ALBERT

Description: The genus Praravinia was created by KORTHALS (in TEMMINCK, Verhand. Nat. Gesch. Ned. Overz. Bezitt., Bot., p. 189, tab. 41, 1839-1842) for a plant which he had collected in the south-eastern part of Borneo. He described it as similar in habit and doubtless nearly related to Urophyllum WALL. His diagnosis of the genus, however, does not substantiate this point of view, for it contains two statements which seem to exclude the possibility of a near affinity: the aestivation of the corolla lobes is described as imbricate, whereas in Urophyllum and its allies it is always valvate, and the number of corolla lobes is said to be half as large as that of the stamens, a condition unknown not only in Urophyllum but in the whole family. As in the description of the species the aestivation is correctly set down as valvate, the first statement need not trouble us: the word “imbricate” in the generic diagnosis is obviously a slip of the pen. The other statement, however, is repeated in the description of the species, but it strikes one as anomalous that immediately afterwards the 8—12 stamens are said to alternate with the corolla lobes, as this of course would be impossible when the latter were but half as numerous as the first. The discrepancy between the number of the corolla lobes and of the stamens led MIQUEL in his “Flora Indiae Batavae II, p. 225 (1857)” to consider Praravinia as a quite singular genus, rather out of place in the family Rubiaceae: it reminded him, he says, of the Samydeae (Flacourtiaceae). When he wrote this, he knew the genus merely from the description given by KORTHALS, but afterwards he found an opportunity to study the latter’s material. In his “De quibusdam Rubiaceis, Apocyneis et Asclepiadeis” (Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. IV, p. 136, 1869) he proposes, as a result of this investigation, to exclude the genus from the Rubiaceae, and to raise it to family rank. The new family, for which he introduces the name Metrocladeaceae, should be regarded, however, as nearly related to the Rubiaceae. The description of the genus given by MIQUEL is much more detailed than the original one, but it unfortunately repeats its principal errors: the corolla is described as 4- to 6-merous, and its aestivation as imbricate. The male flower dissected by him is preserved in the Utrecht Herbarium; it is a fairly young bud, opened by a longitudinal slit. The corolla lobes had apparently been separated by a slight pressure, but I at once got the impression that it had been insufficient to effect a complete separation, and that the lobes were still cohering in pairs. I have boiled the flower therefore once more, and by exercising in my turn a slight pressure I succeeded in setting all the lobes free. Since then I have seen mature flowers of this and other species in which the isomery of corolla and androecium was unmistakable. MIQUEL’s speculations on the taxonomic position of the genus were based therefore on a false supposition, and need no further consideration; the analysis carried out below will show that KORTHALS was quite right when he placed Praravinia in the neighbourhood of Urophyllum.

Description: Of the family Oenotheraceae the genus Jussieua is the only one occurring in Suriname. The peculiar Oocarpon torulosum (Arn.) Urb., which has been recorded from Amazonian Peru, Brazil, British and French Guiana, Cuba and Santo Domingo, has up till now not been collected in the colony, but on account of its presence in the neighbouring countries it is there also to be expected. As for the name of the only Suriname genus, it was spelled by LINNAEUS in Genera Plantarum, ed. I (1737), p. 126, Jussieua but afterwards in his Flora Zeylanica (1747), p. 75, changed in Jussiaea.

Description: The name Pleiocarpidia was coined by K. SCHUMANN (ENGLER und PRANTL, Natürliche Pflanzenfamilien, Nachträge I, p. 314, 1897) for a genus described in 1873 by HOOKER f. (BENTHAM et HOOKER, Genera Plantarum II (1), p. 71) as Aulacodiscus: HOOKER’S genus had to be rebaptized, because the name Aulacodiscus had been used already in 1844 by EHRENBERG for a genus belonging to the Diatomeae. A proposal made by O. KUNTZE(POST et KUNTZE, Lexicon, 1904) to change the spelling of the name introduced by SCHUMANN in Pliocarpidia can not be accepted, as there is no rule prescribing the transcription of the Greek diphthong in the manner advocated by the proposer. The plant on which HOOKER’S genus was founded, a small tree not uncommon in the Malay Peninsula, had been described already several years before by WIGHT (Calc. Journ. Nat. Hist. VII, p. 144, 1847) under the name Axanthes enneandra. The specific epithet points to the presence of nine stamens in the flower, but this is exceptional: in the flowers investigated by me the ordinary number proved to be seven. The genus Axanthes Bl., to which the species had been referred by WIGHT, was reduced shortly afterwards by BENTHAM and HOOKER f. (Niger Flora,p. 396,1849) and independently by KORTHALS (Ned. Kruidk. Arch. II, 2, p. 194,1851) to Urophyllum Wall. Later HOOKER made an exception for Axanthes enneandra Wight. The flowers of this plant were described by him as 8- to 16-merous, and on account of this character and of the presence of a “peltate stigma” he referred it to a new genus. Afterwards a second species from the same region was described by KING and GAMBLE under the name Aulacodiscus Maingayi, but this proved identical with the first (cf. RIDLEY, Flora of the Malay Peninsula II, p. 64, 1923). A really new species, however, was found in Mindanao: it was described by Merrill as Pleiocarpidia lanaensis.