ALBERT

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.

Description: The Netherlands\xe2\x80\x99 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 Anggr\xc3\xa8k or Angkr\xc3\xa8k 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 Angkr\xc3\xa8k pan\xc3\xa8li and Angkr\xc3\xa8k lotjis, Spatulotjis or Spatuklotis are mere corruptions of Vanilla and Spathoglottis. Angkr\xc3\xa8k bulan (Phalaenopsis amabilis) and Anggr\xc3\xa8k 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 Anggr\xc3\xa8k or Angkr\xc3\xa8k, e.g. b\xc4\x9bn\xc4\x9br (b\xc4\x9btul) = true; beureum (m\xc3\xa8rah) = red; bodas (putih) = white; kon\xc3\xa8ng (kuning) = yellow; g\xc4\x9bd\xc3\xa8 (b\xc4\x9bsar) = big; leutik (k\xc4\x9btjil) = 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.\nNotwithstanding 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.