COMPOSITAE 



499 



BLUMEA CHINENSIS (Linn.) DC. Prodr. 5 (1836) 444. 

 Conyza chinensis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 862. 



Conyza pubigera Linn. Mant. 1 (1767) 113, saltern quoad syn. Rumph. ! 

 Sonchus volubilis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 299, t. 103, f. 2. 

 Amboina, Way tommo, PI. Rumph. Amb. 421, August 17, 1913, in thickets 

 along the river, altitude about 50 meters, flowers yellow. 



Conyza chinensis Linn, was based solely on a specimen col- 

 lected in China by Toren, and must be interpreted from that 

 specimen. Later, Linnaeus himself referred to it Sonchus volu- 

 bilis Rumph. ; and, as Blumea chinensis DC. is at present inter- 

 preted, this reduction seems to be correct. At least the Amboina 

 plant is identical with the Philippine and Malayan form that 

 appears in herbaria as Blumea chinensis DC. The reduction 

 was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 22, 

 but is excluded in the reprint of this work in Amoen. Acad. 4 

 (1759) 131. The figure is again cited by Linnaeus, Mant. 1 

 (1767) 113, under Conyza pubigera Linn.; but the species was 

 based primarily on specimens cultivated in the botanic garden 

 at Upsala, and these specimens, in all probability, were not of 

 the same species as the plant Rumphius described and figured. 

 Loureiro, Fl. Cochinch. (1790) 485, placed it under his Cacalia 

 procumbens, but Cacalia procumbens Lour, is supposed to be 

 identical with Gynura sarmentosa DC. De Candolle, Prodr. 6 

 (1837) 298, places it under Gynura sarmentosa (Blume) DC. 

 with the following statement: 



Icon. Rumph. 5 t. 103, f. 2 nostram plantam non male refert et ideo forte 

 Cacalia procumbens Lour. coch. 2. p. 592 hue referenda? 



Sonchus volubilis Rumph. is certainly not the same as Gynura 

 sarmentosa (Blume) DC. 



BLUMEA sp. 



Conyza indica minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 56? 



Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 415, October 19, 1913, in 

 grasslands, altitude about 70 meters. 



The identity of Conyza indica minor with Blumea is merely 

 possible, the description being too indefinite to warrant a positive 

 identification at this time. Burman f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 180, 

 mentions it under Conyza hirsuta Linn., but it certainly is not 

 this species. It can hardly be Blumea balsamifera DC. as sug- 

 gested by Henschel, and it certainly cannot be Vicoa indica DC. 

 var. attenuata DC. as suggested by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel 

 (1866) 162. Even if the specimen cited above represents the 

 Rumphian Conyza indica minor, which is very doubtful, I cannot 



