304 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



Lour., Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407, where it certainly does not 

 belong. 



CANARIUM ZEPHYRINUM Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 217; Miq. FL 

 Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1859) 643; March, in Baill. Adansonia 8 (1867-68) 

 53; Engl, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 149. 

 Canarium zephyrinum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 151. t. U8. 



This species is not represented in our Amboina collections, 

 unless it be a form of Canarium commune Linn., which seems 

 to be very probable. The figure is rather crude, but certainly 

 represents a form very closely allied to Canarium commune 

 Linn., where it has been referred by many authors, including 

 Willdenow, Poiret, Schultes, and Don. Canarium zephyrinum 

 Blume is a species of doubtful status and in the latest monograph 

 of the family is placed under Canarium among the "species 

 dubiae." 



CANARIUM ZEYLANICUM (Retz.) Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218. 



Amyris zeylanica Retz. Obs. 4 (1786) 25. 



Arbor zeylanica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 153 (in Burm. obs.). 



The reduction follows Blume, Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 218, as this 

 is undoubtedly the correct disposition of Rumphius's Arbor 

 zeylanica. 



CANARIUM PIMELA Konig in Konig & Sims Ann. Bot. 1 (1805) 361. 

 Pimela nigra Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 407. 



Canarium nigrum Engl, in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3 4 (1896) 



240, non Roxb. 

 Canarium sinense I Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 154? 



The identity of Canarium sinense I of Rumphius with Pimela 

 nigra Lour. = Canarium pimela Konig is entirely problematical 

 as the description is inadequate. I merely follow Blume, Mus. 

 Bot. 1 (1850) 220, in this reduction. Rumphius's material was 

 from China. 



CANARIUM ALBUM (Lour.) Rausch ex DC. Prodr. 2 (1825) 80. 

 Pimela alba Lour. Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 408. 

 Canarium sinense II Rumph Herb. Amb. 2: 154. 



The identity of Canarium sinense II with Pimela alba Lour, 

 is more or less problematical, although Loureiro in the original 

 publication of the species cites Rumphius, and the native names 

 given by Rumphius agree with those cited by Loureiro. 

 Rumphius's material was from China, not from Amboina. 

 Engler, in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 149, places Canarium 

 album under the "species dubiae." * 



* See Guillaumin, in Lecomte Fl. Gen. Indo-Chine 1 (1911) 714, who 

 gives a full description and a figure of this species. 



