ZINGIBERACEAE 



155 



pinia moluccana Gagnep. is exactly identical with Alpinia nutans 

 as here interpreted. Alpinia papuana Scheff., in Ann. Jard. 

 Bot. Buitenz. 1 (1876) 56 (type in Herb. Hort. Bog.), has a 

 different calyx and much smaller flowers and inflorescences than 

 the present species. Alpinia eubractea K. Sch. (non Val.) from 

 Celebes (Sarasin 8J>6) , differs conspicuously in its long, narrow, 

 truncate bracteoles.* Alpinia colossea K. Schum. is the same as 

 A. papuana Scheff. Alpinia gigantea Blume is definitely refer- 

 red by K. Schumann to Scheffer's species, although at the same 

 time he rebukes Blume for quoting Rumphius's t. 62 instead of 

 t. 63 and for describing the leaves as pubescent instead of 

 glabrous. Following K. Schumann's interpretation of Blume's 

 species, I adopted the latter's specific name for the wrong species 

 (Nova Guinea 1. c.) . If Blume had meant this species, he surely 

 would have quoted t. 63 and would also have mentioned the 

 striking bracts (which are shown, but much less conspicuously, 

 in t. 62), and he would have described the leaves as glabrous. 

 Blume's description certainly applies to a different species; see 

 above. As already noted, Globba nutans Linn, supplies the 

 oldest specific name for this species, but which was rejected 

 by K. Schumann because Linnaeus quoted both t. 62 and t. 63, 

 which he, K. Schumann, considered to represent distinct species ; 

 yet in this K. Schumann was wrong and Linnaeus was right, 

 as both figures manifestly apply to but a single species. 



ALPINIA MALACCENSIS Rose, in Trans. Linn. Soc. 8 (1807) 330. 



Galanga malaccensis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 176, t. 71, f. 1 (incl. 

 Bangle malacca) . 



The Rumphian reference cited above was placed by Burman f ., 

 PI. Ind. (1768) 2, under Maranta malaccensis Burm. f., which is 

 the name-bringing synonym of Alpinia malaccensis Rose. 

 Roxburgh, Asiat. Res. 11 (1810) 353, referred to Alpinia 

 malaccensis material from Chittagong, and his interpretation 

 has been accepted by most authors. Blume, Enum. (1827) 59, 

 without mention of Roxburgh's description, interpreted the 

 common Javan form as Burman's species, and his reduction and 

 diagnosis have been overlooked by all authors, including K. 

 Schumann. Ridley, who collected the Javan form in Malacca 

 denied that it is identical with Roxburgh's interpretation of 

 Alpinia malaccensis and redescribed it as Alpinia nobilis Ridl., 

 in Journ. Roy. As. Soc. Straits Branch 32 (1899) 169, without 

 mention of Alpinia malaccensis Rose. It seems to me more 

 probable that Blume's interpretation of the Rumphian species is 



* See K. Schumann in Engl. Pflanzenreich 20 (1904) t. M, f. A. 



