ARACEAE 



125 



tion was made in Stickman, Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. 

 Acad. 4 (1759) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252, Sp. PL ed. 2 

 (1763) 1374, which was followed by most of the early authors. 

 Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 212, placed it under Flagellaria 

 repens Lour. =Pothos loureirii Hook. & Arn. Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schliissel (1866) 150, has interpreted the three forms described 

 and figured by Rumphius as follows: I m&joT=Scindapsus 

 officinalis Schott, most certainly wrong; II minor —Pothos rox- 

 burghii DeVriese with question, but most certainly wrong, as 

 the species is known only from India; and III=P. roxburghii 

 DeVriese, with doubt. I can see no valid reason for considering 

 that more than a single species is represented, and that is Pothos 

 longifolius Presl. 



POTHOS LATIFOLIUS Linn, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 25, Amoen. 

 Acad. 4 (1754) 133, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1252 (type!). 

 Pothos tener Schott Aroid. 1 (1853) 24 (type!). 

 Scindapsus tener Presl Epim. (1851) 241. 

 Pothos gracilis Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 433. 

 Adpendix arborum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 483, t. 181, f. 1, 2. 



This is not represented in our Amboina collections and is a 

 species of doubtful status. Pothos latifolius Linn, was based 

 wholly on Rumphius's description and figure, the original de- 

 scription being as follows: "181. Adpendix arborum = Pothos 

 latifolius, foliis ovatis, petiolo latioribus." Thus Linnaeus in- 

 cluded both figures 1 and 2, that is, the forms indicated by 

 Rumphius as parvifolia and media. To me they both appear to 

 represent the same species, one in, or immediately following, 

 anthesis; the other in fruit. Pothos tener Schott was based 

 wholly on Adpendix arborum I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 483, t. 

 181, f. 1; and, if I am correct in my surmise that but a single 

 species is represented by the two figures, it becomes a synonym 

 of Pothos latifolius Linn. Engler considers that Pothos tener 

 Schott is apparently the same as the Bornean Pothos barberianus 

 Schott. Pothos gracilis Roxb. was' described from specimens 

 grown in Calcutta, originating in Amboina, and is probably a 

 synonym of Pothos latifolius Linn.; Roxburgh states that it 

 had a great resemblance to Adpendix arborum as figured by 

 Rumphius. It is not, however, mentioned in the latest mono- 

 graph of the group, Engl. Pflanzenreich 21 (1905) 21-44, and 

 is quite certainly not the Penang and Bornean form described 

 under the name Pothos gracilis Roxb. by Engler in DC. Monog. 

 Phan. 2 (1879) 91. 



