RUBIACEAE 



483 



orientalis Linn., to which Nauclea undulata Roxb. is manifestly- 

 very closely allied. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 53, placed 

 it with doubt under Sarcocephalus undulatus Miq.= Nauclea 

 undulata Roxb., and I consider that he was correct in this reduc- 

 tion ; Roxburgh's type was from the Moluccas. The species can 

 be distinguished from the very closely allied Nauclea orientalis 

 Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq.) only by some relatively 

 unimportant characters. Arbor noctis II Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 

 83 is probably merely a form of the same species. 



NAUCLEA M ITRAGYN A (Miq.) Merr. in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 

 536. 



Sarcocephalus mitragynus Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. 4 (1868-69) 

 180. 



Bancalus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 84, t. 55. 



This species is not represented in our Amboina collections. 

 Linnaeus originally reduced Bancalus to Cephalanthus orientalis 

 lArm.=Nauclea orientalis Linn. (Sarcocephalus cordatus Miq.), 

 in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 12, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 123, 

 Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 887, Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1762) 243, in which he was 

 followed by Burman f., Loureiro, Poiret, de Candolle, Henschel, 

 and Pritzel. Willdenow, Persoon, Roemer and Schultes, and 

 other authors have referred it to Nauclea purpurea Roxb. ; but 

 Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2 (1824) 123, explicitly states that Bancalus 

 Rumph. is not the same as Nauclea purpurea Roxb. =Neonauclea 

 purpurea (Roxb.) Merr. The identification of "Bancalus mas 

 sive parvifolius" Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 83, t. 55, f. 1, 2, with 

 Sarcocephalus mitragynus Miq. was made by Miquel, his type 

 being from Ceram. I first referred it to Nauclea (Sarcocepha- 

 lus) subdita (Korth.) Merr., a species that is not definitely 

 known from the Moluccas. Nauclea mitragyna Miq. is in cul- 

 tivation in the botanic garden at Buitenzorg, Java, the specimen 

 having been secured by Teysmann in Amboina. Dr. Valeton 

 writes that it greatly resembles Sarcocephalus subditus Korth., 

 and that he doubts whether or not it is specifically distinct from 

 Korthals's species. 



Rumphius included in his description what he took to be two 

 "species," Bancalus mas and Bancalus media (major in expl. pi.) ; 

 but no definite characters are indicated, either in the descriptions 

 or in the figures, by which two distinct species can be recognized, 

 and it is suspected that the entire description and both figures 

 are referable to Nauclea mitragyna (Miq.) Merr. It is a true 

 Nauclea (Sarcocephalus), not a Neonauclea* 



* Merrill, E. D. On the application of the generic name Nauclea of 

 Linnaeus. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 5 (1915) 530-542. 



