224 



RUMPH IUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



MICH EL I A TSIAMPACCA Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 78 (type!). 

 Sampacca silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 202. t. 68. 



This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 

 It was described by Rumphius from sylvan specimens growing 

 in Amboina, having white flowers. It is probably allied to 

 Michelia montana Blume. The Rumphian reference seems to be 

 the basis of Michelia tsiampacca Linn., but the plate was origin- 

 ally referred by Linnaeus, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1082, to Michelia 

 champaca Linn. By other authors it has been referred to 

 Michelia suaveolens Pers., M. sericea Pers., and M. euonymoides 

 Burm. f ., all of which appear to be synonyms of Michelia cham- 

 paca Linn. The native Amboinese name cited by Rumphius is 

 tsjampacca utan or tsjampacca puti, and botanical material from 

 Amboina will be necessary before the exact status of the species 

 can be determined. 



TALAUMA Jussieu 



TALAUMA RUMPHII Blume Bijdr. (1825) 10 (type!). 



Liriodendron liliifera Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 755 (type!) non 



Talauma liliifera Kurz. 

 Sampacca montana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 204, t. 69 haud Arbor 



violaria Rumph. 1. c. 203! 



Not represented in our Amboina collections, but manifestly 

 a Talauma. Sampacca montana Rumph. is the whole basis of 

 Liriodendron -liliifera Linn., but Talauma liliifera Kurz was 

 based on Liriodendron liliifera Roxb., non Linn., so that the 

 Linnean specific name is invalid in Talauma. The Rumphian 

 plant is also the whole basis of Talauma rumphii Blume, but 

 the species, as yet not represented by any botanical material 

 definitely known to represent the Rumphian plant, is one of 

 doubtful status. Sampacca montana was referred, with doubt, 

 to Magnolia pumila Andr. by de Candolle, Syst. 1 (1818) 458, 

 and it certainly is not this species, nor is it Magnolia inodora 

 DC. 1. c. 459, which was based on Liriodendron liliifera Lour., 

 Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 346; Loureiro's species was based! on 

 specimens from Canton, China, to which he added a reference 

 to Sampacca montana Rumph. 



Arbor violaria Rumph., Herb. Amb. 2: 203, as described, is 

 entirely different from Sampacca montana Rumph. h c. 204, 

 t. 69, as described and figured; the plate goes with Sampacca 

 montana, not with Arbor violaria Rumph. It has been assumed 

 by some that the descriptions applied to the same plant, but 

 Arbor violaria was described from cultivated specimens from 

 Banda Island, while Sampacca montana was described from 



