SAPOTACEAE 



415 



SAPOTACEAE 



PAYENA A. de Candolle 



PAYENA LEERII (Teysm. & Binn.) Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 40 2 

 (1871) 69. 



Azaola leerii Teysm. & Binn. in Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 6 (1854) 

 116. 



Hapaloceras ? arupa Hassk. in Abhandl. Naturf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 



(1866) 193 (Neue Schliissel 51) (type!). 

 Arupa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 66, t. 38. 



Under Arupa Rumphius briefly describes two forms which he 

 indicates as Arupa alba and Arupa rubra. He distinctly states 

 that the flowers and fruits were unknown to him, yet figures a 

 plant with fruits, probably the one mentioned in the postscript 

 following the original description. Arupa alba Rumph. is the 

 whole basis of Hapaloceras arupa Hassk., a name not listed in 

 Index Kewensis. The illustration, and for that matter the de- 

 scription, applies fairly well to Payena leerii Kurz, a species 

 already reported from Amboina by Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. 

 Buitenz. 5 (1885) 56. This may, however, prove not to be the 

 correct disposition of Arupa , but this matter can be definitely 

 determined only after a more comprehensive exploration of 

 Amboina. The form very imperfectly described as Arupa rubra 

 probably pertains to some entirely different plant, but its status 

 is wholly problematical and cannot be determined from the 

 description. The figure might pass for Cratoxylon formosum 

 Dyer, but the indicated size of the leaves and the fruit charac- 

 ters, as given in the description, make this identification an 

 impossible one. 



PALAQUIUM Blanco 



PALAQUIUM AMBOINENSE Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 (1885) 37. 

 Cicadaria latifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 210, t. 135? 



The figure conforms fairly well with specimens of Burck's 

 species taken from trees cultivated in the botanic garden at 

 Buitenzorg, Java. The correctness of the reduction, however, 

 is very doubtful. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schliis- 

 sel (1866) 68, referred it to the Sapotaceae, where it certainly 

 belongs. 



The forms described in this chapter as Cicadaria angustifolia 

 and as C. zeylanica are undeterminable, and probably neither 

 belongs in this family. 



PALAQUIUM sp.? 



Sicchius I mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 40, t. 21? 



Sicchius I mas is of very doubtful status, and the description 



