- 80 - 



not belong to the species of Koenig. This is " Curcuma longa" oi Bentley 

 et Trimen (1880,4.269). 



Compared witli C. longa, after the conception of Koenig, as well the 

 figure as the description differ clearly from this, because: 



1st. The bracts of the coma and often the floral bracts are partly 

 violet-coloured. 



2d. The bracteoles are very small. 



3d. The staminodia are large fiat and 2-lobed at the top and not 

 furrowed in the middle, and 4th the flowers are deep-yellow. According 

 to Koenig: the bracts of the coma are white, the bracteoles (involucrum 

 exterius) as long as the tube, the staminodia with a longitudinal groove on the 

 back and an incurved top (a characteristic of all Eucurcuma-species, 

 observed by Koenig), the flowers with a yellow middle-stripe of the lip. 



But moreover the figure of the anther proves that the connective 

 has a terminal concave prolongation in which the stigma is enclosed 

 (a character, generally wanting in Eucurcuma species) and very short 

 spurs and the staminodia are straight and arise above the not hooded dorsal 

 petal. Finally also the orange-coloured rhizome which is a characteristic 

 of C. longa auct, seems to be quite wanting. 



Apparently we have here a still undescribed species nearly related to 

 C. petiolata. 



Besides the original species of Linnaeus there are thus three species 

 which are published as the mother-plant of the "well known" Turmeric, 

 viz. C. longa Koenig, C. longa Jacquin, C. longa Bentl. et Trimen. 



Curcuma sumatrana Miq: (1862.615); K. Schum. (1904, 109.) 



From an authentic specimen of Diepenhorst in Herb. bog. (no 1327) 

 it is evident that indeed, as mentioned by Miquel the petiole and the leaf- 

 costa have a very fine and hardly noteworthy pubescence below. 



The bracts are distinctly hairy. According to Miquel (who examined 

 a good preserved specimen) the peduncle is central; this is not to be 

 made out in the badly prepared specimen of the Herb, bog. The inflores- 

 cence in this Herbarium resembles that of C. Zedoaria (of which however, 

 the bracts are glabrous), by the rounded, not mucronate bracts. Perhaps it 

 is this specimen which induced Ridley (1899) to quote this species as a 

 synonym of C. Zedoaria. On account of the central inflorescence and the 

 shape of the bracts, however, I think tliat it is nearly allied to C. petiolata. 

 By no means it belongs to C. Zedoaria. 



C. prophyrotannica Zipp; Spanoghe in Linnaea XV (1841, 479)— 

 C. prophyrotaenia K. Sch. (1904, 114) 



In the ample description of Schumann in Pfanzenreich I do not find 

 a single character by which this species could be distinguished from any 



