510 



RUMPHIUS'S HERBARIUM AMBOINENSE 



Lignum vinosum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 21. 



The material that Rumphius had was from Rotte, an island 

 southeast of Timor, the plant there being known as caju larat 

 or caju laro. The only possible way of determining its status 

 is through the native name and uses of the plant. The plant 

 itself is not described, the data given by Rumphius applying 

 chiefly to its uses. 



Pangel boaja Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22. 



The material was from Bali. Undeterminable from the data 

 given by Rumphius. 



Stercus squillarum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 22. 



The status of this plant cannot be determined from the data 

 given by Rumphius. A further exploration of Amboina may 

 yield material by which it can be determined. 



Nanium calapparium Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 55, t. 23, f. 2. 



The figure presents only a leafy branch, the drawing being 

 rather crude. There is nothing in the description by which the 

 proper place of the plant described can be determined. 



Malum aruanum Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 55, t. 24, /• 1- 



This plant was from the Aru Islands, there known as cairn 

 gulur. It should be readily determined from a study of botanical 

 material from that region, as from the description it must be 

 a very characteristic species. The figure is very crude and 

 presents only a branchlet with four alternate, oblong leaves. 

 Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 191, suggested that it might 

 be a Hydnocarpus. 



Caju gora aruana Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 56, t. 24, f. 2. 



There is no description, and the figure, which is very crude, 

 presents only a leafy branchlet. Teysmann, quoted by Hasskarl, 

 thought that it might be a species of ZJvaria. There is no reason 

 for considering that this suggested reduction is correct. 



Scrotum cussi Rumph. Herb. Amb. 7: 59, t. 26, f. 2. 



The status of this plant probably can be determined when it 

 is once collected in Amboina, as the figure is fairly good, and 

 the description is ample. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 192, 

 thought that it might belong in the Apocynaceae, a reduction 

 that I consider to be an impossible one from the data given by 

 Rumphius. 



