184 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



rhachi hirsuta, bracteae pelta glabra elliptica centro pedicellata 

 decidua pedicello hirsuto, baccis condensis obovatis glabris, stig- 

 matibus rotundatis minutis. 



Dioicum. Ramuli spiciferi in mare 1 mm in femina 1.5 ad 2 

 mm crassi, collenchyma libriforme in mare in fasciculos discretos 

 dispositum in femina subcontinuum, fasciculi intramedullares 

 2-seriati, canalis lysigenus centralis periphericique multi. 

 Limbo in sicco firme membranacei minute pellucido-punctulati, 

 superi usque ad 18 cm longi et 8 cm lati. Petioli usque ad limbi 

 latus longius 10 mm, inter limbi latera 1 mm longi. Spica in 

 mare subflorens 4 cm longa et 2.25 mm crassa, in femina usque 

 ad 4.5 cm longa et 3 mm crassa. Rhachis in mare et in femina 

 canalibus lysigenis periphericis munita, bracteae pelta in mare 

 1 mm diam., in femina 1 mm longa et 0.75 mm alta, bacca 1.5 

 mm longa in siccb atrorubens vel nigra. 



The above description, based on the two specimens cited above, 

 has been kindly supplied by Mr. C. de Candolle of Geneva, Swit- 

 zerland. The identification of Sirium silvestre Rumph. with 

 Piper caducibracteum C. DC. has been made by myself, following 

 Doctor Robinson's suggestion that the specimen collected by 

 him possibly represented Rumphius's species. Two forms are 

 described and figured by Rumphius, but I consider that Sirium 

 silvestre II, at least as figured, represents merely a juvenile 

 form of Sirium silvestre I. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. 

 (1754) 22, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 131, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 856, 

 referred it to Piper malamiris Linn., where it certainly does not 

 belong. Miquel thought that both forms described by Rumphius 

 might be the same as Chavica malamiris Miq., which is merely 

 a synonym of Piper malamiris Linn. C. de Candolle, Prodr. 16 1 

 (1869) 361, cites both figures with doubt under Piper sirium 

 C. DC, which is essentially a new name for Chavica malamiris 

 Miq.; only Indian specimens are cited, and it is entirely im- 

 probable that the Amboina plant cited by Rumphius is the same 

 as the Indian one described. • 



PIPER NIGRUM Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 28. 



Piper album et nigrum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 335. 



This reduction follows Miquel, Syst. Piper. (1844) 309, and 

 is unquestionably the correct disposition of the plant that 

 Rumphius described. 



PIPER SUBPELTATUM Willd. Sp. PL 1 (1798) 166 (type!). 

 Lomba Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 133, t. 59, f. 1. 



Linnaeus originally reduced Lomba to Piper peltatum Linn., 

 an American species to which it does not belong, in Stickman 



