LAURACEAE 



233 



however, he definitely excludes the figure of the inflorescence as 

 given by Rumphius, which he apparently thought went with 

 Cinnamomum caryophylloides ruber Rumph. 



CINNAMOMUM CU LI LA WAN Blume var. RUBRUM (Blume) Meissn. in 

 DC. Prodr. 15 1 (1864) 14. 

 Cinnamomum rubrum Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 29. 

 Cinnamomum caryophylloides ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 66. 



Blume based his description of Cinnamomum rubrum partly on 

 the form described by Rumphius above cited, which Meisner 

 considers to be a variety of Cinnamomum culilawan Blume. 



CINNAMOMUM XANTHONEURUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1825) 33. 



Culitlawan ex Papuanis et Moluccis insulis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 66. 



This follows Blume's reduction of the form Rumphius de- 

 scribed, which is probably the correct disposition of it. 



CINNAMOMUM JAVANICUM Blume Rumphia 1 (1835) 42. 

 Sin doc Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 69. 



The reduction of Sindoc follows Blume's disposition of it. The 

 form Rumphius described was placed by Burman f . under Laurus 

 malabathrum Burm. f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 92, based in part on 

 a species figured and described by Rheede, and in part on Sindoc 

 of Rumphius, to be typified by the former. Miquel placed it 

 under Cinnamomum sulphuratum Nees ; Henschel placed it under 

 Cinnamomum sintoc Blume; and Nees followed Blume in re- 

 ducing it to Cinnamomum javanicum Blume. 



CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA (Linn.) T. Nees & Eberm. Handb. Med.- 

 Pharm. Bot. 2 (1831) 430. 

 Laurus camphora Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 369. 

 Arbor camphorifera I vera Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 65, 68. 



The general discussion is manifestly in part applicable to 

 the true camphor tree, Cinnamomum camphora T. Nees & Eberm. 



CINNAMOMUM spp. indet. 



Laurus japan ica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. 

 Cinnamomum japanicum II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. 

 Cinnamomum zeylanicum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 64. 



These three forms, imperfectly described, are manifestly ref- 

 erable to the genus Cinnamomum, but it is impossible to deter- 

 mine just which species were intended. The first was placed by 

 Henschel under Laurus soncaurium Ham.= Cinnamomum tamala 

 T. Nees & Eberm., of the Himalayan region, certainly a wrong 

 disposition of it; the second was thought by Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schlussel (1866) 192, to be possibly referable to Cinnamomum 

 dulce Nees ; and the third was placed by Hasskarl under Cinna- 



