- 81 - 



other exaiithüiis species as C. Zedoaria, C. xanthorhiza and C. phaeocaulk, 

 all of which show the purple bar or cloud in the midst of the leaf, which, 

 according to Schumann, induced Zippelius to call it C. porphyrotaenia 

 (purplebanded). Schumann (1904, 335) suggests this to be the real ortho- 

 graphy, spoiled by Spanoghe. He tiiinks this to be a good species and 

 mentions as a specific character the very narrow leaves, 200 — 350 X 60-85, 

 (P = 3,l), and 430X80, (P = 5). 



But these proportions are the same as those of C. Zedoaria, where they are 

 smaller in young plants only. In C. xanthoriza P is 4, \n C. aeruginosa 2.3-4. 



Quite possibly therefore this Timor species belongs to one of the 4 

 above named ones, but to which can only be settled by new materials 

 from Timor, or perhaps by a new examen of the type specimen in Ley den. 



4 Curcuma longi-spica Val. n. sp., affinis C. Zedoaria, male cognita. 



Exantha habilu C. Zedoariae. Folia desunt. Pedunculus minute puberu- 

 lus, 150 mm. longus, basi squamis 4 sensim majoribus involucratus. Folia 

 peduncularia duo. Externum basi insertum, foliaceum, vagina 200 mm. longa 

 minutissime puberula, petiolo nuUo, lamina lanceolata, 150-200 mm. longa, 

 interdum paullum infra spicam insertum, subbracteiforme. 



Spica elongata tenuis, 220X60, densissime bracteata. Bracteae florales 

 numerosae rotundatae obtusissimae, bracteae comae ellipticae obtusae, emu- 

 cronatae. 



Hab : S. W. Nova Guinea prope Daedalin in sylva. Branderhorst 234. 

 This may be only a variety of C. Zedoaria, from which it is distinguished 

 by the large number (40 or more) of bracts. 



Qastrochilus Wall. 



Wall. PI, As rar. 1 (1829) 22, t 24 et 25. Ridley, in Journ, A.S.B, Str. br. 

 (1899, 108); Gagnepain (1808, 54); K. Schumann 1904, 91. — Scaphoclilamys 

 Baker (1894, 252). — Boesenbergia Kuntze, apud Schlechter in Fedde Rep. 

 1913, 313. — Kaempferia auct. ex parte. 



This genus was based by the author on two species, natives of Burma, 

 very different in habit but much resembling one another by the structure 

 of the flowers. Ridley extended its limits considerably by uniting with it 

 a series of species hitherto ranging under Kaempferia, thereby modifying 

 noticeably the diagnoses of these two genera. 



■ K. Schumann, however, in his monography (1904,91) did not accept 

 Ridley's views, because the generic character of Gastrochilus in the sense 

 of Ridley did seem to him rather vague and obscure; and he could not 

 find any exclusive characters by which the two genera might be distinguished 

 unmistakeably. Indeed Ridley did not demonstrate his point of view in 



