Botany. — ,,The genus Coptosnpeltn Korivk" . {Ruhinceae).^y T>v. 

 Tn. Valeton. (Oonimiinicated by Prof. J. W. Moll). 



(Communicated at the meeting of April 28, 1923). 



^ 1 In my paper on Lindeniopsis, a new snb-genus of Coptosn- 

 peltn KoRTH. (Proceedings of tlie Academy of Sciences of May 30, 

 1908) I gave a synopsis of the few species of the genus, known at 

 that time. At my further study of the Rubiaceae of the Malay 

 Archipelago and of New-Guinea, I again found a number of species 

 not described at all or not in the right genus, in consequence of 

 wliich this number has increased to 11. Besides it appeared from 

 the research, that the existing diagnosis, already revised by me, 

 could no more be applied to all species. For this reason I want to 

 subject the chief characleiistics of the genus of systematical interest 

 to an investigation and subsequently to summarize the species known 

 at the present time. 



^2. Historical review. The genus was constituted by 

 Korthals (1851) on some fruiting branches of a liane, gathered b}' his 

 colleague Dr. Mülleh on the sandy plains near Karrau (Southern 

 and Eastern division of Borneo). He found them to belong to a new 

 genus in the group of the Cinchoneae Decandolle, of which there 

 are but a few genera known in the Dutch Indies. 



As chief characteristics he considered the liane-Iike habit, the 

 fruit splitting up in two cells, each of them splitting up again and 

 the peltate seeds provided with a fringed wing, a combination of 

 characteristics, not yet found in any genus. In naming the genus 

 he apparently referred to the seeds. At least I think to recognise 

 the words xo.ttw, in the meaning of ,, Chopping" or ,, Hewing" 

 (because of the notched wings) and Jtekrij shield. The significance 

 of the connecting syllabe ,,sa" is not clear to me. Probably the 

 name originally ran: Coptospeha, a bad word-formation. As a 

 specific name he used ,,flavescens", alluding to the yellowish tint 

 the leaves get on drying. 



Korthals's specimen is lacking in the Dutch and Dutcii-Indian 

 Herbaria. It is not apparent either, that Miquel knew it (1856). It 

 was however known to Hooker, when describing in 1876 a second 

 species of the same genus, C. Griffithii Hook f. in Icones plantarum 



