VITACEAE 



347 



which of several species of Leea was intended ; but the description 

 is unmistakably that of Leea aequata Linn., not of Leea sambu- 

 cina Willd., especially in the description of the leaflets as "su- 

 perne pilis hirta, inferne arenulosa," "arenulosa" manifestly 

 referring to the numerous glands on the lower surface that are 

 so very characteristic of Leea aequata Linn. 



LEEA ACULEATA Blume Bijdr. (1825) 197; Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.- 

 Bat. 1 (1863) 99. 

 Leea spinosa Spreng. Syst. 1 (1825) 670 p. p., quoad cit. "Ins. 

 Molucc." 



Leea aculeata Blume var. moluccana Miq. 1. c. 

 Leea serrulata Miq. 1. c. 



Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. A . b. 4: 102, t. Uh> 

 Amboina, Mahija and town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 231, 

 232, July 23 and August 7, 1913, along river banks and edges of clearings, 

 altitude 7 to 200 meters, locally known as kayu baduri. 



The specimens certainly represent Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. ; 

 they are also undoubtedly referable to the species described by 

 Blume as Leea aculeata Bl. and later described by Blanco from 

 Philippine material as a distinct species under the same specific 

 name. The trunk is supplied with short spines, but ordinary 

 herbarium material rarely presents these as the branchlets are 

 nearly always unarmed. Chiefly on account of the spiny stems 

 as depicted by Rumphius, Linnaeus referred Frutex aquosus mas, 

 with doubt, to Aralia chinensis Linn., in Stickman Herb. Amb. 

 (1754) 16, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 127, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 967, 

 Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 393, in which he was followed by Lamarck, 

 Loureiro, Willdenow, Burman f., and other authors. Koste- 

 letzky, Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5 (1836) 1981, referred it to Aralia 

 spinosa Linn. De Candolle, Prodr. 4 (1830) 259, expressed the 

 opinion that the Rumphian figure represented a species of Leea, 

 rather than an Aralia; and finally Miquel, Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. 

 Bat. 1 (1863) 99, reduced Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. to Leea 

 aculeata Blume, which is apparently the correct disposition of it. 

 C. B. Clarke, Journ. Bot. 10 (1881) 105, expresses the opinion 

 that Frutex aquosus mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 102, t. UU, does 

 not represent Leea aculeata Blume; but it is apparent that he 

 misinterpreted Blume's species, because he puts it in the section 

 with red flowers, while in Leea aculeata Blume the flowers are 

 greenish-white or white. The name Leea spinosa Spreng. is 

 properly a synonym of Aralia chinensis Linn. ; Sprengel ap- 

 parently intended to refer here only the Amboina reference from 

 Rumphius, but does not so state. Following the short descrip- 

 tion he merely cites "Ins. Molucc. China (Aralia chinensis L.)." 



