176 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



correctness of which I doubted in my former consideration of the 

 Amboina Orchidaceae.* Dendrobium bif avium Lindl. was based 

 on a flowerless specimen from Penang and is now recognized as 

 a species of the section Distichophyllum with solitary flowers. 

 Accordingly Angraecum purpureum et nudum Rumph. cannot 

 possibly belong here. The form described by Rumphius is 

 apparently a species of Dendrobium, perhaps of the section 

 Pedilonum. 



DENDROBIUM sp. 



Angraecum jamboe Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 108. 



In my former treatment of the Orchidaceae of Amboina I 

 reduced this to Dendrobium pruinosum T. & B., but I now am 

 of the opinion that that was an erroneous disposition of it. The 

 leaves are not acute, and the lip is not violet-blue. Doctor Rob- 

 inson in his field notes suggests that the plant may be Pseuderia 

 foliosa Schltr., but there are so many discrepancies between 

 Rumphius's description and the characters of Brongniart's spe- 

 cies that it is very doubtful if this suggested disposition of it 

 is the correct one. I suppose that the plant in question is a 

 species of Dendrobium of the section Grastidium. 



? DENDROBIUM sp. 



Herba supplex major tertia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. 



The status of this plant is doubtful, but it is probably a species 

 of Dendrobium of the section Rhoplalanthe. It certainly cannot 

 be referred to Dendrobium atropurpureum Miq. as Hasskarl 

 suggested. 



? DENDROBIUM sp. 



Herba supplex major secunda Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 111. 



The description is so vague that it is not even certain that the 

 plant described by Rumphius belongs in the genus Dendrobium. 

 According to the explanation of t. 51, f. 1, this figure represents 



Herba supplex femina s. secunda, not Herba supplex major 

 secunda. 



ERIAf Lindley 



ERIA MOLUCCANA Schltr. & J. J. Sm. Orch. Amb. (1905) 74. 

 Angraecum angustis crumenis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 107. 



Under Dendrobium papilioniferum J. J. Sm. I have already 

 pointed out that this is probably the correct disposition of the 

 plant Rumphius described. The data given by Rumphius con- 



* Orch. Amb. (1905) 62, 119. 



f Retained name, Vienna Code; Pinalia Buch.-Ham. (1825) is older. 



