ALBERT

Description: The name Arundo Bambos L. Sp. Pl. 81, 1753, is interpreted as properly belonging to the common thorny bamboo of India; therefore this species should be called Bambusa Bambos (L.) Voss. Arundo Bambos L. Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 120, 1762, insofar as it is represented by Linnaeus’ specimen labeled “1. Bambos” and by his description of this specimen, is based on a misidentification of a Chinese species: Bambusa flexuosa Munro (1868). Bambos arundinacea Retz. Obs. Bot. 5:24, 1789, is shown to have been based on the plant known today as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. ex Wendl. (Coll. Pl. 2:26, pl. 47, 1810), and not on the common thorny bamboo of India, properly called Bambusa Bambos (L.) Voss. Bambusa arundinacea Willd. Sp. Pl. 2:245, 1799, is based on Bambos arundinacea Retz., but Willdenow is shown to have confused, in his text, as in his mind, at least two species under this name: 1. The plant which has since come to be known as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. (of which he had a specimen labeled “B. arundinacea 1.”) and 2. The common thorny bamboo of India (properly called Bambusa Bambos [L.] Voss) of which he had no specimen. Traditional usage for 150 years has overlooked the facts in this case, and has erroneously applied Bambusa arundinacea Willd., and Bambusa arundinacea Retz. (as Bambos) to the common thorny bamboo of India. As a result of the long-continued misapplication of the name Bambos arundinacea Retz. and its variants, it will be exceedingly difficult to reïnvest the name with its original meaning. It may come to pass that consensus of leadership will be to avoid the use of the name Bambos arundinacea Retz and its variants altogether, at least for some time, because of the risk of being misunderstood, and to continue the use of the name Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., which is generally accepted in its proper sense. Those who use Bambusa arundinacea Retz. (as Bambos) or any of the other variants of the name, may be able to avoid being misunderstood by citing Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. as a synonym. Bambusa Schreb. Gen. Pl. 1:236, 1789, and Bambos Retz. Obs. Bot. 5:24, 1789, are synonymous, and are believed to have been based on the same species, namely the plant commonly known today as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. Strict adherence to Recommendations IV and V of the fifth edition of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, and probably the claims of priority, would indicate the replacement of Bambusa Schreb. by Bambos Retz. The continuation of the use of the generic name Bambusa Schreb., instead of Bambos Retz., has the sanction of tradition, and of contemporary preference; but in order to be fully justified and stabilized, this usage should be regularized and legalized by action of the International Botanical Congress, placing Bambusa Schreb. on the list of Nomina Conservanda. The genus Leleba Rumph. ex Nakai, Jour. Jap. Bot. 9: 9 et seq. 1933, is added to the recognized synonymy of Bambusa Schreb.

Description: Thanks to the kind cooperation of Dr. ROBERT PILGER, Director of the Botanical Gardens and Museums at Berlin-Dahlem, I have recently had the privilege of studying and photographing a unique specimen belonging to that institution, which bears the words „Schizostachyum Blumii nobis”, in the hand of NEES, the author of the species. Although there are no data on the sheet to indicate its source, or the date of the determination, this presumably represents NEES’S type³) of this species (which is the type species of the genus). At any rate, the available evidence 4) points to that conclusion, and the specimen agrees in all respects with NEES’ description of the genus and of the type species (NEES, 1829, pp. 534—5). Since the original characterizations are so brief and, since those parts referring to the spikelets are so difficult to interpret, I present here a full description 5) of the rather fragmentary type specimen.

Description: The name Arundo Bambos L. Sp. Pl. 81, 1753, is interpreted as properly belonging to the common thorny bamboo of India; therefore this species should be called Bambusa Bambos (L.) Voss. Arundo Bambos L. Sp. Pl. ed. 2, 120, 1762, insofar as it is represented by Linnaeus\xe2\x80\x99 specimen labeled \xe2\x80\x9c1. Bambos\xe2\x80\x9d and by his description of this specimen, is based on a misidentification of a Chinese species: Bambusa flexuosa Munro (1868).\nBambos arundinacea Retz. Obs. Bot. 5:24, 1789, is shown to have been based on the plant known today as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. ex Wendl. (Coll. Pl. 2:26, pl. 47, 1810), and not on the common thorny bamboo of India, properly called Bambusa Bambos (L.) Voss.\nBambusa arundinacea Willd. Sp. Pl. 2:245, 1799, is based on Bambos arundinacea Retz., but Willdenow is shown to have confused, in his text, as in his mind, at least two species under this name: 1. The plant which has since come to be known as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. (of which he had a specimen labeled \xe2\x80\x9cB. arundinacea 1.\xe2\x80\x9d) and 2. The common thorny bamboo of India (properly called Bambusa Bambos [L.] Voss) of which he had no specimen. Traditional usage for 150 years has overlooked the facts in this case, and has erroneously applied Bambusa arundinacea Willd., and Bambusa arundinacea Retz. (as Bambos) to the common thorny bamboo of India. As a result of the long-continued misapplication of the name Bambos arundinacea Retz. and its variants, it will be exceedingly difficult to re\xc3\xafnvest the name with its original meaning. It may come to pass that consensus of leadership will be to avoid the use of the name Bambos arundinacea Retz and its variants altogether, at least for some time, because of the risk of being misunderstood, and to continue the use of the name Bambusa vulgaris Schrad., which is generally accepted in its proper sense. Those who use Bambusa arundinacea Retz. (as Bambos) or any of the other variants of the name, may be able to avoid being misunderstood by citing Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. as a synonym. Bambusa Schreb. Gen. Pl. 1:236, 1789, and Bambos Retz. Obs. Bot. 5:24, 1789, are synonymous, and are believed to have been based on the same species, namely the plant commonly known today as Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. Strict adherence to Recommendations IV and V of the fifth edition of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, and probably the claims of priority, would indicate the replacement of Bambusa Schreb. by Bambos Retz. The continuation of the use of the generic name Bambusa Schreb., instead of Bambos Retz., has the sanction of tradition, and of contemporary preference; but in order to be fully justified and stabilized, this usage should be regularized and legalized by action of the International Botanical Congress, placing Bambusa Schreb. on the list of Nomina Conservanda. The genus Leleba Rumph. ex Nakai, Jour. Jap. Bot. 9: 9 et seq. 1933, is added to the recognized synonymy of Bambusa Schreb.

Description: Thanks to the kind cooperation of Dr. ROBERT PILGER, Director of the Botanical Gardens and Museums at Berlin-Dahlem, I have recently had the privilege of studying and photographing a unique specimen belonging to that institution, which bears the words \xe2\x80\x9eSchizostachyum Blumii nobis\xe2\x80\x9d, in the hand of NEES, the author of the species. Although there are no data on the sheet to indicate its source, or the date of the determination, this presumably represents NEES\xe2\x80\x99S type\xc2\xb3) of this species (which is the type species of the genus). At any rate, the available evidence 4) points to that conclusion, and the specimen agrees in all respects with NEES\xe2\x80\x99 description of the genus and of the type species (NEES, 1829, pp. 534\xe2\x80\x945). Since the original characterizations are so brief and, since those parts referring to the spikelets are so difficult to interpret, I present here a full description 5) of the rather fragmentary type specimen.