( 6^2 ) 



specimen to Mr. .1. S. Gamulk, F. I{. S. in England. This i)otanist, 

 the author of the execllent inono^rapli on Indian Pxiiiihnsedc, 

 (published in V^ol. V'll of the Annals oï the Ivoyal Gardens of 

 Calcutta), succeeded in delerniining, that the plant belonged to a 

 new genus of (jrrainineae-B(unJ)nse(i('-Arnndiiiarl('ae, near the genus 

 Sasa Shibata ; it might thus perhaps prove to i)e i-elated to a 

 plant, collected in Java by Junchiuhn and only known to Miqukl 

 and to BtJSE in the sterile state. The latter plant was only brielly 

 described by Büse sub n. 7 on p 393 of his Plmitae Jungliuh- 

 nianae and by Miqukl sub ii. J 5 on p. 420 of Vol. Ill of his 

 Flora Indiae Batavae under the name BdnilmsdiU'd spec, indet. 

 (without further addition). Gamblk rightly suj)posed that the authentic 

 specimen of Junghuhn's herbarium might be in the Herbarium at 

 Leiden. A search, which I thereupon made in this herbarium, 

 confirmed Gamble's surmise in a striking manner. For in the ftrst 

 place 1 succeeded in tinding the authentic specimen of Junghuhn's 

 |)lant, in a packet of Jun(jhuhn's (rminhwae of Java, returned long- 

 ago by Büse's heirs to the herbarium at roeiden ; fortunateh' the 

 specimen was not only i]i an excellent state of preservation and 

 had the authentic determination label of Busk (1854), but also the 

 original herbarium notes, which I presume to have been made in 

 1839 by JuNGHUHN, at the time of collection. In the second place I 

 succeeded at Leiden, by a comparison of the leaves of the flowering 

 branches of Pulle's herbarium specimen (which leaves were greatly 

 reduced in size) with the sterile, Jiormally developed leaves of Jung- 

 huhn's plant, in establishing the unspecific identity of the two plants 

 an identity already surmised by Gamble. A comparison of the authentic 

 labels of Büse and of Junghuhn, j)resei'ved at Leiden, further showed 

 that a clerical error had arisen in Büse's text 1. c. 393 — 394 (which 

 MiQUEL 1. c. 420 had cited without criticism and in an abbreviated 

 form under ''Bamhusucearum .■species dubiae'^). This error seems to me 

 to have arisen from Büse's not having read with care Junghuhn's 

 labels indicating the place of growth. 



This was evident from the following : 



1. On the above-mentioned labels of Junghuhn I could clearly 

 read without difficulty: "J. Sunda-landschap. 3 — 6000' Bambu-:»-<>", 

 while Büse 1. c. 394 gives: Habitat Javae syha.'^ intactas PekaJontjan, 

 a/til. 3 — 6000'. JuNciHUHN. — incolae lianc vacant Bambii oU, fide 

 Junghuhn. — Species propria scandens aut ramis pendentibus ?" 

 (Büse 1. c). 



