ALBERT

Beschreibung: Anaueria Kosterm. in Chronica Botanica IV, 1 (1938), p. 14. Arbores brasilienses foliis sub-oppositis. Flores hermaphroditi ex-involucrati paniculati; tepalis sex tribus exterioribus minoribus. Stamina novem quorum sex exteriora fertilia filamentis in annulum ovarium cingentem connatis antheris liberis bilocellatis sub-introrsis; tria interiora sterilia staminodialia sub-aequilonga. Ovarium subglobosum tubo planiusculo insertum, stylo obtuso brevi stigmate inconspicuo. Staminodia seriei quartae nulla. Bacca magna ellipsoidea pedicello vix elongate cylindrico tepalis non incrassatis persistentibus insidens.

Beschreibung: ROXBURGH described in his Flora in the year 1820 a very curious annual grass and placed it in the genus Eleusine as E. verticillata ROXB.. This grass has spikelets which agree in many characters with those of the genus Eleusine, especially as to the rugose grain with a caducous pericarp, but differing from Eleusine in the up to 20-flowered spikelets and in the lemmas with a three-cuspidate summit. The many-flowered spikelets give the plant more the habit of an Eragrostis and under this genus a specimen was mentioned by WALLICH in his Catalogue. There are in the characters of the spikelets many other differences with the genus Eleusine and with Eragrostis. KUNTH and STEUDEL, indeed placed the plant under Leptochloa and there are still other opinions about this plant. An advancement in this matter was the opinion of LINDLEY, who published in the year 1836 a new genus Acrachne WIGHT et ARN., in the second edition of his ”Natural System of Botany“, p. 381, based upon ROXBURGH’s Eleusine verticillata, The name Acrachne was already given by WIGHT et ARNOTT as Acrachne eleusinoides, a nomen in WIGHT, Cat. no. 1760. This name was placed by STEUDEL in the year 1854 under E. verticillata ROXB., a name also accepted by NEES. The name Acrachne, although based upon a species which was validly published, was, however, not described by LINDLEY and the combination A. verticillata was not made by LINDLEY. At that time the genus Acrachne was therefore not valid.

Beschreibung: Referring to the identification of BRASS 5219 from Papua as a representative of the Verbenaceous Faradaya chrysoclada K. SCHUM. by E. BEER and H. J. LAM (Blumea 2, 1936, 225), Dr C. G. G. J. VAN STEENIS, the monographer of the Malaysian Bignoniaceae drew our attention to the possibility that this identification might be incorrect. It was suggested that the specimen and also all specimens hitherto known as Faradaya chrysoclada might be Bignoniaceous and might belong to Deplanchea tetraphylla (R. BR.) V. STEENIS, as all other Faradayas known are lianas, whereas F. chrysoclada was reported to possess the tree habit, as the Deplancheas. We therefore asked on loan the materials of both species from the Herbarea at Berlin (B) and Kew (K), that from Berlin including the type specimen of Faradaya chrysoclada. Our thanks are due to the directors of the Herbaria of Berlin and Kew for kindly lending us the material desired.

Beschreibung: This is the first contribution to a series of papers dealing with the Convolvulaceae of Malaysia (Malay Peninsula and Archipelago, Philippines and New Guinea). As far as possible the contributions will be published in accordance with the systematical arrangement of the genera. For a survey on this arrangement I refer to HAULIER'S fundamental work on this matter published in 1893 in the 16th volume of ENOLER'S Botanische Jahrbücher, entitled: ”Versuch einer natürlichen Gliederung der Convolvulaceen auf morphologischer und anatomischer Grundlage“. After all genera will have been published, a determination key will be added, based on the genera of the area under consideration, in which I hope to take especially account of the characters of the Malaysian species. Meanwhile the key published by HAULIER in the above mentioned paper can be provisionally used. On account of the structure of the pollen grains the Convolvulaceae as a whole can be subdivided, as has been proposed by HAULIER, into two groups, viz. the Psiloconiae with smooth pollen grains and the Echinoconiae with spinose ones. The former of these groups contains seven tribes, viz. 1. Cuscuteae, 2. Wilsonieae (not in Malaysia), 3. Dichondreae, 4. Dicranostyleae, 5. Poraneae, 6. Erycibeae and 7. Convolvuleae. Of the six genera worked out here, Cuscuta belongs to the Cuscuteae, Dichondra to the Dichondreae, Evolvulus, Bonamia and Neuropeltis to the Dicranostyleae and Porana to the Poraneae. For the limitation and description of the tribes see HALLIER l.c. and in ENGLER’S Botanische Jahrbücher, Vol. XVIII, 1894, p. 92, under Prevostea.

Beschreibung: Years ago I intensively studied the grasses of the tribe of the Maydeae. The results of my investigations were published in an article ”A contribution to the knowledge of the Indian Maydeae“, issued in the ”Mededeelingen van ’s Rijks Herbarium“ no. 67 (1931). In this paper the grasses of this tribe from the Old World were treated and especially the various genera were characterized according to their caryopses. The curious form and the place of the hilum of the caryopsis were accepted as characters of high importance to distinguish and to establish the various genera, and it was especially the genus Polytoca, which was more sharply defined by the place of the hilum, the lower margins of the grain enclosing a cavity at the bottom of which is found the hilum. In the genus Chionachne such a cavity is not present and the hilum is found at the back of the grain. I accepted 4 species of the genus Chionachne. One of them, viz. Ch. Koenigii (SPRENGEL) THWAITES, is rather widely distributed from British India and Ceylon to Tonkin and from Celebes to Queensland. Ch. biaurita HACKEL is endemic in the Philippines and Ch. semiteres (BENTH.) HENR. was only observed in the Deccan Peninsula and Burma. The fourth species was mentioned by me from Queensland as being Chionachne Sclerachne BAILEY. The type of BAILEY was not represented in the Kew Herbarium and I saw only a fragment from a plant collected by F. v. MUELLER, which I accepted as being BAILEY’s species. DOMIN mentioned from Queensland only Polytoca cyathopoda (F. v. M.) BAILEY and not having seen DOMIN’s plant I had only to accept that the identification was correct. Recently Mr. HUBBARD from the Kew Herbarium could examine DOMIN’s plant and found that it belonged to the genus Chionachne.

Beschreibung: The Charophyta of the Netherlands have been hitherto almost neglected. As far as I know only the following papers are dealing with the matter: VAN DEN BOSCH, R. B., in Ned. Kruidk. Archief 1, 1846, p. 100, p. 289. “II 1851 p. 225. both preliminary works to Prodromus Florae Batavae II, 2, 1853, p. 186—189. DE VRIES, H., Flora van Nederland, in Alg. Statist, v. Ned. I, 8, 1870, p. 39.

Beschreibung: In het voorjaar van 1937 werd mij vanwege het Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie te Leiden voorgesteld in aansluiting aan mijn, toen reeds beëindigd, geologisch onderzoek ten Oosten van de Serio, ook het gebied terzelfder hoogte ten Westen van de Serio, te gaan bewerken. Ten einde de hieraan verbonden onkosten voor reis en verblijf en een gedeelte der publieatiekosten te kunnen bestreden, deed ik een beroep op de Stichting „Molengraaff-fonds” te Delft. Dit beroep is niet tevergeefsch geweest.

Beschreibung: Van geen zijner geestesproducten heeft Goethe zoo weinig genoegen beleefd als van zijn „Versuch über die Metamorphose der Pflanzen”. Toen de verhandeling in 1790 na langdurige studie gereed was, weigerde de uitgever GÖSCHEN, met wien Goethe sinds vele jaren in relatie stond, haar te laten drukken, zoodat de schrijver naar een anderen uitgever moest gaan zoeken. In zijn verzameling van natuurwetenschappelijke studies, in 1817 uitgegeven met den titel „Zur Naturwissenschaften überhaupt, besonders zur Morphologie”, waarin de metamorphoseleer is herdrukt, beschrijft Goethe op de hem eigene olympische manier de lotgevallen van „Handschrift” en „Druckschrift” en beklaagt hij zich bitter over de koelheid van het publiek, maar nog meer over het gebrek aan inzicht en begrip van zijn wetenschappelijke tijdgenooten, die na 27 jaar nog geen van allen de draagwijdte van de metamorphosehypothese hebben begrepen. Van het publiek zegt hij „Das Publikum stutzte; denn nach seinem Wunsche sich gut und gleichförmig bedient zu sehen, verlangt es von jedem, dass er in seinem Fache bleibe”. De vrienden, aan wie Goethe indertijd presentexemplaren van zijn boekje had toegezonden, komen er slechter af: „Ueberdies waren die Aüszerungen meiner Freunde keineswegs von schonender Art, und es wiederholte sich dem vieljährigen Autor die Erfahrung dass man gerade von verschenkten Exemplaren, Unlust und Verdruss zu erleben hat. Kommt jemanden ein Buch durch Zufall, oder durch Empfehlung in die Hand, er liest es, kauft es auch wohl, überreicht ihm aber ein Freund, mit behaglicher Zuversicht, sein Werk, so scheint es als sey es darauf abgesehen ein Geistes-Uebergewicht aufzudringen. Da tritt nun das radicale Böse in seiner hässlichsten Gestalt hervor, als Neid und Widerwille gegen frohe, eine Herzensangelegenheit vertrauende Personen”. Deze uiting van Goethe kwam mij in de gedachte, toen ik overwoog, of ik het verbouwde en vergroote instituut met eenige plechtigheid en feestelijkheid in gebruik zou nemen, dan wel, of dit met stille trom zou moeten geschieden. Zonder bij iemand van de hier aanwezigen „Neid und Widerwille” te veronderstellen en in de overtuiging, dat een zoo onbelangrijke gebeurtenis niet in staat kan zijn het „Radicale Böse” bij u aan de oppervlakte te brengen, kan ik het niet van mij afzetten, dat er eenige overeenkomst is tusschen het met „behaglicher Zuversicht” overhandigen van een gedrukt geestesprodukt en het rondzenden van uitnoodigingen om aanwezig te zijn bij het in gebruik nemen van een niet zeer belangrijke verbouwing. Aanvankelijk kwam het mij voor, dat ik u met mijn „Herzensangelegenheit” niet moest lastig vallen.

Beschreibung: The present publication is intended to be a monograph on the family of Burmanniaceae. It is divided into three parts: General Part, Critical Part and Taxonomical Part. The first part, General Part, contains general remarks on the taxonomy, distribution and use of the family. The second part, Critical Part, contains general and geobotanical remarks on the genera of the family, whereas the third part, the Taxonomical Part, gives the determination keys to the tribes, subtribes, genera, sections, subsections and species, the description of these groups with literature, distribution and the indications of the types. New varieties, species and larger groups are described in the taxonomical part in foot-notes.