PALMAE 



123 



of Areca oryzaeformis Gaertn., to be typified by the plant 

 Gaertner actually figured; rather than by the Rumphian 

 synonym he cites and from which he took the specific name. 



ARECA Linnaeus 



ARECA CATECHU Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1189 (err. cathecu) . 



Pinanga (incl. II alba et III nigra) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 26, t. U- 



The common betel-nut palm is not represented in our Amboina 

 collections. The reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stick- 

 man Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, which 

 has been accepted by all authors, as it is manifestly the correct 

 disposition of the form figured. Under this species Rumphius 

 described four forms: namely, I Pinanga calapparia, which is 

 apparently Actinorhytis calapparia H. Wendl. & Drude; 77 Pi- 

 nanga alba and 777 Pinanga nigra, which are manifestly Areca 

 catechu Linn.; and IV (unnamed), which I cannot place from 

 the imperfect description given by him. 



ARECA GLAN Dl FORM IS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 241 (type!). 



Pinanga silvestris glandiformis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 38, t. 6. 



The Rumphian figure and description are the whole basis of 

 Areca glandiformis Lam. It has been minutely described and 

 figured by Blume, Rumphia 2 (1836) 73, t. 100, from Moluccan 

 material. 



COCOS Linnaeus 



COCOS NUCIFERA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1188. 



Palma indica nucifera major s. calappa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1:1, 

 10, 11, 12, tt. 1-3. 



Rumphius gives an extensive treatise on the coconut. The 

 illustrations present a habit sketch, infructescence and infloresc 

 ence, details of the structure of the fruit, including germination, 

 and t. 3 an abnormal form of the palm. He characterizes 

 thirteen forms, most of which are referred by Blume, Miquel, 

 and Hasskarl to various named varieties of Cocos nucifera 

 Linn. The reduction of the illustrations was made by Linnaeus, 

 in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 6, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 118, 

 which is manifestly the correct disposition of them, and which 

 has been accepted by all authors. While many distinct forms 

 and varieties of the coconut occur, a clear understanding of them 

 and their relationships is possible only through critical and long- 

 continued field work, so that little is to be gained in attempting 

 to reduce the numerous Rumphian forms to named and very 

 imperfectly described varieties. 



