LIT UZLL Y LUE VUVEz LL LE FU Ve vas RSS RO ER = =D - 
be argued that : Blume. intended to restrict his genus Séemonurus to its 
Gomphandra characters; yet even here he indicated no type for his genus, 
and we still have three of the original species from which to select the type. 
The international code provides that any author treating a genus may des- 
ignate the type species, and this Koorders and Valeton very definitely did 
in 1900 thus: “Genus Siemonurus B1. cuius species typica S. secundiflorus 
a Blume in Tab. XLV Mus. Bot. optime delineata est, species alias non- 
nullas generice diversas et ad Gomphandram Wall. referendas includit. 
Hoc autem jam a Beccari et Valeton bene demonstrandum est et nullam 
habet rationem. (ut fecit Engler in Nat. Pf.) nomen Sfemonurus pro Gom- 
bhandra et Urandra Thw. (jam ab auctore ipso demissum, Thw. enum.) 
in Séemonuri locum substituere.” Even earlier than this Beccari, Malesia 
L: 111-116. 1877 had restricted Stemonurus Blume to that group.of species 
baving the general characters of Stemonurus secundifiorus Blume, among 
Blume’s species considering and describing only this one, but adding several 
others; he thus eliminated all of the other species placed by Blume under 
Stemonurus and this very elimination leaves S. secundifiorus Blume as the 
type of the genus. Valeton, Crit. Overzigt Olac. 234-237. 1886, followed 
Beccaris interpretation. Sleumer, Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 15: 238. 
1940, in transferring Sfemonurus Chingianus Hand.-Maz. to Gomphandra, 
conforms to this interpretation of Blume’s genus. Howard, on the other 
hand, Jour. Arnold Arb. 21: 461-471. 1940, discussed the case at length 
and reached entirely different conclusions. He recognized Urandra 
Thwaïites to include Siemonurus secundifiorus Blume, Gomphandra Wallich 
to take various other species described under Stemonurus, and Medusan- 
thera Seem. to take still others. He calls attention to the differences in 
Blume’s amplified generic description of 1850 as compared with the original 
of 1825 and notes particularly that in this amplified description he lists 
specific characters of Stemonurus secundifiorus Blume, the species being 
one of those on which the original generic description was based. Here I 
would interpret Blume’s action as slightly modifying his original descrip- 
tion and making it even more applicable to the Séemonurus secundifiorus 
complex, as well as selecting this species for his detailed illustration of the 
genus as evidence that he considered this to be particularly typical of his 
genus Séemonurus; however, this can be considered as evidence only, not 
proof. The fact that Beccari, Valeton, and Koorders and Valeton succes- 
sively and specifically selected Séemonurus secundifiorus Blume as the type 
