302 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



and G, of plate U7 , probably represent merely variations of 

 Canarium commune Linn. Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 36, 

 places them under C. commune Linn, and C. moluccanum Blume. 



CANARIUM HIRSUTUM Willd. Sp. PL 4 2 (1804) 760 (type!). 



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

 Pimeia hirsuta Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 233 (type!). 

 Canariopsis hirsuta Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1859) 653 (type!). 

 Canarium odoriferum hirsutum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 157, t. 51. 



This is not represented in our Amboina collections. Canarium 

 hirsutum Willd. and all of the synonyms cited above must be 

 interpreted wholly from Rumphius, on whose description and 

 figure all are based. The probabilities are that Canarium his- 

 pidum Blume will prove to be a synonym of it, but additional 

 botanical material from Amboina will be necessary before the 

 exact status of Canarium hirsutum Willd. can definitely be fixed. 



CANARIUM ACUTI FOLIUM (DC.) comb. nov. 



Marignia acutifolia DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 79 (type!). 

 Canarium nigrum Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 3 (1832) 138. 

 Pimeia acutifolia Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 221, excl. syn. Zipp. 

 Dammara nigra Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t. 52. 



Amboina, Mahija, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 877, October 3, 1913, in 

 light forests, altitude about 300 meters, locally known as nanari. 



Marignia acutifolia DC. was based entirely on the Rumphian 

 reference cited above and must be interpreted from it and from 

 Amboina material. After a careful study of the description as 

 given by Rumphius, I am convinced that the specimen cited 

 above, although with an abnormal fasciated inflorescence, rep- 

 resents the plant described and in all probability the one figured, 

 although the figure is crude and unsatisfactory. It is very 

 certain that Canarium rostratum Zipp., referred here by Blume, 

 is not the plant described or figured by Rumphius, but represents 

 a distinct species apparently very closely allied to Canarium 

 oleosum (Lam.) Merr. (C. microcarpum Willd.). It is to be 

 noted that Blume, in citing Rumphius under Pimeia acutifolia, 

 erroneously gives the reference as "Dammara nigra II. p. 160, 

 t. 72," instead of Canarium nigrum Herb. Amb. 2: 160, t. 52, 

 as it should be. Canarium nigrum Roxb., which is scarcely 

 described by him, belongs here at least in part. It is not listed 

 in Index Kewensis. He cites Dulcamara (sic!) nigra Rumph., 

 Amb. II. 162. t. 52 and 53, as representing Canarium nigrum 

 Roxb; but the two plates manifestly represent two distinct 

 species, the latter being Canarium legitimum Blume (see p. 300) . 



