58 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



(1858) 977, correctly excluded Cassytha corniculata Burm. f. 

 from the Lauraceae. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 191, 

 states: "Mihi Rhizomorpha aut Mycelium fungi cujusdam esse 

 videtur." 



GANODERMA Karsten 



GANODERMA AMBOINENSE (Lam.) Pat. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 5 

 (1889) 70. 



Agaricus amboinensis Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 51 (type!). 

 Polypoms amboinensis Fries Syst. Mycol. 1 (1821) 354 (type!). 

 Fomes amboinensis Fries Epicr. (1836-38) 442 (type!). 

 Fungus elatus cochlearis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t. 57, f. 1. 

 Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 572, altitude about 

 400 meters. 



The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of 

 all the synonyms cited above. This is not Ganoderma amboin- 

 ense (Lam.) Pat. as currently interpreted, but is apparently 

 a form of Ganoderma rugosum (Bl. & Nees) Bres. In this 

 connection it is to be noted that Rumphius figures Fungus elatus 

 cochlearis with a long stipe and definitely states regarding it : 

 "petiolo longo & tenui, spithamam vel pedam circiter longo," 

 which includes no character of Ganoderma amboinense as cur- 

 rently interpreted. The figure shows a specimen with a lateral 

 pileus, while Ganoderma rugosum Bres. usually has a central 

 stipe. Of Robinson's material, cited above, one specimen has 

 a central stipe, and one, the pileus injured, has a lateral stipe. 

 I have little hesitation in interpreting true Ganoderma amboin- 

 ense (Lam.) Pat. as the form currently known as Ganoderma 

 rugosum Bres. From this I do not think that Fungus elatus 

 primus Rumph. and Fungus elatus petasoides Rumph., described in 

 the preceding paragraph, can be distinguished. 



GANODERMA COCHLEAR (Nees) comb. nov. 



Polyporus cochlear Nees in Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur. 13: 20, t. 6. 

 Ganoderma amboinense auct. plur., non Agaricus amboinensis Lam., 



nec Polyporus vel Fomes amboinensis Fries. 

 Fungus elatus digitatus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 129, t. 57, /. 2, 3, et, 



s. n., t. 57, f. E. 



Amboina, Amahoesoe, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 610, August 30, 1913, 

 on dead trees at low altitudes. 



It is very evident from an examination of the original descrip- 

 tions that Ganoderma amboinense Pat. has been wrongly inter- 

 preted by recent authors — Patouillard, Murrill, Sydow, and 

 Bresadola — for the Rumphian figure and description, on which 

 Ganoderma amboinense is based, is undoubtedly the form 

 currently known as Ganoderma rugosum Bres. I am of the 



