Skip to main content

Full text of "[Correspondence and records on euphorbiaceae]"

See other formats





No Minutes should be written on this page. A separate half-sheet to 




be used if required. 








m?- % 

■ ■ . 










\ 




* 

b •* 




v 


u | 








r 






v 




A ? , 


r'. 


f ^ 


% 

S--- V y’ 


. 


■'3; 






i 




. 







» **-3 

w>- ■ * ■£ 


■ ... 







\ 









E^'-Vm ■ 

; . »5«J : ;v. / .a. 




. ■, -. -s - .1 > 

1 ‘ ■' ') 








. ^Sk a m V rn 1 


■ 






M 

l 




‘ 












THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

JAMAICA PLAIN, MASS., U.S.A. 



September 22nd,1941 

Mr# R#E# Holitum 
Botanic Gardens, 

S ingap ore PERSONAL 


Dear Mr# Holttum: 

In the last number of the"Journal of the Washington Academy of 
Science", Dr# 0#F# Cook,of the U#S#A# Department of Agriculture,has pu¬ 
blished an incredible article on Hevaa # The gentleman in question must 
be insane to reel off such stupidities ,as you may readily learn reading 
his "vapours"# Since he does not like Hevea he renames it Siphonia »then 
to add to the discomfiture of the reader he kneads it up with Caoutchoua # 
In brief,the contribution in question is incredible and you should read 
it to decide whether I exaggerate# 


Normally,a thing of the kind goes to the wastebasket,where it 
belongs# But I am sure that in this case some confusion will result* Seeing 
a work by somebody who is on the staff of the Department of Agriculture of 
the U#S#A#,which is published by the Washington Academy of Science,the 
candid reader will believe that Cook is justified in seme measure in chang¬ 
ing names for these very important economic trees# The truth is that he is 
not justified at all# 

; I have written a short article on the score,which I include# If you 
think you can use in any comirg number of of your Journal you are welcome 
to it. I am not very ^Bxious to have it published very soon,either# For 
instance:, I would rather have it published in the autumn 
of 1942AtfrSn^in the Spring. I am sure that I will have oppositions for 
" tapping on the head " Dr# Cook,and I never care to have oppositions coming 

when the time for being reconfirmed on the staff here emSs up# That 
time,I should speeifyjis between January and April each year,so I do not 
cane to have anything ruffling Ihe waters in those months,or 1 mm shortly 
before January f Trom August to November are the best months,that is,the 
safest# Seeing that I do not particularly indorse the use of " old names 
our good friend Corner will understand where I stand# Then,of course,with 
Comer I believe that we should confess that we are still very much ignorant 
of the systematy of tropical plants. To confess that here . 4 *.# Oh mis non*, 
jamais/#We know all# _ 




mss# of 15 pages attached 


Sincerely yours, 

& 







t 


r f\jL 


|U 


— S l* 


‘-^Vw'vi'A Jo 


P 5 /: 



l jUd 

Jed? \r o 

- Y' o 
. 'TL-* ^ 1 *> 

IT’ tfc%, 

















V--' 



7 ^ 


On the nomenclature of the Rubber 'free 


Several corr espondents have called my attention to a recent 


article of O.F. Cook: ( in Jour* Washington Acad. 3c. .31:46-65. 1941 ) 


in which this author renames the cultivated Rubber Tree Siphonia Ridleyana 


a nd &&&&** e oiii- le n t s ogttore&afea g its h is t or y , nome nc 1 a tur e and classification. 


It is evident that this article proves to be confusing to 


economic botanists and agronomists who are not especially interested in ^ 

taxonomy. Few of its reade^for instance,are aware that 

Cook,in addition to renaming the Rubber Tree^does something else,as follows: 
(1} He certainly publishes a new combination. Caoutchoua gu^j^nensis ( Aubl.) 
Cook; (2) He seemingly effects a transfer calling for a second combination, 
Siphonia .jane^irensis -(Mueller Arg.) Cook ; (3) He implicitly breaks up 
Hove a into Caoutchoua and Siphonia . 

In his treatment Cook sharply dissents with everyone of the 

botanists and taxonomists who (before hin fliave dealt) with the cultivated 

<rZy+/*c*> /%.cf~ 

Rubber Tree. His conclusions are altogether novel and 



discussion is frequently interrupted by digressions that mMm puszlfitg z$> 
a casual reader as they involve controversial issues of nomenclature. To 


verify Cook's statements rare texts must be consulted and the Rules of Inter 


national Nomenclature must be throughly understood. 

Since Hevea is one of the most important of our economic trees, 
not only,but belong J to a family,the Euphorbiaceae,in which are ither economi 
cally important genera such as Aleurites . Manihot , Ricinus and Euphorbia I 
expect to deal briefly in the coming pages with some of the fallacies of 

















^C ook* s paper. My own conclusions concerning this paper are summarized by 
synonymies which it is interesting to record without undue delay. It 
is not my intention to consider^Cook 1 s historical notes,and even less to 
deny that they are interesting. 

Nomenclature! changes are of common occurrence in taxonomic 
practice and it is not unconceivable that a hasty reader of Cook f s article 


publisha__ 

a 



may come to the conclusion that there is some justification 
Siphonia Ridleyana Cook,1941,to replace Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.,1865. 


This is absolutely not the case. Cook rejects Hevea brasiliensis merely 
because he does not like this name,which is forbidden by the 

* *i 

Rules of International Nomenclature { Art. 16, Art. 5^, Art. 60(1) ). 

Cook fat tacks the Rules thems-elves, disputing their soundness 

in principle as v/ell as in detail. ~ % n 

The Rules of Botanical Nomenclature are the product of 

a theory and practice of botany that has survive^ close to two centuries of 
international usage, £o suppose that the Articles and 

the Recommendations in these Rules are either fully bad or fully good is 

* 

a manifest fallacy. It is but plain common sense to believe that they are, 
fairly good,because thousands of men of different minds at work upon the 
same problems can not always and completely err in their conclusions. 

It is common sense,likewise,to believe that they can be made better,be¬ 
cause science moves on,and a critical study of the issues that bob up in 
its wake W^never be dismi ssed a s /superf luQus,foQringj\or deplorable* 

the 


Rules freely admit ( Art. 74 ) that the Articles and the Recommendations 
can be altered,rejected or modified. This admission is hedged in by the 

clause that changes can be introduced into the Rules only at 
the proper time and in the prescribed manner. Since little has been done 
so far to regulate the work of the bodies which are charged with the actual 
writing up of the Rules it is not to be denied that men&d6A 
a legiti iate ground/of complainjyfagainst wmmmm certain Articles vmm 
and the manner in which proposals ms# hapoen to be in and 

out the Rules* 










So far, so good but not an inch farther,, Since in a demo¬ 
cracy such as botany i^ the minority is not lined up against a wall but 
is allowed to survive and to use the pen as their sword,grievances can 
beAventilated and proposals dis cussed in view of turning the minority 


into a iajority«a^ 



Once an Article has been approved 


by the Botanical Congress'it can neither be rejected nor be mutilated 
to have it state what it does not mean. A botanist is left free to follow 
good usage when the consequences of the Rules are doubtful ( Art. 5 ), and 
he is to use his freedom in such a manner that stabilizes nomen¬ 

clature (Art. 4 ), stability of names 

being the ultimate goal of the Articles. A clear mandateAin the Rules is 


/ ir'f'A 


there to stay^and it shall stand^until^properly revoked. If this mandate 
is unwise it can be fought best by those ^ who rigidly enforce it. Enforce* 

be brought to the attention 
of the bodies at the proper time 0 Flouting Articles because 


they are not liked or not understood i 


begets anarchy much sooner 


than reform. Some contend that the Rules are a nuisance,as it were cavils 


laid over botany. Be i« so: the alternative to the Rules is chaos^in 

<yi !*-*>— 

nomenclature. This is an evil,that is, something that is^less tolerable 

than a nuisance 0 

Cook points out that the name Hevea is based upon a mis¬ 
application of native names and that Aublet was guilty,anyway,of intro¬ 


ducing into taxonomy swarms of barbarous 


words. This is true as 


a fact. It is not less true a fact , however, that the Rules aa$r ( Art. 

S O \ 

15 ) ifafcmw jjcte: ” The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is 
not to indicate the characters or the history of the group, but to supply 


a means of referring to it They state likewise( Art. 25 ): " These 


( generic ) names may be taken from any source whatever,and may even be 







composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner **. In plain Knglish: the 
Buies understand and define botanical names as pure labels ,not as 
abridged treatises of phytogeograpMa, biology or linguistics. Thus, 
we have here two facts,as follows: (1) Aublet has misapplied the/name 
heve to the plant which he has published as Hevea ; (2) The Rules say 

that Aublet has validly published Hevea ,nevertheless. 


Which one of these two facts interests primarily the bo- 

cx * /St U Sf's 

tanist ? The latter /for the very simple reason that the name Hevea has 

no more significance or value than a label. I write about Hevea guyanensis 
^because I am informed J 

Aubl. ^a^i^^Eatany botanist in any country of the world knows that 

> Aa, ro aS o c 3bJ^ , ..,,, 

I speak^of a certain plant which Aublet has described and illustrated 

in 1775. I accept this name with a full realization that it is objectio¬ 
nable on grounds other than those of nomenclature . My acceptance of it 
does not mean as yet that I aniyfignorant of the history of this plant 0 

r’/'-p-/ 

The Rules do not expert aMNHf unbearable coercion upon me as a scien¬ 


tist when they order me to use the name Hevea guianensis fl I am altogether 

free to write a volume to tell the world how objectionable is this name^ 

aih how great are the misconceptions and errors thaV' presided upon its 

birth. I use this name as a label , not as a badge of mental subservience^- 

2* a- 

to a tyrannical4power o 

It is but natural that the Rules should treat botanical 

CT/teyo & /c-o»»cb 

names as labels. would if tbs Rule s were 


ft 


to concern themselves with the philosophical preoccupations of this 
or that taxonomist,providing an Article for these who believe tliat the 

// rf 

species is a complex and a second Article for those who believe that 






the species is an individual or anything such. The Rules disclaim any 

o tZ i C-* J 

V wish to interfere with tom individual opinions concernirg taxonomic 
categories ( Art* 13 ) for the very same reasons that 1m any civilized 














country is loath to have its legislators write up laws to tell a citizen 
when to get up in the morning. Taxonomist* John Doe may happen to believe 
as Gospel’s truth that the trinomial typicul is rank poppycock and that 
those who use it are guilty of a gross betrayal of " good ft botany^ but 
botanist John Smith may believe even as firmly that such a trinomial is 


/o 

pure gold. The Rules,as between the two,know better than^take sides > real¬ 
ising that both may be right today and wrong tomorrow. Mean¬ 




while, John Smith 
John Doe may reduce them ail 


as he likes, and 
ie telling the other Alow' 


hopelessly mistaken lie is in his ” biological concepts ",in his believing 


the species to be a ft collection of individuals Tl instead 



something 


else,and the like. The Rules stand by silently. All they are interested 
in is to arbitrate the game^and to see to it that the player|//&bid e by 
a certain code of practice which prevents the discussion from becoming a 


brawl. Rules are needed, and must be closely followed , if John Doe is 

to relegate to proper synonymy everything which John Smith does and the 

other way around.Obviously,the Rules step in when John Doe in the heat 

of the argument violates priority, uses a nomen confusum ,publishes a 

nomen alternativum and the like. The names are labels^ and the labels 

&/ 

that read tf Vinum annorum C can not be put on a flaskr filled with 
” Aqua pumpae w . That is all: let everybody think what he wishes ,but 
l et all deal their cards out according to the rules of the house . 

It may be objected that the Rules are hopelessly 
wrong in taking such an ft artificial tT view of nomenclature. 

&et those who believe that the Rules are wrong write up a new set of 
Articles to make them right* Since, as Cook points out,it is unberable 
to kw as A sclepias syriaca a weed that hails from New Ehgiand,and as 

P'P 1-e 

Sirnmondsia chinensis a shrub '■'fa^aa*a"Southern California, let us see what 


















6 ) 


6 


can be done to remedy these wrongs. We have scores of epithets like: orien¬ 
talis t occidentalis m australis , septemtrionalis t mar ianus .wammmm , virginianus , 
canadensis , brasiliensis , mauritanicus , aethiopicus , sarmaticus , ponticus , chi- 
nensis ,i naicus r and so forth*which are glaringly misapplied in their relation 
to species 0 Not only,but Euphorbia antiquorum L e never was the true 

-j?/ n 

,f Euphorbium of the antients E, officinarum L, never was the sole source 
of the gum euphorbium,secured prevailingly from E, resinifera Berg 0 Errors 
in the designation of geographic origin,in the indication of commercial 
uses and the like are rife all over the records of taxonomy. Once the gate 

ft ** 

is open to correct botanical names on such grounds as the ones just stated 

j y? &/t m *S 

why not change the name of a plant that is glabrous and its authoD^fhas 

dubbed pubescens ? Why,which is worse yet,tolerate that the main biotype 

of a complex enjoys only trinomial status when an insignificant form of this 

a 

complex,having been described first in time,bdars^full binomial name ? 
Would-be reformersface a serious issue: they must remedy existing evils 

0 Atj>e <k W€4.* /C* j i 


seeing to it^that these evilC'under their hasty manipulationsydo not 

_^ .j, 1 Mti^i m ii . ni..iui 1 iuii.iw»>.»r »nnir r-gm- infOatni rnjrumi «u. i m n , M lll U _ L t.,1 _n 

become worss^Sinee the proper place for introducing corrections into the 

Rules is in the Articles that are most immediately concerned.let those who 

object against the botanical names being labels write up another text 

under -art, !5)<to state / for instance, that the purpose of givir^ a name to 

a taxonomic group is to indicate the characters and the history of the 

group. So written, Art, 15 will please botanists who do not like Hevea. 

Other botanists,however,will object pointing out that once the principle , 

1S 6.QC e j ted fayye c'S j 

that’’corrections” can easily be made^we must know who is to > ■ upp i g i wT , wEenT, 

f t 

why and how c And it is here that the^difficulty lies e 































7) 


/ 


Cook’s biting castigation of ” indexers,cataloguers,or 
even herbarium assistants ” who believe,as he states,that new names must 
be accepted once^and old names summarily discarded has no support in 
fact* The Kules have never stated,nor do they state^that new names must 

be accepted at once^and that old ones must be cast off fomtwith 0 Stability^ 

' { /fat.*?; /f* 

of nomenclature,not priority is the fundamental purpose of the Articles^ 


A botanist presented with freshly unearthed old names 

iy bz 




Cs*T cfe »_ ? ( d> 7$ P 

being placed thereby iwrine imraediate &*&£&&&*$' of accepting them* A 


name may be so old,paradoxical as this mm seem,that having been used 
by too many authors in too many senses it mustxbe discarded as a perma¬ 
nent^ source of confusion and error ( Art* 62 }* Likewise,an old name 

which can not be properly applied is rejected { Art* 63), with the under- 

again 

standing that it may be usedyjf Kec* xxxvii ) > if its correct use .can be 

y-ev L~ i*o 

determined. An old name* which is based upon a type-specimenNw®^ 33 ^ 

A}, /%£ <v tl >/«V" — 

two plants Confused together^ and believed/So be a single one / is to be 
discarded { Art* 64 ). A monstros ity d oes not warrant the publication 

of a name^and an ancient name published for an occasional aberrant 

* * 

form has no legitimate status in nomencla ture ( Art. 65 T.^wtroF all, 
an acknowledged old name,effectively published and having full legitimate 


status,may be disposed off in favor of a younger one in mmtomm special 

i 

cases ( Art. 21 ),this pririciple having been extended to preserve certain 
spellings as against certain others, Bougainvillea ,for instance, as 
against the perfectly c or re c t /Buginvill^ea . Cook’s statement that : " The 


older names are never completely discarded, but remain in reference use 
among students of botany who have sufficient interest to follow the histo¬ 
ry of a plant to the original sources ” is both true and false* It is 








8 


8} 


/ 


true to the extent that older and illegitimate names remain in the sy¬ 
nonymy of the plant involved , this synonymy revealing the history of 
the entity in taxonomy and,mayhaps, in economic botany « It is false 

it is read to imply that old names,or what ^apr^supposed to be old 
names,are necessarily legitimate in nomencla ture * One may agree with 
Cook: wholeheartedly that Constructive reforms are needed to keep ta¬ 
xonomy as a part of the study of plants and to open this field, of natural 

interest to a wider public n ,but one does not discover at a glance the 

the of 

connection that binds such constructive reforms withArenaming^ Hevea 


brasiliensis 



as Siphonia Ridleyana * I do not know 


whether in quoting Santayana as a successful critic of botany^" a 

trivial,overtaehnical science with a peevish insistence on the right 

names for flowers n y Cbok does actual justice to the intention of that 

A> 



author* Santayana^&s a philosopheryKnowsthat one of the first and most 

important steps taken in the ascent of man is the discovery of language, 

which made it possible for certain names to be attached to certain 

objects* Santayana,most likely,alludes/!to the doings of botanists who, 

(r //; J 

being handed a correct and standa rdi zed label , ref use to use/and insist 
upon speaking a language of their own/fbecause the color of the paper 


n 


is not to their fancy* 

f/\ 

Onge of the chapters.. >§£ Cook T s is titled n Siphonia 

an . alterna tiv e name ^ and in r Cook says: " The notion of 

disregarding the names that were considered by their authors as provisional 
is one of the strange proposals in recent efforts to reform the system 
of nomenclature "* Once again there is no support in the Rules for* this 
interpretation* It is true that Art. 37 ter is poorly worded^and that 
serious misinterpretations have crept in about the difference between 

t* *4 u 

provisional an! alternative names* Anyone who reads the Article in question 


n/i 


■'/a 


I 





















'») 


f 


and the debates which have led to its adoption knows that a name 


considered by its author as provisional is not a nomen provisorium 

4_ 

under the Rules» i.et us not confuse, issue».*at the start, and mistake -A 

A, ^ w 


the word n crime",as it is being used in colloquial language^with the 


term ft crime" as it reads in the laws of the land. To allow good food 

/ ** o 

to go to waste may be a n crime n to a housewife^but Piwmi nr not/a / 

y^e'-c! KfC ^ k f / - - 7 <— ^ 

"crime" to a/$udge sitting on the bene hV^rtf name Itj ugjii 
y iifjp ■*) is not'.w^t u nder the Rules merely because an author 

<J/b*~£ r ( , vf ) 

"Wafer r 


AStates in 


publication that he is not certain whether the name will 


stand as €@iMgiven. To coin a true provisional name under the Rules 

a botanist must publish or use two or more names at the same time , making 

the acceptance of one of them contingent upon events to be verified in 

the future. I may publish Planta quaevis stating that this name has 
,4 #« 

provisional status because I am not certain of the genus and even less 

&t< 

of the rank,whether a good species or a trinomial,an&i this does not 
make me guilty of publishing a provisional name] .under the Rules/' I become 


guilty/of coining such a name ?under the Rules !when I publish in the 
same paper^and at the same time^both Planta quaevis and Arbor quaevis , 
tagging two names to one and the same entity, and leaving it to somebody 
else[in the future/to decide)which one of these two names is goodT That 
names of the kind,the latter one at least, are not legitimate is readilj 
understood. The reasons why it is so are at least three,as follows;(1) 
The interests of stability and certainty of nomenclature are not served 

7 ^ *7 4*0 *■ £ sJT . . . . 

when one plant is/f published^jander twcT or more names. Let each plant 

/td T~) 

bear one name,and let each name be properly and definitely dated as 


to its publication. This is.istraight record. 



pz 


/ '* 


s 




















(2) It Is convenient,to say the least,that each publication should be 

cT*™ 


perfect in itself,that is,that everybo 





» that it was made at 
such date, by such author,and that it S ^sm "'delivered to the press without 
trailing if*s and but*s 0 8 inee a true provisional name becomes "good* 
only when certain conditions are verified ^what are we to think: of it 

<T t && rt to & iC* s* 00 * 


so long as these conditions have not come to pass? Is it good or 

\ &y- ' **’**-& /Qr. . 

Bow are we to k&orf?; ( 3 } It is unethical that an author should refuse 


to decide an issue but should retain the right to tell another author, 

/ ,, /j* 

who is willing to decide , wha1 411 a me to use. Let everybody 

i 

coin his own names and use them £mt himself, standing squarely behind 
what he does. In a classic instance of nomen provisorium which I 
have discussed a short time ago ( Croizat in lour*. Arnold Arbor. 

see also .Croizat, op s cit & ,2.2: /3/^ • 1941 } Hooker uses 
the name Croton laevifolius 31. ( FI. Brit. India 5:391. 1887 } for 
a certain plant from N.E. India (Khasia). Then,^the next page,under 
Cc Griffith!! Hook.f 0 , he states: ff A solitary specimen of Griffith*s 
from Malacca { Kew Distrib* 4779 ) has the very slender racemes of 


nj\% 


C 0 laevifolius and lepidote ovaries*,- It is possible that this is the 
true laevifolius of Blame; and if so, the Khasian plant so called-— - 


should bear the name of khasianus Hooker T s hesitations invite the 
following comment: * ~>lease,do secure on loan the holotype of C. laevifolius 
or at least some well authenticated material,and make up your mind whether 
the Khasian plant is C. laevifolius Bl. or a new species, C. khasianus 




Hook. f. If you publish C . khasianus and are wrong,your name will go to sy- 
nonymy. If you it right / you will have one more binomial ,to your 


lasting credit. All I ask you,please,is to make up 















r 


1J 


your mind* Iky should I be ejected to do your work and to check Blume^ 
specimen ? Why should I not be free to use any name I wish* if I am the one 
to decide whether the Khasian plant is different from G* laevifolius ? 

True >y mi may not as yet be in the position to reach a conclusion 

because you have not enough material available# This I understand# But why 
should you have the right of publish.ing a name by anticipation when I have 
no such right myself ? Science goes on endlessly,so,please,let each one of 
us work out that problem tbr which he has the material or about which aiwat 
he fteels ccmpetent* The future will take care of it self I trust that the 
shadows of Hooker^in the Great Beyond where there are no wars and everybody 
is \forgive me if I address them in colloquial American upon an 

issue that Hooker, not being bound by our Rules,was after all free to solve 
any way he wished* I believe,r a ther,that Hooker t s spirit ,r©minding itself 
of having once lived as a great and fair botanist,chuckleseeing that 
the beings of the flesh must speak the plainest language in order to be 

t 

underst oodfby their brothers in the craft© 

* 

The fallacies in Gook’s work are so numerous that it is 

i€ *c<* 

actually„ impossible to discuss them all within the limit of —' 

paper# It might be true, allhough it is not quite certain,that tree- 
and plant-names in Latin take feminine adjectives , to agree with arbor or 
h erba as an implied appositive# It is undoubtedly true that the modifications 
introduced in Art# 72 by the Amsterdam Congress of 1935 are ambiguous and 
oonfusirg , leaving it uncertain what is to be done about the gender of generic 
names. But the generic names in use in taxonomy are not entirely Latin# Many, 

and,these are legitimate too,are derived from Greek roots compounded in the 

■— T&A;-'***? i, 

modern manner or used according to classical usage , or from uhclassical langua¬ 
ge Rules are needed to determine the gender of these names® As to Hevea 
and Svea being,or not , homonyms , the Rules provide a good answer* They decide 
( Art* 70," Examples Of Different Names 9 ) that Durvillea and Urvillea 
are different names,which settle the issues to everybody f s knowledge© 

Every botanist has a duty and a right in regard to the Rules# 
He has the duty of studying and knowing them^and has the right to ask his 
fellow-workers to do the same# This is because the Rules protect any and all * 
a nd provide a*meeting ground foT the exchange of ideas and data # The right 
of insurgency and secession against the Article|be it manifested in willfull 



«/l5 


I 















opposition,or by ignorance and negLect of what the Articles say,is not 
to be made the subject of philosophical discussions# However,out of a 
decent resp act for tie opinions of mankind let^insurgents and 

. y 

secessors read the law against which they lift their hands before,, tixfm 
the first shoot. One is often amazed hearing arguments about the Rules which 
have no reason to be for the simple reason that the Rules do not say what 
their accusers or self-appointed expounders try to have than say. There are 
three kinds of offenders against the Rules , namely:(1) those who occasionally 
violate Art. 16 because they overlook a previous publication; (2) those who 
do"not^or^can not redd the Articles as they stand,hut build up castles in 
Spain to suit their cwn notians A iiow the r? articles n should rea&$ (3) those 
who' 'Rules overloadirg thembarnacles 
wWaiAtMte/ilLsot v&’MzsMw to foresee 

any petty and extreme contingency that may arise under any and all Articles* 

jS> I •» ere /c a j 

It is that thefsinners against Art. 16 are almost the 

only one who get caught and summarily . executed. 

In pointing out sane of the errors in Cook's treatment it is 


not my intention to minimize^e value of the data he contributes outside of 
nomenclature. The classification of Hevea.like that of many other euphorbia- 

«#**£*-’ - *cj /» ya / -w — - i 

ifw.-hh 


_ > j 

ceous gen era, suffers from an initial over -sp li tt i ng>,that is, the TTrst authors 

CTf cJ-G- Or 1 - ^— 

who have treated it .Mueller Argoviensis especially,had no-concept of specific 


limits in this genus. Thus,the work of these authors has created precedents 
and methods that raust be radically revi 

sed and 3 if need he .reversed before any real approach to correct classifica- 

tion can he me.de* 

To simplify the coning taxonomic work on this genus I affirm 
here the following synonymies: 











r 


13 




w 


1 ) Hevea bras Aliens is Hue 11. Arg. in Linnaea 34:204© 1865 

Jour» 

Syn® Not. : Siphon la Ridleyana Gook in^ Washington Acado Sc® 31:46-65 
1941. 


Z) Hevea guianensis Aubl© Hist* Plant* Guian. 2:871, PI* 335 (sphalm©:p eruviana 


)® 1775, 


Syn® Nov© : Oaoutohoua guianensls ( Aubl© ) Cook in Jour. Washington 


Acado Sc© 31:58© 1941, 


3) 


Hevea jane irons is Muell© Arg® in Marti us ? Flo Brasil© 11[2]:706© 1874© 
Sync Nov. : Siphonia .janeirensi s( Muell. Arg. ) Cook in Jour© 
Washington Acad© Sc. 31:61© 1941. 


I hope that the se4 synonymi es conform. with Cook f s 



-mmmeBem treatment of Hevea 0 Siphonia and Caoutchoua© I restricts then to the 


harest essentials because I do not intend at this writing to enter into the 


merits of the clasfsif icfati on_of Heve a © It is clear in my understanding that 

"tr ea tmehV'^"^- 

much is to be done in t of the Euphorbiaceae in general 


before we can have this classification put on a tolerable basis. Here I merely 
deal with six labels of which three are correct on technical grounds of nomen- 


while three others are manifestly erroneous on the same grounds© Placing the 
synonyms where they belong is quite a different wtowmfr'than deciding which 


are the characters,for instance s that may or may not separate specifically 

1 uf-.An ri 


Heve a brasiliensls from H© janelr ensis © To thi 



7 ) 


wilistend later© 

















Btzg 6 ^ebr.I939 

W cA Vtv 

Dear Henderson, 

-umerous thanks for your kindness in tracing 
2 numbers of Materials absent in my series* I have ordered 
the Euph*by G a ge and have tried also to get Ho.l which is the 
last part which fails* I will have them rebound as they are 
thrown through one another, which can easily be done without 
much costs/, Tiie onljf gear I have is that No* 1 is not longer 
available *h' f 11 wait and see* Possibly they have odd numbers of 
the journal at Calcutta*. Many thanks for all the trouble you 
took# 


1(0 


Sincerely yours 

The monograph of the Euphorbiaceae is only 
par of Cage r e mac, and gives only some ge: 
well only 7 genera. Has this been decided on Malay Peninsula 
materials by the editor in Calcutta* Have they tried to get 
funds in the Peninsula* The reason they mention is the existen¬ 
ce of the Flora by Ridley. But 1 believe that Gage T r : work will 
exceed Ridley f s in usefulness* It is a pity tlmt the rest of 
Game's work will never be p blished any further » 




NAAM EN ADRES VAN DEN AFZENDER 
NAM A DAN ‘ALAMAT SIPENGIRIM 


HERBARIUM EN MUSEUM VO OR SYSTEMATISCHE 
BOTANiE VAN ’s LANDS PLANTENIUIN 

BUITENZORG (JAVA). 


BRIEFKAART 

KARTOEPOS 


ADRE5 *ALAMAT 


.Vr.. K * . 

3 o tanic 0®r den 


Singapore* 
































£ 

I 


l/'th December, 


6 


Dear Dr Quisumbing, 

I wonder if you would be so kind as to lend me 
specimens of Cheilosa homaliifol ia Merrill (Euphorbiaeeae). 

I find |hat specimens from Malaya, described as Balios permum 
malayanum Hook., are really Cheilosa and I cannot see 
how to distinguish them from Merrill's description of 
C.homaliifolia , We have only one specimen of C.homaliifolia 
in Singapore, namely Ramos 1 GGj: it is identical with the 
Malayan species except for the edge of the leaf. If my 
surmise is correct, it means that Merrill's name becomes 
a synonym, which will be unfortunate, Dut I suppose such 
is the rathless advance of science and better now than 
later. I have written to Dr van Steenis to ask him about 
Cheilosa montana , because I verily believe Cheilosa mala./ana 
will have to be reduced to C.mont ana and we shall again 
have Cheilosa as a monotypie genus. 

I apologise for the long delay in returning the 
specimens of Ficus subgen. Synoecia which you so kindly lent 
me. I shall do so early next year. I have been delayed 

because I have been trying to locate the type of Ficus 

* 

scratbhleyana , and I have also been trying to get specimens 
of the Formosan F .terasoensis for comparison with your 
F.megacarpa . In both objects, I have been unsuccessful. 
However, King's description of F»seratehleyana is very 
good, and relying on that, I determine your Philippine 

Dr. E. Quisumbing, 

Bureau of Science, 


Manila, PHILIPPINES. 
















specimens named F^ap iocarpa as F.scratchleyana , which 
is known only from New Guinea. is 

the easterrnost representative of the subgenus and it 
is very interesting to find it in the Philippines, 

£ »*5F^ . 9 , £ a f£% seems not to occur in your country; it is 
a species of the Sund& shelf. 

Thanking you, again, for your ready assistance. 


Yours 3ineerely. 


Assistant Director of Gardens, S. 








T 


Memorandum 


G 39 


From 


To 


Curator of the Herbarium 9 



Botanic Gardens 9 Singapore 


Pahang. 


23th July 1938. 


Your No.4 in V.Fhg. 222/38 


The specimen is Agrostletachys Gaudichaudii (Euphorbiaceae) 

Malay name Julong-^ulong. 

I cannot find any reference to any poisonous properties 
it may possess and it is certainly not usually regarded as in 
any way poisonous. 



?/<i 

















©ffidal /IDemoranbum. 


(Gen. 67) 


4 in V. Phg. 222/38 • 


From . Veterinary., Off1 c e r . 

.Pph&Ug.«. 


Raub, 22nd .July.,. . j ^38 


T 0 ..t hgL Curator.,. 


Botanical .Gardens, 

. Sangap.ora.. 


I forward herewith leaf samples of a jungle shrub 
or tree? known locally in Temerloh as Kechulun (cf. V/ilkinson's 
dictionary - Clerodendron dis^arifolium), I would appreciate 
your identification, the correct generic name and any information 
concerning its assumed poisonous properties and the nature of 


the active principle involved. 


fat****)* 


Veterinary Officer, 
Pahang. 




90 


8803—4,600/100 p—28 12-37—R 45/37. 






















O - M. i=Uf{ M A , '^ A H( 

A Af T iJb ■ - /- ;'r L t > / /v' H 




/ 


^ o^: c^a, ^ } c < a ^ 


li-M.' 




V* 


tU-' 


18 th 


i 

-~r 


Oc to'b'ir, 


Dear Sir, 

I should be very grateful If you could 
let do have an authentic specimen of Richeviella 
gracilis (Merr.) Pax and K* Kaffm* (Baccaurea gracilis, 
Merr.) with flowers* 

This genus has oeen collected In the 
id a lay Peninsula, but I have no material of the 
Philippine species for comparison, and the two seem 
closely allied. 



The Director, 

Bureau of Science, 
Manila, 


Phillppine Is1and 3 . 




ft 


cog 


THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 


BUREAU OF SCIENCE 


MANILA 


ADDRESS REPLY TO: 
DIRECTOR, 


BUREAU OF SCIENCE. 
MANILA, P. I. 


December 3, 1932 


2he Curator of the Herbarium* 

Botanic Gardens, 

Singapore, ^traits Settlements* 

My dear Dr. Hen&ersoni- 

jyi reply to your letter of October 18tix, 1932, 

(Ho. 624/32), I have the pleasure to advise you that 
under separate cover I am sending you a package con* 
taining two flowering specimens of Rioheriella gracilis^ (j 
Pas & Hoffm. Hoping that the specimens will reach you in 

perfect condition* 


Very truly yours, 

WILLIAM H. BROM, 
Director, Bureau of Science 



/Wi 


jaA& 







45903. 





Hoffm. 

Palawan, Sept., 1925 



29249. rn g M ereila fi^QUIS. (Merr.) Pax A HDffla. 

For. Bur. A. L. Genabre. Puerto PrlUcesa, 
Palawan. Feb., 1923. 





ccg 




’ ADDRESS REPLY TO: 

DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF SCIENCE. 
MANILA, P. I. 


THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND khkksocmrx C omme rce 

BUREAU OF SCIENCE 

MANILA 


January 27, 1933. 


Dr. R. E. Holttum, 

Director, Botanic Gardens, 
Singapore, Straits Settlements. 


My dear Dr. Holttum:- 

This is to acknowledge receipt of 2 mounted 
herbarium specimens of Rlcheriella which were 
loaned to you about a month ago. The material 
arrived in very good condition. 


Very sincerely yours. 


Eq 













Bengal Form No. & 


GOVERNMENT OF BENGAE 


OFFICE OF. ThQ . .... 

Botanic Garden, Calcutta* 

* Department, 

...Group. 

Brajnoh. 



From 


K. Biswas, Esq*, M.A., 

Curator of the Herbarium, Royal Botanic Garden, 

Calcutta. 


To 


The Curator of the Herbarium, 

Botanic Garden, Singapore, Straits Settlements, 


Dated tfte .6.. 

Subject gi 

« 

I have the honour to acknowledge wi th many thanks 
the receipt of the specimen of Sumbavia macrophylla Muell 
Arg., the return of which has been advised in your letter 
Ho* 688/32, dated the 29th November, 1932. 

I have the honour to be. 

Sir,, 

Your most obedient servant, 

i ( ... i ! " > C, i 

/ A 

Curator of the Herbarium, 

Royal Botanic Garden, Calcutta. 


AOJP— A3S81—1930-31—13,0G # 00C 






Vai 


20th October, 


2 . 


k 


2 




Sir, 

I ahoul<$ be very grateful for an 
authentic duplicate of S umbavia macrophylla ,Mull.Arg. 
if you can spare one, or instead the loan of a 
specimen for a short time* 

What is apparently this plant has recently 
been collected in the Malay Peninsula, but we have no 
material for comparison. 


I have the honour to be, 


Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 



The Curator of the Herbarium, 
Botanic Cardens, 
Calcutta, 




India. 




9 


t H S h *y 
i 


2^ th i'love.jjer, 


Sir, 


I am very grateful for the loan of the specimen 


of Sumbavia macrophylia , Muell. Arg., which is being returned 
to you under separate cover-* 


I have the honour to be, 
Sir, 


Your obedient servant, 



Curator of the Herbarium* 


The Superintendent, 
Royal Botanic Gardens, 
Sibpur, 

Calcutta. 



I 



Bengal Form No. 3> 


GOVERNMENT OF BENGALI 


From 


OFFICE OF.« TPS .Superintendent, # Royal 

Botanic Garden, Calcutta* r 

OEPARTBlfeNa^ 

..Croup. 

Branch. 

Tv. Biswas, Bsq. * 31* A*, 

Curator of the Herbarium, Royal Botanic Garden, 

Calcutta# 


Subject s— 


To 


Sir, 


The Curator of the Herbarium, 
'Botanic Gar den, Singapo re 


Dated *' ne 8th Hov r. , 1933 

ASU/lXjKV * • #-« *-* »-» ...... GO a-, 


Your letter Ho«- 637/32, dated the 20th October, 


1932. 


I am sending by separate post a duplicate sheet 


of Sumbavia macrophylla Muell Arg, bearing field Ho. 

c 

11800. Kindly return the sheet securely packed when you 
have done with it. Please acknowledge receipt .of the 


sheet. 


I have the honour to be, 
Sir, 

Your most obedient servant* 

J ■ (? 



% 


9^ 




For: Curator of the Herbarium 
Royal Botanic Garden,Calcutta 


ACASfir-A 3SS1—1330-31—13,00,030 


ri M 













26th April, 


55 


Dear -*->r. Smith, 

I have to acknowledge with very many thanks 
your letter of 3 April, with the identification of 
Phyllanth o aendron co r iaceum ,Gage. I note your remarks on 
the modification of the generic diagnosis as given by 
Ridley. 


Yours sincerely 



Lr. J*J.Smith, 

Endegeester Straatweg 16 , 
Oegstgeest, 

Leiden, 


Holland. 


f 3/3o 



i 


~ /f33 . 


t 



&C.# ■ j* . 


f.Z 


>~v^ < 

<—S> 

■J^/L* 4X~ (^v/«6- 

Z " 

Oi-'tc&iy j- 

X *C. 06^7%. 




// 

^ XVV*'**- t “- JZ - 

* A* ^r, CF,jZ0.r 


rt'f ' i 

sCt, 't'* &>?— ** 


V s - 


. JV* 


^JJ 


1C/&* <x c^rt^ 7 L^/* —*—. ^-5- «■ / J rJ ^ n ‘ 


/fC> <jje- 


-uC^crt^t 4 . 

6-y^~ 'A— db'0*-^ <-&*■ C*crt^Z~sr 

4 -- &~jLtr %*j£sC* £<- j-* ^ 

,*■ 


A? C*~7^lfiO 

rv Zr, "^CL, 3^0^ .' ■-. «C-w - ' 7 ^ l7 - 

_? ,*/vw— - &< X "^y* e~-£etX&+i. ■***£*- £{rtr*6-', 

(j *< C 


£'2*^- c,/ #£c^=. 


/ 



F? 2 


/*( 



24 th January, 


3’ 


Dear Dr. Smith, 

Under separate cover, I venture to send you a mounted sheet 
of an Suphorbiacettfia plant. This has quite puzzled me and I was 
anaole to trace it at Kew, Dr. van Slooten at Buitenzorg has also 
failed to recognise it, and suggested that I should send it to 
you. Unfortunately I have only this one sheet on which female 
flowers are very scarce, so I am sending you a short description 
of the flowers and some sketches made under the camera lucida. 

Any help you can give me will be very much appreciated. 


Yours sincerely. 


Dr. J. J. Smith, 
Snaegeester Straatweg 1b, 
Oestgeest,(near Leiden) 


hollarid. 


565 / 33 , 


4 th January 


Dear Nelmes, 

When I was last at Kew I remember seeing 
the latest part of the Materials for a Flora of 
the Malay Peninsula, containing Ku phorbiaceae 
by Gage. At that time (1936) it was either 


newly published or you had advance copies. 
Unfortunately I did not note particulars of 
where this was published, although I suppose 
it was in the Journ.Roy.As.Soc.Beng. However, 
as Biswas of Calcutta, to whom I have written, 
does not seem to know about it, I should be 
very grateful if you could confirm that it was 
published and give ne the volume etc. in which 
it appeared. Biswas says that the Index to the 
Materials is in the press. 


Yours sincerely 



Nelmes, Esq., 


The Herbarium 


Royal Botanic Gardens 


Kew, Surrey, 


ENGLAND. 




Bnngat Form. No; 3* 


GOVERNMENT OF BENGAL 


OFFICE 0F .the. Superlntenttelt*, Rb'ydl* So t&hTc Garden , 

Si bpo re ne as? E&aitmEfcrtEa • 

114 ^ .. . .. . .Group. 

Branch 


No, 




From 

Dr.K.Biswas Esq,M.A. ,D. Sc. ,F.R. S.E. , 

Superintendent,Royal Botanic Garden, 

^ Sibpore near Calcutta. 

The Curator of the Herbarium , 

Botanic Gardens,Singapore,Straits Settlements. 


Subject s— 


Dated%Qx&3 t . Betters her 195Q . 


Sir, 

With reference to your letter Ho.565/38 dated the 
5th December,1938,1 have the honour to furnish you with 
the following list of publications by the late Sir 
George King and Col* Gage on the Materials for a flora 
of the Malay Peninsula published in the Journal of 
the Asiatic Society of Bengal.As regards the Journal 
of the Asiatic Societ}^ of Bengal ( now Royal Asiatic 

V 

Societ 3 r of Bengal ), you will ha Ye to apply to the 
General Secrotary,Royal Asiatic Society of ^engal, 

1 Park Street,Calcutta.The Records of the Botanical 

Survey of India Vol.IX.no.2 , 1922 as well as Kew 

0 

Bulletin no.7,1914 are, I think,already in your library. 
The Index i o# the flora of the Materials of the Malay 
Peninsula is now passing through the press and will be 
published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. 


ACJP—A 3473 — 1934*35—10,00.000 

fi h 



I have the honour to be, 

Sir, 

Your most obedient servant , 



8 tf 0 «plnfanrfenf Royaf Manic Garden, Calcutta 




Materials to the flora of the Malay ^eninsula published 



in the following journals* 

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 7ol*LX7I*pt.2,189 
" " ** 7ol.LX7.pt.2,1896. 

" Yol.LXIX,pt. 1,1900* 

H H M Vol.LXX pt.2,1901* 


1 * 

6 * 

7* 

8 * 

9. 


7ol.LXXI.pt.2,1902. 
7ol.LXXtl.pt.2,1903. 
7ol.LXXIII.pt.2,1905. 
7ol.LXXI7.pt.2,1909-10. 
7ol.LXX7 , 1912-15. 


10. Records of the Botanical Survey of India,7ol.X.Uo.2,1922 

11. Kew Bulletin of the Miscellaneous Informations ,Mo.7,1914 






<G 3) 


From Whom . 


Place 


Date 



SUBJECT 


V\os 


s~\ C 


Correspondence with UN.Oi\on Esq 


925 


Connected Papers 


MINUTES 



































No Minutes should be written on this page. A separate half-sheet to 

be used if required. 



% 












\ 



& - /V . & 7f ^ 








t 









■yw'^ ■ i■ a - .MM 

~ pc ^FZ^C f o^A /c^ <u^jo 

w/c blu^-^- O , uJL < M 4ee - t ^ c / fcfSUL £/ty 

i fA-UV* ■ 3 U^ . ^ ^ ' ^ 

^ • ^J2^_ _ ^/ ^ '/^T/ * If. 

irZZ, v* ■ i ^tn'Hjf A 6 l &F ; a ' 



Ol^VS*. 


.,iS 






fcCrk?^. 




^l2^c4<~ - % <© & • "7 / /<ry ^ AAv-r^ / / t-*^ &*y~<- CJZ-& •~v~ z .‘^^ / /^-r^CJ2xi_ 




, x^v o^ / /■ 


V 


i4i>*V'» v ^T t '^ivo u.^ **-cr f ^.ijixi,.£j£-*t>L ^ ** ^jOt?^. . r 

t> M: J ^ & -v «^/gf ^ b^LA^jf' t 0V&A -,w ^ AA^nyi. 





^ * JZ^&A 

/ /*&L C tw ‘X : 


i 



J/ u 



CTV)Xj.c 



^/^Z^-ojua. Jj/t^^vfU*. 


* 2 fi ? 


J ’--^y /> 'vz /jfc „,7 (^k, Ctv ■». C-' ^-aC ^ >^f dst <•• <; C^Sut , <!!mw /ti; , p 7 ^ ^ F sfyj&fc 


£Juh 



J Hi* JL 



or( 


\ (. CV\,.,u- 

U^Uj ^K. 

Oc fu.iajL 


E*ffy 3 <*~. t 2, cn,^ , .f4w^ «/«*-, l^^!oJZ } U 

cj-fcj>. PcJj^ /a.c«/«A | 4 , e<MtA/I 6U-,.~< 

FFLFcF£ L C ^ ,CLOl ^ C - LeC( -'^* *t~. 3 .~»rM. , U 0 U-i**3*. 

M- 'O'L 1 f *i:'■ <**t'\ *■ V.AW-.'// 



/ LbeU ^fijL 



I 


r V^ 



\ 


■i o/ Yhj 



w' 


l^klhf- 


y 


? 




v 

i|| |f 

S ^ UAt 




jr~ '- r &>- 



































y&~-*&Tr , C^c^cj hcbb^j* 

K -ou^\~y pJi „ „ S^rr'fa- (&-«^ '^P^OlA , PbJk^ - _ jQcxr-t^<-j 

i.tmA*' . 1'r,'y^ A^4£^s U(*^S1 ^ £y+. 

&t£~ *• t-W-JcL - CaeUcuAj tC*x~ - - kL^c^&J£ ( ^ /W^i^l. 

/<- {/i fc-i-t-v. -S' . 




»’ 


^'"'o.-A^. «? — 0 A ( > . /.. , • li*vi-^ '■ 


r 




*T 


/{4 Z 3 •f. ^ i< 

' i 'tT*'*' 1 ^ 

cAJut. f. U. (ua^(<'J>,Z 


V, 


\ 


) 






U iUilef' ( ^ H 




__ _ </. 

1w ka ^ 

ve+i) ^5 d-x. ,1 ;<V nftfcwfrM . 


crv«-r-y 


■Hy 


hM- C -^- ¥ 'Crl*S'<t- 


I 

^r i, -‘<cjJ' 


± /-z 


// 




^■ 4 '' ^ "*3 ('MA^-eva^ ‘ r. c l U^JX rvc^<U_ c^j^cfocfr 4f.\ 

, I k 


v/~ 


__ 

/ nJ^-xr^ 


^trWi a^t t-v-uj 


ft- <S- 4o «x. 


4'~ujj2^c, CWw /«/✓ 1. 4 ^ / i 

,,, , V 4 ' ' *CUsuUa. mi 

^„,, v vfi^ . - V ><£ jk P /, 

U„ _ • * * ^ .' . -? * 

5. *-yv£ 


^ ‘ ft/ttv 

^ cj — --* 

^ hj. - 2cCJl£aU1l - AAultsvU cCf JL . 

'■, -> - ivt • / j ^ /\ /' ,., it i 

j . ZA- VO *» ■>« ./■/ .? ^ . rvu. .. > 

^*^■1 J -i 


'C7l 


-t-<- •izftqi j' 


, u /^ 


XtJu- Z&sftx ei(y 




.IS 

0- (6 ok,Ot^U 

-<ftv ^-3 



. to .R .if S'. F. to. t. 4 7 



x4i& ^i^£- 


<r*k_ ^ 


A 


•WKkjfc 


^x* a£k. 

U-H. f ^£)^ 

* X^n- 

^ 'k-A-y pCt^s} i^o 


i4^P / f tf*" 4;'*'* 

bri-l u*~j - 0V-<- <xJ2€a^j ^OLj**^*^* X^ ^ ^ X O^^CJSe/qJ^ - <3c- 

! £>i ^ A sJLohj> £-St4> ^, A l<-a~~j>»*f3 r eh*.«-ri~, C-ru-^^/L a 

^ ^ (!l/f -4/f l 




. <ZV- ftw_*0 ^V f 1 > y ^fk-O JC^C 


14V>V<X t^VV 

/ 

H4-. ■? •■ ' 4 


f u*^ 







































J 


c{{ CW- K 








y\ 

\\ •' 

W;/ 




PA! 


LocO- ijt-vG: 

-7 


*ndo-T-j 


C 


2-0 /Lk^ ( £ ,‘-- 

_ ' kj. 



0 / 


Y 


ID 


,3 / o<^ <- '•->£*. 


1 


u 


6 Z& 


d_ J 


crra+y 




■I / 


jpc^U^ 

2~" ICL& tt&t. tufr 

ot p£>- 

C-tf tCk-j^! O.K H?c 1 i 

/ 






&*Mju i c&hJ-' 

\'CU. c*v£e.j 1, 6^/t’o/X 

»•>'. »j 


A ? 

■ r-^ ■ 


>V* 




C ^f( c^ s /A 





1 

of HJir 




X : 



































0 


Q.- ! - 0 ~- ■ 




Mg 


ro 


■:u. ' CX ^0' 





t U-t 


r \l 


l 


(W >1 VA-, C c 


fifi-v-u-c. /o,^f , 



i c *vc/'v‘-& 



Ux/|- ( '-■v-pi /w ' ' 

tMCeut. 




l/l f p ' *c-f & -■ U * -. '/• 2/ j&RW 64-&I 



ii 




,(J<J2 Inf 




H 








■; m 

tj ! II 


t \ 


i HVi'S 

V 

w , 


, l 9~ la 

hre~*.v^j t4_ t\ 


nh. ^ *- C £JL£ f - 

£-v_ f /-X,. vK/t '*■' 

-'. £v iJ-, 0 

4. f'**- • V 


^/V/ 







CA<OL 


vv w ( 0 oU^c^JU_t 


/i 


cv 




&ejcuf L (. 




Cfc-T* 


Ha, 


_ 


■ 


* * 































^ C Cj d, [ Gfr. I cij-i (ii rdtO- 



x / ^ 

O 1 /<_C .4 - ^ t:- 1 

(H^Xc\ J <& -V.Cfi_.rO r OC^CWIwt^^ 


bpJ^j % flv vUfa r, j s^ju^ t i 
' r C ^' ■t/Av' l-c y^c;- . ^.£^r 


fr 


\ I 


v 

'\ 

[ I 


Kuty-cot* i t. - / btft <* : > <-A *t 

w SUU.i-vfi£ ( rv-50 M~&id *- 4 .-tv fc«v(A 

f&L^t, ■ •? £4- 

Cr^-£- Wt/X t £'&rV'i ; - 1 - 
£ .., V, J' Uv Kyvftrt't - 

^ <jv $*©► f- fwcr4/. 




A" 

*MW {L.-.-J 1 



jJfiAe,-^ ■ JUd^<LJU. 

(■ (Ti - voj '/ >>, ( !wJU * s i - ; /a X • 

r! kja^cl t &l( Uv/t r ^ 

fL~-±£cj it^. 













' ~ *• ' >• 

4 




f. 




\r(£s\\ 


-Lk 









































14/^/r - . ^ £. y 

6u. hJuMLlr 4l^ Cfr4*-~lr&~ l ' < -‘5>~ £U.o(IjuJ 


■ i 


L 


jt 



a -tfUk^lvt r 

T 


x^> 


. otct . .'. 








SI/ 


4 


4 / 5 --i-vJ 


jZ-4^- 


H? 


j, 


^ 1 U-'V'-'- t - 

ft-j. ft' •:/■;' 

c ft-ft-o 1 0~ {jt 


l oX-VC<~^Aj 


y >— _ _ 

t ^-JLC^r~, \J(^, y ;> „ .. p ,j , 

* c^UxjuJh 

~~OT 




i u ? i f - 

-ft > 


" O- ^-sf~&JLrt 

t »■ —- i*£Ljrrj< 


n 
4 

i 


£ I OcL>- i' 




4. ! i 

I f oc^ft c<^.M J 




I ’0 £■(-'. CJLt t-^ 4 


/ - U_ f/ft -Q I ft~/Tc 

2- £x. i-\ cA. /j ((*~'{ jl . - ( 

1 £ a £.*: /rL^v v 7^K-eJ > - / a f 
















































Gi.c a^ . /-* c £ [ 


o __ 


k. 




2 2 l"<f A" <W 


’tkfaJL 





l"i k-L<id 

04.. c / £. 




t <- . <\ { ■ 


£ 





'<? II 






























if 





J 

/ 



i - ]Om-b.. d 

• [j • •<. t - j 



? JCcd^-" &- f 






.jtJ, 'u 1 














mm 


f£, Pi $ £ ib'-i&tj hit*--*- &•/■* 


O ^y - a.v-'/ji :,/^ .pi.*** Cv/- A 

Jb. -+ - ■ 


/ 0 * & K*v 


£pt ^■■■trt. C&"^ 
bt . -i 


*%**■< 


c-ii-„- M .<> c,; L, : /,': JJ 


!/ 



il ! 


iff 


Pi'. v£ 

f y ■ ■ m 


:{ 


I 


Mf 

. \%id 

Zfi< (<jddi~ 



^U a j-! '-■' : 


£L~ d , Ui - 

i - „ iv- -,-v* i-p" 

Kot>.e, 


^/,/y »'«m K^W wi W 


1 P I ,.. 


1 


,t 


|SaA t 



! 


r oA 


i . famJ^c-. 

1 1 1 -^4. 

r '- ef’ Zcs. f-i d 














'$?m 












\ 


\; $. : . '■' . , ■.' 


i’pi 'i V 


Cl 9 


■ .p C W, ; P- &*'> .. 

:- ■ . .<, /:... ■ .! 4 • .* .. - 


ftsfeStS 




■m y ■ 


k 

f 



I 


l- -' 3 

. ■ K i-J, 


k 


Jivi-v_ B... ^ 


CKc^ 


/(hi* 

4'U.V ! 



i/h ., 


• r 3.rf, ( f.., : or5ct ^ 

^ 1 ^ ^*4 f/V-k *■ .V. f J , 

'■ C ( '<Wi.. V^.,.x, ^,..,4 


*f r j 

«, 7 v'-iix 

4 7. imrvuci 


'■? ' I £ 


^ C ■ W f _ do 


,. : . . . A* 

p V 




- ■ 






;, : m Cp< ' 




■• .‘i- 1 5? p . /Mr} 




j f'J 1 • 33>p - 


iM' 


' - ■ ./v-«.•*•'•'•/ 












^l5Pl UJ~£- 




















V 








<A.w/-C> 








-? 


; 0 <-C4.5 

ul'"' i- C: , kx- l i, r 

H -V- . ( { .j (.l>. t'jh&Sjl 



}t 


fat- 


(^Zvi 




‘ 




I l:- 1 ' 

























tiL 3..« if 





CM -$'&-• 


\jZrS 


C.H XI X. /-* c: ^ c '^‘ 


‘vK: 


i 


j 'C.J;,- Z 0 ztft '-ta 

V 


/ (i’ts\*..Q£'t 



1 


I 


l 


!■] 



I" 




Ul " 3 losUc-fi'-f 




p<s 4 ^'- 


•WtCAJ 


A- 


ect*^- 


¥ 


.gr^vJ 

-|V (Jfji -J 

d 




"kA 7 Z! 

f 

f\ F\ 

A 

i \ | 1 rj 

A 1 * / 11 ? ■ 

JX 

M/ 

% A tf 

1 

1 1 



Zo//: 


Cf- 


<5f* 

r 


,['.^T^. ^ K /•:•'•• /o <,./ 





-A -1 tUnfe~.{'$ 


FI 




'$ ' •. >•• ,-uj. < 
















p D ?S' : ! 7 .9 r?<f 


mi 


l\\ 

■;/ 

V i 


| 1 ’ [ f 

i ly 

tt-c:. -.hTslJ-.,X 

\t 

1 ! 



I ^ - 
P, I). & o U 1 



0 £ f~f- 




e 4 


O- 


£\£-'X?.-.£ W-l 4- Lr$£ 

£ s tp&jyUd a 


v/ 




M 


r- 


cJL 


f.'O . 





r 


ft L 


V ) ►/ 

/ If 


■" ££;&- _.' 

TV' "fezc&TSi 

O f Cwiw/’O^ J 






***** 


£4u UdU# 




l 


Vt+Xj 4*^4 

p,/ % J ‘ * 


>uv5 


■ f 

•2, - w.rvx. /,! 


K-jP*—r-'? 


d „. , 


. r I f r !),„/ . ! -U‘ 



C C*- ^£r /' 


! J' ^■LA.'Vrf i* J 

1 IncJ 4 >-'-- ‘ -\. 


X - t'CUL. I X-fi*- 
C*~i 


F v$ 


O 









9 lCo,Mo. 

• ’ 1 "• i ' 

/ 7 -- v.:. . v , ; ■ . ‘ . • ... , ■ ; - 4 ^:-■■■■>£ : 

, / -’-'V 1 . < , , v • v , * • - I 

\ 
















f, t) £Hb ! 




ft 


Sj^iJodid 







pa&t^ 


v , «rr s _c^.f-- 


A/o' ^ 2 ? £ 4 


ff 


I 

; T 




fs-'UvC i,, 


3 

f-v / 0’- l ' c -;-^ 

p 

VO» 


1 

i 

H. 

i 


1 

I 


try* 

* ^;.C 

-£7 cL< ?-<-JU.. s. 
o4» 


F, & . 7 c ( 4 °/ 





- 

V 

V/ 


.1 

Hi 4 

w 

>, y 


1 

• 

V : 4 


■ 4'] 


1 

_ 1; 

•', .,'•' 'ft, ; 

p 


i 



3/j< &<: G 


*.r 


■ 


^*7^ /:>. £,a 


7 


/?. / 


/ 

/; ■ 


? 




f r> 

r - ■ • '<-' "2 “i 0| 



Cy.Uiytjg 


I J'V 


/ 


i 




: &W*; 


. fe 


I 


a 


n 


'Si V . 


2, 


*•<■- 


£lp~-£L.a_ 


r 


-e.ttv . 




F%?5^ 


ft 

! 1 

,j f 


3 


I 




■Vs' 

|2&£ .v •• ^ 

i - & 

<u_kc,h <*/ M*, , 

^ f u ; ft f U>ei7 £ X /f«.f. 


ev 

^ l-l SAX 

























ti 







/M. 


-■Y 




























List of Baniboos in the Botanic Gardens t Singapore# 


1. Schizostachyurn brachycladum 


2 # 


3. 




tt 


4. Thrysostachys siamensis 
5# Arundinaria 

6# Schizostachys brachycladum 
7* Melocanna barnbusoides 

8. Bambusa vulgaris 

9. Cephalostachyum pergracile 
10# Bambusa vulgaris 


11 # 


tt 


12# Dendrocalamus pendulus 
13 # Schizostachyurn brachycladum 
14. Gchlandra sp. 

15# Thrysostachys brachycladum 
16# Bambusa vulgaris 


17# 

18. 

19# 


tt 


« 


« 


M 


II 




20# D.flagellifer 
21. Bambusa vulgaris 


22 . 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26 . 

27. 


tt 


ti 


it 


it 




« 

h 

ti 

t« 


28. Cephalostachyum sp. 

29. B. vulgaris 

30. Ochlandra sp# 

31. Ochlandra setigera 

32. B. vulgaris 


33. H 

34. " 


It 


tt 


f s 


/si- 


35. B. vulgaris 

36. " " 


37. ” 
35. " 


W 


It 


tl 


39. * 

40. Schizostachys brachycladuto 

41. Bambusa none 

42. Schizostachyurn brachycladum 
43* Dendrocalamus Hamiltoni 

44. Schizostachyurn brachycladum 


45 


tt 


tt 


46. Gigantochioa sp.? 

47. Taeniostachyum Dalloa 

48. Dendrocalamus asper 

49. Bambusa tulda 

50. Dendrocalamus pendulus 

51. Bchizostachyura Zolllgeri 

52. Gigantochioa Scortechinii 


53. 


t» 


tt 


54. Dendrocalamus sp. 

55. 

56 . Bambusa vulgaris 

57. Gigantochioa sp.? 


58. 

59. 


tt 


tt 


tt 


tt 


60. Bambusa vulgaris 

61. Cephalostachyum sp. 

62. Bambusa vulgaris 

63 . Bambusa Blumeana 

64. " vulgaris 

65 . Dendrocalamus Hamiltonii 

66. Taeniostachyum Dulloa 

67. Bambusa spinosa 

68 . 



69 ® Bambusa vulgaris 
70# Bambusa splnosa 

71. 

72. B. vulgaris 

73® M * 

74. • 14 

75* Gehlan&ra setigera? 
to verify 

76. Bambusa vulgaris 



76. Gigantochloa a 



69* Banbusa vulgaris 

70. Banbusa spinosa 

71. 

72. B. vulgaris 

73. M * 

74. 11 

75. Ochiai&dx'a setigers’ t 

to verify 

76. B&mbuaa vulgar!a 

77. * . 


78. (tigantochloa apus 






fife. 



z. 

2> 

4 

r 

b 

i 

} 

9 

i-0 

it 

iU 

l4r 

/S' 

tj "■ 

c 

iSr 

iC i 




b~r-(XcJuj 

t 


& 

d&^~-C£?~o <l£u2&~-iss.~is<s 



fjjU' Ce-rO(jUsA t ^( jL< < • 

J% 4CX^'V^ £2a-vJY 1 v^t -d/^ttZuS 

* ^ A 

£* t &xx^.£iecJ&oa. Sy£>, • 

► # 

* * 

^ CX^V^. ^ CCJ%rS 

/? 

b J/%■ <^E.< t 

I/' *S 

JJ^^c T^ CjC/21 

/* * , /S&hXg 

Trtf ft-rjx - 


o^oloAm t ^o^A^cjQ?^>L^uu^ 

/ i / /' £^O r <l^-w tAjX. £act- /^n- 

7 . 

OO. **-' V"' A— £ 

,: /toic-Ay 

-4-e^.T £V Z'^stu^Cx-'f^-S 




f^okycj Ut^VVS- ^rftC^(J^u4- 
^ c*—- £ ^ 6 

/' A•-'«■ ■ j "''jLdZajL 

& £<—Vvt. t2-oL.j_^x v^ y~< S 


t ''*-W- 


a f 

^ v 

£3 

a * 

r 

ft- ? 

JUT 

X<7 

3 / 

2t 

JJ 
3 * 

a *r 

^ i 

^ ? 

3*? 

3? 

4~o 

47 

4j 

4t 

4r 

4b 
<b ) 
<4* 

4f 

<*■* 

-w 

s~x 

<5jT 

3 


? t>, .£lctgjx/lifat 

*is 


^jyi y , 


CA / C v 


J "£ 

Ir'O 

fc? / 

6*- 

6 2 

& 

6 J J * 

^7 

bf 

70 

// 

n z 
la 

74 

v*~ 

7 1, 

7 ? 

? <p 



■* * 

t*c 4*7. ,--T4 s ''C^u, ^4^0* 

o * L*tj2zp &-/-'** -* 

sf. 

■» Or ^ j,^^ a 

^ ^ 4 


*. * 


•'"~7U ~0 I^A-UK s Ciktii***. 

6&**.i*. : 4Ar, HdKA 


-■'uWi-t. 






7*' 

JIWI* 11 » 


&tkd7C& 




rt 


bt+S*r '/u£&( a . 


^^ x '4^A-cn 


&<X*9~fo J ^-<ry4t < ^4 -u. 

4'. y>. 

' # 





7 p 

( - * j£ ' - W' t A-*r \ 

\**s J 


£<*^4**^^ v~^a2c><x^u 


/o 














f 

id 


i® i 




List of bamboos in the Botanic .Gardens, Singapore. 


1 . Schizostachyum brachycladum 5 35. B. ■vulgaris 


3. 


it 


t* 


ti 


tt 


y - 


4. Tbrysostachys siarnensis a' 
5 .^Arundinaria & 4 

6 . Schizostachys brachycladum 

7. llelocanna bambusoides *./ 

8 * Barnb usa vu1Ta ris 

9 . Cephalostachyum pergracile 

„k>. m tvw- xb •. a 

10. Ba rfo a s a v u 1 g a Pis 


36. ” 

37. " 

38. * 


-;,v h 

Wf'-J 


39 < 


ti 


i, ✓ 


ti 

? 

’fZuitLcsX-k 4 - 


40. Schizostachys brachycladum 


4l. Bambusa nana e: ^ 


h V # 'TuL*-**- 5 

42. Schizoshabbyura b pat: hy c la dum ^ 

4 3 . /Dendroc alampd’ EEtmailtoni - ;-h • 

44 . " Wh4-H ' g>o »■ ftptiS fty c ife dum -i 


* <?* 


11 
~U -tr # 




yuS 


A/' 


45 


tt 


if 


12. Dendrocalamus pendulus i/ 

13. Schizostachyum brachycladum 

14 . 0 chiandra sp. 


46. Grip-antochloa sp, 


7^4 «. 


tr££ . J&A* 


% * y 

j!- 

15 . Thrysostachys ■b mrhy c 1 


47. Taeniostechyum Dttlloa 

sb / 4yv-\ A 

48. DoffdjW-JInmuo —freest/ ^ 


it l £U 


16. Barnb usa vulgaris 

17. " tf ^ 

18. » » ^ 

19. 




ft 


49. Bambusa tulda 

50. Dendrocalamus pendulus </ 

■n 

31, Schizostachyum Solligeri if 
^^^52. Gigantochloa Scorteehinii v/* 

\53* 


rf 

*.V\ 


yf. ' ■ if*#> * ' tt 


20, ^Sk >S 

t i t - J . t 

21 . 

22 . 


54 . Dend roca lanius sp . 




55. 


If 


fl 


If 


tf 


V 


- * 


23 . 

24 . 

25 

26 

27 


tt 


tf 


tf 


ff 


If 


tf 


.y 


ft 

y 


it 


tt 




tt y 


28. Cephalostachyum sp, y 

29. B. vulgaris 

30 . 0chiandra sp, 

31. Ochlandra setigera 

ty^r^pu to 7 A7 




32, B. vulgarf&d 

33 . » " ^ 


34, " 


tf y"" 


56 . Bambusa vulgaris 

57. G-igantochloa sp.? 

58 . ftrthiffA « 

59. cL^hr^-toa 'V 

60 . Bambusa vulgaris / 

/Ita C.et£a^*Hyt/L-S ^{ '&> r'~ J 

61. a 1 oa t^rhyum .sp . * 

£uya^,hi c£.(oO- f9M < 

62 * Bamb-usa vulgaris > - ■ d-- 

/c j . /t^cu&ty<kL 

6 3. Bambusa. -Blur.: e an a - v 

/-Ct !*~<0 h$c-cs£<jziS2L 

64. tf & > " 

j 7'-o4v9. 

6 5. PohdrocalQt sue ,t: 7 am41 ton4 If • ,- 

66. Then 1/fs taChyum "Dulloa 

67 . Bambusa 

68. 1 JLO^iJZ 


Fsl 


hi 




it* 










Cl 

M- 


2 . 


/^Cot£ey c 


3 Gufb u s s 

$>Cc/t-ra-- +*■- ^/D- 

70 , Bar-f©»8-a -spin-ose 

71 ^ i sicK^ct-rU ^ 


72. B. vul^arie 


i/' 


73. " 


w 


74. " M 

75. Gkrfro~ndra s*e44£wa? 

to verify 

jft A-*V 

76. Bei»b«fi«--v«9^aris’ T " 

77 1 Bcu&h^s a VidfA^s 


7^. 

7 

$o 

Sti 

fr% 

#3 

*? 

£7 

$r 

f#- 

& 

f 3 . 

?<T. 

7 w - 
77. 

• 

/ <n7. 

< . 

^03 - 

. o y- . 

i o 3". 

/o & . 


Af 


f-37, 


Grig an tochloa apus*/ *- r 

(rtqa^wf^. /uo& !Ox?~2Zjl 

f' H - "'' L c^. ^3 $%sniJ ?7/2 S 

&2&~fr&(YccL fa - (O^f. f& . 

A&*t l J&d&Xfl 

f W/S* //v&a.(& . 

Afj/j** &a^A*^tcrCfte* 

' /h^***n&h**v 

ML'<i£ 9 cC^^j ,■ /tf'* /0 7 3 7 

L-jz+t-et /-£. /T-l' , ..; 

Z 7 . / * /f , r-^y-^o L .., 

•jzL+cCjs- ., : ■ 4 ‘.j $-£, >■-. ;,; , 

• 1 / f i 

oJUfS t-i^cyr :i - , $*7/3^ 

a*U- 6} t f 7 /3^ 

/ l, -p/to t-fe a- 4^,4f c &0*£c~i S' r ?/z-'(', 

Li 3 ,£^fys. j 

^*C^£cj f ? 7 /±£ , 

# - A # 


J*.A . 

°& fa 

ICof7cr J’f5^£ A\ 


-f . 'i 
- ? 




kcx-/'. ^cL^/C/^fr 




Sotce^Lru^ r- A .^^ 

CiU^ cr>^ ^ J a r- 


^2/c 






CLERfiftys 


<$n4Lh£jrt/}'r,ft 


£>f>L\Ey 

*t e-zire 


ft-OG-iE 


A*tf.S>, 


Six. WAy.4 


tve^sal fifl 




OFFttZ 


h °LM/vd 





1