LEGUMINOSAE 



251 



ALBIZZIA sp. 



Clypearia rubra s. sye II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 177. 



The description is very brief, following that of Clypearia 

 rubra. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 205, suggests that it 

 may be Albizzia moluccana Miq., which I have here reduced to 

 Albizzia falcata (Linn.) Backer. Its exact status is indetermin- 

 able at the present time, but it is probably a species of Albizzia. 



ACACIA Linnaeus 



ACACIA MANGIUM Willd. Sp. PL 4 2 (1805) 1053 (type!). 



Mimosa simplici folia Linn. var. mangium Poir. in Lam. Encycl. Suppl. 

 1 (1810) 61. 



Acacia holosericea A. Cunn. ex G. Don Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 407. 

 Mangium montanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 123, t. 81. 



A species based wholly on Rumphius's description and figure. 

 The description, after Rumphius, has been repeated by de 

 Candolle, Prodromus 2 (1825) 451; Don, Gen. Syst. 2 (1832) 

 403; Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. I 1 (1855) 15; and Bentham, Trans. 

 Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 495. Bentham thought that it was probably 

 allied to the Australian Acacia holosericea A. Cunn., and I con- 

 sider his surmise correct; in fact I can detect no differences 

 between Australian specimens and material from the Island of 

 Buru (cult. Buitenzorg I-C-37-K-32) . Forster f., Prodr. 

 (1786) 75, referred Mangium montanum Rumph. to Mimosa 

 mangium Forst. f., basing his description, however, on actual 

 specimens from the Friendly Islands, New Caledonia, and New 

 Hebrides. Acacia mangium Willd. was published independently 

 of the earlier Mimosa mangium Forst. f . 



ACACIA RUGATA (Lam.) Ham. in Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5251. 

 Mimosa rug ata Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 20. 

 Mimosa concinna Willd. Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 1039. 

 Acacia concinna DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 464. 

 Guilandina microphylla DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 480 (type!). 

 Nugae silvarum minimae Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 95, t. 49, f. 2. 



This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 

 The Rumphian figure is poor, presenting a sterile branch only, 

 but both it and the description conform better to Acacia rugata 

 (Lam.) Ham. than to any other known species, so that the 

 present reduction is probably the correct disposition of it. Bur- 

 man f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 99, thought it represented a variety of 

 Guilandina nuga Linn. Guilandina microphylla DC. was based 

 wholly on the Rumphian figure and description. Wight and 

 Arnott, Prodr. (1834) 277, reduced it to Acacia concinna DC. 



