498 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



BLUMEA * de Candolle 



BLUMEA BALSAM I FERA (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 447. 



Conyza balsamifera Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1208. 

 Conyza odorata Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 55, t. 2J>, f. 1. 



Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. U17 , August 25, 1913, in 

 open woods, altitude about 100 meters. 



The Rumphian reference given by Linnaeus in the original 

 publication of Conyza balsamifera Linn, is presumably the type 

 of the species. It is the first citation given by Linnaeus, and 

 there is no evidence that he had an actual specimen before him. 

 The species has very generally been correctly interpreted by 

 succeeding authors, Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC. being a 

 rather well-marked and characteristic species of wide Indo- 

 Malayan distribution. Loureiro placed the Rumphian figure 

 under his Baccharis salvia, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 494, but Baccha- 

 ris salvia Lour, is a synonym of Blumea balsamifera (Linn.) DC. 

 Another synonym is Pluchea balsamifera Less, in Linnaea 6 

 (1831) 150. It is to be noted that the actual Amboina specimens 

 are much less pubescent than are Indo-Malayan specimens gener- 

 ally placed under Blumea balsamifera DC. ; the leaves are more 

 lobed at the base, as shown in Rumphius's figure, and in aspect 

 approach the Malayan species generally known as Blumea 

 appendiculata (Blume) DC. The involucral bracts, however, 

 are densely pubescent. 



BLUMEA APPENDICULATA (Blume) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 447. 



Conyza appendiculata Blume Bijdr. (1826) 895, non Lam. 

 Conyza mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56? 

 Conyza cadaverum Rumph. 1. c? 



Amboina, Lateri, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 4.16, August 25, 1913, in wet 

 places at an altitude of 100 meters, the plant 1 to 2.5 meters high. 



The specimen probably represents both Conyza mas and C. 

 cadaverum as described by Rumphius and is the same as the 

 Philippine plant that has been interpreted as Blumea appen- 

 diculata (Blume) DC. The specific name appendiculata is 

 invalidated by Conyza appendiculata Lam., but no change is 

 made here in consideration of the fact that the status of 

 Blumea appendiculata DC. is very uncertain; it may prove to 

 be merely a form of Blumea macrophylla (Blume) DC. or of 

 Blumea aromatica (Wall.) DC, or both of these may prove to 

 be but a single species. An examination of the actual types 

 and a critical revision of the entire genus are desirable. 



* Retained name, Vienna Code; Placus Lour. (1790) is older. 



