- ^83 - 



imposita, deformia, angulata, rugosa | . ^.^ | micropylae approximaturtl, 



saepe excavatum | . , , ) ossea | , I ad chalazani hilo oppositam 



procurrens | , | membranaceum | p„,Ur.,n I erectus | . 



^ j ; tegmen j. tmoryo ^ ; 



, Itères, obtusal , , , )foliaceae,subrotundae,utroqueobtusae.| 

 radiciila\ [; cotyledones\ j- 



^ . I ad ripas fluminis Doesson: Bornéo. 



I fPQr* if 



I in montibus Tjikoerai et Kiainis: Java. 



In the Leyden Herbarium Korthals's authentic samples are to be 

 found. C. lanceolata is there in several spécimens of which the most 

 important numbers are: 



Herb L. B. No 908-190-197, leg. Korthals, Bornéo, Doesson. 

 908-190-198, leg. Korthals, Bornéo. 

 „ 908-190-6, leg Korthals? Java. 



The latter two are remarkable because the name on their label at 

 first read Calpandria dasyogyna Khs., but was changed into C. lanceolata 

 in the same handwriting. Likewise, in the type spécimens of C. ^«/scosûwm : 



Herb. L. B. No. 908-191-1202, leg. Korthals ? Java, 



908-191-1201, leg. Korthals Java, G. Kiamis, 

 the original name C. lelogyna Khs. has been changed into C. quiscosaura. 

 ObvioLisly, both dénominations bear référence to the coated and the glab- 

 rous style respectively. But what did Korthals mean by quiscosaura? 

 I hâve vainly attempted, as may be seen in my dissertation (1916), to find 

 a plausible dérivation of the word, especially in connection with the author's 

 annotation that the flov^ers were known to the natives for the fact that 

 they conferred their perfume — which by the bye I hâve never been able 

 to perceive — on the breeze (Lat. aura). But I hâve to confess my inability 

 to solve this riddle. 



At ail events, whatever the etymological origin of the name may be, 

 this mucli is absolutely certain, that it is written quiscosaura and not quino- 

 saura, as first Seemann ') through a slip of the pen and in his suit a 

 great number of other authors, hâve corne to spell it! 



1 hâve hère to redress a serions error that has slipped into Seemann's 

 diagnoses of C. lanceolata and quiscosaura. Thèse descriptions are so dé- 

 tective and inaccurate that I suspect this author did never see the original 

 diagnoses of Blume and Korthals, although he quotes them allright. 

 Therefore the full diagnoses inserted above may be of sonie use; 1 more- 

 over subjoin Seemann's descriptions so as to allow a comparison: 



„C. lanceolata; arborescens; ramulis petiolisque puberulis, foliis lan- 

 „ceolatis vel ovato-lanceolatis acuminatis, subtus discoloribus, venis obscuris, 



') B. Seemann 1859, p. 345. 



