122 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



on Rumphius's description, as were Seaforthia vestiaria Mart, 

 and Ptychosperma vestiaria Miq. There seems to be no doubt 

 that Mischophloeus paniculata (Miq.) Scheff. is the same species 

 as the plant Rumphius described. 



PINANGA Blume 



PINANGA PUNICEA (Blume) comb. nov. 



Areca punicea Blume Rumphia 2 (1826) 72 (type!). 

 Seaforthia rumphiana Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 (type!). 

 Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1849) 314 

 (type!). 



Ptychosperma punicea Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1855) 31 (type!). 

 Pinanga ternatensis Scheff. in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 149. 

 Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:39. 



Areca punicea Blume is based wholly on Rumphius's descrip- 

 tion of Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II, as are the brief de- 

 scriptions of Drymophloeus rumphianus Mart. {Seaforthia 

 rumphiana Mart.) and Ptychosperma punicea Miq. The species 

 is undoubtedly a Pinanga and is probably the species described 

 by Scheffer as Pinanga ternatensis. I have here adopted Blume's 

 specific name, it being the oldest valid one. Sarasuac Camell, 

 cited by Blume as a synonym of Areca punicea Blume, Rumphia 

 2 (1836) 73, is Heterospathe elata Scheff., a species originally 

 described from Amboina material, and one that I cannot connect 

 with any form described by Rumphius. 



PINANGA GLOBULI FERA (Lam.) comb. nov. 



Areca globulifera Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!). 

 Areca ory zaef ormis Giseke Prael. Ord. Nat. PI. (1792) 76 (type!). 

 Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 40, t. 5, f. 2, 

 B, C, D. 



Nothing resembling the Rumphian species is represented in 

 our Amboina collections, although the figure apparently repre- 

 sents a species of Pinanga. Pinanga silvestris oryzaeformis 

 Rumph. is the whole basis of Areca globulifera Lam., which has 

 been reduced to Pinanga kuhlii Blume, and which, if correctly 

 placed, supplies a much older specific name for that species. 

 Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 568, reduced the Rumphian plant 

 to Areca sylvestris Lour., but the Cochin-China plant that he 

 actually described is certainly not the same as the one Rumphius 

 described and figured. Gaertner, Fruct. 1 (1788) 20, referred 

 it to Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., and the fruit he figured is 

 probably that of Pinanga kuhlii Blume. Seaforthia oryzaefor- 

 mis Mart., Hist. Nat. Palm. 3 (1839) 185, is merely a transfer 



