308 RUMPH IUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



under the former. The Rumphian illustration, t. 62, is the 

 type and whole basis of Carapa rumphii Kostel. Xylocarpus 

 carnulosus Zoll. & Mor., type from eastern Java, and X. forstenii 

 Miq., type from Celebes, appear to be synonymous with Xylo- 

 carpus moluccensis M. Roem. 



SAN DOR I CUM Cavanilles 



SANDORICUM KOETJAPE (Burm. f.) Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) 

 Bot. 237. 



Melia koetjape Burm. f. Fl. Ind. (1768) 101. 

 Trichilia nervosa Vahl Symb. 1 (1790) 31. 

 Sandoricum indicum Cav. Diss. 4 (1787) 359, t. 202, 203. 

 Sandoricum domesticum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 167, t. 64. 

 Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 488, July 30, 1913, near the town 

 of Amboina. 



The generic name Sandoricum was apparently taken from 

 Rumphius, and the form figured and described by him has 

 been consistently referred to Sandoricum indicum Cav., mani- 

 festly a synonym of Melia koetjape Burm. f. Burman's specific 

 name, being much the older, has been previously adopted by 

 me, and under our rules of nomenclature it must be maintained. 

 The forms briefly described by Rumphius as Sandoricum silvestre 

 and Sandoricum Cajim Gulur are undoubtedly referable to Sando- 

 ricum koetjape Merr., the former the spontaneous form with 

 acid fruits, the latter with rather large, sweet fruits. Like most 

 cultivated fruit trees, considerable variation is found in the 

 characters of the fruit of the santol. 



DYSOXYLUM Blume 



DYSOXYLUM EUPHLEBIUM Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 

 305. 



Alliaria Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 81, t. 20. 

 Amboina, Hitoe messen, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 489, November 6, 

 1913, in forests, altitude about 150 meters. 



This specimen certainly represents Alliaria Rumph., of which 

 Rumphius figured a fruiting specimen. It is also apparently 

 identical with the Philippine Dysoxylum euphlebium Merr., as 

 a careful comparison between the specimen and the type of the 

 latter species shows no essential differential characters. It is 

 not Dysoxylum alliaceum Blume, which was described from 

 Javan specimens. It was referred to Dysoxylum alliaceum 

 Blume, Bijdr. (1825) 172, which disposition of it was accepted 

 by Henschel, Walpers, Dietrich, and Miquel. Hamilton, Mem. 

 Wern. Soc. 6 (1832) 305, placed it under Guarea alliaria Ham., 



