416 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



is possibly a mixture of the characters of two different species. 

 Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 48, quotes it under Hapaloceras 

 leerii Hassk.= Keratophorus leerii Hassk.=Payena leerii Kurz, 

 where it certainly does not belong; at least the form figured by 

 Rumphius. He also suggests that it is an Aegiceras, an equally 

 wrong disposition of it. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, con- 

 sidered that it belonged to the Sapotaceae. The description and 

 the plate indicate Sapotaceae, but no species is known to me 

 that conforms with the characters indicated by Rumphius. The 

 drawing of the fruit certainly represents no sapotaceous plant, 

 and it does not conform with Rumphius's description. The 

 name sicki in Amboina appears to be applicable to Litsea, but 

 the plant figured and described is no lauraceous species. 



SIDEROXYLON Linnaeus 



81 DEROXYLON M ICROCARPU M Burck in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. 5 



(1885) 17. 



Arbor facum major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 77, t. 49. 



Rumphius's figure is an excellent one and unmistakably rep- 

 resents a Sideroxylon, and I believe S. microcarpum Burck in 

 spite of the discrepancies between the fruit as figured by 

 Rumphius and as described by Burck. The type of Sideroxylon 

 microcarpum Burck was from Amboina, with the native names 

 ay-lapei and kajoe lapei-lapei; two names cited by Rumphius 

 are caju lobe and caju lape-lape. The figure agrees very closely 

 with flowering specimens from trees cultivated in the botanic 

 garden at Buitenzorg. Lamarck, Encycl. 3 (1789) 234, cites 

 it with doubt under Bassia longifolia Lam., where it manifestly 

 does not belong. The only other suggested indentification of it 

 is Teysmann 's reference of it to the Sapotaceae, as quoted by 

 Hasskarl. 



SIDEROXYLON sp. 



Sicchius II femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 41, t. 22? 



The figure certainly represents a sapotaceous plant and is prob- 

 ably a species of Sideroxylon as placed by Teysmann in Hassk. 

 Neue Schlussel (1866) 49. It has, however, much the appear- 

 ance of Payena leerii Kurz, which is known from Amboina. 

 The brief description given by Rumphius does not agree with 

 the figure as to fruit characters. It is certainly no Elaeocarpus 

 as suggested by Hasskarl. The form briefly described as 

 Sicchius III in this chapter is entirely undeterminable. 



