ALBERT

Description: Among the grasses, preserved at the Rijksherbarium, one of the most valuable collections is certainly that of the well-known agrostologist and collector, B. BALANSA. It contains not only the types of the grasses, described by himself, but also very beautiful material, received by him from his contemporaries. All his European and Oriental grasses, those collected by him in New Caledonia, Tonkin and Java, besides a rich material from his travels in Paraguay and Argentina, are represented in this collection together with a beautiful set of ARECHAVALETA\xe2\x80\x99s grasses form Uruguay. The material is in extraordinarily good condition and was very completely collected by him. I could already describe many novelties from this collection. One of these is particularly interesting on account of questions of geographical distribution.\nVarious botanists have called attention to the fact that there is a rather striking concurrence in the floras of Argentina and some of the southern States of North America and it was STANDLEY who pointed this out, giving a list of analogous species from both countries. It is true that in some cases grasses of the southern States of North America occur in Argentina too. I have already had the opportunity to emphasize this, but generally speaking the coincidence of grasses of both parts of the earth mentioned here, is not so very large if we study the plants more intensively. What I mean is this: in many cases and at first sight, or studying the principal features, a resemblance is very striking, especially also as to the habit and the more prominent characters. But on comparing such plants from North America with the corresponding plants from Argentina, it appears in most of the cases that the two species are not identical. Argentina species of the so very difficult genus of Setaria certainly closely resemble some species from Mexico or the southern Unites States, but in my opinion, they do not belong to the same species. It was especially the genus Aristida which, after an exhaustive study, gave me a better idea of these so-called \xe2\x80\x9dsuccedaneous\xe2\x80\x9c species. As, however, such Argentina species of Aristida differed in a great many minor points from the North American representatives of this group, it was impossible to consider them as really identical and I was so convinced of their specific distinction that I did not hesitate to accept them as new species. It is not difficult to find in other genera of grasses similar convergencies which, in reality, do not exist. Resemblance is only relating to the general habit and the external or easily visible characters, but a great many minor, but very constant and not less striking characters are to be found, through which we are justified to consider them as different species.

Description: Much of the difficulty experienced by the modern systematic botanist is nomenclatorial. Though he may have a clear conception of a plant as a taxonomic unit, he is often at a loss to find out what it is as a legitimate nomenclatural entity. If a haphazard use of names is permitted, it will result in different botanists using the same name in a different sense, so that the names themselves, unaccompanied by a description, will give no definite denotation; that is, a name may become applicable to several independent taxonomic units. And if it is attempted to skip over these difficulties by creating a new name every time the legitimacy of a name of a plant is questioned, a usage may be established in virtue of which, on the one hand, very good names may be rejected on insufficient grounds, while, on the other, one and the same taxonomic group of plants will be known by different names to different botanists in different countries. Actually, some such state of affairs as this was common at one time in taxonomic botany, so that it came to be felt that personalities had a great deal to do with popularizing some names, however erroneous, as well as with rejecting quite good ones. In other words, there was a tendency to subordinate the naming of plants, or the validity and legitimacy of plant-names, to personal or national or provincial likes and dislikes, with the result that the scientific names were often less stable and precise in their application than the vernacular names.\nIn order to obviate these drawbacks and to make the nomenclature of plants more precise and international, the new nomenclatorial Rules adopted as their basis the type- and the priority-concepts as the most important guiding principles in such matters. These Rules do not recognize personalities, but they oblige taxonomists to examine the claims of each plant-name for legitimacy on the merits of the names themselves, and not of the authors of the names, or of the authors of the works in which the names have been published. Thus at one stroke these two principles have, in nomenclatorial procedure, attempted to do away with all incentives for botanists to split themselves into different camps on a national basis or according to the sides taken by the heads of the particular institutions to which they belong.

Description: I have hesitated some time over the title of the present paper. The alternative was something like: \xe2\x80\x9dWALLACE versus ZOLLINGER\xe2\x80\x9c or \xe2\x80\x9dThe \xe2\x80\x9didea of a demarcation line through Malaysia, a limiting factor towards \xe2\x80\x9dthe progress of biogeography\xe2\x80\x9c. However, the first being too agressive, and the second too melodramatic ,the one found in the heading was chosen.\nThe above introductory lines mean to put the reader at once face to face with the nucleus of what I will discuss here: the question how ZOLLINGER\xe2\x80\x99S \xe2\x80\x9dKarte der Flora Malesiana\xe2\x80\x9c of 1857 was apparently almost entirely forgotten, although it well deserves to come under the eyes of modern biogeographers, for the sake of the honour of its author and of the priority of his work.

Description: In 1898 Koorders and Valeton \xc2\xb9) considered the three species of Miquel\xe2\x80\x99s genus then known as Aphanomyrtus rostrata Miq. Sumatra (and Java?), A. octandra Koord. & Val., Java, and A. camphorata Val., the latter described from a plant cultivated in the Botanical Garden at Buitenzorg, its origin unknown. The three recognized species were well illustrated. They gave an amplified description of Miquel\xe2\x80\x99s genus, calling attention to the fact that it had been erroneously reduced to the very different Baeckea. They did not then realize that the genus Pseudoeugenia Soort. (1885) was a synonym of Aphanomyrtus Miq. Nine years later Valeton \xc2\xb2) again considered the genus, having recognized the identity of Pseudoeugenia Scortechini (1885) with Aphanomyrthus Miquel (1855), and making the reduction of the former. He recognized four species, A. rostrata Miq. (Pseudoeugenia singaporensis King), Sumatra, Banka, and the Malay Peninsula; A. tetraquetra (Miq.) Val. (Jambosa tetraquetra Miq., Aphanomyrtus octandra Koord. & Val., A. octandra var. tetraquetra Koord. & Val.); A. skiophila (Duthie) Val. (Eugenia skiophila Duthie, Pseudoeugenia perakiana Soort.), Penang and the Malay Peninsula, but of which he saw no material (credited also to Sumatra by Ridley); and A. camphorata Val. cultivated at Buitenzorg, Java.\nValeton reconsidered the genus in 1907 because of his belief that the Koorders & Valeton paper of 1898 was not generally available to botanists, for in the meantime King (1901) had redescribed Aphanomyrtus rostrata Miq. as Pseudoeugenia singaporensis. Both papers were apparently overlooked by Ridley, for in his Flora of the Malay Peninsula (1922) he still retained the two Malay Peninsula species under Pseudoeugenia, as P. perakiana Scort. and P. singaporensis King; and in 1927 described a third species, P. tenuifolia Ridl., from the Peninsula. In the meantime Greves had recognized Miquel\xe2\x80\x99s genus and described A. Forbesii Greves from Sumatra, which seems to be a synonym of A. tetraquetra (Miq.) Val., and Lauterbach described another species, Aphanomyrtus alata Lauterb., from New Guinea; the last species probably belongs in some other genus.

Description: The genus Rutidea was founded by De Candolle in 1807 on a West African plant. Twenthy-three years later in the \xe2\x80\x9dProdromus\xe2\x80\x9c (IV, p. 495, 1830) he tentatively admitted a second species: it was based on a plant from Penang which he had seen in Blume\xe2\x80\x99s herbarium, where it was labelled \xe2\x80\x9dRutidea? mollis Bl.\xe2\x80\x9c. Subsequently several other species have been added, but as none of them were Asiatic, it was, perhaps, no wonder that Bentham and Hooker f. in their \xe2\x80\x9dGenera Plantarum\xe2\x80\x9c (II, 1, p. 116, 1873) made no mention whatever of Blume\xe2\x80\x99s plant, and regarded the genus as confined to tropical Africa. Hiern, who in the \xe2\x80\x9dFlora of tropical Africa\xe2\x80\x9c gave an excellent description of the genus, and enumerates ten species from tropical Africa, said that it is known from Madagascar also, but he too omitted every reference to its occurrence in Asia. Lem\xc3\xa9e (Dict. d. Pl. Phan. V, p. 903, 1934) also declares that the genus, which now comprises 25 species, is confined to tropical Africa and Madagascar\xc2\xb9).\nBlume\xe2\x80\x99s plant was more fully described by Miquel in his \xe2\x80\x9dEcloge Rubiacearum Archipelagi Indici\xe2\x80\x9c Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. IV, p. 256, 1869). It is not mentioned, however, in Hooker\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9dFlora of British India\xe2\x80\x9c. Boerlage\xe2\x80\x99s remarks on it in his \xe2\x80\x9dHandleiding\xe2\x80\x9c (II, 1, pp. 107 et 142, 1891) also passed unnoticed; at least neither King and Gamble\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9dMaterials for a Flora of the Malay Peninsula\xe2\x80\x9c nor Ridley\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9dFlora of the Malay Peninsula\xe2\x80\x9c contain any reference to the plant. This want of recognition is all the more remarkable as the original diagnosis published by De Candolle did not contain anything which would have justified its exclusion from the genus. It is true that Miquel\xe2\x80\x99s more detailed analysis describes the seed as \xe2\x80\x9dsectione transversa semilunale introrse valde concavum\xe2\x80\x9c, which sounds ominous, as the seed of Rutidea is globose, but he adds \xe2\x80\x9dnondum maturum\xe2\x80\x9c, and it might be possible, therefore, that the unusual form was but a passing stage in its development.

Description: J. J. Smith was born June 29th, 1867, at Antwerp, where his father was the director of the Netherlands\xe2\x80\x99 Railway Post Office. In 1872 the family moved to Utrecht and in 1875 to Amsterdam. Smith spent his school days in the capital. His leisure hours were occupied by growing and sketching plants and tending such animals as mice and keeping an aquarium and a terrarium. His 10th birthday was celebrated by the establishment of a private herbarium, the first plant inserted being Bellis perennis.\nHis years at secondary school were greatly influenced by the then teacher of Natural History, Dr J. C. Costerus, who advised Smith to look for a position in horticulture. Horticultural schools being not yet \xe2\x80\x9den vogue\xe2\x80\x9c, Smith got his education in this field at the Horticulturist\xe2\x80\x99s Messrs Groenewegen & Co., Amsterdam. In these years the Orchids began to impress him and Smith spent his few free hours in making pictures of flowering species. The connection with Dr Costerus was continued. Together they looked after their herbaria and later on started to study teratologica, found in the Groenewegen gardens and greenhouses, a field in which both would publish several valuable papers later on. After having been working for his firm for 3\xc2\xbd years, Smith went to Kew where he stayed one year and afterwards to Brussels for completing his horticultural knowledge and skill. At Brussels he was working one year in the famous Orchid nursery of Messrs Linden, and then another year at the \xe2\x80\x9dJardin Botanique\xe2\x80\x9c.

Description: Among the old plant collections in book-form, in the Leyden National Herbarium, there are two large volumes, containing a number of well preserved Ceylon plants. These plants are said to have been collected by PAUL HERMANN in the latter half of the 17th century.\nPAUL HERMANN\xc2\xb9), afterwards Professor of Botany at the University of Leyden, resided in Ceylon as an \xe2\x80\x9dOrdinary and First Physician\xe2\x80\x9c of the Dutch East Indian Company during the years 1672\xe2\x80\x941679. Several particularities on his life and on the collections made by him, are to be found in LINNAEUS\xe2\x80\x99S Flora Zeylanica (6), in TRIMEN\xe2\x80\x99S paper entitled \xe2\x80\x9dHermann\xe2\x80\x99s Ceylon Herbarium and Linnaeus\xe2\x80\x99s Flora Zeylanica\xe2\x80\x9c (8), in BOULGER\xe2\x80\x99S study on the history of Ceylon botany (2) and in ARDAGH\xe2\x80\x99S note on HERMANN\xe2\x80\x99S herbarium (1). During his residence in Ceylon HERMANN collected the herbarium, which is now in the possession of the Department of Botany of the British Museum of Natural History, London. The history of this herbarium has been described in TRIMEN\xe2\x80\x99S paper (8). This was not the only collection he made, for on page 131 of TRIMEN\xe2\x80\x99S paper we find that \xe2\x80\x9dBesides the herbarium under consideration, Hermann formed another whilst in Ceylon, which he sent to \xe2\x80\x9dJ. Commelin at Amsterdam. It was from this collection (combined with \xe2\x80\x9dthat made by J. Hartog, which was sent from Ceylon to Voss, Curator \xe2\x80\x9dof the Amsterdam Gardens) that J. Burman, Commelin\xe2\x80\x99s successor, com\xe2\x80\x9dpiled his \xe2\x80\x98Thesaurus Zeylanicus\xe2\x80\x99.\xe2\x80\x9c On page 132 TRIMEN mentions still other collections: \xe2\x80\x9dHermann also sent specimens to other botanists of \xe2\x80\x9dthe time, especially to Gronovius\xe2\x80\x9c (the latter fact must be incorrect, for as BOULGER (2) rightly states GRONOVIUS was only five years old at HERMANN\xe2\x80\x99S death in 1695). These \xe2\x80\x9dother botanists\xe2\x80\x9c may have been BREYNE and PLUKENET (see ARDAGH\xe2\x80\x99S note [1]). It is possible that one of the \xe2\x80\x9dsets\xe2\x80\x9c came in some way into the possession of the Leyden University and is now in the Leyden Herbarium. However, there is a possibility that, after HERMANN\xe2\x80\x99S death in 1695, a part of his plants, were left at Leyden.

Description: Pendant une tourn\xc3\xa9e du chalutier \xe2\x80\x9dDe Lanessan\xe2\x80\x9c de l\xe2\x80\x99Institut Oc\xc3\xa9anographique de Nhatrang (Annam) vers le r\xc3\xa9cif Tizard\xc2\xb9) en avril 1936, une collection d\xe2\x80\x99algues marines a \xc3\xa9t\xc3\xa9 constitu\xc3\xa9e, provenant des \xc3\xaelots Itu-Aba, Sand Caye et Nam Yit. La situation de ces \xc3\xaelots est environ 10\xc2\xb0 de latitude Nord et 114\xc2\xb0 de longitude Est.\nQu\xe2\x80\x99il me soit permis de remercier M. R. Ser\xc3\xa8ne de l\xe2\x80\x99Institut Oc\xc3\xa9anographique de l\xe2\x80\x99Indochine \xc3\xa0 Cauda par Nhatrang, qui m\xe2\x80\x99a confi\xc3\xa9 l\xe2\x80\x99\xc3\xa9tude de cette collection.

Description: I have already published in the Malayan Orchid Review, 1936, pp. 104\xe2\x80\x94109, a brief account of two artificial hybrids in the genera Arachnis and Renanthera, and since then have had flowers of a third for examination. The account already written is of a semipopular nature, intended chiefly for orchid-growers, and a more detailed description with some remarks on the botanical aspects of the question appear to be worth publishing. The three hybrids concerned are Arachnis flosaeris X A. Hookeriana, Arachnis Hookeriana X Renanthera coccinea and Arachnis Hookeriana X Renanthera Storiei. All three were raised at the Botanic Gardens, Singapore. The first is of interest because the hybrid is practically identical with Arachnis Maingayi, which has been described as a natural species. The intergeneric hybrids are the first of their kind to be described, and the way in which the different generic characters interact in the formation of the lip of their hybrids is of great interest. First hybrids between orchid species are usually closely intermediate between the two parents, but where the characters contrast strongly, as in the midlobe of the lip of the genera concerned, a strictly intermediate condition is not possible.

Description: Het lijkt mij niet mogelijk een juisten indruk te krijgen van de beteekenis van J. J. Smith\xe2\x80\x99s phytographisch werk voor den huidigen kweeker, zonder de belangrijkste phasen in de geschiedenis der Orchidophilie in Europa kort te schetsen, die aan dit werk zijn voorafgegaan.\nDeze geschiedenis heeft zich practisch geheel in Engeland afgespeeld. Dit machtige rijk, in zijn gouden eeuw onbetwist heerscher ter zee, had ter behartiging van zijne overzeesche belangen de beschikking over een kolossale handelsvloot. De bemanningen der schepen voerden van heinde en verre allerlei rariteiten mede, ook levende planten en dieren. Op deze wijze kwamen in de laatste helft der achttiende eeuw de eerste exotische Orchidee\xc3\xabn binnen uit gebieden, die niet al te ver van Engeland af lagen: Jamaica, de Bahama-eilanden, Trinidad.