ALBERT

Description: The actual dates of publication of the greater part of BLUME’s Flora Javae (lit. 1) appear to be unknown among taxonomists. The title-page of the first volume is dated 1828, and we find the same year at the base of the preface. The volume containing the Orchideae (lit. 2) is dated 1858, but further dates are absent on the work. A cover for a fascicle containing the ”Planches inedites“ in the Groningen University Library is dated 1829, and there are indications that no such cover ever bore a later date. Therefore, perhaps, one often finds 1828, or 1828?, or 1829 as the year of publication of the whole first series. My investigations concerning the actual dates of publication have not yet given me all the information I wished to have, but the main points seem to be now known, and to be worth publication. In tracing literature on this subject I was considerably helped by Messrs. Dr S. BLOEMBERGEN, then in Groningen, WILLIAM T. STEARN, London, and Dr C. G. G. J. VAN STEENIS, Buitenzorg. I wish to express my best thanks to these gentlemen for the kind assistance which they gave to me.

Description: On several occasions the author received specimens for determination under the name of Loranthaceae, which in reality appeared to be Phacellarias, usually parasitic on Loranthaceae. When trying to name these Phacellarias, he preceived how difficult it was to survey the literature of the genus. Though only eight species have been described, and the authors usually have indicated the main differences between their new species and the most closely allied previous ones, the most essential characteristics of the species, viz., the structures of the inflorescences, were never indicated, and a critical review of all the species has never been given. Therefore it appeared an attractive task to undertake such a revision, if only it were possible to examine all the type specimens. Through the kindness of the Directors and Keepers of the Kew and Edinburgh Botanic Gardens (K, E) and of the Paris Natural History Museum (P), the author was actually allowed to do this. Moreover he had the opportunity to study specimens of the Herbarium of the British Museum of Natural History in London (BM) and the Buitenzorg Botanic Gardens (B), whereas he discovered one specimen in Mr. A. F. G. KERR’s private herbarium. The author expresses his sincere thanks to all the gentlemen who made this revision possible.

Description: It is generally known that botanical nomenclature, though sprung from mediaeval scientific Latin, and agreeing, in its orthography for the greater part, in its grammar as much as possible, with classical Latin, shows countless forms which not only from a classical-grammatical, but also from a mediaeval-grammatical point of view, must be looked upon as errors. These errors are for the greater part due to an inadequate knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar, or to indifference or lack of good taste on the part of botanists. And since a botanist cannot be expected to abstain from giving new names to plants until in the opinion of philologists he is sufficiently acquainted with Latin, Greek and other languages which he may have to use, it is unavoidable that the number of philological mistakes in botanical nomenclature should be steadily increasing. It may be disputed whether the mistakes should be corrected, or whether, granting the desirability, such a thing is impossible. The present author was at one time convinced that correction ought to take place systematically, but after some attempts to contribute to it he realised that it was impossible to carry it through in a consistent manner without detriment to botany, and that a non-consistent or a consistentpartial correction would also cause difficulties without giving satisfaction. In any case great indulgence is desirable towards the countless mistakes that have been made in good faith. This, however, does not alter the fact that it is in all respects desirable to avoid such mistakes in future to the best of our knowledge.

Description: BLUME published Viscum monilliforme first with a short diagnosis in his ’Bijdragen tot de Flora van Nederlandsch Indië“ 13 (1825) p. 667, and later he gave a figure of it in his ”Flora Javae“, plate 25 (1851?). In the ”Bijdragen“ we read: VISCUM MONILLIFORME, Bl. V: caule aphyllo inferne teretiusculo, ramulis artieulatis ancipitibus, articulis nudis, floribus verticillatis sessilibus (aff. V. opuntioidi). Crescit: in arboribus circa Buitenzorg vulgatissimum. Floret: omni tempore. Nomen: Mangando.

Description: The actual dates of publication of the greater part of BLUME\xe2\x80\x99s Flora Javae (lit. 1) appear to be unknown among taxonomists. The title-page of the first volume is dated 1828, and we find the same year at the base of the preface. The volume containing the Orchideae (lit. 2) is dated 1858, but further dates are absent on the work. A cover for a fascicle containing the \xe2\x80\x9dPlanches inedites\xe2\x80\x9c in the Groningen University Library is dated 1829, and there are indications that no such cover ever bore a later date. Therefore, perhaps, one often finds 1828, or 1828?, or 1829 as the year of publication of the whole first series. My investigations concerning the actual dates of publication have not yet given me all the information I wished to have, but the main points seem to be now known, and to be worth publication.\nIn tracing literature on this subject I was considerably helped by Messrs. Dr S. BLOEMBERGEN, then in Groningen, WILLIAM T. STEARN, London, and Dr C. G. G. J. VAN STEENIS, Buitenzorg. I wish to express my best thanks to these gentlemen for the kind assistance which they gave to me.

Description: Ramulus c. 2 mm crassus, apice paulum incrassatus, ad 5 mm dilatatus, 2 folia et 2 inflorescentias ferens, superficie tenuiter ferrugineo furfuraceus. Folia opposita; petiolus ut costae pars basalis ferrugineo furfuraceus, c. 8 mm longus, basi tereti c. 1.5 mm crassus, laminam versus supra applanatus; lamina oblonga, 6.5\xe2\x80\x947 cm longa, 3 cm lata, sub basi rotundata abrupte in petiolum contracta, apice rotundata, faciebus vix diversis, costa basin versus facie inferiore paulo distinctiore quam facie superiore, ceterum utrinque opaca, costa nervisque crassioribus paulum prominentibus distinctis, venis indistinctis sed visibilibus. Inflorescentia racemus triadum decussatarum floribus omnibus sessilibus; axis 3\xe2\x80\x943.5 cm longus, teres, nodis paulum applanatis, a basi c. 1 mm crassa apicem versus ad c. 0.5 mm attenuatus, in c. 6 mm inferioribus nudus, ceterum 6\xe2\x80\x947 paria triadum decussata ferens; pedicelli triadum inferiorum c. 1 mm longi, superiorum gradatim ad 0.5 mm decrescentes, 0.75\xe2\x80\x940.5 mm crassi, teretes; bracteae bracteolaeque suborbiculares, 1\xe2\x80\x94 1.25 mm longae, rotundatae vel breviter acuminatae. Calycis tubus subcylindricus, 2\xe2\x80\x942.5 mm longus, 1 mm latus, limbus erectus 0.5\xe2\x80\x940.75 mm longus, margine plerumque irregulariter laceratus et patens. Corolla statu alabastri adulti 6\xe2\x80\x947 mm longa, subcylindrica, in 2 mm superioribus paulum incrassata, apice obtusa, postea usque ad basin divisa in petala 6 sublinearia, 7\xe2\x80\x948 mm longa, c. 0.4 mm lata, parte superiore c. 2 mm longa reflexa paulo latiore apice obtusiuscula crassiuscula. Filamenti pars libera 0.25\xe2\x80\x940.5 mm longa; anthera c. 1.25 mm longa, acutiuscula. Stylus 6\xe2\x80\x947 mm longus, 6-angulus, a basi ad apicem paulum attenuatus; stigma styli apice paulo crassius, rotundatum. Cetera ignota.\nIsland Biak (north of New Guinea), near Bosn\xc3\xa8k, on the coast, on coral limestone covered with terra rossa, Sept. 2, 1915, FEUILLETAU DE BKUYN 369 (B), with the remark \xe2\x80\x9eshrub 3 m high, with a stem 10 cm in diameter, flower light-green\xe2\x80\x9d, bearing, at least partly, on the host tree.

Description: It is generally known that botanical nomenclature, though sprung from mediaeval scientific Latin, and agreeing, in its orthography for the greater part, in its grammar as much as possible, with classical Latin, shows countless forms which not only from a classical-grammatical, but also from a mediaeval-grammatical point of view, must be looked upon as errors. These errors are for the greater part due to an inadequate knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar, or to indifference or lack of good taste on the part of botanists. And since a botanist cannot be expected to abstain from giving new names to plants until in the opinion of philologists he is sufficiently acquainted with Latin, Greek and other languages which he may have to use, it is unavoidable that the number of philological mistakes in botanical nomenclature should be steadily increasing. It may be disputed whether the mistakes should be corrected, or whether, granting the desirability, such a thing is impossible. The present author was at one time convinced that correction ought to take place systematically, but after some attempts to contribute to it he realised that it was impossible to carry it through in a consistent manner without detriment to botany, and that a non-consistent or a consistentpartial correction would also cause difficulties without giving satisfaction. In any case great indulgence is desirable towards the countless mistakes that have been made in good faith.\nThis, however, does not alter the fact that it is in all respects desirable to avoid such mistakes in future to the best of our knowledge.

Description: BLUME published Viscum monilliforme first with a short diagnosis in his \xe2\x80\x99Bijdragen tot de Flora van Nederlandsch Indi\xc3\xab\xe2\x80\x9c 13 (1825) p. 667, and later he gave a figure of it in his \xe2\x80\x9dFlora Javae\xe2\x80\x9c, plate 25 (1851?).\nIn the \xe2\x80\x9dBijdragen\xe2\x80\x9c we read: VISCUM MONILLIFORME, Bl. V: caule aphyllo inferne teretiusculo, ramulis artieulatis ancipitibus, articulis nudis, floribus verticillatis sessilibus (aff. V. opuntioidi). Crescit: in arboribus circa Buitenzorg vulgatissimum. Floret: omni tempore. Nomen: Mangando.

Description: On several occasions the author received specimens for determination under the name of Loranthaceae, which in reality appeared to be Phacellarias, usually parasitic on Loranthaceae. When trying to name these Phacellarias, he preceived how difficult it was to survey the literature of the genus. Though only eight species have been described, and the authors usually have indicated the main differences between their new species and the most closely allied previous ones, the most essential characteristics of the species, viz., the structures of the inflorescences, were never indicated, and a critical review of all the species has never been given. Therefore it appeared an attractive task to undertake such a revision, if only it were possible to examine all the type specimens. Through the kindness of the Directors and Keepers of the Kew and Edinburgh Botanic Gardens (K, E) and of the Paris Natural History Museum (P), the author was actually allowed to do this. Moreover he had the opportunity to study specimens of the Herbarium of the British Museum of Natural History in London (BM) and the Buitenzorg Botanic Gardens (B), whereas he discovered one specimen in Mr. A. F. G. KERR\xe2\x80\x99s private herbarium. The author expresses his sincere thanks to all the gentlemen who made this revision possible.