ALBERT

Description: The affinity of the Malesian genus Lophopyxis has a checkered history, a survey of which was given by L.B. Holthuis & H.J. Lam, in Blumea 5 (1942) 205-208, fig. 7. It has been referred to Flacourtiaceae, Icacinaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Olacaceae, and Saxifragaceae. Hitherto no attention was paid to the similarity with Gouania in the Rhamnaceae, which it resembles in toothed leaves, presence of stipules, panicled spike-like inflorescences, and the occurrence of tendrils in these.

Description: Harold St. John has (in Le Naturaliste Canadien 98, 1971, 571-580) given an evaluation of J.R. & G. Forster plants described in their Characteres generum which is newly dated to have been issued March 1, 1776. We feel induced to correct some inaccuracies. Gingidium montanum (l.c. 574, no. 21) — later transferred to Ligusticum as L. gingidium by Forster f., Prod. (1736) 22; DC., Prod. 4 (1830) 159, as an illegitimate homotypic synonym — is unnecessarily named as a new (superfluous) combination Angelica forsteriana St. John. Hooker f., Handb. New Zeal.Fl. (1867) 97, had this (according to the present Code, art. 72) correctly named Angelica gingidium, as because of the earlier Angelica montana Brot. (1804) he could not use the epithet montanum. For the rest Dawson (New Zeal.J.Bot. 5, 1967, 90) has reinstated the generic name Gingidium. He has still more recently changed the name Gingidium Forst., non Hill (1756), into Gingidia as Hill’s herbal has been said to be declared nomenclaturally valid.

Description: There is much confusion about, the identity of the above mentioned aroid genera, the typification of which is still unsatisfactory.

Description: Argostemma Wall. (type species: A. verticillatum Wall.). This large Old World genus, comprising about 240 binomials of which, ca 70-80 will prove to be distinct species, has been almost unanimously left undivided. Exceptions are Reinwardt who in 1825 created the genus Pomangium, independently of Wallich (1824) and Ridley who in 1927 based the genus Argostemmella on two Bornean species of Argostemma. My revision (in msc.) of Argostemma occurring in Malaysia confirmed the common view that there is no reason for splitting up this genus. However, several subdivisions (sections) can reasonably be accepted. As those sections mostly represent well-delimited taxa in connection with a rather evident distribution of their own, I propose here the following 5 sections for Argostemma. It should be borne in mind that I have examined almost all extra-Mallaysian species too.

Description: Payen was a professional artist from the south of the then Netherlands (now Belgium) who toured for more than a decade in the Netherlands Indies (1817—1829)- His oil paintings and gouaches were made for a great deal in and around Bogor and also in Manado (Northeast Celebes). His main subjects were vegetation and landscapes, silhouettes of solitary, or groups of, trees, and a few more detailed paintings of individual plant species. His work is particularly beautiful and artistic. The State Museum of Ethnography at Leyden possesses several hundreds of paintings in three portfolios. A scanning learned that these paintings are not of any particular value for Malesian botany. Most of the plants depicted are common and mostly cultivated species: Gardenia (katjapiring), Opuntia, Pandanus, Cocos, Musa (pisang), Carica, Antiaris toxicaria, Parkia speciosa (petéh), Plumeria, Bauhinia, Zingiber, Alocasia, etc. The paintings are catalogued and provided by Payen with some notes in French, and often vernacular names.

Description: Koorders, Fl. v. Tjibodas 2 (1923) 32—46; Hochreutiner in Candollea 2 (1924—1926) 336—359; Ochse, Indische Groenten (1931) 719—722; Backer, Onkruidfl. Java Suiker (1930) 203—209; Aimshoff in Blumea 5 (1942—1945) 515—517. Miss Dr G. J. Amshoff started the revision of the Javanese Urticaceae, but left the definitive preparation to me. Urtica dioica L. and U. urens L. have been erroneously recorded for Java (Miquel, Fl. Ind. bat. 1², 1859, 227; Koorders, Exk. Fl. Java 2, 1912, 126). To my knowledge no specimens were ever collected there nor elsewhere in the Malay Archipelago.

Description: Michelia pilifera Bakh. ƒ., nom. nou. Michelia velutina Bl., Fl. Jav. (1829) Magn., p. 17, non DC., Prod. 1 (1824) 79.

Description: Originally it had been my intention to write a monograph of the Melastomataceae occurring in the Malay Archipelago. Owing to difficulties caused by the development of the political situation it was impossible for me, to carry out this plan to its full extent. As the important collections of the Herbarium of the Buitenzorg Botanical Garden could not be consulted and as most foreign herbaria too were inaccessible, I had to restrict myself almost entirely to the study of the collections preserved in the Utrecht and Leyden Herbaria. These however, though not so rich as those of the Buitenzorg herbarium, are very important, especially by the large number of type specimens. Of the great number of species described from parts of the Malay Archipelago outside the Dutch influence sphere, the types themselves could as a rule not be examined, and duplicates too were but rarely available. For this reason I was forced to restrict my endeavours almost entirely to the examination of the material collected in the parts known as the Netherlands East Indies. However, all genera known from the malayan region, for so far as they are in my opinion well-defined, have been incorporated in my keys. A detailed study of the Netherlands East Indian species was possible for me, as almost all important types are present in the Leyden and Utrecht Herbaria. The Melastomataceae especially those from Sumatra, Java and New Guinea are richly represented in these collections. Borneo, Celebes and the Lesser Sunda Islands probably would yield interesting results. The rich collections obtained from British North Borneo and Sarawak make it probable that the harvest obtained from the Netherlands part of Borneo will also contain many new and interesting forms, but of these collections but a small part has been distributed so far by the Buitenzorg herbarium.

Description: The Netherlands’ Indies are part of those humid tropical regions where innumerable species of orchids either may hang down, sometimes in large numbers, from the trunks and branches of trees and shrubs or grow terrestrially in woods or elsewhere. Nevertheless, to every naturalist who takes the trouble of ascertaining the attitude of the native population towards the orchid-family, it at once becomes clear that up to this very moment most of these plants have only succeeded in obtaining a very modest place in the domestic life and even in the interest of the natives. The beauty of the flowers of so very many species seems never or hardly at all to have been observed by them. This is so much the more noteworthy because in other cases the native has usually invented a name, if not a use, for most plants in his surroundings, even for the rarest and most unimportant ones. As regards orchids this has never happened. These plants seem never to have played any part in religious ceremonies and in the numerous myths they are mentioned at best by a few words. On none of the old monuments they are immortalized; even on ornaments of a later date one usually seeks in vain for these plants or their flowers. How is this aloofness of the natives towards such an important part of the flora of their country to be accounted for? Orchids never were of much use either in domestic life or in the domain of medicinal science. Only with the arrival of the Europeans or, more correctly speaking, not before a very short time ago, some interest for orchids was raised with the natives. But this took, practically, only place in imitation of the foreigner, especially when the natives began to see that money was to be made in the orchid-trade. Here and there this unnatural predilection has already lead to consequences of alarming dimensions, because it has not rarely effected the complete or partial extermination of valuable species in regions where formerly they grew copiously. Nevertheless a change in the native denomination of orchids can hardly be observed. All these plants are simply called Anggrèk or Angkrèk and, as a rule, it is not deemed necessary to add a specific name. Only very few orchids can really boast of such a name; most of them remain anonymous. The names Angkrèk panèli and Angkrèk lotjis, Spatulotjis or Spatuklotis are mere corruptions of Vanilla and Spathoglottis. Angkrèk bulan (Phalaenopsis amabilis) and Anggrèk matjan (Vanda tricolor), though both composed of genuinely native words, do not seem to be quite original, though this case is not identical with the two former ones; these names seem only translations of the Dutch names Maan-orchidee (Moon-orchid) and Tijger-orchidee (Tigerorchid). Yet some specific denominations exist, as a rule with some unimportant addition to the word Anggrèk or Angkrèk, e.g. běněr (bětul) = true; beureum (mèrah) = red; bodas (putih) = white; konèng (kuning) = yellow; gědè (běsar) = big; leutik (kětjil) = small, and such-like which, as a matter of fact, have little to do with the notion of species. Very often they only seem to have been invented by plantcollectors wishing to content troublesome interrogators by some plausible answer. Finally there exist some poetic names, for the greater part of very recent date, of which it is likewise difficult to ascertain whether they are really true ones or came into existence by European influences. From the foregoing, in my opinion, it sufficiently appears that the natives hardly knew how to distinguish plants of this group which, in our eyes, is so very interesting. Once more, how is this fact to be accounted for? He who knows better is, of course, free to say so, but to me this enigmatical aloofness of the natives towards orchids seems to prove that these plants do not interest him in any way. The same case presents itself with most Europeans as regards funguses, mosses, algae a.s.o., groups of plants growing in our immediate environment, unsurveyable to many, which seem not to stir our imagination. I cannot find any other explanation of the fact. Notwithstanding what I have said herebefore it may be of interest to shortly discuss which value part at least of the native population of Java sets to orchids, not exclusively regarding the very small economic worth of a few ones but especially with a view to the denomination of the diverse species. Most of the popular names mentioned beneath have proved to be of recent date. Hence they are not yet universally used; often they are of local value only; sometimes they were invented by cunning plant collectors for the benefit of their employers. Nevertheless they are worthy of being registered, with discrimination of course and spelled in the right way. By doing so we may in future attain a better surveyable and more reliable denomination of orchids than could be made now. Everyone who is acquainted with the love felt by the natives for nature and with their extensive knowledge of the multitude of forms shown by the flora of their surroundings, knows quite well how important it is, and will ever be, to judiciously exchange thoughts with them. The native likes to hoax those who do not understand him and it leaves him quite cool whether by his conduct the European thinks to have found one reason more of storming furiously against the traditional irreliability of native information about plants and plant-names. He has had to swallow severer reproaches than the annihilating opinion of incompetent persons. The fault does not lie exclusively with the natives nor entirely with the Europeans but is caused by the lack of a universally acknowledged classification of the popular names in existence. My treatise aims at contributing my mite to a correct valuation of the notions of both parties. Therefore, let us not begin with stumbling over the numerous brand-new plant-names met with at present everywhere but let us express the hope that, once sifted, they will prove useful enough to enable one to find his way in the Indian flora. Wherefore should we hesitate to register names unknown up to now, because they are not yet generally used throughout the island? If ever, then now surely the time has come to take a broad view of this matter, now that the interest shown for orchids by the different races of the population is rapidly increasing, though modern fashion may play a great part in pushing it forward.

Description: This new hard-cover Flora of Barbados is in every respect a fine specimen of a local tropical flora. The black and white frontispiece is by Priscilla Fawcett, representing the ‘Barbados Pride’ (Caesalpinia pulcherrima). Concise in design, limited in consequence of the small space of the area concerned, hence restricted to a rather small number of species slightly over 600, this book dealing with Spermatophytes is of great value, supplying a long-felt need for a modern flora ‘by students, teachers, agriculturists, as well as by amateur botanists, whether residents or only visitors to the island’. It does not pretend to be more than it aims at: ‘to enable anybody with only a slight knowledge of botany to identify any wild Flowering plant he or she may come across’. Though devoted to the island of Barbados, the present work is surely of great importance for the recognition of the floristic composition of the numerous islets of the West Indies, most of them being small, with a flora to some extent agreeing with that of Barbados.