minor Blume, 380.
monandra Merr., 3380.
odorata Griff., 330.
pinnata Linn. f., 332.
rumphii Pierre, 331.
silvestris altera Rumph., 331.
taipan Ham., 331.
utana Ham., 48, 330.
Mangium album Rumph., 456.
candelarium Rumph., 387.
caryophylloides Rumph., 388.
caryophylloides II, 387.
386.
caryophylloides III Rumph., 387.
caseolare album Rumph., 383.
caseolare rubrum Rumph., 383.
celsum Rumph., 388.
digitatum Rumph., 389.
ferreum femina Rumph., 382.
ferreum mas Rumph., 382, 414.
floridum Rumph., 414.
fruticans I corniculatum Rumph., 418.
fruticans II parvifolium Rumph., 414.
minus Rumph., 387, 388.
montanum Rumph., 251.
porcellanicum Rumph., 382.
silvestre Rumph., 506.
Mangostana Rumph., 374.
cambogia Gaertn., 373.
celebica Rumph., 373.
Manihot utilissima Pohl, 324.
Maoutia ambigua Wedd., 204.
Mapania macrocephala (Gaudich.) K. Seh.,
107.
Mappa hispida Blume, 320.
moluccama Spreng., 319.
tanarius Blume, © 320.
Marantaceae, 166.
Maranta arundinacea Linn.,
dichotoma Wall., 166.
galanga Linn., 153.
grandis Miq., 166.
malaccensis Burm. f., 155.
tonckat Aubl., 166.
Marasmius Fries, 57.
Marattiaceae, 71.
Marcorella Neck., 341.
Marignia acutifolia DC., 302. .
nitida Turcz., 47.
Marquatia globosa Hassk., 80.
166.
Marrubium album amboinense Rumph., 460.
459.
album semisilvestre Rumph., 460.
album amboinicum Rumph.,
Marsdenia angustifolia Wight, 436.
syringaefolia Decne., 435.
Martahul Rumph., 307.
Marumia, 508.
Massoia aromatica Becce., 238.
Massoy Rumph., 238.
caryophylloides II parvifolium Rumph.,
INDEX | 579
Mastocarpus klenzeanus Kiitz., 56. Merope angulata (Willd.) Swingle, 294.
Matricaria sinensis Rumph., 502.
Medinilla crassinervia Blume, 405.
cerispata (Linn.) Blume, 404.
lagunae Vidal, 48.
macrocarpa Blume, 405.
Meibomia gangetica O. Kuntze, 269.
triquetra O. Kuntze, 268.
umbellata O. Kuntze, 268.
Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb., 402.
leucadendra Linn., 48, 402.
minor Sm., 402.
saligna Blume, 402.
thea Wendl., 402.
trinervis Ham., 48, 402.
virgata Linn. f., 402.
viridiflora Blume, 402.
viridiflora Blume, var. angustifolia Blume,
402.
Melanolepis calcosa Mia., 318.
moluccana Pax & K. Hoffm., 318.
multiglandulosa (Reinw.) Reichb., 318.
Melanthesa cernura Decne., 314.
Melastomataceae, 4038, 508.
Melastoma asperum Linn., 403.
crispatum Linn., 404.
‘cyanoides Sm., 403.
lanaense Merr., 404.
malabathricum Linn., 403.
moluccanum Blume, 403.
octandrum Linn., 199, 404.
polyanthum Blume, 403.
septemnerve Lour., 404.
Meliaceae, 305.
Melia koetjape Burm, f., 308.
parasitica Osbeck, 48.
Melicope luzonensis Engl., 28.
triphylla Merr., 290.
Melissa lotoria Rumph., 458.
Melo Rumph., 493.
Meilocanna excelsa Roep., 100.
humilis Roep., 102.
Melochia indica A. Gray, 48.
umbellata Stapf, 48.
Melodorum latifolium (Dunal) Hook. f. &
Th., 228.
Melothria indica Lour., 490.
javanica (Miq.) Cogn., 491.
margimata Cogn., 491.
Menispermaceae, 219.
Menispermum carolinum Linn., 220.
cocculus Linn., 221.
crispum Linn., 220, 343.
flavescens Lam., 222.
flavum Linn., 222.
glaucum Lam., 219.
lacumosum Lam., 221.
tuberculatum Lam., 221.
Mentha arvensis Linn., 458.
auricularia Linn., 458.
cablin Blanco, 458.
crispa Rumph., 458.
foetida Burm. f., 458.
Menthastrum amboinicum Rumph., 466.
Menyanthes indica Linn., 424.
spinosa M. Roem., 295.
Merremia caespitosa Hallier f., 444.
mammosa Hallier f., 443.
nymphaeifolia Hallier f., 441.
peltata (Linm.) Merr., 441.
umbellata (Linn.) Hallier f., 440.
umbellata Hall. f., var. orientalis Hallier
fi 44T
Mertensia dichotoma Willd., 69.
Mespilus sylvestris Burm., 48, 377, 425.
Mesua ferrea Linn., 370. "
Meteorus coccineus Lour., 386.
Metrosideros amboinensis Rumph., 255.
macassarensis Rumph., 418.
molucca femina Rumph., 505.
molucca fungosa Rumph., 340, 505.
molucca mas Rumph., 378, 505.
spuria I mas Rumph., 191.
spuria II femina Rumph., 191.
vera Roxb., 400.
vera latifolia Rumph., 400.
vera parvifolia Rumph., 400.
Metroxylon elatum Mart., 114.
filare Mart., 114.
hermaphroditum Hassk., 114.
inerme Mart., 114.
laeve Mart., 114.
longispinum Mart., 113.
micracanthum Mart., 113.
rumphii Mart., 113.
sagu Rottb., 112, 114.
sagus Koenig, 112.
sagus Rottb., 114.
sylvestre Mart., 114.
Michelia alba DC., 223.
blumeit Steud., 223.
caerulea DC., 223.
champaca Blume, 223.
champaca Linn., 223.
euonymoides Burm. f., 224.
longifolia Blume, 228.
montana Blume, 224.
parviflora DC., 2238.
sericea Pers., 224.
suaveolens Pers., 223.
tsiampacca Linn., 224.
Micrococca mercurialis (Linn.) Benth., 317.
Microglossa volubilis DC., 500.
Milium zonatum Llanos, 48.
Millefolium aquaticum Rumph., 68.
Millettia sericea W. & A., 278.
Milnea montana Jack, 311.
Mimosa casta Linn., 252.
chinensis Osbeck, 49.
concinna Willd., 251.
dormiens HBK., 252.
entada Linn., 253.
humilis HBK., 252.
mangium Forst. f., 251.
procera Roxb., 250.
pudibunda Willd., 252.
pudica Linn., 252.
rugata Lam., 251.
saponaria Lour., 249.
580
Mimosa—Continued.
scandens Linn., 258.
simplicifolia’ Linn., var. mangium Poir.,
251. ;
trapezifolia Roxb., 248.
Mimusops elengi Linn., 417.
kauki Linn., 418. e
manilkara Don, 418.
obtusifolia Lam., 418.
parvifolia R. Br., 417.
Mirabilis Rumph., 215.
dichotoma Linn., 216.
jalapa Linn., 215.
Mirobalanus embilica Rumph.,
Miscanthus floridulus Warb., 86.
japonicus (Thunb.) Anders., 86, 95.
sinensis Anders., 85.
Mischocarpus fuscescens Blume, $84, 339.
Mischophloeus paniculata (Miq.) Scheff., 121,
122.
vestiaria (Giseke) Merr., 121.
Mitragyna parvifolia Korth., 482.
Momordica charantia Linn., 49, 495.
314,
cochinchinensis (Lour.) Spreng., 496.
cylindrica Linn., 491.
indica Linn., 49, 495.
luffa Linn., 491.
mondadelpha Roxb., 495.
trifolia Linn., 494.
trifoliata Linn., 494.
Monarda chinensis Osbeck, 49.
Monimia, 505.
Monochoria hastata Pres], 135.
sagittata Kunth, 135.
vaginalis (Burm. f.) Presl, 135.
vaginalis Presl, var. plantaginea Solms,
135.
Monocotyledons, 79.
Monosoma littorata Griff., 306.
Moraceae, 188.
Morella rubra Lour., 190.
Moretiana Rumph., 472.
Morfalla Rumph., 505.
Morinda angustifolia Roth., 490.
bracteata Roxb., 490.
bracteata Roxb., var. celebica Mig., 490.
citrifolia Linn., 490.
latifolia Rumph., 490.
umbellata Linn., 490.
Moringaceae, 241.
Moringa domestica Ham., 49, 241.
oleifera Lam., 49, 241.
polygona DC., 241.
pterygosperma Gaertn.,
zeylanica Willd., 241.
Morunga Rumph., 241.
femina Rumph., 241.
Morus alba Linn., 188.
indica Linn., 188.
indica Rumph., 188.
paniculata Roxb., 203.
Mucuna aterrima (Piper & Tracy) Merr., 279.
bennettii F.-Muell., 278.
capitata DC., 279.
gigantea (Willd:) DC.,
241.
277.
INDEX
Mucuna—Continued.
kraetkei Warb., 278.
miniata Merr., 278.
novo-guineénsis Scheff., 278.
pruriens (Linn.) DC., 49, 277.
utilis Wall, 280.
velutina Hassk., 280.
Mundo Rumph., 372.
Muntingia bartramia Linn., 49, 3862.
Muricia cochinchinensis Lour., 496.
Murraya exotica Linn., 292.
paniculata (Linn.) Jack, 49, 292.
scandens Hassk., 49, 292.
sumatrana Roxb., 292.
Musaceae, 149.
Musa acuminata Colla, 150.
alphurica Rumph., 149.
amboinensis Miq., 150.
bihat Linn., 150.
discolor Horan., 150.
domestica Rumph., 149.
paradisiaca Linn., 149.
paradisiaca lLinn., subsp.
(Linn.) O. Kuntze, 149.
rumphiana Kurz, 150.
silvestris amboinensis Rumph., 150.
silvestris mindanauensis Rumph., 150.
simiarum Miaq., 150.
simiarum Rumph.,
textilis Née, 150.
textilis Née, var. amboinensis Warb., 150.
troglodytarum Linn., 149.
uranoscopos Rumph., 149.
Muscus capillaris Rumph., 62.
frutiscescens femina Rumph., 72.
fruticescens mas Rumph., 72.
frutescens muscagineus Rumph., 62.
gelatinus japonnensis Rumph., 54.
Mussaenda dasyphylla Miq., 484.
forsteniana Miq., 484..
frondosa Linn., 485.
glabra Vahl, 485.
reinwardtiana Mia., 484.
Mussi Rumph., 412.
Myrica nagai Thunb.,
Myristicaceae, 229.
Myristica aromatica Lam., 229.
aruana Blume, 231.
canariformis Blume, 2380.
corticosa Hook. f., 282.
fatua Houtt., 230.
fragrans Houtt., 229.
globularia Lam., 282. _
macrophylla Roxb., 230.
malabarica Lam., 2380.
microcarpa Willd., 281.
moschata Thunb., 229.
officinalis Gaertn., 230.
oficinalis Linn., 229.
philippensis Lam., 2380.
pinnaeformis Miq., 230.
radja Miq., 230.
salicifolia Willd., 230.
spadicea Blume, 230.
speciosa Warb., 230.
sylvestris Houtt., 230.
sapientum
150.
190.
INDEX
Myristica—Continued.
tingens Blume, 231.
tomentosa Thunb., 230.
uviformis Lam., 231.
zippeliana Miq., 232.
Myrmecodia amboinensis Becce., 489.
inermis Gaudich., 489.
rumphii Becc., 489.
tuberosa Jack, 489.
Myrsinaceae, 412.
Myrtaceae, 391, 400, 508.
Myrtus amboinensis Rumph., 402.
communis Linn., 402.
cumini Linn., 394.
leucadendra Linn., 402.
malaccensis Spreng., 398.
saligna Burm. f., 402.
Myxopyrum macrolobum A. W. Hill, 422.
N
Nagassarium Rumph., 370.
Nageia Labill., 75.
Nanarium minimum s. oleosum Rumph., 303.
Nani Adans., 400.
Nanihua Rumph., 315.
Nania vera Miq., 400.
Nanium calapparitum Rumph., 510.
Nasturtium indicum (Linn.) DC.,
Nauclea Auct., 481.
Nauclea Linn., 482.
elegans Teysm. & Binn., 49, 484.
fagifolia Teysm. & Binn., 481.
lamosa Poir., 480.
longiflora Poir., 480.
macrophylla Roxb., 484.
mitragyna (Miq.,) Merr., 483.
moluccana Migq., 481.
orientalis Linn., 482.
parvifolia Roxb., 482.
purpurascens Korth., 482.
purpurea Roxb., 483.
subdita Merr., 483.
undulata Roxb., 47, 482.
Negretia pruriens Blanco, 49, 277.
Nelitris Gaertn., 486.
alba Blume, 392.
jambosella Gaertn., 392.
paniculata Lindl., 392.
polygama Spreng., 392.
rubra Blume, 392.
Nelumbium nelumbo (Linn.) Druce, 218.
speciosum Willd., 218.
Nelumbo javanica Poir., 218.
Neolitsea amboinensis Merr., 237.
cassiaefolia (Blume) Merr.,
triplinervia (Blume) Merr.,
Neonauclea calycina Merr., 482.
fagifolia Merr., 481.
moluccana (Migq.) Merr., 481.
purpurea Merr., 483.
Nepenthaceae, 242.
Nepenthes distillatoria Linn., 242.
maxima Reinw., 242.
mirabilis (Lour.) Merr., 242.
phyllamphora Willd., 242.
240.
237.
237.
d81
Nepeta indica Linn., 459.
malabarica Linn., 466.
Nephelium longana Cambess., 338.
Neriam pulli Rheede, 343.
Nerium coronarium Jacq., 429.
divaricatum Linn., 429.
indicum Mill., 483.
odorum Soland., 433.
oleander Linn., 433.
Nessatus Rumph., 482.
Neuburgia musculiformis (Lam.) Mia.,
tuberculata Blume, 425.
tubiflora Blume, 425.
Nicolaia hemisphaerica Horan., 159.
imperialis Horan., 159.
magnifica K. Schum., 159.
speciosa Horan., 159
Nicotiana tabacum Linn., 466.
Nidus germinans formicarium niger Rumph.,
488.
germinans formicarium ruber Rumph.,
489.
Nipa fruticans Wurmb, 124.
fruticans Thunb., 124.
Nothoholcus, 88.
Nothopanax anisum Miaq., 289.
cochleatum Miaq., 409.
fruticosum (Linn.) Migq., 410.
Ppinnatum (Lam.) Migq., 409.
scutellarium (Burm. f.) Merr.,
tricochleatum Miq., 49, 409.
Novella Rumph., 358.
cinerea Rumph., 191.
litorea Rumph., 360.
nigra Rumph., 447.
repens Rumph., 358.
rubra Rumph., 358.
Nugae silvarum litoreae et terrestres Rumph.,
261.
silvarum minimae Rumph., 251.
silvarum silvestris Rumph., 288.
Nummularia lactea major I fusca Rumph.,
438.
lactea major II alba Rumph., 439.
lactea major III (albo-purpurea) Rumph.,
439.
lactea minor Rumph., 4389.
lactea minor I minima Rumph., 436.
lactea minor II major., Rumph., 4387.
Nux juglans moluccana bifida Burm., 319.
myristica Rumph., 229.
myristica mas Rumph, 230.
Nyctaginaceae, 215.
Nyctanthes acuminata Burm. f., 429.
sambac Linn., 422.
Nymphaeaceae, 218.
Nymphaea indica II ceramica Rumph., 219.
indica major Rumph., 218.
indica minor I vulgaris Rumph., 219.
indica minor II ceramica Rumph., 424.
indica minor III buronica Rumph., 219.
lotus Linn., 219.
nelumbo Linn., 218.
pubescens Willd., 219.
stellata Willd., 219.
Nypa Rumph., 124.
425.
409.
582
Oo
Oberonia anceps Lindl. 49.
ancipita Naves, 49.
Ochrosia borbonica Gmel., 431.
elliptica Labill., 431.
oppositifolia (Lam.) K. Schum., 431.
salubris Blume, 481.
Ocimum africanum Lour., 461.
basilicum Linn., 460.
basilicum Linn., var. pilosum Benth., 460.
frutescens Linn., 460.
gratissimum Linn., 460.
menthoides Linn., 458.
minimum Linn., 461.
sanctum Linn., 461.
scutellaroides Linn., 460.
tenuiflorum Linn., 461.
Octomeles. moluccana Teysm. & Binn., 49, 378.
moluccana Warb., 378.
sumatrana Migq., 49, 378.
Oculus astaci Rumph., 344.
Oenotheraceae, 406.
Olacaceae, 209.
Oldenlandia repens Linn., 478.
verticillata Linn., 479.
Oleaceae, 422.
Oleander sinicus Rumph., 433.
sinicus II minor, 483.
Olus album Rumph., 216.
album insulare Rumph., 216.
calappoides Rumph., 74.
calappoides mas Rumph., 74.
calappoides II e Celebes Rumph., 74, 75.
caprinum Rumph., 476.
catappanicum Rumph., 507.
crepitans mas Rumph., 434.
crepitans I mas Rumph., 436.
crepitans II femina Rumph., 437.
crudum majus Rumph., 436.
crudum minus Rumph., 485.
palustre Rumph., 135.
palustre femina Rumph., 135.
sanguinis Rumph., 335.
scrofinum album Rumph., 497.
scrofinum luteum Rumph., 503.
scrofinum rubrum Rumph., 497.
squillarum Rumph., 215.
squillarum II minus Rumph., 215.
vagum Rumph., 444.
vespertilionis Rumph., 494.
Oncus esculentus Lour., 147.
Onoclea scandens Sw., 66.
Opa metrosideros Lour., 400.
Operculina turpethum (Linn.) S. Manso, 442.
Ophiocolla altera Rumph., 475, 509.
Ophioderma pendula Presl, 70.
Ophioglossaceae, 70.
Ophioglossum circinnatum Burm. f., 69.
cordifolium Roxb., 70.
flexuosum Linn., 69.
laciniatum Rumph., 71.
moluccanum Schlecht., 71.
pedunculosum Desv., 70.
pendulum Linn., 70.
scandens Linn., 70.
INDEX
Ophioglossum—Continued.
simplex Rumph.,. 70.
vulgatum Linn., 70.
Ophiorrhiza mungos Linn., 481.
Ophioxylon album Gaertn., 481.
majus Hassk., 481.
serpentinum Linn., 300, 430.
trifoliatum Gaertn., 431.
Oplismenus burmannii Beauv., 91.
compositus (Linn.) Beauv., 91.
Opuntia Tourn., 380.
Opuntia dillentti Haw., 380.
Orchidaceae, 168, 548.
Orchis amboinica major
Rumph., 172.
amboinica major II Rumph., 142.
amboinica minor Rumph., 169.
amboinica minor altera Rumph., 169.
gigantea Sm., 169.
lanmigera Blanco, 49.
susannae Linn., 168.
triplicata Willem., 170.
Oreocnide major Miq., 204.
rubescens (Blume) Migq., 204.
silvatica Migq., 204.
Ormocarpum cochinchinense Merr., 266.
glabrum Teysm. & Binn., 266.
orientale (Spreng.) lmerr., 266.
sennoides DC., 267.
Ormosia calavensis Azaola, 262.
Orontium cochinchinense Lour., 126.
Oryza communissima Lour., 93.
glutinosa Lour., 93.
glutinosa Rumph., 93.
montana Lour., 93.
praecox Lour., 93.
sativa Linn., 93.
vulgaris Rumph., 93.
Osmelia philippica F.-Vill., 49.
philippinensis Benth., 49.
Osmoxylon amboinense Miq., 406.
miquelii Boerl., 406.
moluccanum Becc., 407.
umbelliferum (Lam.) Merr., 406, 505.
zippelianum Becc., 407.
Osmunda coronaria Koenig, 68.
zeylanica Linn., 71.
Ossifraga lactea Rumph., 329.
Otanthera cyanoides (Sm.) Triana, 403.
moluccana Blume, 403.
Otonychium, 244. .
radice digitatr
t
| Ourouparia Aubl., 479.
Outea bijuga DC., 255.
Ova piscitum Rumph., 85.
Oxalidaceae, 287.
Oxalis corniculata Linn., 288.
reinwardtii Zucc., 288.
repens Thunb., 288.
sensitiva Linn., 288.
Oxyacantha javana Rumph., 425.
Oxycarpus cochinchinensis Lour., 372.
Ozys lutea indica Rumph., 288.
Oxystelma bifidum Llanos, 50.
Ozimum citratum indicum Rumph., 461.
INDEX
P
Pachyma cocos Fries, 62.
hoelen Fries, 61.
tuber regium Fries, 57, 61.
Pachyrrhizus angulatus Rich., 285.
bulbosus Kurz, 285.
erosus (Linn.) Urban, 285.
Paederia amboinensis Miq., 489.
foetida Linn., 489.
tomentosa Blume, 489.
Pagapate Sonn., 383.
Pahudia rhomboidea Prain, 46.
Pala radja Rumph., 230.
Palacca Rumph., 378.
Palala aruana Rumph., 231.
quarta Rumph., 230, 232.
secunda Rumph., 230.
sexta Rumph., 2382.
tertia Rumph., 281.
Palaquium amboinense Burck, 415.
Palmae, 109.
Palma indica nucifera major s.
Rumph., 123.
indica vinaria II Rumph., 119.
Palmifiix alba Rumph., 63.
nigra Rumph., 68.
postium Rumph., 64.
Palmijuncus acidus Rumph., 117.
albus Rumph., 115.
albus graminosus Rumph., 115.
aracanicus Rumph., 117.
calapparius Rumph., 117.
draco Rumph., 118.
draco e Bantam Rumph., 118.
equestris Rumph., 116.
equestris s. rottang cawa Rumph., 116.
laevis Rumph., 133.
niger Rumph., 118.
palimbanicus Rumph., 118.
verus Rumph., 116.
verus angustifolius Rumph., 115.
verus latifolius Rumph., 116.
viminalis Rumph., 116.
viminalis s. ua huay Rumph., 117.
Panax anisum DC., 289.
cochleatum DC., 409.
fruticosum Linn., 410.
ginseng C. A. Mey., 410.
pinnatum Lam., 409.
rumphit Hassk., 49, 409.
scutellarioides Reinw., 409.
secundum Schultes, 409.
Pancrattum amboinense Linn., 142.
narbonense Linn., 49, 142.
zeylanicum Linn., 143.
Pandanaceae, 79.
Pandanophyllum palustre Hassk., 107.
Pandanus amboinensis Warb., 82, 88,
bagea Migq., 82.
baggea maritimum Rumph., 82.
candelabrum Beauv., 80.
caricosus Spreng., 107.
caricosus Kurz, 107.
caricosus Rumph., 107.
ceramicus Kunth, 81.
calappa
D389
Pandanus—Continued.
ceramicus Kunth, var. sylvestris Kunth,
82.
ceramicus Rumph., 81.
conoideus Lam., 81.
dubius Spreng., 81.
erigens Thouars, 82.
fascicularis Lam., 80.
funicularis Rumph., 83.
funicularis Savigny, 83.
hasskarlii Merr., 80.
humilis Lour., 79.
humilis Rumph., 79.
kurzii Merr., 107.
laevis Kunth, 81.
laevis Lour., 81.
latifolius Hassk., 80.
latifolius Rumph., 80.
montanus Bory, 82.
montanus Miq., 82.
montanus (silvestris I) Rumph., 82.
moschatus Migq., 81.
moschatus Rumph., 81.
odoratissimus Linn., 81.
polycephalus Lam., 79.
repens Miaq., 80.
repens Rumph., 80.
robinsonii Merr., 79.
rumphii Warb., 82.
sabotan Blanco, 80.
silvestris (terrestris II) Rumph., 82.
spurius Mart., 80.
spurius Rumph., 79.
sylvestris Miq., 82, 838.
tectorius Soland., 80, 81, 82.
tectorius Soland., var. laevis Warb., 81.
tectorius Soland., var. moschatus (Miq.)
Merr., 81.
terrestris Warb., 82, 88.
utilis Bory., 80.
verus Rumph., 81.
Pandorea Spach., 469.
Pangel boaja Rumph., 510.
Pangium Rumph., 376.
edule Reinw., 376.
Panicum bromoides Lam., 91.
colonum Linn., 87, 91.
compositum Linn., 91.
dactylon Linn., 93.
flavum Nees, 91, 92.
gramineum Rumph., 94.
indicum Rumph., 92..
indicum s. botton Rumph., 84.
italicum Linn., 92.
limnaeum Steud., 90.
molle Sw., 90.
mnepalense Spreng., 91.
palmaefolium Koenig, 91.
patens Burm., f., 91.
patens Linn., 91.
philippinum F.-Vill., 49.
polystachion Linn., 89, 91.
prostratum Lam., 90.
repens Linn., 49.
reptans Linn., 90.
584
Panicum—Continued.
sanguinale Linn., 90.
stagninum Retz., 90.
tuberosum Llanos, 49.
vulpinum Linn., 49, 91.
Papaja litorea Rumph., 408.
mas et femina Rumph., 378.
silvestris Rumph., 408.
silvestris minor Rumph., 339.
Papaya vulgaris Lam., 378.
Papeda rumphii Hassk., 298.
Parameria barbata (Blume) K. Schum., 432.
glandulifera Benth., 432.
philippinensis Radlk., 482.
vulneraria Radlk., 482.
Paramignya angulata Kurz, 295.
longispina Hook f., 295.
Paratropia cumingiana Pres, 49.
longifolia DC., 408.
macrostachya Miq., 408.
nodosa DC., 408.
Parens muscarum Rumph., 421.
Parietaria indica Linn., 202, 479.
zeylanica Linn., 202.
Parinarium currant Merr., 247.
ellipticum T. & B., 247.
glaberrimum Hassk., 247.
laurinum A. Gray, 247.
macrophyllum T. & B., 247.
mindanaense Perk., 247.
racemosum Merr., 247.
scabrum Hassk., 247.
Paritium tiliaceum A. St. Hil., 358.
Parkeriaceae, 68.
Parkia speciosa Hassk., 253.
Parkinsonia orientalis Spreng., 266.
Parrana miniata Rumph., 278.
rubra Rumph., 280.
Parsonsia barbata Blume, 432.
Pauw Rumph., 331.
Pavetta amboinica Blume, 488.
indica Linn., 487.
longiflora Sm., 488.
stricta Blume, 487.
Payena leerii (Teysm. & Binn.) Kurz, 48, 415,
416.
Pedaliaceae, 469.
Pedicellaria Schrank, 241.
Pellionia sinuata (Blume) Boerl., 202.
Peltophorum, 255.
Pemphis acidula Forst., 382, 414.
Pentapetes phoenicea Linn., 362.
Peperidia subpeltata Kostel., 185.
Peperomia subpeltata Dietr., 185.
Pepo indicus Burm., 49, 494.
indicus Rumph., 494.
Peponaster major Rumph., 210.
minor Rumph.,. 209.
Pergularia angustifolia Dietr., 436.
glabra Linn., 434.
odoratissima Sm., 440.
Pericampylus glaucus (Lam.) Merr., 219.
incanus Miers, 219.
Periploca mauritiana Poir.. 440.
mauritianum Poir., 433.
INDEX
Peristrophe bivalvis (Linn.) Merr., 474, 476.
tinctoria Nees, 476.
tinctoria Nees, var. concolor Hassk., 477.
tinctoria Nees, var. rubrinervis Hassk.,
A477.
Peristylus Blume, 169.
gracilis Blume, 49.
Perlarius I Rumph., 203.
I latifolius Rumph., 204.
II Rumph., 412.
Ill silvestris Rumph., 413.
Perotis latifolia Ait., 85.
Perrottetia moluccana (Blume) Loesen., 335,
507. ;
Persea peduncularis Nees, 234,
Perticaria ferrea latifolia Rumph., 400.
ferrea parvifolia Rumph., 400.
tertia Rumph., 354.
tertia latifolia Rumph., 354.
Pes equinus Rumph., 411.
Petasites agrestis Rumph., 455.
amboinensis Rumph., 456._
Petesia nitida Bartl., 50.
ternifolia Bartl., 50.
Petola anguina Rumph., 494.
bengalensis Rumph., 491.
stlvestris Rumph., 491.
tschina Rumph., 491.
Petraeovitex multiflora (Sm.) Merr., 453.
riedelit Oliver, 453.
Petrea multiflora Sm., 453.
Peziza auricula Lour., 60.
Phacelophrynium interruptum K. Schum., 167.
robinsonii Val., 151, 166.
Phaeomeria magnifica Lindl., 159.
Phaeophyceae, 55.
Phajus amboinensis Blume, 170, 172.
gratus Blume, 171.
rumphii Blume, 171.
zolingeri Rehb., 170.
Phalaenopsis amabilis (Linn.) Blume, 177,
178, 550.
grandiflora Lindl., 177.
violacea T. & B., 178.
Phallus daemonum Fries, 61,
daemonum Rumph., 61.
impudicus Linn., 61.
Phanera coccinea Lour., 256.
lingua Migq., 256.
Pharmacum limonicum Rumph., 375.
magnum marinum Rumph., 185.
magnum parvifolium Rumph., 185.
magnum vulgare Rumph., 183.
papetarium Rumph., 405.
sagueri legitimum Rumph., 374.
Phaseolus adhaerens Rumph., 269.
antillanus Urban, 285.
aureus Roxb., 282, 283.
balicus Rumph., 282.
ecalearatus Roxb., 283.
cylindraceus Rumph., 283.
cylindricus Linn., 49, 284.
marinus Burm., 285.
maritimus Rumph., 285.
maz Linn., 274, 283.
Oe
Phaseolus—Continued.
minimus Rumph., 282, 288.
minimus silvestris Rumph., 282.
minor Rumph., 284.
montanus Rumph., 267.
montanus alter Rumph., 265.
montanus I Rumph., 264.
montanus III Rumph., 263.
montanus IV Rumph., 268.
montanus VI, VII Rumph., 268.
montanus VIII Rumph., 269.
mungo Auctt., 283.
mungo Linn., 288.
pilosus Klein, 280.
radiatus Auctt., 283.
radiatus Linn., 275.
scriptus Rumph., 283.
sublobatus Roxb., 283.
unguiculatus Auctt., 284.
vulgaris Linn., 283.
Phlomis zeylanica Linn., 457.
Phoberos chinensis Lour., 426.
Phoebe, 234.
Phoenix amboinica montana Rumph., 88.
Pholidocarpus ihur (Giseke) Blume, 49, 112.
rumphii Meisn., 49, 112.
Phragmites karka Trin., 95.
vulgaris (Lam.) Trin., 95.
Phrynium capitatum Willd., 148.
dichotomum Roxb., 166.
giganteum Scheff., 167.
Phyllamphora mirabilis Lour., 242.
Phyllanthus acidissimus Muell.-Arg., 314.
acidus Skeels, 314.
ceramicus Pers., 208.
cernuus Poir., 314.
cheramela Roxb., 314.
cicca Muell.-Arg., 314.
distichus Muell.-Arg., 314.
emblica Linn., 314.
epiphyllanthus Linn., 208.
niruri Linn., 313. é
urinaria Linn., 313.
Phyllaurea Lour., 325.
Phyllitis amboinica I arborea Rumph., 65.
amboinica II terrestris Rumph., 65.
amboinica III Rumph., 66.
Phyllodes placentaria Lour., 143.
Phyllorchis Thou., 177.
Phyllorkis Thou., 177.
Physalis alkekengi Linn., 462.
angulata Linn., 461.
indica Lam., 462.
minima Linn., 462.
pubescens Linn., 462.
Phytolacca ? javanica Osbeck, 49.
Picria fel-terrae Lour., 467.
Pigafettia elata (Reinw.) H. Wendl., 114.
filaris Becc., 114.
filifera (Giseke) Merr., 114.
Pigmentaria Rumph., 376.
Pilosella amboinica Rumph., 504.
Pimela acutifolia Blume, 302.
alba Lour., 304.
earyophyllacea Blume, 305.
INDEX
Pimela—Continued.
decumana Blume, 300.
glabra Blume, 301.
hirsuta Blume, 302.
legittma Blume, 300.
nigra Lour., 3038, 304.
oleosa Lour., 303.
paucijuga Blume, 305.
Pimelandra disticha F.-Vill., 49.
Pimeleodendron amboinicum Hassk., 327.
Pina hui huitzli Rumph., 252.
Pinalia Buch.-Ham., 176.
Pinanga Rumph., 123.
alba Rumph., 123.
calapparia Rumph., 121, 123.
globulifera Lam., 122.
kuhlit Blume, 122.
nigra Rumph., 128.
punicea (Blume) Merr., 122.
silvestris e Buro Rumph., 121.
silvestris glandiformis II Rumph.,
123.
silvestris globosa Rumph., 119.
silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph., 122.
silvestris saxatilis Rumph., 121.
ternatensis Scheff., 122.
Pinaceae, 76.
Pinus abies Lour., 76.
dammara Lamb., 76.
Piperaceae, 180.
Piper album Vahl., 182, 185.
album et nigrum Rumph., 184.
amalago Linn., 183.
amboinense (Miq.) C. DC., 182.
arborescens Roxb., 180.
arcuatum Blume, 185.
argyrophyllum Miq., 185.
betle Linn., 182.
betle I alba Rumph., 182.
betle II cambing Rumph., 182.
betle III fragrans Rumph., 182.
D80
122,
betle Linn., var. siriboa (Linn.) C. DC.,
182.
cubeba Roxb., 181.
caducibracteum C. DC., 183.
caninum Rumph., 181.
caninum Blume,
DC., 181.
chaba Hunter, 183.
decumanum Linn., 180, 181.
diffusum Vahl, 185.
forstentti C. DC., 180, 181.
longum Rumph., 183.
longum e Philippinis Rumph., 183.
longum Linn., 182.
majusculum Blume, 181.
malamiris Linn., 181, 182, 184, 186.
methysticum Forst., 181.
miniatum Blume, 180.
nigrum Linn., 184.
officinarum C. DC., 183.
peliatum Linn., 184.
plantagineum Lam., 188.
reinwardtianum Migq., 128.
retrofractum Vahl, 183.
var. glabribracteum C.
D836
Piper—Continued.
sarmentosum Roxb., 185.
siriboa Linn., 182.
stirium C. DC., 184.
subpeltatum Willd., 184.
sylvestre Lour., 181.
umbellatum Linn., 185.
Pipturus argenteus (Forst.) Wedd., 2038, 204.
incanus Wedd., 203.
paniculatus Miaq., 203.
repandus (Blume) Wedd., 203.
velutinus Wedd., 203.
Pisonia aculeata Linn., 216.
alba Spanoghe, 216.
buxifolia Rottb., 419.
cauliflora Scheff., 216.
grandis R. Br., 216.
limonella Blume, 217.
morindaefolia R. Br., 216.
sylvestris Teysm. & Binn., 216.
Pistacia oleosa Lour., 337, 338.
Pistacio-vitex Linn., 310.
Pistia minor Blume, 1382.
stratiotes Linn., 132.
Pithecolobium clypearia (Jack) Benth., 248.
Pittosporaceae, 243.
Pittosporum ferrugineum Ait., var. filarium
DC., 243.
moluccanum (Lam.) Migq., 243.
rumphu Putterl., 243.
Placus Lour., 498.
Plagiostachys, 156.
Planta anatis Rumph., 243.
sentiens hispanorum Rumph., 252.
Plantago aquatica Rumph., 1382.
aquatica II minor Rumph., 182.
Platanthera gigantea Lindl., 169.
horsfielditi Naves, 49.
rumphii Brongn., 169.
susannae (Linn.) Lindl., 168, 549.
Platea, 335.
Platycerium biforme Bl., 68.
coronarium (Koenig) Desv., 68.
Plecospermum spinosum Tréc., 190.
Plectranthus scutellaroides Roxb., 460.
Pleione rumphii O. Kuntze, 169.
Plectocomia, 117.
Plectranthus aromaticus Roxb., 459.
tuberosus Blume., 459.
Pleomele angustifolia (Roxb.) N. E. Br., 137.
refleca N. E. Br., 137.
Pluchea balsamifera Less., 498.
indica (Linn.) Less., 500.
Plukenetia corniculata Sm., 323.
volubilis Linn., 328.
Plumbaginaceae, 414.
Plumbago coccinea Salisb., 414.
indica Linn., 49, 414.
rosea Linn., 49, 414.
zeylanica Linn., 414.
Plumiera acuminata Ait., 427.
acutifolia Poir., 427.
alba Linn., 427.
Poa amabilis Linn., 95.
amboinensis Murr., 88.
amboinica Linn., 88.
INDEX
Poa—Continued. -
plumosa Retz., 95.
tenella Linn., 95.
Podocarpus blumei Endl., 76.
latifolia Blume, 75.
neriifolius Don, 75.
rumphi Blume, 75.
Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth., 458.
patchouli Hook., 458.
patchouly Pellet., 458.
suavis Ten., 458.
Poikilospermum amboinense Zipp., 199.
Poinciana bijuga Linn., 260.
pulcherrima Linn., 260.
Polanisia viscosa (Linn.) DC., 240.
Polianthes tuberosa Linn., 148, 144.
Polyalthia lateriflora King, 227.
zamboangensis Merr., 227.
Polygaster sampadarius Fries, 61.
Polygonaceae, 210.
Polyphema champeden Lour., 190.
jaca Lour., 190.
Polyphragmon minus Rich., 486.
sericeum Desf., 486.
Polypodiaceae, 64.
Polypodium albens Blume, 73.
dichotomum Taunb., 69.
dissimile Linn., 67.
excavatum Roxb., 67.
indicum I pilosum s..majus Rumph., 68.
indicum II minus Rumph., 67.
lineare Burm. f., 69.
palustre Burm. f., 66.
phymatodes Linn., 67.
quercifolium Linn., 68.
simplex Burm. f., 66.
sinuosum Wall., 67.
sparsisorum Desv., 68.
Polyporus amboinensis Fries, 58.
cochlear Nees, 58.
lucidus Fries, 59.
pisachapanni Nees, 59.
Polyscias cumingiana F.-Vill., 49.
nodosa (Blume) Seem., 408, 409.
pinnata Forst, 410.
rumphiana Harms, 409.
Polystictus sanguineus Nees, 59.
Pometia pinnata Forst., 337, 339.
Pomum amoris Rumph., 465.
draconum Rumph., 333.
draconum silvestre Rumph., 333.
Pongamia corallaria Miq., 262.
glabra Vent., 254, 271.
glabra Vent., var. xerocarpa Prain, 272.
mitis Merr., 271.
pinnata (Linn.) Merr., 254, 271.
sinuata Wall., 278.
uliginosa DC., 272.
awerocarpa Hassk., 272.
Pongelion Adans., 299.
Pontederiaceae, 135.
Pontederia vaginalis Burm. f., 135.
Poppya oblonga Rumph., 496.
rotunda Rumph., 496.
sylvestris Rumph., 494.
Populus deglubata Reinw., 401.
INDEX
Porocarpus Gaertn., 486.
Portulacaceae, 217.
Portulaca indica Rumph., 217.
indica I major sativa Rumph., 217.
indica II rubra Rumph., 217.
indica III minima Rumph., 218.
oleracea Linn., 217.
portulacastrum Linn., 217.
quadrifida Linn., 217, 218.
Potemorphe subpeltata Mia., 185.
Pothos barberianus Schott, 125.
cuscuaria Aubl., 126.
cuscuaria Gmel., 126.
gracilis Roxb., 125.
latifolius Linn., 125.
longifolius Presl, 124.
loureirit Hook. & Arn., 125.
pinnata Linn., 127.
roxburghii DeVriese, 125.
rumphii Schott, 124.
scandens Linn., 124.
tener Schott, 125.
Poupartia mangifera Blume, 333.
Pouzolzia indica Gaudich., 202.
tuberosa Wight, 203.
zeylanica (Linn.) Benn., 202.
Prageluria N. E. Br., 440.
Prasoxylum alliacewm Roem., 309.
Premna cordifolia Roxb., 451.
corymbosa Rottl. & Willd., 451.
cyclophylla Migq., 450.
foetida Reinw., 451.
gaudichaudii Schauer, 451.
integrifolia Linn., 451.
integrifolia Auct., 450.
laevigata Miq., 450.
nitida K. Sch., 451.
obtusifolia R. Br., 450.
serratifolia Linn., 451.
spinosa Roxb., 451.
subglabra Merr., 451.
tomentosa Willd., 451.
Prenanthes japonica Linn., 5038.
Prionitis hystrix Migq., 472.
Procris nivea Gaudich., 202.
sinuata Blume, 202.
Proteaceae, 205.
Protium javanicum Burm., 305.
Prunella molucca hortensis
Rumph., 470.
molucca hortensis latifolia Rumph., 471.
molucca hortensis III lire petola Rumph.,
470.
molucca silvestris II rubra Rumph., 471.
molucca silvestris III rotunda Rumph., 471.
silvestris alba Rumph., 471.
Prunum stellatum Rumph., 287.
Pseudarthria viscida (Linn.) W. & A. 269.
Pseuderanthemum bicolor Radlk., 475.
curtatum (C. B. Clarke) Merr., 475, 509.
pulchellum (Hort.) Merr., 475.
racemosum (Roxb.) Radlk., 476.
Pseuderia foliosa Schltr., 176.
Pseudochina alba latifolia Rumph., 139.
amboinensis Rumph., 139.
migra Rumph., 139.
angustifolia
587
Pseudo-Sandalum amboinense Rumph., 406, 505.
buroense Rumph., 505.
Psidium angustifolium Lam., 391.
cujavillus Burm., f., 391.
cujavus Linn., 391.
decaspermum Linn. f., 392.
guajava Linn., 391.
pomiferum Linn., 391.
pumilum Vahl, 391.
pyriferum Linn., 391.
Psilotaceae, 73.
Psilotum complanatum Sw., 73.
triquetrum Sw., 73.
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (Linn.) DC., 286.
Psychotria Linn., 488.
antherura R. & S., 392.
leptothyrsa Miq., 488.
rubra Poir., 892.
Ptelea. arborea Blanco,
viscosa Linn., 340.
Pteridophyta, 63.
Pteris longipes Don, 73.
thalictroides Willd., 69.
vittata Linn., 66.
Pterocarpus blancoi Merr., 271.
diadelphus Blanco, 273.
flavus Lour., 271.
indicus Willd., 270.
obtusatus Miq., 271.
papuanus F. Muell., 270.
santalinus Linn. f., 271.
Pterocaulon redolens F-Vill., 49.
Pterococcus glaberrimus Hassk., 323.
Pteroloma triquetrum Benth., 268.
Pterophylla fraxinea D. Don, 244.
Pterostigma capitatum Benth., 467.
Punicaceae, 384.
Punica granatum Linn., 384.
Ptychosperma appendiculata Blume, 120.
calapparia Mia., 121.
paniculata Miq., 121.
punicea Miq., 122.
rumphii Blume, 120.
saxatilis Blume, 121.
vestiaria Migq., 121, 122.
Ptychotis ajowan DC., 412.
roxburghiana DC., 412.
Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth., 282.
Pulassarius Rumph., 426.
arbor Rumph., 426, 507.
Pulassarium spurium Rumph., 430.
verum Rumph., 430.
Pustula arborum Rumph., 437.
Pycnanthemum decurrens Blanco, 49.
Pycreus odoratus (Linn.) Urb., 104, 106.
polystachyus Beauv., 104.
Q
Quamoclit pennata (Desr.) Bojer, 446.
vulgaris Choisy, 446.
Quercus molucca Linn., 186.
molucca Rumph., 186.
Quinaria lansium Lour., 311.
Quirivelia Poir., 433.
340.
588
Quisqualis Rumph., 390.
glabra Burm. f., 391.
indica Linn., 390.
pubescens Burm. f., 390.
Quret Adans., 229.
R
Radermachia incisa Thunb., 190.
integra Thunb., 190.
Radix chinae Rumph., 140.
deiparae Rumph., 454.
deiparae spuria Rumph., 395, 454.
etter Rumph., 509.
mustelae I alba Rumph., 430.
mustelae II rubra Rumph., 430.
puluronica Rumph., 209.
sinica Rumph., 410.
toxicaria I major Rumph., 140.
toxicarta II terrestris Rumph., 141.
vesicatoria Rumph., 414.
Ramium majus Rumph., 202.
Randia racemosa F.-Vill., 49.
Raphiolepis indica Lindl., 400.
Ratonia montana F.-Vill., 49.
rufescens ¥'.-Vill., 50.
Rauwolfia serpentina (Linn.) Hook. f., 480.
Ramirea maritima Aubl., 104.
Renanthera moluccana Blume, 179, 550.
Renealmia exaltata Linn. f., 154, 164.
usneoides Linn., 62.
Restiaria alba Rumph., 362.
cordata Lour., 354, 479.
nigra Rumph., 354.
Rex amaroris Rumph., 300.
Rhabarbarum sinense Rumph., 210.
Rhamnaceae, 341.
Rhamnus jujuba Linn., 341.
nepeca Linn., 209.
soporifer Lour., 209.
Rhaphidophora lacera Hassk., 127.
Rhaphis trivialis Lour., 87.
Rheum rhabarbarum Linn., 210.
undulatum Linn., 210.
Rhinacanthus communis Nees, 477.
nasuta (Linn.) Kurz, 477.
Rhizophoraceae, 386.
Rhizophora aegiceras Gmel., 413.
apiculata Blume, 387.
eandelaria DC., 387.
caryophylloides Burm. f., 388.
caseolaris Linn., 383.
conjugata Linn., 386, 388.
conjugata Auct., 386.
corniculata Linn., 418.
cylindrica Linn., 388.
gymnorhiza Linn., 388.
longissima Blanco, 50.
mangle Linn., 387.
mucronata Lam., 50, 387.
palun DC., 388.
sexangula Lour., 389.
tagal Perr., 386.
timoriensis DC., 386.
Rhodamnia, 508. -
Rhodophyceae, 54.
INDEX
Rhopala serrata R. Br., 205.
Rhynchosia, 275.
retusa Blume, 49.
Rhynchospora aurea .Vahl, 108.
corymbosa Britt., 108.
Ricinus africanus Mill., 324.
albus agrestis Rumph., 323.
albus domesticus Rumph., 323.
americanus Rumph., 324.
communis Linn., 50, 323, $24.
dicoccus Roxb., 318.
lividus Jacq., 324.
mappa Linn., 29, 319.
mappa Roxb., 320.
ruber Miq., 50, 324.
ruber Rumph., 328.
tanarius Linn., 320.
viridis Willd., 324.
Riedelia curviflora Oliv., 156.
lanata (Scheff.) K. Schum., 156.
Robinia grandiflora Linn., 266.
mitis Linn., 271.
uliginosa Roxb., 272.
Robinsoniodendron ambiguum’ (Wedd.) Merr.,
204.
Rollinia mucosa Baill., 229.
Rosaceae, 245.
Rosmarinus officinalis Linn., 456.
verus sinensis Rumph., 456.
Rostellularia diffusa Nees, 474.
purpurea R. Br., 474.
Rottlera multiglandulosa Blume, 318.
tiltifolia Blume, 318.
Rourea minor (Gaertn.) Merr., 413.
santaloides W. & A., 418.
Roxburghia gloriosoides Roxb., 135.
moluccama Blume, 136.
Rubiaceae, 478.
Rubus celebicus Blume, 246.
fraxinifolius Poir., 246.
fraxinifolius Poir.,
(Blume) Focke, 246.
moluceanus Linn., 245.
motuccus latifolius Rumph., 245.
moluccus parvifolius Rumph., 246.
parvifolius Linn., 246.
triphyllus Thunb., 247.
Rudens silvaticus latifolius Rumph., 198.
silvaticus parvifolius Rumph., 198.
silvaticus rugosus Rumph., 198.
-silvaticus IV Rumph., 199.
Ruellia alternata Burm. f., 471. ~
anagallis Burm. f., 467.
antipoda Linn., 467.
discolor Nees, 471.
repanda Linn., 470.
repens Linn., 472.
Rumex patientia Linn., 210.
Rumphia amboinensis Linn., 47.
tiliaefolia Poir., 47.
Rutaceae, 288, 509.
subsp. celebicus
S
Saccharum cylindricum Linn., 85.
edule Hassk., 85, 86. ee g
INDEX
Saccharum—Continued.
japonicum Thunb., 86.
koenigii Retz., 85.
officinarum Linn., 86.
sinense Roxb., 86.
spicatum «inn., 85.
Saccus arboreus major Rumph., 190.
arboreus minor Rumph., 190.
Saguaster major Rumph., 118.
minor Rumph., 120.
Saguerus gamuto Houtt., 119.
pinnatus Wurmb, 119.
rumphii Roxb., 119.
saccharifer Blume, 119.
Sagus elata Reinw., 114.
farinifera Lam., 1138.
filaris Blume, 114.
filaris Rumph., 114.
filifera Giseke, 114.
genuina Giseke, 112.
genuina Rumph., 113.
genuina II Rumph., 113.
genuina Giseke, var. longispina Giseke,
113.
genuina Giseke, var. silvestris Giseke, 114.
inermis Roxb., 113.
laevis Blume, 114.
laevis Rumph., 114.
longispina Blume, 118.
longispina Rumph., 113.
micracanthus Blume, 113.
rumphii Willd., 118.
silvestris Rumph., 114.
spinosus Roxb., 114.
Sajor volubilis Rumph., 3238.
Sajorium corniculatum Dietr., 232.
Salacca edulis Reinw., 114.
Salaka edulis Reinw., 114.
Salicornia herbacea Linn., 211, 217.
Salken Adans., 272.
Salvia plebeia R. Br., 457.
Samadera indica Gaertn., 299.
Samama Rumph., 484. -
Sampacca domestica Rumph., 223.
domestica IV alba Rumph., 223.
montana Rumph., 224,
II parviflora Rumph., 223.
III coerulea Rumph., 223.
silvestris Rumph., 223.
Samyda trivalvis Blanco, 50.
Sandalum Rumph., 208.
radicis Rumph., 208.
rubrum Rumph., 271.
Sandoricum cajim gulur Rumph., 308.
domesticum Rumph., 308.
indicum Cav., 308.
koetjape (Burm. f.) Merr., 308.
silvestre Rumph., 308.
Sanguis mas et femina Rumph., 368.
Santalaceae, 208.
Santalum album Linn., 208.
Sapindaceae, 336, 509.
Sapindus rarak DC., 337.
saponaria Linn., 337.
serratus Roxb., 339.
589
Sapium indicum Willd., 328.
virgatum Hook. f., 328.
Saponaria Rumph., 337.
Sapotaceae, 415.
Sarcanthus secundus Griff., 179.
subulatus (Blume) Reichb. f., 179.
Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq., 483.
mitragyna Miq., 483.
subditus Korth., 483.
undulatus Miq., 482.
Sarcochilus centipeda Naves, 50.
tenuifolius Naves, 50.
Sarcopodium purpureum Reichb. f., 46.
Sargasso s. wier Rumph., 55.
Sargassum amboinicum Rumph., 55.
aquifolium J. Ag., 56.
bacciferum Ag., 55.
binderit Sonder, 55.
flavifolium Kiitz., 55.
granuliferum Agardh, 55.
myriocystum J. Ag., 55.
pelagicum Rumph., 55.
polyeystum J. Ag., 55.
turbinatum Agardh, 55.
Sargile Rumph., 120.
minor II Rumph., 120.
Saribus Rumph., 111.
rotundifolius Blume, 111.
Satyria Rumph., 179.
Saurauia elegans F.-Vill., 50.
rugosa Turez., 50.
Sauropus albicans Blume, 315.
Sautiera tinctorium Span., 477.
Seaevola frutescens (Mill.) Krause, 481, 496.
koenigii Vahl, 496.
plumieri Vahl, 496.
velutina Presl, 496.
Scapha elegans Choisy, 50.
Schefflera Forst., 408.
Schinus limonia Linn., 293.
Schismatoglottis calyptrata (Roxb.)
Mor., 129.
longipes Miq., 129.
Schizaeaceae, 69.
Schizaea dichotoma (Linn.) Smith, 69.
Schizomeria ovata D. Don, 245.
serrata Hochr., 205, 244, 507.
Schizostachyum brachycladum Kurz, 102.
halliert Gamble, 102.
lima Merr., 102.
Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Merr., 47, 337.
trijuga Willd., 337.
Schmidelia, 318.
grossedentata Turez., 46.
timorensis DC., 336.
Schoenanthemum alterwm Rumph., 89.
amboinicum Rumph., 88.
Schoenorchis juncifolia Blume, 179.
Schoenus coloratus Linn., 1038.
lithospermus Linn., 90.
paniculatus Burm. f., 108.
secans Linn., 83.
Schumannianthus dichotomus Gagnep.,
Sciadophyllum longifolium Blume, 408.
Scilla chinensis Benth., 47.
Zoll. &
166.
590:
Scindapsus cannaeformis Engl., 126.
cuscuaria Engl., 126.
erectus Presl, 129.
marantifolius Mig., 126:
officinalis Schott, 125.
pertusus Schott, 127.
pinnatus Schott, 127.
rumphii Presl, 124.
tener Presl, 125.
Scirpiodendron costatum Kurz, 106.
ghaeri (Gaertn.) Merr., 106.
pandaniforme Zipp., 106.
sulcatum Miq., 106.
Scirpus glomeratus Linn., 103.
plantagineus Retz., 105.
plantaginoides Rottb., 105.
polytrichoides Retz., 105.
Scleria alata Thw., 108.
approximata Hassk., 108.
baneana Miq., 108.
flagellum Sw., 108.
lithosperma Sw., 90, 107.
multifoliata Boeckl, 108.
scrobiculata Nees, 108.
sumatrensis Retz., 108.
tessellata Brongn., 108.
tessellata Willd., 90.
trialata Poir., 108.
Sclerostylis spinosa Blume, 294.
Seolopendria I major Rumph., 70.
II minor Rumph., 67.
Scorodendron pallens Blume, 337.
Scrophulariaceae, 466.
Scrotum cusst Rumph., 510.
Scutellaria indica Linn., 468.
prima Rumph., 409.
secunda angustifolia Rumph., 409.
seeunda latifolia Rumph., 409.
tertia Rumph., 410.
Seaforthia calapparia Mart., 121.
jaculatoria Mart., 120.
olivaeformis Mart., 120.
oryzaeformis Mart., 122.
rumphiana Mart., 122.
saxatilis Blume, 121.
vestiaria Mart., 121.
Secamone lineata Blume, 435.
Securidaca volubilis Linn., 342.
Selaginellaceae, 72.
Selaginella d’urvillei A. Br., 72.
plana (Desv.) Hieron., 72.
Selaginoides Boehm., 72.
Selbya montana Roem., 311.
Selinum striatum Benth. & Hook. f., 411.
Semecarpus cassuvium Roxb., 334.
forstenii Blume, 334.
Sempervivium indicum majus Rumph., 136.
Senecio amboinicus Rumph., 497.
Serratula amara Rumph., 468.
amara parvifolia Rumph., 508.
Seruneum aquatile Rumph., 500.
Sesamum indicum Linn., 469.
indicum album Rumph., 469.
indicum nigrum Rumph., 469.
orientale Linn., 469.
INDEX
| Sesban aegyptiacus Poir., 265.
Sesbania aegyptiaca Pers., var. bicolor W. &
A., 265.
eannabina (Retz.) Pers., 265.
coccinea Pers., 266.
cochinchinensis DC., 265.
grandiflora (Linn.) Pers., 266.
sesban (Linn.) Merr., 265.
Sesuvium portulacastrum Linn., 217.
repens Rottl., 217.
Setaria flava (Nees) Kunth, 49, 91.
glauca Beauv., 92.
italica (Linn.) Beauv., 84, 92.
Shorea selanica Blume, 375.
selanica Blume, var. latifolia Blume, 876.
Sicchius femina Rumph., 348.
I mas Rumph., 415.
Il femina Rumph., 416.
III Rumph., 416.
Sida abutilon Linn., 355.
acuta Burm. f., 356.
alnifolia Linn., 356.
asiatica Linn., 356.
carpinifolia Linn. f., 356.
carpinoides DC., 357.
cordifolia Linn., 357.
graveolens Roxb., 356.
hirta Lam., 355.
imdica Linn., 355.
indica Sweet, var. populifolia (Lam.)
Mast., 355.
pilosa L’Hérit., 355.
retusa Linn., 356.
scoparia Lour., 356.
sonneratiana Cav., 357.
triloba Cav., 357.
Sideroxzylon attenuatum A. DC., var. am-
boinense Scheff., 417.
microcarpum Burck., 416.
Sigalurium rotundum silvestre Rumph., 357.
I rotundum s. vulgare Rumph., 356.
II longifolium Rumph., 356.
III album Rumph., 357.
Simarubaceae, 299.
Simbar majangan Rumph., 68.
Similis planta peruama Rumph., 252
Sinapi indigenum s. amboinicum Rumph.,
240.
sinense Rumph., 240.
Sinapis, 240.
juncea Linn., 240.
Sinapister Rumph., 508.
Sindoc Rumph., 233.
Sindora coriacea Prain, 255.
galedupa Prain, 254.
inermis Merr., 254.
sumatrana Miq., var. javanica Koord. &
Valeton, 255.
Siriboa Rumph., 182.
Sirifolia Rumph., 186.
litorea Rumph., 186.
Siriifolium Rumph., 182.
Sirioides Rumph., 423.
alter Rumph., 422, 424.
INDEX
Sirium arborescens tertiwm t.umph., 180.
arborescens tertium alterum Rumph., 182.
decumanum Rumph., 181.
decumanum album Rumph., 182.
frigidum rotundifolium Rumph., 185.
myrtifolium Linn., 208.
terrestre Rumph., 185.
silvestre Rumph., 183.
Sisymbrium indicum Linn., 240.
Sium ninsi Linn., 410.
siarum Linn., var. ninsi DC., 410.
Smilax aspera-Linn., 140.
australis R. Br., 139.
bauhinioides Kunth, 140.
china Linn., 139, 140, 148.
indica Vitm., 140.
javensis A. DC., 139.
glycyphylla Sm., 139.
leucophylla Blume, 139.
leucophylla Blume, var. platyphylla Merr.,
139.
sarmentis spinulosis Rumph., 140.
villandia Ham., 140.
zeylanica Linn., 139.
Soccus arboreus major Rumph., 190.
arboreus’ minor Rumph., 190.
granosus Rumph., 190.
lamosus Rumph., 190.
silvestris Rumph., 191.
‘stlvestris celebicus Rumph., 191.
Soffera Rumph., 258.
Soja hispida Moench., 274.
max Piper, 274, 283.
Solanaceae, 461.
Solanum aethiopicum Lour., 463.
aethiopicum Lour., var. violaceum Dunal,
463.
agreste album Rumph., 463.
agreste rubrum Rumph., 463.
album Lour., 463.
album Lour., var. rumphii Dunal, 463.
esculentum Dunal, 468.
indicum Linn., 468.
insanum Linn., 463.
lycopersicum Linn., 465.
melongena Linn., 462.
melongena Linn., var. esculentum Walp.,
463.
nigrum Linn., 464.
nigrum Linn., var. rumphiit Miaq., 464.
pressum Dunal, 463.
rumphii Dunal, 464.
triangulare Lam., 464.
trongum Poir., 463.
trongum Poir., var. rumphii Dunal, 463.
verbascifolium Linn., 464.
verbascifolium Linn., var.
Ham., 464.
Solidago chinensis Osbeck, 50.
Solort Adans., 272.
Solulus arbor Rumph., 266.
Sonchus amboinicus Rumph., 603.
volubilis Rumph., 499.
volubilis javanicus Rumph., 500.
Soncorus Rumph., 161.
Songium Rumph., 367.
adulterinum
591
Sonneratiaceae, 383.
Sonneratia acida Linn. f., 383.
alba Sm., 3838.
easeolaris (Linn.) Engl., 383.
pagatpat Blanco, 3838.
Sophora glabra Hassk., 269, 287.
heptaphylla Linn., 262, 273.
tomentosa Linn., 262.
Sorghum s. Battart Rumph., 87.
Sorindeia madagascariensis Thouars, 332.
Soulamea amara Lam., 300.
Spathoglottis plicata Blume, 171, 172, 549.
Spermacoce articularis Linn. f., 479.
discolor F.-Vill., 50.
stricta Linn, f., 479.
tenuwior Linn., 479.
Spermatophyta, 74.
Sphaerococcus gelatinus Ag., 54.
| Sphaerococcus lichenoides Ag., 54.
Spilanthes acmella (Linn.) Murr., 501.
pseudo-acmella Murr., 501.
tinctorius Lour., 501.
Spina pectinata Rumph., 426.
spinarum I mas Rumph., 377.
spinarum II femina Rumph., 377.
vaccarum Rumph., 228.
Spinifex littoreus (Burm. f.) Merr., 92.
squarrosus Linn., 93.
Spirodela, 133.
Spondiss acida Blume, 3382.
amara Lam., 332.
dulcis Forst., 332.
dulcis Forst., var. acida Engl., 332.
mangifera Willd., 332.
pinnata (Linn. f.) Kurz, 332.
Sponia amboinensis Decne., 187.
pubigera Miq., 448.
timorensis Decne., 187.
virgata Planch., 187.
Stachycrater philippinus Turez., 49.
Stachygynandrium Beauv., 72.
Stadmannia sideroxylon DC., 337.
Stagmaria verniciflua Jack., 331.
Stauropsis lissochiloides Benth., 178.
Stemodia capitata Benth., 467.
menthastrum Benth., 466.
Stemonaceae, 135.
Stemona moluccana (Blume) C. H. Wright,
136.
tuberosa Lour., 135.
Stemonurus Blume, 3385.
Stenochlaena palustris (Burm. f.) Bedd., 66.
Stenosemia aurita Pres], 64.
Stephania forsteri (DC.) A. Gray, 220.
Sterculiaceae, 362.
Sterculia balanghas Linn., 364.
foetida Linn., 364.
treubii Hochr., 364.
urceolata Sm., 364.
Stercus squillarum Rumph., 510.
Stictocardia campanulata Merr.,
tiliaefolia Hallier f., 446.
Stigmarota jangomas Lour., 377.
Stilago bunius Linn., 316.
Stillingia populnea Geisel., 327.
446.
592
Stipa arguens Linn., 89.
littorea Burm. f., 92.
spinifex Linn., 92.
Stixis. scandens Lour., 248.
Stizolobium aterrimum Piper & Tracy, 279.
capitatum O. Kuntze, 279.
pruriens Medic., 277.
Stoechas pilosa Rumph., 467.
Stramonia indica Rumph., 465.
indica III dutra rubra Rumph., 465.
Stratiotes acoroides Linn., 84.
Stravadia alba Pers., 385.
Stravadium album DC., 385.
rubrum DC., 385.
Streptocaulon mauritianum Don, 43838, 440.
Strobilanthes, 471.
Stromanthe tonckat Ejichl., 166.
Strychnos barbata A. W. Hill, 423.
bicirrhosa Lesch., 422.
colubrina Linn., 422.
ligustrina Blume, 423.
muricata Kostel., 423.
tieute Lesch., 423.
Stylocoryne racemosa Cav., 49.
Surenus Rumph., 305.
alba Rumph., 306.
febrifuga O. Kuntze, 305.
rubra Rumph., 306.
Sussuela esculenta I mas Rumph., 435.
esculenta II femina Rumph., 435.
Swietena sureni Blume, 305.
Symplocaceae, 420.
Symplocos ferruginea Roxb., 420.
javanica (Blume) Kurz, 420.
syringoides Brand, 421.
Syncarpia vertholenii Teysm. & Binn., 400.
Syzygium cumini Skeels, 394.
jambolanum DC., 394.
longiflorum Presl, 48.
T
Tabacus Rumph., 466.
Tabernaemontana alternifolia Linn., 427.
bovina Lour., 429.
bufalina Lour., 429.
capsicoides Merr., 428.
citrifolia Linn., 427.
coronaria Willd., 429.
corymbosa Roxb., 429.
dichotoma R. Br., 482.
divaricata (Linn.) R. Br., 429.
Taccaceae, 144,
Tacca dubia Schultes, 144, 145.
litorea Rumph., 144, 145.
montana Rumph., 145.
montana Schultes, 145.
palmata Blume, 145.
phallifera Rumph., 127, 144, 145.
pinnatifida Forst., 127, 144.
rumphiit Schauer, 145.
sativa Rumph., 127, 145.
Taccae fungus Rumph., 127, 128, 145.
Taetsia fruticosa (Linn.) Merr., 187.
terminalis W. F. Wight, 187.
INDEX
Talauma liliifera Kurz, 224.
rumphii Blume, 224.
Taliera gembanga Blume, 110.
sylvestris. Blume, 110.
Tamarindus Rumph., 255.
altera Rumph., 257.
indica Linn., 255.
Tanarius major Rumph., 244.
major II Rumph., 507.
mappa QO. Ktze., 319.
minor alba Rumph., 320.
minor rubra Rumph., 320.
Tanghinia lactaria Don, 482.
Tanjonus litorea Rumph., 417.
Taonabo Adans., 369.
Tapeinidium amboynense (Hook.) C. Chr.,
65.
Tapeinochilus ananassae (Hassk.) K. Shum.,
41, 50, 165.
pungens Miq., 165.
Taxaceae, 75.
Taxotrophis ilicifolia Vidal, 188.
obtusa Elm., 188.
triapiculata Gamble, 188.
Tecoma amboinensis Blume, 469.
dendrophila Blume, 469.
Tectaria crenata Cav., 64.
Tectona grandis Linn. f., 450.
theka Lour., 450.
Telosma odoratissima (Lour.) Coville, 440.
Tephrosia purpurea Pers., 264.
timoriensis DC., 265.
Terebinthina Rumph., 466.
Terminalia angustifolia Jacq., 382.
catappa Linn., 49, 390.
catappa Linn., var. chlorocarpa Hassk.,
390.
catappa Linn., var. macrocarpa Hassk.,
390.
fruticosa Goepp., 137.
moluccama Lam., 390.
vernix Lam., 331.
Terminalis alba domestica Rumph., ‘137.
alba silvestris Rumph., 1387.
angustifolia Rumph., 137.
rubra Rumph., 137.
rubra silvestris Rumph., 137.
Ternstroemia megacarpa Merr., 370.
robinsonii Merr., 369.
Tetracera assa DC., 367, 509.
boerlagei Merr., 366.
hebecarpa Boerl., 365.
indica (Christm. & Panz.) Merr., 367.
moluccana Martelli, 367:
sarmentosa Vahl, 50.
seandens (Linn.) Merr., 50, 365.
Tetradapa javanorum Osbeck, 50, 276.
Tetranthera ambigua Blume, 236. |
angustifolia Wall., 238.
forstenit Blume, 235.
glabraria Nees, 235.
laurifolia Jacq., var. saligna Nees, 236.
laurifolia Jacq., var. tersa Blume, 236.
monopetala Roxb., 235.
rumphii Blume, 234.
INDEX
Tetrastigma Planch., 346.
Thalia cannaeformis Forst., 166.
Thallophyta, 53.
Theka Adans., 450.
Themeda arguens Hack., 89.
ciliata Hack., 89.
frondosa (R. Br.) Merr., 89.
gigantea (Cav.) Hack., 89.
Thespesia macrophylla Blume, 360.
populnea (Linn.) Soland., 360.
Thoa edulis Willd., 78.
Thottea dependens Klotzsch, 181.
Thrixspermum centipeda Lour., 50.
Thuarea involuta (Forst.) R. Br., 92.
sarmentosa Pers., 92.
Thylacophora pogonocheilus Ridl., 156.
"i hymelaeaceae, 380.
Tiglium officinale Klotz., 317.
Tiliaceae, 353.
Tillandsia usneoides Linn., 62.
Timonius Rumph., 486.
jambosella Thw., 392.
nitidus F.-Vill., 50.
rumphii DC., 486.
sericeus (Desf.) K. Sch., 486.
ternifolius F.-Vill., 50.
Tingulong Rumph., 305.
Tinospora crispa Miers, 220.
reticulata Miers, 221.
rumphii Boerl., 220.
thorelii Gagnep., 221.
Tittius Rumph., 452.
litorea Rumph., 486.
Tomex Thunb., 234.
Toona sureni (Blume) Merr., 305.
Torenia benthamiana Hance, 50.
crustacea Cham. & Schlecht., 468.
edentula Griff. 468.
Toulichiba Adans., 262.
Tournefortia argentea Linn. f., 448.
foetidissima Linn., 448.
Torenia glabra Osbeck, 50.
Tragia hirsuta Blume, 366.
mercurialis Linn., 317.
seandens Linn., 50, 365.
volubilis Linn., 366.
Trema amboinensis Auct., 187.
amboinensis (Willd.) Blume,
orientalis (Blume), var.
Lauterb., 187.
timorensis Blume, 187.
virgata Blume, 187.
virgata Bl., vay. scabra (Bl.) Ltb., 187.
Tremella auricula Linn., 60.
Trevesia moluccana Mia., 407.
zippeliana Migq., 407.
Trichilia nervosa Vahl, 308.
Trichomanes elatum Forst., 66.
tenuifolia Burm. f., 66.
Trichosanthes anguina Linn., 494.
bracteata Voigt, 496.
cucumerina Linn., 496.
trifolia (Linn.) Merr., 494.
trifoliata Blume, 494.
Trichospermum lanigerum Merr., 47.
trivalve Merr., 47.
144971——38
187.
amboinensis
593
Tridesmis, 384.
Trisanthus cochinchinensis Lour., 411.
Triumfetta bartramia Linn., 354 857, 368.
indica Lam., 355.
rhomboidea Jacq., 354.
rotundifolia Lam., 355.
Trongum agreste album Rumph., 463.
agreste rubrum Rumph., 463, 464.
agreste spinosum Rumph., 463.
hortense Rumph., 462.
hortense album amboinense Rumph., 462.
hortense II album Rumph., 4638.
Trophis aspera Retz., 190.
spinosa Blume, 189.
Tschintschau javanense Rumph., 457.
Tsjinkin Rumph., 381.
Tsjiulang Rumph., 309.
Tuba baccifera Rumph., 221.
flava Rumph., 222.
radicum alba Rumph., 273.
radicum nigra Rumph., 273.
siliquosa Rumph., 272.
Tuber regium Rumph., 57, 61.
sampadarium Rumph., 61.
Tubu tubu Rumph., 165.
Tulipa javana Rumph., 141.
Turbinaria ornata J. Ag., 55.
vulgaris J. Ag., var. conoidea J. Ag., 56.
Turia Rumph., 266.
minor Rumph., 266.
Tylophora R. Br., 436.
bifida F.-Vill., 50.
Typhonium divaricatum (Linn.) Decne., var.
robustum Kunth, 182.
javanicum Miq., 132.
U
Ubium anguinum Rumph., 146, 147.
anniversarium Rumph., 146.
digitatum Rumph., 146.
draconum Rumph., 146.
nummularium Rumph., 139.
nummuarium floriferum Rumph.,
nummularium frugiferum Rumph.,
149.
ovale Rumph., 146.
polypoides Rumph., 136.
polypoides I album Rumph., 135.
polypoides II nigrum Rumph., 136.
pomiferum Rumph., 146.
quinquefolium Rumph., 147.
silvestre Rumph., 148.
vulgare Rumph., 146.
Ulassium femina Rumph., 481.
lapideum Rumph., 481.
mas Rumph., 481.
Ulet Rumph., 188.
Ulmaceae, 186.
Umbelliferae, 411.
Umbraculum corniculatum O. Kuntze,
maris amboinense Rumph., 413.
maris ceramense Rumph., 413.
Unecaria acida Roxb., 481.
cordata (Lour.) Merr., 479.
ferrea DC., 480.
149.
148,
413.
594
Uncaria—Continued.
florida Vid., 480.
gambir Roxb., 480.
lanosa Wall., 480.
longiflora (Poir.) Merr., 480.
pedicellata Roxb., 479.
pteropoda Miq., 480.
setiloba Benth., 480.
Unjala bifida Reinw., 407.
Unona discolor Dunal, 228.
latifolia Dunal, 228.
ligularis Dunal, 226.
musaria Dunal, 225.
narum Dunal, 225.
odorata Dunal, 226.
selanica DC., 375.
tripetala DC., 228.
tripetaloidea Dunal, 228.
Upas alterum Rumph., 428.
Urceola, 434.
Urena heterophylla Lam., 358.
lappago Sm., 358.
lobata Linn., 354, 357.
sinuata Linn., 358.
Urera amplissima Blume, 200.
Urostigma neglectum Mia., 196.
pilosum Miq., 197.
Urticaceae, 200.
Urtica aestuans Linn., 202.
argentea Forst., 203.
decumana Roxb., 201.
decumana Rumph., 201.
decumana alba, 201.
decumana rubra, 201.
decumana III vulgaris Rumph., 201.
interrupta Linn., 201.
involucrata Roxb., 321.
mortua Rumph., 317.
nivea Linn., 202.
repanda Blume, 208.
rubescens Blume, 204.
rumphii Kostel., 201.
tuberosa Roxb., 203.
Urticastrum Fabr., 200.
Usnea Linn., 62.
Uvaria, 510.
argentea Blume, 225.
grandiflora Roxb., 225.
latifolia Blume, 228.
ligularis Lam., 226.
littoralis Blume, 225.
macrophylla Roxhb., 225.
moluccana Kostel., 225.
musaria (Dunal) DC., 225.
odorata Lam., 226.
ovalifolia Blume, 225.
pilosa Roxb., 225.
rosenbergiana Scheff., 225.
tripetala Lam., 228.
tripetala Roxb., 417.
zeylanica Linn., 225, 226.
Vv
Vallaris glabra (Linn.) O. Kuntze, 434.
ovalis Miq., 484.
pergulana Burm. f., 434.
INDEX
Vallisneria sphaerocarpa Blanco, 50.
Vanda batemannii Lindl., 178.
celebica Rolfe, 178.
crassiloba T. & B., 178.
furva Lindl., 178.
lissochiloides Lindl., 178.
scripta Spreng., 177.
Vandellia crustacea Benth., 468.
Vandopsis lissochiloides (Gaudich.) Pfitz., 178.
Varinga funicularis Rumph., 198.
latifolia Rumph., 194.
nounouck Rumph., 198.
parvifolia Rumph., 195.
parvifolia alta Rumph., 196.
parvifolia humilis Rumph., 196.
pelal Rumph., 197.
repens Rumph., 197.
supa Rumph., 197.
Varneria augusta Linn., 50, 485.
Ventilago cernua Tul., 342.
maderaspatana Gaertn., 342.
Verbenaceae, 448.
Verbena rubra Rumph., 214.
Verbesina acmella Linn., 501.
alba Linn., 500.
aquatica Burm., 50, 500.
biflora Linn., 500.
lavenia Linn., 497.
Vernicia montana Lour., 382.
Vernonia cinerea (Linn.) Less., 497, 500,
leptophylla DC., 497.
linifolia Blume, 497.
Vertifolia alba Rumph., 335, 507.
rubra Rumph., 335, 507.
Vicoa indica DC., 499.
Vidara littorea Rumph., 209.
Vidoricum domesticum Rumph., 375.
silvestre Rumph., 312.
silvestre II, var. Rumph., 418.
silvestre II Rumph., 418. .
silvestre IV Rumph., 418.
III Rumph., 418.
V Rumph., 418.
VI Rumph., 418.
Vigna catjang Linn., var. alba Hassk., 285.
catjang Linn., var. ruber Hassk., 285.
cylindrica (Linn.) Merr., 49, 284.
lutea A. Gray, 285.
marina (Burm.) Merr., 285.
sinensis (Linn.) Endl., 284.
Villarsia indica Vent., 425.
Villebrunnea rubescens Blume, 204.
Viscum amboinicum album Rumph., 205.
amboinicum rubrum Rumph., 206.
Vitaceae, 342.
Vitex altissyma Linn. f., 310.
cofassus Reinw.,*® 452.
littoralis Dene., 452.
moluceana Blume, 452.
monophylla K. Sch., 452.
negundo Linn., 453.
paniculata Lam., 458.
parviflora Juss., 452.
pinnata Linn., 292, 310.
timoriensis Walp., 452.
trifolia Linn., 453.
INDEX 595
Vitis alba Rumph., 343. Y
alba indica Rumph., 495. Yucca Rumph., 324.
diffusa Miq., 344. Z
geniculata Mia., var. grosseserrata Miq., ge
346. Zala asiatica Lour., 132.
Zalacca Rumph., 115.
labrusca Linn., 343. blumeana Mart., 115.
Gietsand Mia, 844. edulis Reinw., 114. '
Woteata Mia. 844: ; Zanthoxylum aromaticum Willd., 289.
: glandulosum T. & B., 288.
rumphianum Cham., 289.
indica Linn., 342.
quadrangularis Wall., 343.
quadricornuta Miq., 344.
toners We Ok 343 torvum F. Muell., 288.
frifolia Linn., 342, 345. triphyllum Don, 291.
Zea mays Linn., 84.
vitiginea Linn., 343.
Vittaria, 65. Zerumbed album Rumph., 168.
Volkameria commersonii Poir., 455. claviculatum Rumph., 162.
inermis Linn., 456. frigidum Rumph., 168.
nereifolia Roxb., 455. giring Rumph., 168.
jus Rumph., 164.
; te. 456. MajUs ’
petasites Lou manga Rumph., 163.
Ww nigrum Rumph., 164.
Zeuxine amboinensis J. J. Sm., 169, 549.
Wanga Rumph., 114. Zingiberaceae, 151.
Wedelia biflora (Linn.) DC., 50, 500. Zingiber amaricans BI., 152.
calendulacea Less., 50. cassumunar Roxb., 152.
scaberrima DC., 501. gramineum Blume, 152.
Weinmannia fraxinea Sm., 244. majus album Rumph., 151.
Windmannia P. Br., 244. marginatum Bl., 152.
Wollastonia strigulosa DC., 501. | minus sive graminewum Rumph., 161.
Wrightia pubescens R. Br., 433. montanum Link, 152.
officinale Rose., 151.
x officinale Rosc., var. minor Val., 151.
zerumbet (Linn.) Smith, 152.
Xanthochymus dulcis Roxb., 372. zerumbet (L.) Smith., var. amaricans
Ximenia americana Linn., 50, 209, 423. Vali) 152:
Xyloecarpus carnulosus Zoll. & Mor., 307. Zizyphus jujuba Lam., 341.
forstenii Mia., 307. littorea Teysm., 50, 209.
granatum Koen., 306. mauritiana Lam., 341.
molueccensis (Lam.) M. Roem., 307. soporifera Schultes, 209.
obovatus Juss., 306. timoriensis DC., 342.
Xylophylla latifolia Linn., 209. Zoopthalmum giganteum Prain, 277.
longifolia Linn., 209. Zygia Boehm., 248.
Xylophyllos ceramica Rumph., 208. Zygolepis rufescens Turez., 50.
O
PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE BY THE BUREAU OF SCIENCE,
_ MANILA, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS—Continued
BOTANY
A FLORA OF MANILA,
' By Evmer D. Merrit
Order. No. 419. Paper, 490 pages, $2. 50,
postpaid.
Practically a complete flora “ah the cul-
tivated areas in the. Philippines. Descrip-
tions, with keys, of over 1,000 species, 590
genera, and 136 families, with native names,
glossary of technical. terms, etc.
PHILIPPINE DIPTEROCARP FORESTS
By Wintiam H. Brown and Dona. M.
‘MATTHEWS
Order No. 432. Paper, 150 pages, 1 map,
13 plates, and 12 diagrams, $1.00,
} postpaid.
In Philippine Dipterocarp Forests the
authors present a very comprehensive discus-
sion of the growth and development of dip-
terocarp trees and of the other elements of
lowland Philippine. forests.
INDO-MALAYAN WOODS
By Frep W. FoxwortHy
Order No. 411. ——s~ Paper, 182 pages, 9
plates, $0.50, postpaid.
In Indo-Malayan Woods,. Doctor Fox-
_worthy has brought together a large amount
of accurate information concerning trees
_ yielding woods of economic value.
-
LOOLOGY
A LIST OF MAMMALS OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, EXCLU-
SIVE OF THE CETACEA
By NeEp HOLLISTER
‘Orlee No. 418. Paper, 64 pages, $0.50,
postpaid. i Se :
The distribution of each species is given,
and the original descriptions are cited.
ZOOLOGY—Continued
“A MANUAL OF PHILIPPINE BIRDS
By RicHarp C. McGrercor
Order No. 103. - Paper. 2 parts, 169
pages, $4, postpaid.
A* Manual of Philippine Birds contains
in compact forrm . descriptions of all the
known species of Philippine birds. The usual —
keys and diagnoses of orders, families, and
genera help the novice in identification.
_ A CHECK-LIST OF PHILIPPINE
FISHES
By Davin Stark JorDAN and Rogpert Ear.
RICHARDSON
Paper, 78 pages, $0.75,
Be
This list will be found a convenient guide
to the synonymy of Philippine ichthyology. —
The nomenclature is thoroughly revised, and
the distribution of each species within the
Philippine Islands is given.
Order No. 102.
postpaid.
A CATALOGUE OF PHILIPPINE |
COLEOPTERA |
By W. SCHULTZE
Order No. 436. Paper, 198 pages, $1.00,
postpaid.
This Sate todas includes the names of all
species of Coleoptera that have been recorded |
from a definite locality in the Philippine
Islands. References to original descriptions
and other important notes are’ given. -The
economic appendix includes comment. on
those species of beetles which are Known to
‘be injurious or beneficial to man. .
PRICES ARE IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
Orders for these publications may be sent to the BUSINESS MANAGER,
PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, BUREAU OF SCIENCE, MANILA, P, i; a
vr to any of the agents listed below. Please give order number.
/
The Macmillan Company, 64—66 Fifth Avenue, New York, U.S. A. |
Wm. Wesley & Son, 28 Essex Street, Strand, London, W. C., England.
Martinus Nijhoff, Lange Voorhout 9, The Hague, Holland. — Saks
Mayer & Miiller, Prinz Louis Perdinardstrassé 2, Berlin N. W., Germany.
Kelly & Walsh, Ltd., 32 Raffles Place, Singapore, Straits Settlements,
A. M. & J. Ferguson, 19 Baillie Street, Colombo, Ceylon.
Thacker, Spink & Co., P. O. Box 54, Calcutta, India.
. Entire Journal, beginning watts Volume VI. See ie eee ieee
Supplement to Volume I (Botany) ...2------.2-2----2---e eee La
THE PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF ‘SCIENCE
(PUBLICATION BEGAN IN 1906) ae
ALVIN J. COX, M. A. Pa Dee
GENERAL EDITOR _ x
A Journal Hevea to the Scientific and Comme cia.
Ute
Section B. sen emia Medicine MEAL OW INET A Alife CMRI Se he Ma DIY BU
Section C. Botany. Elmer D. Merrill, B. Ss, M. a ‘Hditon”
Section D. General Biology, Ethnology, and Anthropology
(Section-D began with Volume. V’)- 2. 22222022 tess
‘
Entire Journal, Volume II, Ili, IV, or V “ae ahs De
Single numbers (except of Volume 1) -.-..--:-2-2--22----2.1---+4,---t
Each section is separately paged and indexed. ie
Authors receive 100 copies of their papers free,
Volume I, 1906 (not divided into sections), and supplement,
sold only with a complete file of section A, B, or, Gio Aube Sho
Volume I (without supplement) sold only with a a complete file of |
SECON at os, MOP A ok A le fern eo he pages See Be 0 21
Single niaimbers of Volame Bg Ak ee ek ee
Subscriptions may be Sue to the Bricaunce Manacer,
Journal of Science, Bureau of Science, Manila, P. iy. bk ‘fo.
agents listed below.
AGENTS. Paget eae i
i
y
ey ier
hate
i TA
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11