342 RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



ductions by other authors have been Croton sp., by Burman f., 

 ex Hasskarl, Neue Schliissel (1866) 96; some aurantiaceous 

 plant, after Poiret, Hasskarl, 1. c. ; and Teysmann's suggestion to 

 Hasskarl that it was Zizyphus timoriensis DC. 



VENTILAGO Gaertner 



VENTILAGO sp. 



Funis viminaiis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 3, t. 2. 



Nothing that can be referred to the plant that Rumphius 

 figures and describes occurs in our Amboina collections. The 

 plant is manifestly a Ventilago, but its status must remain doubt- 

 ful until more comprehensive collections are made in Amboina. 

 Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 18, Amoen. Acad. 4 

 (1759) 128, erroneously referred it to Securidaca volubilis Linn., 

 with which, however, it has nothing in common. Willdenow, 

 Sp. PL 1 (1797) 1106, reduced it to Ventilago maderaspatana 

 Gaertn., in which he has been followed by all subsequent authors 

 who have had occasion to cite the Rumphian figure. It is very 

 improbable, however, that this Moluccan plant is identical with 

 Ventilago maderaspatana Gaertn. Possibly it is the same as 

 Ventilago cernua Tul., in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 8 (1857) 123, 

 which was described from specimens collected by Gaudichaud in 

 Rawak Island, Moluccas. 



VITACEAE 



AMPELOCISSUS Planchon 



AMPELOCISSUS ARACH NOI DEA (Hassk.) Planch, in DC. Monog. Phan. 

 5 (1887) 375. 



Cissus arachnoidea Hassk. Cat. Hort. Bogor. (1844) 166. 

 Cissus blumeana Hassk. in Flora 25 (1842) Beibl. 39, non Span., 

 nec Steud. 



Ampelopsis indica Blume Bijdr. (1825) 193, non Ampelocissus indica 

 Planch. 



Labrusca molucca Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 452, t. 167. 



This rather characteristic species is not represented in our 

 Amboina collections. The figure and the description, however, 

 apply closely to Ampelocissus arachnoidea (Hassk.) Planch, and, 

 for that matter, also to Ampelocissus martini Planch., which must 

 be very closely allied to the former. Koorders, Exkurs. Fl. Java 

 2 (1912) 557, seems first to have made this reduction of Labrusca 

 molucca Rumph., which is manifestly the correct disposition of 

 it. Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24, Syst. ed. 

 10 (1759) 942, erroneously referred it to Vitis indica Linn, and 

 again, with even greater error, placed it under Vitis trifolia Linn., 

 in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 133. Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 



