40 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



published species that they may represent. The importance of 

 interpreting species based on Rumphius's descriptions from 

 actual specimens collected as near the classical locality as possible 

 cannot be overestimated, and the sooner the above doubtful 

 species are definitely connected with botanical material by which 

 their true characters can be determined, the nearer we will be 

 to the long hoped for stable nomenclature. 



DIFFICULTIES IN THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RUMP H IAN 



SPECIES 



The difficulties involved in attempting to interpret the species 

 described by such an author as Rumphius in terms of the 

 binomial system are very great. The actual working up of the 

 Amboina collection has involved two entirely different sets of 

 identifications, first an identication with the form Rumphius 

 described or described and figured ; and, second, a further identi- 

 fication of the same specimen to its proper genus and species 

 under the binomial system. Neither task has been an easy one, 

 for very obvious reasons. 



In dealing with the Rumphian descriptions, many difficulties 

 are encountered. While often very long, the descriptions are 

 nontechnical, and measurements are largely approximate or com- 

 parative. TJie parts of the flowers are not described in detail, 

 and often they are not even mentioned. The plants described 

 in a single chapter under a "generic" term may belong to a single 

 genus, as the term is understood to-day, or may belong in entirely 

 different genera in distinct or even unrelated families. Many 

 forms are only casually described, sometimes scarcely more 

 than mentioned, while of others the description is reduced to 

 a general description of the wood only. Very many of these 

 casually described species were not based on Amboina material, 

 but on specimens transmitted to Rumphius from various parts 

 of Asia and Malaya. To a certain degree we have succeeded 

 definitely in placing a high percentage of the species that are 

 amply described and figured and a fair percentage of those that 

 are but casually mentioned, but much remains to be done on 

 this subject. 



Another factor that has rendered identifications difficult or 

 uncertain is the figures themselves. While many of them are 

 excellent and can be unmistakably referred to their proper species 

 in the binomial system from an examination of the figures alone, 

 others are very crude ; some are imperfect in that they delineate 

 only leaf specimens ; some are manifestly based on material origi- 

 nating from entirely distinct species or even from representatives 



