Ü. viminalis) —- BECCARI. MONOGRAPH OF THE GENUS CALAMUS. 205 
at each spathel The typical C. viminalis (as I have already: said) is the Javan 
plant named C. litoralis by Blume, which however is hardly distinguishable by 
constant characters from the var. fasciculatus, which name I have assigned to -the 
ancient C. fasciculatus of Roxburgh, common in many parts of India and in 
Cochin-China, m 
In some Javan specimens, as, for instance, in those of Zollinger No. 2881 
(Herb. Boiss. and Herb. Deless,) and in No. 2652 (in Herb, DeCand.) as many as 
20-24 of the uppermost leaflets are regularly alternate in one plane, but in other 
specimens, also from Java, al the leaflets are distinctly fascicled and pointing 
different ways, and only 4-5 are regularly set at the apex. The spathels and 
the involucre of the male. spikelets are perhaps a little smaller in the Javan than 
in the Indian plant. 
C. viminalis was first made known by Rumphius, and was figured in vol. v 
of the Herbarium  Amboinense, plate 55, f. 2, under the name Palmijuncus viminalis, 
* Rotang Java." The explanatory description of that plate is however worthless, 
being a ^ mixtum compositum” derived from heterogeneous elements, but the plate 
itself is so highly characteristic on account of the peculiar armature of the leaf- 
rachis formed by long straight deflexed spines, as to leave no doubt as to its identi- 
fication. 
Willdenow (1799) in the Species Plantarum first applied the name of C. viminalis 
to Palmijuncus viminalis, but he was wrong in considering all the figures of the plate 
55 in vol v of the Herbarium Amboinense as belonging to a single species, while 
figure 1 in that plate represents another species—the Palmijuncus verus latifolius ( C. 
pisicarpus Bl,); but by the diagnosis of C. viminalis “aculeis . . , . . frondium 
distantibus reflexis," it is easy to see that Willdenow had applied that name only to 
the species represented in figure 2 of the said plate 55. i | 
Blume ( Rumphia iii, p. 45-46) has well established that the name of C 
viminalis Willd., ought to be applied to the above mentioned f. 2, plate 55, but ia 
this plate Blume has not recognised his own C. litoralis, which is certainly 
synonymous with C. viminalis. Furthermore, Blume (l. c., p. 46) believes that the 
f. 9 of the same plate 55 cannot represent a Javan species of Calamus, as 
Rumphius writes when speaking of the Javan Calamus that he had not seen the 
leaves, and from this passage Blume infers that the Calamus figured in plate 55, 
f. 2, must be one from Buru, included by Rumphius under the comprehensive name 
of Palmijuncus viminalis But I have to point out that Rumphius, when speaking of 
the “Dragon Blood,” shows he had had much correspondence with Javan people 
about Rotangs, and it is very probable that figure 2 of plate 55 had been drawn 
after the chapter on the Palmijuncus viminalis had been already written. But this 
is of little or no importance. What is certain is that Willdenow has is 
his €. viminahs on plate 55, fig. 2, vol v of the Herbarium <Amboinense, and that 
C. litoralis does not differ from this. Besides as the presence of 0. viminalis in 
4he forests of Buru is highly improbable, it is almost certain that figure 2 of plate 
55 must have been made from examples coming from Java. | 
