INTRODUCTION 



29 



phylla of various authors includes at least three distinct species in 

 two different genera; and now the occurrence of true Ampacus 

 angustifolius Rumph. in the Amboina collection shows that this 

 Rumphian species, while a true Evodia, represents still another 

 distinct species. Evodia triphylla DC. as interpreted by various 

 authors has included at least four distinct species in two different 

 genera. 



Another case is that presented by Ricinus mappa Linn., based 

 wholly on Folium mappae Rumph. This is the basis of Maca- 

 ranga mappa Muell.-Arg., Mueller extending the range of the 

 species to the Philippines by the erroneous reduction of Croton 

 grandifolius Blanco as a synonym. I have shown that Maca- 

 ranga grandifolia (Blanco) Merr. is a species entirely distinct 

 from Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., yet Pax and K. Hoffman* 

 in their recent monograph of this group interpret Macaranga 

 mappa (Linn.) Muell.-Arg. wholly from Philippine specimens, 

 erroneously citing Croton grandifolius Blanco, Macaranga por- 

 teana Andre, and Macaranga grandifolia Merr. as synonyms, 

 and even figuring the species from Philippine material. A 

 casual comparison of Philippine material with Rumphius's figure, 

 the type of Ricinus mappa Linn.= Macaranga mappa Muell.-Arg., 

 shows that two totally different species are involved. The occur- 

 rence of typical Folium mappae Rumph. in Robinson's Amboina 

 collections shows conclusively that I was correct in separating 

 the Philippine form, that Mueller was wrong in reducing Ricinus 

 grandifolius Blanco to Macaranga mappa, and that Pax and K. 

 Hoffman were entirely wrong in their interpretation of Maca- 

 ranga mappa Muell.-Arg. The two species involved are so 

 entirely different that they belong in distinct sections of the 

 genus. 



THE INTERPRETATION OF RUMPHIAN SPECIES AS TYPES 



In the interpretation of the species of older authors under 

 which Rumphian names are cited as synonyms one point must 

 constantly be kept in mind. This is, as to whether the species 

 was based on an actual specimen in the hands of the author or, 

 by citation, wholly on the Rumphian description and figure. In 

 nearly every case it is possible to determine this point merely by 

 an examination of the description, for even when no specimen is 

 actually cited, if the species was based on an actual specimen, 

 data are usually given that could not have been derived from 



* Euphorbiaceae-Acalypheae-Mercurialinae. Engl. Pflanzenreich 63 (1914) 

 320. 



