186 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



FAGACEAE 



QUERCUS Linnaeus 



QUERCU6 MOLUCCA Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 1199 (type!). 

 Quercus molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 85, t. 56. 



The Rumphian figure and illustration are the whole basis of 

 this species, which is one of the few published in the first 

 edition of the Species Plantarum with references to the Her- 

 barium Amboinense. The species has been recognized in all 

 general works, but it is by no means certain that all of the 

 botanical material in herbaria under the name Quercus molucca 

 Linn, is of the same form as that figured and described by 

 Rumphius. It is to be typified by material from the Sula Islands 

 from whence Rumphius received his material. 



A second form, very briefly described, having oblong inedible 

 fruits, apparently represents a distinct species of Quercus. To 

 this Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 54, refers t. 56, but this is 

 certainly due to a typographical error, as on the preceding page 

 the plate is properly cited under Quercus molucca. 



ULMACEAE 



CELT IS Tournefort 



CELTIS PHILIPPENSIS Blanco PI. Filip. (1837) 197. 

 Sirifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, t. 36. 

 Sirifolia litorea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 64, t. 37. 



Possibly two species are represented by the forms Rumphius 

 described, but they are at least of the same genus. The figure 

 representing Sirifolia presents a seedling and a leafy branch 

 only, but the one representing Sirifolia litorea, a branch in fruit, 

 is a very good representation of Celtis philippensis Blanco. 

 Sirifolia was erroneously reduced by Henschel, Vita Rumph. 

 (1833) 155, to Piper malamiris Linn., while Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schliissel (1866) 51, thought that it might be Cocculus angusti- 

 folius Hassk. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in Sole- 

 nostigma=Celtis, where it certainly belongs. Sirifolia litorea 

 Rumph., which more certainly represents Celtis philippensis 

 Blanco than the preceding, was thought by Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schliissel (1866) 51, to be possibly the same as Cocculus lauri- 

 folms DC, which is an entirely erroneous disposition of it. 

 Hasskarl also quotes Teysmann's opinion that it was a species 

 of Solenostigma= Celtis. If it is not Celtis philippensis Blanco, 

 which is widely distributed in the Philippines and extends to 

 northeastern Australia, it at least represents a very closely allied 

 form. 



