- 316 - 



„cornu sese in superiore aperit parte, ac surculi ') formam exhibet in quo 

 ,,duodecim vei quatuordecim brèves locantur fructus, ex longis îloribus 

 „progerminaiites, per viridia foliola distincta. 



«Fructus vix digiti articulum longi surit, primo aurantii, dein fusci ^), 

 ,trigoni, instar geriiiinuin Musae, arcte sibi appressi '"), quivis vero îioreni 

 „profert triplo longioreiii qui ex firmo & viresceiite constat corniculo, quod 

 „ad iatus ac superius apertuni est instar cymbae: ad alterum latus verum 

 «quasi locatur calopodium, quod sex crassa continet sordide fusca stamina, 

 ,Hisce floribus marcescentibus fructus excrescunt, minimum digitum crassi, 

 „ac semi digitum longi, oderis instar viridis Musae qui tanien cibo inepti 

 „sunt, ac tandem cmarcidi decidunt." 



Tliough this description is very incomplète and the accompanying 

 figure rather poor it is not diîficult to recognize that a H e 1 i c o n i a was 

 meant. In 1783 Lamarck (Encyclop. Méth. 1, 426,427) made the figure the 

 sole base of his H e 1 i c o n i a i n d i c a, citing, by Burman's fault, the 

 wrong Ruinphian name: Folium biiccinatuni asperam "). 



In 1832ROXBURGH (Flora Indica, Ed. Carey, I, p. 670, 671) described 

 the same species, received from Amboina and cultivated in the Calcutta 

 Botanical Gardens, giving it the name of H. buccin a ta Roxb. and 

 citing the right figure but the wrong Rumphian name, Folium buccinatiim. 



The same species was once more described in 1856 by Miquel 

 (Flora Ind. Batav. 111, 590) as H e 1 i c o n i o p s i s a m b o i n e n s i s. He 

 too cites the right figure, the wrong Rumphian name and justly cites H. 

 b u c c i n a ta Roxb. as a synonym of H e l i c o n i o p s i s. 



So far, though the same species had unluckily received three names, 

 no serions mistakes had been committed. But in 1893 J. G. Baker 

 (Ann. Bot. VII, 192, 193) reduced H. indica Lam., H. buccin ata 

 Roxb. and Heliconiopsis amboinensis as synonyms to H. 

 Bihai L., in which réduction he was followed by the Index Kewensis 

 and ail subséquent writers, i.a. Schumann (Fflanzenreich, Musaceae 36), 

 KOORDERS (Verslag. Bot. Dienstr. Minahassa 313 and Exkursionsflorci 

 1, 314, 315) and even Dr. Valeton (hiterpr. Rumph. Herb. flmb. 150). 

 The last-named savant is undoubtedly ajudge of great and well-deserved 

 authority, nevertheless I venture to express a différent opinion in this matter. 



^) The Dutch lias herc se h eut je of which surculus is indeed the right translation. 



I tliink it qiiite probable however that scheiitje is a lapsus calami for schuytjc. 



cymba, as the boat-shaped spathe, meant by Rumphius, does not at ail resemble a 



sprig. Rumphius expressly states that the 12 à 14 short fruits are situated WITHIN 



the scheutje (rcad schuytje, littlc boat), so that hc cannot possibly havc meant the 



short axis of the circininis. The manuscript should bc consulted, which however has 



no conclusivc force as tiie existing copies were not revised by Ru.wPHiUS. 



'■>) The Dutch has hère bruyn, brown. BuRMAN wrongly rendered this word by 



fuci, i.e. litmus-red. Perhaps this is only an error of the press. 



'°) Burman wrongly translated the Dutch op malkander gedrongen i.e. crowd- 



ed, by adunati, i.e. connate. 



") According to Dr. Valeton (Interpr. Rumph. Herb. 167) this is unmistakebly 



Cominsia gigantea. 



