300 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



The figure is very poor and does not conform very well with 

 Samadera indica Gaertn., although the plant described is cer- 

 tainly referable to this genus. The only previously suggested 

 reduction is Teysmann's opinion, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schlussel (1866) 66, that it was a species of Samadera. Botan- 

 ical material from the Moluccas may show Lanius to be speci- 

 fically distinct from Samadera indica Gaertn. 



SOULAMEA Lamarck 



SOULAMEA AMARA Lam. Encycl. 1 (1785) 449. 



Cardiocarpus amarus Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 14. 

 Rex amaroris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 129, t. hi. 



The Rumphian species was first reduced by Linnaeus to Ophio- 

 xylon serpentinum Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 9, 

 Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 121, an entirely erroneous disposition 

 of it. Lamarck cites Rex amaroris Rumph. as a synonym of 

 Soulamea amara Lam. in the original description of the genus 

 and species, the description being based on actual specimens 

 from New Britain ; it is barely possible that the Moluccan form 

 is specifically distinct from the New Britain one, but this can 

 be determined only by a comparison of specimens from these 

 localities. 



BURSERACEAE 



CAN AR I U M Linnaeus 



CANARIUM DECUMAN U M Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 99, t. 102. 



Pimela decumana Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 223. 

 Canariopsis decumana Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1859) 652. 

 Canarium decumanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 166, t. 55. 



This is not represented in our Amboina collections, and like 

 several other species of the genus it must be interpreted largely 

 from the description and the figure given by Rumphius. It is 

 almost certain that the species as described by Engler, in DC. 

 Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 132, under Canarium decumanum is not 

 the same as the plant that Rumphius described. The status 

 of the species must await the results of further field work. 



CANARIUM LEGITI MUM (Blume) Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1859) 647. 



Pimela legitima Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 222. 



Dammara nigra legitima Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 162, t. 53. 



This is not represented in our Amboina collections. It is 

 probable that Blume in describing the species correctly reduced 



