508 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



Frutex carbonari us I albus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126, t. 62. 



The figure is rather characteristic, but might represent either 

 a rubiaceous or a melastomataceous plant. Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schlussel (1866) 85, thought that it might be a species of 

 Marumia; while Teysmann, as quoted by Hasskarl, placed it in 

 the Rubiaceae. Its status cannot be definitely determined with- 

 out more material from Amboina. The same name, without 

 description, is given by Rumphius Herb. Amb. 3: 33. 

 Frutex carbonarius II ruber Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 126. 



Perhaps a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by 

 Hasskarl. 



Frutex carbonarius latifolius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127. 



Probably a species of the Melastomataceae, as suggested by 

 Hasskarl. 



Frutex carbonarius asper Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 127. 



Probably a species of the Melastomataceae. Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schlussel (1866) 85, suggested that it might be a Rhodamnia, of 

 the Myrtaceae. 



Frutex cerasiformis Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 134, t. 68. 



The figure represents a very characteristic species, which, 

 however, I do not recognize. It has much the appearance of 

 Mimusops, but the description does not conform to this genus. 



Limonellus litoreus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 24. 



Undeterminable from the very brief description given by 

 Rumphius. 



Sinapister Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 73, t. 39, f. 1. 



Undeterminable from data at present available. The draw- 

 ing presents a leafy branch with mature and juvenile leaves, 

 but no flowers or fruits. Sinapister minor described in the same 

 chapter may or may not belong to the same genus, whatever this 

 may prove to be. 



Funis butonicus major Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 77, t. hi, f. 1. 



Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 97, 

 considered this to be a species of Artabotrys, but the special 

 characters of Artabotrys are entirely wanting in both the de- 

 scription and the figure. I do not recognize the group to which 

 the form figured belongs. 



Serratula amara parvifolia Rumph. Herb. Amb. 5: 82. 



Undeterminable from the description alone. Hasskarl, Neue 

 Schlussel (1866) 98, thought it was a scandent species of 

 Compositae. 



