BURSERACEAE 



301 



the Rumphian plant. Blume's species was based on actual 

 specimens with a reference to the Rumphian name and figure. 



CANARIUM BALSAM I FERUM Willd. Sp. PL 4 2 (1804) 760 (type!). 



Boswellia balsamifera DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 76 (type!). 

 Pimela glabra Blume Mus. Bot. 2 (1850) 222 (type!). 

 Canariopsis glabra Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1859) 653 (type!). 

 Canarium odoriferum leve Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 156, t. 50. 



This is not represented in our Amboina collections. The 

 status of the species is wholly doubtful, and all the names cited 

 above must be interpreted entirely from Rumphius, as all are 

 based solely on his description and figure. Like a number of 

 other species of Canarium, the exact status of Canarium balsa- 

 miferum Willd. must await further botanical exploration of 

 Amboina; the only certain thing about the status of the species 

 is that it is a true Canarium. 



CANARIUM COMMUNE Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 127 (type!). 



Canarium mehenbethene Gaertn. Fruct. 2 (1791) 98, saltern quoad syn. 

 Rumph. 



Canarium indicum Linn. Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 143 pro minore parte. 

 Canarium moluccanum Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 216. 

 Canarium vulgare Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 145, t. 47, (excl. /. E, 

 F. G?) . 



Amboina, Binting and the town of Amboina, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 

 381, September 27, 1913, in flower; Gelala, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 380, 

 July 16, 1913, in fruit, locally known as kanari. 



Canarium vulgare Rumph. is the whole basis of Canarium 

 commune Linn., as originally published by Linnaeus in his 

 Mantissa 1 (1767) 127, and the species must be interpreted from 

 the Rumphian reference. The species has been correctly inter- 

 preted by practically all authors, as it is widely destributed in 

 the Malay Archipelago and is a characteristic and well-known 

 one. Canarium indicum Linn., not listed in Index Kewensis, is 

 an older name, but I believe it should be abandoned for the reason 

 that Linnaeus cited under it all the species of Canarium figured 

 by Rumphius, t. U7 to 56, inclusive. He abandoned the name, 

 apparently realizing later that numerous species were involved, 

 and made the first plate, t. U7, the type of his Canarium com- 

 mune. While the first plate cited under Canarium indicum, 

 that is t. U7 , might be interpreted as the type of Canarium 

 indicum Linn., it really represents that species only in small part. 

 I can see no valid reason for considering Canarium moluccanum 

 Blume other than a form of C. commune Linn. Figures E, F, 



