42 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



which the correctness of the interpretation could be checked. Again Afa- 



cuerus is divided into "mas" and femina;" one is a Cyrtandra, of the 

 Gesneriaceae, and the other is a Pellionia, of the Urticaceae, but he almost 

 certainly included in the latter an equally common Elatostema. Conoceph- 

 alus, of the Moraceae, and Medinilla, of the Melastoraataceae, are placed 

 together. It will take much critical work certainly to distinguish in the 

 Herbarium Amboinense such dissimilar plants as Pipturus, of the Urti- 

 caceae, Zizyphus, of the Rhamnaceae, other melastomataceous plants in- 

 cluding some species of Medinilla, Celtis, of the Ulmaceae, and even 

 Strychnos, of the Loganiaceae. 



Very many similar cases could be added, but the above state- 

 ment clearly indicates one particular phase of the difficulties 

 involved in the interpretation of Rumphian species. 



The difficulties involved in identifying material under the 

 binomial system have been very real. The herbarium of the 

 Bureau of Science contains only such material as could be 

 accumulated by actual field work and by exchanges in the past 

 fifteen years, and while it contains a very fine series of Philippine 

 species and much valuable material from the Indo-Malayan 

 region generally, many species that I should like to have seen are 

 lacking. Identifications, other than of those species already 

 familiar to me, have been largely made by comparisons with the 

 published descriptions, and very many such descriptions are 

 entirely inadequate, especially those of the early authors. When- 

 ever possible the original descriptions have been examined, but 

 a number of works that it has been desirable or essential to 

 examine in the course of the preparation of this manuscript are 

 not available in Manila. In very numerous cases resource has 

 been had to transcriptions or photographic reproductions of 

 essential descriptions, and such data have been supplied by 

 various botanists in Europe and America. In one form or 

 another I have thus been able to examine nearly all of the 

 references to Rumphius cited in this work. 



In the present consideration of the Rumphian species I have 

 departed radically from the works of previous authors. In 

 order to make the work more generally available to botanists, 

 the Rumphian species, so far as they can be reduced at present, 

 are cited as synonyms under the various species and genera to 

 which they refer, these again being arranged by families and 

 genera in the sequence of Engler and Prantl's Natiirlichen 

 Pflanzenfamilien. Appended to this systematic treatment of 

 the Rumphian species is a list under the Rumphian names 

 arranged in the sequence of the Herbarium Amboinense, giving 

 references to the volume, the page, and the figure under each 

 and, so far as determinable, their binomial equivalents. 



