VITACEAE 



343 



155, referred it to Vitis labrusca Linn., but the Cochin-China 

 form he described under the Linnean name was probably Am- 

 pelocissits martini Planch, or A. arachnoidea Planch. 



CISSUS Linnaeus 



CISSUS QUADRANGULARIS Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 39. 

 Vitis quadrangularis Wall. Cat. (1832) no. 5992. 

 Funis quadrangularis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 83, t. Uh, f. 2. 



This characteristic species is not represented in our Amboina 

 collections; it is, however, of local occurrence in many parts of 

 Malaya, apparently here an introduced plant. Linnaeus cites 

 the Rumphian name, Funis quadrangularis, Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 

 1468, as a synonym of Menispermum crispum Linn., an error for 

 Funis felleus Rumph., as the illustration 'indicated is t. UU, /. 1, 

 which is a Tinospora. In the original description of Cissus qua- 

 drangularis Linn., Funis quadrangularis Rumph. is cited as a 

 synonym, this reduction certainly being the correct disposition 

 of it. Most authors have quoted the Rumphian name and figure 

 under Cissus quadrangularis Linn., a few under its synonym 

 Vitis quadrangularis Wall. 



CiSSUS REPENS Lam. Encycl. 1 (1783) 31. 



Cissus cor data Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 11, nomen nudum, Fl. Ind. 



ed. 2, 1 (1832) 407. 

 Vitis repens W. & A. Prodr. (1834) 125. 



Funis crepitans I major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 446, t. 164, f. 1. 

 Amboina, Eri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 215, September 23, 1913, in 

 thickets near the seashore, locally known as bunga tangong. 



Through confusion of Vitis alba Rumph. with t. 164>, /. 1, Lin- 

 naeus originally reduced the above figure to Bryonia cordifolia 

 Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 24; it is manifest that 

 he intended to cite 1. 166, both here and in Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 

 133. In the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762) 

 170, he erroneously reduced Funis crepitans Rumph. to Vitis 

 vitiginea Linn. Vahl, Symb. 3 (1794) 18, places it under Cissus 

 latifolia Vahl, of which, however, it is not the type; Murray, 

 Syst. (1774) 133, places it under Cissus sicyoides Linn., where 

 it certainly does not belong; Willdenow, Sp. PL V (1797) 656, 

 places it under Cissus latifolia Lam. ; and finally Roxburgh, FL 

 Ind. ed. 2, 1 (1832) 407, places it under Cissus cordata Roxb., 

 an exact synonym of Cissus repens Lam. Cissus repens Lam. 

 was based on Neriam pidli Rheed., Hort. Malabar. 7: t. 48, and 

 the form figured by Rheede appears to me to be specifically 

 identical with the form figured by Rumphius as Funis crepitans 

 I major and illustrated by the specimen cited above. 



