PALMAE 



111 



Wurmb, in Verh. Bat. Genoets. 2 (1780) 469, is doubtful, and it 

 may properly be a synonym of Wurmb's species. Loureiro, Fl. 

 Cochinch. (1790) 213, placed it under Corypha pilearia Lour., 

 which is Licuala pilearia Blume, and perhaps the same as Li- 

 cuala spinosa Wurmb. It is the whole basis of Corypha licuala 

 Lam. and in part the basis of Licuala rumphii Blume. Murray, 

 Giseke, Roxburgh, Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and other au- 

 thors refer it to Licuala spinosa Thunb., in Vet. Akad. Nya 

 Handl. (1782) 278, which is antedated by two years by Licuala 

 spinosa Wurmb. The essential distinctive characters of Licuala 

 rumphii Blume are very imperfectly known, and a critical revi- 

 sion of the genus may show that it is a synonym of Licuala 

 spinosa Wurmb. The figure is poor, but it manifestly represents 

 a Licuala very similar in appearance to the widely distributed 

 Licuala spinosa Wurmb. 



LIVISTONA R. Brown 



LIVISTONA ROTUNDI FOLIA (Lam.) Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 

 241. 



Corypha rotundifolia Lam. Encycl. 2 (1786) 131 (type!). 

 Saribus rotundifolius Blume Rumphia 2 (1836) 49. 

 Licuala rotundifolia Blume ex Roem. & Schultes Syst. 7 2 (1830) 1305. 

 Saribus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 42, t. 8. 



This is one of the few Rumphian species considered by Lin- 

 naeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753), 

 where he erroneously reduced it to Corypha umbraculif era Linn., 

 page 1187, and later cited it under the same name in Stickman 

 Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, and Sp. PL 

 ed. 2, (1763) 1657, in whch he was followed by Giseke, Prael. 

 Ord. Nat. PL (1792) 49. Louriero, FL Cochinch. (1790) 212, 

 placed it under Corypha saribus Lour., taking his specific name 

 from Rumphius. The species he actually described, however, 

 is not the Amboina form, but is Livistona cochinchinensis Blume. 

 Saribus Rumph. is the whole basis of Corypha rotundifolia Lam., 

 which in turn typifies Livistona rotundifolia Mart. 



Arbor tsjang Rumph., Herb. Amb. 1: 63, which is very im- 

 perfectly described, is perhaps a species of Livistona, as sug- 

 gested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 12; it was from 

 French Indo-China. 



LIVISTONA ? BISSULA Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1838) 242 (type!). 

 Licuala ? bissula Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 57 (type!). 

 Bissula Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:85. 



The status of this species is entirely doubtful. It may be 



