100 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



by Cochin-China specimens. Bambusa mitis Poir., in Lam. 

 Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, is merely a new name for Arundo mitis 

 Lour. Loureiro's specimens were from plants cultivated in 

 Cochin-China, and the species may well be the same as Bambusa 

 vulgaris Schrad., in which case the specific name mitis will have 

 priority. In proposing Bambusa fera, Miquel explicitly excludes 

 from the synonyms cited all but the reference to Rumphius. 



Arundarbor vasaria s. Bulu Java Rumph. is the whole basis 

 of Bambusa vasaria Munro and is probably the same as Bam- 

 busa vulgaris Schrad. Munro suggested that it might be the 

 same as Bambusa balcooa Roxb., but the distribution of the 

 latter, known only from India, makes this reduction an impos- 

 sible one. Schultes quotes it under Bambusa arundinacea Retz., 

 Loureiro under Arundo bambos Lour., while Miquel, Fl. Ind. 

 Bat. 3 (1855) 417, thinks that it may be Bambusa vulgaris 

 Schrad. Arundarbor vasaria cho Rumph. 4: 10, may also belong 

 here. Under Arundarbor vasaria Rumphius describes several 

 other forms, on which, fortunately, subsequent botanists have 

 based no binomials, either wholly or in part. From the data at 

 present available it is impossible to determine their status, and 

 they are accordingly not listed here. The full list is given by 

 Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 69-71. 



BAM E USA VULGARIS Schrad. var. STRIATA (Lodd.) Gamble in Ann. 

 Bot. Gard. Calcutta 7 (1896) 44. 

 Bambusa striata Lodd. ex Lindl. Penny Cyclop. 3 (1835) 357. 

 Arundarbor fera elegantissima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 16. 



The description given by Rumphius applies unmistakably to 

 this form of Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., which is widely culti- 

 vated in the tropics of the Old World for ornamental purposes. 



BAMBUSA EXCELSA Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 418 (type!). 

 Arundarbor maxima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 12. 



Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 58, referred Arundarbor maxi- 

 ma Rumph. to Arundo maxima Lour., but his description was 

 based on Cochin-China specimens, which probably represent a 

 species quite different from the one Rumphius described. Poiret, 

 in Lam. Encycl. 8 (1808) 704, transferred it to Bambusa maxima 

 Poir. Miquel, however, in proposing the name Bambusa ex- 

 celsa, specifically excludes from the descriptions of Loureiro 

 and Poiret everything except the references to Rumphius; Me- 

 locanna excelsa Roep., in Trin. Clav. Agrost. (1822) 105, which 

 probably goes with Arundarbor maxima Lour., is cited as a 

 doubtful synonym. Munro has suggested that Bambusa excelsa 



