Notes on "De plantis esculentis” — Merrill 
description, and the little that Forster f. 
wrote about it was taken entirely from the 
former’s data. Parkinson’s entire statement 
about the Tahitian pouraheitee was, "The 
leaves of this plant, baked, are eaten as 
greens.’’ Solarium anthropophagorum Seem. 
(1862) is a synonym. 
Spondias fdulcis (Soland.) ex Parkinson, 
Jour. 39, 1773; Forst. f, PL Esculent. 33, 
1786, descr. ampl.. Prodr. 34, 1786, diagn. 
Society and Friendly Islands. The detailed 
description in De plantis esculentis consists 
of about 50 lines, the species is there cred- 
ited to both the Society and the Friendly 
Islands; "in Taheiti frequentissima.’’ In 
the Prodromus only the Society Islands were 
mentioned, and the diagnosis was limited 
to six words. Here Forster appropriated 
Solander’s unpublished binomial (Solander 
MS., p. 257). There is a Parkinson plate 
and also a Forster one. These documents 
are at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). 
Among all the new species of Solander 
actually considered by Parkinson in 1773, 
the latter’s descriptive notes on this Spon- 
dias present, I judge, his nearest approach 
to a botanical description. If this be not 
accepted, then the next older name is 
Mangifera pinnata L. f. (1781) = Spondias 
pinnata (L.f.) Kurz; and the next validly 
published name, Spondias cytherea Sonn. 
(1783), was based on material grown in 
the lie de France from seeds introduced 
by Commerson direct from Tahiti. (Com- 
merson was the botanist on Bougainville’s 
expedition that visited Tahiti in 1768 be- 
tween Captain Wallis’s discovery of the 
island in 1767, and Captain Cook’s first 
visit in 1769). 
Terminalia tglabrata (Soland.) ex Parkin- 
son, Jour. 40, 1773, nom., nota; Forst. f, 
PI. Esculent. 52, 1786, descr. ampl.. Prodr. 
74, 1786, diagn. Society and Friendly Is- 
lands. The species as first amply described 
by Forster f. in his De plantis esculentis 
(nearly 50 lines) is a distinct one, confused 
by some workers with the very different 
39 
T. catappa L. His later diagnosis in the 
Prodromus consists of four words only. 
Tetragonia fhalmifolia Forst. f, PI. Es- 
culent. 67, 1786, descr. ampl, Prodr. 39, 
1786, diagn. New Zealand and the Friendly 
Islands. = Tetragonia exp ansayims. (1783). 
The usually cited later publication of the 
binomial consists of 12 words; the earlier 
published detailed description occupies 
about 40 lines of type. 
SIXTEEN OVERLOOKED "BINOMIALS” 
IN Musa 
It is somewhat disconcerting to note that 
on pages 29 to 32 of George Forster’s De 
plantis esculentis there are 16 validly published 
but unlisted Musa binomials, all based on the 
data recorded by Rumphius in 1747 (pp. 
130-133). Although Rumphius is mentioned 
in the discussion, there is no direct reference 
to the Herbarium Amhoinense under any of the 
binomials; yet the sequence of the arrange- 
ment of the taxa are the same in both works, 
and the Malaysian native names listed by 
Forster f. are the same as those recorded by 
Rumphius. Thus there is no doubt as to the 
source of the younger Forster’s data. All of 
these "species” are forms of the Musa para- 
disiaca = Musa sapientum complex, unless one 
or two of them might eventually prove to 
belong with M. troglodytarum L. {M. fehi 
Brotero) . Rumphius was not misled but spoke 
of these as varieties. We are now assured by 
the geneticists (and this is apparently correct) 
that both the Linnaean "species,” Musa para- 
disiaca L. and M. sapientium L., are derivatives 
from Musa halhisiana Colla and M. acuminata 
Colla. In these modern days it is improbable 
that any taxonomist would think of applying 
a binomial to any of these Musa forms, yet 
Forster f ennobled all of them in 1786 by 
assigning binomials and providing Latin de- 
scriptions. They are: 
Musa *acicularis Forst. f , PI. Esculent. 30, 
1786. 
Musa *coarctata Forst. f , 1. c., 32. 
Musa *coriacea Forst. f, 1. c., 30. 
