86 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



position of it he was followed by Lamarck, Encycl. 1 (1785) 

 374. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 30, however, placed it under 

 Lagurus paniculatus Linn., which species is there properly 

 published, and which is not included in Index Kewensis; it is, 

 however, a synonym of Andropogon nardus Linn. The Rumph- 

 ian plant, however, has nothing to do with Andropogon nardus, 

 but undoubtedly is a Miscanthus. 



Ml SCAN THUS JAPONICUS (Thunb.) Anders, in Oefv. Vet. Akad. For- 

 handl. Stockh. (1855) 166. 

 Saccharum japonicum Thunb. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 2 (1794) 328. 

 Arundo farcta II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 21, t. 6. 

 Amboina, Hoenoet, on dry hills, altitude about 50 meters, Robinson PL 

 Rumph. Amb. 38, October 7, 1913. 



The description is short and imperfect, but apparently applies 

 to this species, which, as currently interpreted, is of very wide 

 distribution in eastern Asia and Malaya. It is possible that 

 the species intended by the Rumphian description is Miscanthus 

 floridulus (Labill.) Warb., which Warburg considers to be speci- 

 fically distinct from the northern form, typical Miscanthus 

 japonicus Anders. Rumphius describes the plant as from 10 

 to 12 feet high, while Arundo farcta I is described as smaller. 



SACCHARUM Linnaeus 



SACCHARUM OFFICINARUM Linn. Sp. PL (1753) 54. 



Arundo saccharifera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 186, t. 7U, f. 1, 2. 

 Ova piscium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 191, t. 75, f. 1? 



The common sugar cane is not represented in our Amboina 

 collections. Three or four distinct varieties are considered by 

 Rumphius, under such names as alba, fusca, rotanga, etc. The 

 reduction of Arundo saccharifera Rumph. to Saccharum offici- 

 narum was made by Linnaeus in Stickman's Herb. Amb. (1754) 

 20, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 130, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 869, Sp. 

 PL ed. 2 (1762) 79, followed by various authors. Hasskarl, 

 Neue Schlussel (1866) 110, has carried the reduction of the 

 various forms described by Rumphius to varieties, and considers 

 Arundo saccharifera III, tabu rottang (expl. pi.) to represent 

 Saccharum sinense Roxb. However, Hackel, apparently cor- 

 rectly, reduces Saccharum sinense Roxb. to S. officinarum Linn. 

 Ova piscium Rumph., referred by Hasskarl to Saccharum edule 

 Hassk., is probably a form of Saccharum officinarum Linn. It 

 was, by error, referred by Linnaeus to Coix lachryma jobi L., 

 but Linnaeus manifestly intended figure 2 of plate 75, rather 

 than figure 1. 



