— 172 — 



Hornstcdtia minor (BL.) VAL. (1904) 57; (1905) 241, t. 167; K. SCHUM. 



(1904), 199,- Elettaria minor BL. (1827) 53.-- Amomuni Valetonii GAG- 

 NEPAlN (1908) 430, pro parte.— Amomum minus K. SCH. (1900, 350)?— 

 Donacodes minor T. et B, Cat. I860, 380.— ? H. ophiuchus RlDL. 1893, 

 38!; 1899, 141; 1907, 36. 



Distribution: 



Java: Mt. Salak and environs of Buitenzorg in the lower hill zone, not 

 at sea-level, often cultivated; vernac. name Pining kissie, Pining landak and 

 Pining lanang. The natives use these names for diverse varieties they dis- 

 tinguish. BLUME distinguishes a variety v/ith sericeous leaves, which is said 

 to be called Pining lumbut (lumbut soft). 1 did not meet with it. The species 

 as yet has not been found any where else on Java 



Borneo: West-borneo (leg, TEYMANN and TEUSCHER, locality unknown, 

 cult, in Hort. bog. XiB ÎII 2, and X1B III 24, TEUSCHER). Not found in 

 Sumatra, not in Banea. 



Malacca? H. ophiuchus RlDL.? 



The distribution is rather peculiar, a species of such a limited dispersion 

 being known only from two so remote localities, without an intermediate 

 station. But I suspect that this species is not uncommon in Malacca and has 

 been described by RIDLEY as H. ophiuchus (RIDLEY 1. c). 



About the synonymy of this species I have to make the following remarks: 



Mr. GAGNEPAIN argues 1. c. that the species I described under this name 

 in !c. bog. 1. c, is not the same as Hornstcdtia minor K, SCHUMANN 1, c, 

 and that the latter being published a month before mine has the priority, 

 so my species must be rebaptized. He proposes to call it Amomum Valetonii. 

 1 am sorry to declare that I have many objection against this conclusion. 

 Mr, GAGNEPAIN gives the following differences between H. minus VAL. 

 and H. minus K. SCH. In the former the scape is long 80 mm. the con- 

 nective is nude; the bracteoles are wanting. In the latter the scape is very 

 short the connective „supra loculos brevissime productum, late emarginatum", 

 the bracteoles ,, tenues pellucidae hic inde déficientes vel obsoletae^. 



Now the first point is due to some want of exactitude in my descrip- 

 tion. In the living spike the peduncle appears really very short (see le. citat. 

 fig. 1.) and if SCHUMANN had seen a good specimen, he certainly would 

 have called it very short scaped as well. Facto however the peduncle is 

 almost as long as the spike, but it is masked in its upper part by the re- 

 latively large peduncular bracts which apply themselves to the spike bracts, 

 and cause the fusiform subsessile shape of the spike. Only in splicing 

 the spike the scape is quite visible. The two other points do not present 

 any real difference, only the figures (10 and 11) are showing a crest exa- 

 gerated by the fancy of the dessinator. 



Indeed there is not a trace of doubt that K. SCHUMANN and I did 

 describe the identical species. 



Now Mr. GAGNEPAIN was misled by his identification of my H. minor 

 with a plant from the Solomon isles, collected by RECHINGER and belong- 



