334 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



SEMECARPUS Linnaeus f. 



SEMECARPUS CASSUVIUM Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 32 (type!); 

 Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 936; Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. 2, 2 (1832) 85. 



Anacardium longifolium Lam. Encycl. 1 (1763) 139, p. p., quoad syn. 

 Rumph. 



Cassuvium silvestre Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 179, t. 70. 



Amboina, Paso, Way tommo, and near the town of Amboina, Robinson 

 PL Rumph. Amb. 119, 120, 121, 122, October, November, 1913, in thickets 

 and light woods, sea level to an altitude of 20 meters, locally known as saku. 



Cassuvium silvestre Rumph. is the whole basis of Semecarpus 

 cassuvium Roxb. as originally published by him, Hort. Beng. 

 (1814) 32, by citation.* Sprengel apparently based his short 

 description partly, if not entirely, on Anacardium longifolium 

 Lam., which is the same as Semecarpus cassuvium Roxb. only 

 in small part. Roxburgh's actual description, as published in 

 1832, was based on specimens originating in the Moluccas and 

 cultivated in the botanic garden at Calcutta. 



SEMECARPUS FORSTEN 1 1 Blume Mus. Bot. 1 (1850) 188. 



Cassuvium silvestre s. Lau Lassi (e Ternate) Rumph. Herb. Amb. 

 1: 180. 



The reduction follows Blume, who so reduced the Ternate 

 form mentioned by Rumphius, in the original description of 

 Semecarpus forstenii Blume, which was based on actual speci- 

 mens collected in Ternate by Forsten. 



CELASTRACEAE 



EUONYMUS Linnaeus 



EUONYMUS sp.? 



Caju lape lape Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 78, t. 50. 



Nothing resembling the form figured by Rumphius occurs in 

 our Amboina collections. The figure looks suspiciously like 

 certain species of Euonymus, while the description applies fairly 

 closely. Blume, Rumphia 3 (1837) 167, notes that it cannot be 

 a M is cho carpus ; Miquel, Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 2 (1858) 567, mentions 

 it under Cupania fuscescens M.iq.=Mischocarpus fuscescens 

 Blume; while Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 53, quotes Teys- 

 mann's opinion that it was an Elodea (Tridesmis) =Cratoxylon, 

 which is an impossible disposition of it. It may possibly be a 

 sapindaceous plant, but the probabilities are that it is a poorly 

 described and figured species of Euonymus. 



* See C. B. Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 413, 418. 



