352 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



name from Rumphius. However, the species actually described 

 by Roxburgh was based on Indian material and manifestly is 

 not the Rumphian plant. The proper name for this Indian 

 species is apparently Elaeocarpus sphaericus (Gaertn.) K. Sch. 

 (E. ganitrus Roxb., non Ganitrus Rumph.). The species de- 

 scribed above should be compared critically with Elaeocarpus 

 angustifolius Blume (Aceratium ganitri Hassk.), to which it 

 is manifestly allied. 



ELAEOCARPUS OBLONGUS Gaertn. Fruct. 1 (1791) 202, t. US, f. 3. 

 Ganitrum oblongum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 163, t. 102? 



This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 

 Rumphius states that the form he described was found in Am- 

 boina, Celebes, and Bali. Gaertner placed it under Elaeocarpus 

 oblongus in the original description of that species, but I have no 

 means of determining whether or not the specimens he had 

 before him were identical with the form Rumphius described and 

 figured. He does not state the origin of his material. Lamarck, 

 Encycl. 2 (1788) 604, referred it tentatively to Elaeocarpus integ- 

 rifolius Lam., but his type was from the Isle of France and is 

 certainly not the same as the Moluccan form. Willdenow, Sp. 

 PL 2 2 (1799) 1170, followed Lamarck in his disposition of it. 

 Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 62, suggests that it is Elaeocar- 

 pus macrophyllus Blume, which is very improbable. Pending a 

 critical revision of the genus or at least of the Indo-Malayan 

 species, it seems best to leave it under Elaeocarpus oblongus 

 Gaertn. I have seen no authentic species of Gaertner's species, 

 do not know of what country it is a native, and strongly suspect 

 that current interpretations of it are merely approximate; per- 

 haps the modern conception of the species is based more on 

 Rumphius's figure than on Gaertner's actual specimens. 



ELAEOCARPUS sp.? 



Lignum momentaneum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 164, t. 10S. 



This reduction is suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel 

 (1866) 62, following Savigny's note in Lamarck, Encycl. 4 (1798) 

 693, under the Rumphian name pagamat. There is little in the 

 description or in the figure to indicate an Elaeocarpus, and if 

 the infructescence is drawn correctly, it certainly is not a rep- 

 resentative of this genus, although Rumphius compares the 

 fruits with his Ganitrus, which is an Elaeocarpus. Its status 

 should be determinable from continued field work in Amboina, 

 as Rumphius states that it was common in the Moluccas and cites 

 the native names pagamatta and pegang matta for Amboina and 

 sal for Ternate. 



