Abstract:
In proposing amendments to the Rules, I make the following distinctions in names : valid and invalid, priorable and impriorable, legitimate and illegitimate.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
Throughout the Malayan region, from Sumatra to New Guinea, there are two vollage-trees that are called in Malay "nangka" and "chempedak". The first is better known as the Jack ( from its Indian name "jaka"): for the other we must at present borrow from the Malay beause there is no alternative. In Malaya we also have a wild form of Chempedak that is scattered in the high forest throughout the mainland from the lowlands to an altitude of 4,000ft: it is called "Bangkong" or, in Johore, "barok"but only the first is well-known and that only in the middle of the country. I shall refer to it as the Wild Chempedak. Now I use these vernacular names purposely because, until these pages have been read, I do not see how anyone, be the botanist or not, European or Asiatic, can know what are the specific differences between the plants or what may be their botanical names. The best recent descriptions of them are those given by Bakhuizen van den Brink in Ochse's two books. There are, however, about two dozen distinctions most of which have not been described and it appears that a post-Linnean study of the Chempedak-fruit has never been made, leastways not published: indeed, for what one may read about it in botanical literature, the Chempedak may be likened to a Dodo. The most informative and authoritative descriptions are those on the "Nanka" and "Tsjampedaha" written by Rumphius in 1690 though not published until 1750 (Herb. Amboin. tom. I.) and that on the "Tsjakamaram" published by Governor Rheede in 1682 (Hort. Malab., III), though, being pre-linnean, one would assign to them only a historical value. As for the wild Chempedak, what is yet written concerning it is little more than the record. Since I began this investigation, however, I have been fortunate in finding a fruiting tree in the East of Johore, several such trees by the Tahan River in Pahang. I have thus been able to study the Wild Chempedak critically. In the first part of this paper I have compared these plants as fully as possible and, in the second part, I have argued what must be their correct botanical names. As the results are somewhat momentous and I have no doubt that what I have discovered will not be acceptable to many, I have investigated the problem with the greatest care. For nearly 150 years the Jack has been called Artocarpus integrifolia Linn. f. but the name was changed recently to A. integra (Thunb.) Merrill without any reason. In checking the alteration, I found that the original descriptions of both names referred to the Chempedak and I can now add that the type-specimen of both is the Chempedak. The name A. integra or, correctly, A. integer which has been used in error for the Jack must now be given to the Chempedak and for the Jack one must resuscitate its earliest legitimate synonym which is A. heterophylla Lam. or, correctly A. heterophyllus. It is evident that not merely has the botany of these common plants being neglected but no systematist has ever referred critically to the original description of A. integer or A. integrifolia and the type of both names has never been re-examined: oranges and lemons, as it were, have been confounded. For the Wild Chempedak I have made the new variety A. integer var. silvestris.

Abstract:
When King's monograph of Ficus appeared fifty years ago, there were six species of Synoecia. Eleven others have since been described, one from Formosa, eight from Philippines and two from Borneo. That from Formosa, F. terasoensis, has already been identified with the Philippine F. megacarpa. I now find that F. megacarpa is a leaf-variety of the widespread F. callicarpa and that five more of the Philippines novelties have been misplaced in Synoecia: four belong to Eusyce, and one has already been transferred to Urostigna. Of these eleven, there remain, as proved species, only two from the Philippines, namely F. Bordenii and F. cataupi, and one from Borneo, F. tawaensis: concerning F. Simiae, of Borneo, I am uncertain (p. 145). In 1932 and 1933, the late Mr. C. E. Carr, F.L.S., collected for seven months on Mt. Kinabalu in British North Borneo. At my request he made a special study of wild figs, taking careful field-notes on the colours of the receptacles and preserving material in spirit as well as dried. He collected five species of Synoecia, four of which I describe as new in this paper, namely F. barba-jovis, F. Carri, F. dens-echini and F. tulipifera. The importance of this magnificent collection was at once evident from my own studies on the Malayan species; it has led me to revise the subgenus. A fifth new species, F. grandiflora, I describe from a collection of Mr. amd Mrs. J. Clemens, also from Kinabalu. I am obliged also to make four new varieties of F. callicarpa. When thus pruned and extended, the subgenus contains 13 good species, two doubtful species (F. Simiae and F. singalana ) and four varieties. To the descriptions, themselves, I have added several critical diagnostic characters, particularly of the flowers and leaves, that have been overlooked but without which the affinity of the species cannot be ascertained. Indeed, previous descriptions of the species convey little idea of their decisive character. I have arranged the species in what seems to be their natural order (p. 95), but our knowledge of the subgenus is very imperfect. That the number of species could have been doubled in the last ten years and that all these novelties should have come from one part of British North Borneo reflect sadly on our ignorance of the flora of large areas of the Malay Archipelago. Because they are big climbers, the species have doubtless escaped the attention of field botanists, for no other sort of plant is more difficult to collect. The uncertain specificity of F. callicarpa and F. punctata shows, too, the need of many more collections of these common plants from such countries as Sumatra, Borneo and Celebes, Palawan, Timor, Flores and the Moluccas. There is undoubtedly a variation afoot which suggests the persistent evolution of the species. In spite of its expansion Synoecia, as understood by King, remains a most natural subgenus. Its area of distribution must also indicate the natural limit of the greater part of the Malaysian flora (p. 91). When the distribution of the species is better known it will provide some critical evidence for the history of the Archipelago. For the completion of this revision I was permitted to borrow the rich collections in the Herbaria at Buitenzorg, Manila and Calcutta, and I express my thanks to the Directors of these institutions, to Dr. D. F. van Slooten of Buitenzorg, Dr. E. Quisumbing of Manila and to Mr. J. D. Srinivasan of Calcutta, for their unstinted assistance. I have to thank also Mr. C. E. C. Fischer, of Kew Herbarium for kindly examining the type-specimen of F. Scratchleyana at the British Museum, and Dr. T. Sata of Taihoku Imperial University, Formosa, for a specimen of F. terasoensis. In the citation of collections under each species only the collections that I have examined are mentioned.

Abstract:
Two recent papers, one on Epipogium by Dr. T. A. SPRAGUE and Miss M. L. GREEN (Kew Bull. 1937, pp. 475 - 476) and the other on Pterocarpus by Mr. H. K. AIRY-SHAW (Kew Bull. 1937 pp. 477 - 479), have created what seems to me to be an undesirable precedent for validating botanical names by reference to pre-1753 literature. This procedure, at one time considered legitimate, was later rejected in order that the Linnean genera might retain the sense given to them in Species Plantarum ed. 1 (1753) - often an impossibility if reference by LINNAEUS to pre-1753 literature were admitted as valid.  That to revert to this procedure now would violate the provision of the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (ed. 3, 1935) and lead to many difficulties is clearly demonstrated by a consideration of the two above-mentioned cases.

Abstract:
In Species Plantarum (1753) under the generic name Bombax, LINNAEUS described three species: B. ceiba, B. pentandrum and B. religiosum. The last two were soon transferred to two different genera, Ceiba and Cochlospermum, yielding the new combinations Ceiba pentandra (L) GAERTN. and Cochlospermum religiosum (L) ALSTON respectively. No one has disputed these transferences; consequently the genus must be typified on B. Ceiba L., the only original species now remaining in it. But this view concerning the typification has been contested as illicit, and moreover it goes against the lectotype-species recommended in the Rules. Now this lectotype-species, B. malabaricum DC., was published in 1824, many years after the genus and its original three species; and if it is accepted as the lectotype for the genus, botanists will have to reject Bombax L. (1753) sensu strictissimo with B. ceiba L (1753) sensu stricto as the lectotype, and to accept Bombax L. (1735) sensu International Rules (1935) with B. malabaricum DC (1824) as the standard species. A claim has also been made that, though Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDLICHER (1832) and Gossampinus HAM. (1827) are rival names to Bombax L. (1753) sensu International Rules (1935), there are no such rival names for Bombax L. (1753) sensu strictissimo with Bombax Ceiba L. as the lectotype, except Eriotheca SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) and Bombacopsis PITT. (1916), which generic names, apart from their being little used and younger than Bombax, cannot be considered as being absolute synonyms of Bombax L. sensu strictissimo. Since any change in the lectotype-species of Bombax affects the nomenclature of some species and genera of Malayan importance, I have enquired into the typification of the genera Bombax, Gossampinus and Salmalia. The results show: (1) that the typification of Bombax made by SCHOTT and ENDLICHER (Metel. 1832), and later by Dr. BAKHUIZEN (Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. VI, 1924, pp. 161 - 240 ), is the correct one; (2) that the typification recommended in the Rules cannot be accepted; (3) that, unless the evidence produced below is wrong, the name Gossampinus cannot be maintened except as a synonym of Ceiba; and (4) that Salmalia SCHOTT et ENDL. (1832) is the legitimate name for Gossampinus HAM. sensu BAKHUIZEN (1924). The reasons for these conclusions are set forth below.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
This paper deals with rather a motely collection of species. In the first place I have tackled certain problems that have arisen in the course of preliminary botanical study in anticipation of wood-technological work on Dipterocarpus and Hopea from the Malay Peninsula. Thanks to the good work of Dr. van Slooten, the botany of Dipterocarpus is in reasonably good order, and with the notes here supplied on D. gracilis Bl. and D. chartaceus Sym. there is not much more essential critical work to be done on our species at this stage. With Hopea we are less fortunate. In this paper I have tackled one of the major problems connected with H. Pierrei and other species in the section Dryobalanoides, but there is yet much to be done in this rather difficult section of the genus. Next I have given a note on the Richetia group of Shorea, the object of which is to bring together a group of species of obvious natural affinity. This involves the transfer of several species of Balanocarpus to Shorea, with concommitant name changes. I regret the necessity for these changes, but it is a necessity, and my apologies should rather be for not having made the changes sooner. A problem that is becoming more evident and pressing with increasing knowledge is that of the delimitation of specific and lesser groups. If, for example, we consider only the species occurring on the west side of the Malay Peninsula, we find the specific limits are on the whole clearly defined, and the variations within a species are insufficiently constant to suggest the presence of definable sub-species, varieties, or other forms. We were to extend our investigation to the whole of the Malay Peninsula, things would not be quite so simple and, were the whole possible range of distribution of our dipterocarps considered, the delimitation of species would become a very acute problem. For example, there are several dipterocarps in Brunei that, on the usual morphological evidence, are clearly much more closely related to certain Malay Peninsula species than to any other described forms. Yet in some character or characters, possibly vegetative ones usually considered of little importance, they do differ distinctly and constantly. Should these Brunei trees be considered as species distinct from their Malay Peninsula counterparts; as varieties, forms, or some lesser groups; or are the differences so slight as to be unworthy of definition? These are obviously questions which can be adequately answered only in the light of very extensive knowledge of concepts and variations of groups within the family; premature decisions are likely to necessitate undesirable alterations in the future. Some problems with practical issues involved, however, cannot be postponed indefinitely, and one such problem, concerning Shorea assamica, is tackled in this paper. The problem of specific definition arises again in this paper in connection with Parashorea malaanonan and its variety here described as var. tomentella. P. malaanonan introduced another matter of general interest, conveniently described as "the treatment of doubtful interpretations". For example, I am faced with deciding whether or not to accept Merrill's interpretation of Blanco's Mocanera malaanona. I do not consider Merrill was justified in his interpretation, but the evidence is insufficient to prove him wrong. In the circumstances, and because the name Parashorea malaanonan is now well established in botanical and forestry literature, it seems desirable to accept Merrill's interpretation. But the position cannot be considered satisfactory, and it seems appropriate here to plead with those who undertake interpretations of this nature to treat the names as nomina dubia or nomina ambigua unless the evidence is incontrovertible. The descritpion of new species from Borneo, commenced in the last paper of this series, is continued here, the following species being described and figured - Shorea acuminatissima, S. xanthophylla, S. sandakanensis, and S. Smithiana. The paper is concluded with a description of Vatica diospyroides (one of several interesting new dipterocarps from Dr. Kerr's Siamese collections) and a note on two dipterocarps collected by the Oxford University Exploration Club in Borneo but omitted from the collection submitted to me in 1934 (vide Gard. Bull. S.S. 8 : 1 ). I should like to thank the many botanists and forest officers who have continued to give me their valued assistance and co-operation. I am also indebted to the Director of the Bureau of Science, Manila who afforded me the opportunity of studying the Philippine collections of dipterocarps during a visit to Manila in December 1935, and to the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew who again extended to me the hospitality of the Herbarium during my leave in 1936.

Abstract:
When Kuhn published the original diagnosis of the genus Teratophyllum in 1869 he included in it the bipinnate species previously known as Polybotrya articulata J. Sm. and Polybotrya Wilkesiana Brack. These differ notably in several characters from the other species of the genus; so much so that when I prepared an account of Teratophyllum in 1932 (this Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 277-304) I excluded them as possibly referable to a distinct genus. Copeland has included them in Lomagramma, but all known species of Lomagramma have characteristic features of spores and venation which are quite different from those of the two species in question ( this Bulletin, Vol. 9, p. 194). I have now examined a number of specimens, and have come to the conclusion that the best treatment is to unite them to Teratophyllum as proposed by Kuhn. His daignosis however omits a number of important points, and I have prepared a new one which includes what seem to me the essential features of the genus. The genus as so defined consists of two sections. The first and larger section comprises those species dealt with in my former paper; the second section has hitherto not received adequate description, and I give below as full account of its species as the material at present available allows. I am grateful to the authorities in charge of various herbaria for the loan of specimens, or for permission to examine specimens. The herbaria in question are cited as follows: Brisbane (Br.), British Museum (B.M.), Buitenzorg (B.), Kew (K.), Philippine National Museum (M.), Singggpore (S.), U. S. National Herbarium (W.).

Abstract:
Since the main object of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, ed. 3 (1935) is to ensure simplicity and finality in the names and to prevent more than one intepretation to a given name sensu stricto, it is unfortunate that there should exist a good deal of misconception and dissatisfaction over the Rules. But, for the existence of this state of affairs, the Rules themselves cannot be enitrely exonerated from blame. The terms valid and legitimate with their respective derivatives, which have a great importance in botanical nomenclature, have define and used equivocally in the Rules; and some nomenclatural points, where definite instructions are absolutely needed to avoid confusions and equivocations, are left ambiguous. The result is that practices contrary to the spirit of Rules seem admissible under the letter of the Rules. Already in a small footnote in the Gardens' Bulletin, S.S. Vol. VIII, 1935, p. 341, I first drew the attention of botanists to the need of making a clear distinction between the two terms, legitimate (= legal) and valid. In the same publication  (1.c. p.336), I pointed out the necessity of prohibiting the acceptance of a newer interpretation of a name, the type of which is not exrant, without showing any adequate botanical reasons for the rejection of earlier interpretation. But as the nomenclatorial laws are of very great importance to systematists, and as in neither of my previous communications have I developed my ideas on the subject to any great length, I make no apology to revert to it here.

Abstract:
Not many years ago, when I first became interested in systematic botany, I experienced considerable difficulty in comprehending the full implication of the terms "Type" and "Co-Type". And although systematic boatnists have now accepted the principle of the "Type basis Concept", a perusal of recent taxonomical papers combined with a personal inspection of the labelling of specimens in some of the well-known herbaria in Europe leads me to conclude that systematists are not yet agreed on a uniform system of naming both type specimens with their duplicates as well as those specimens that are almost as valuable to taxonomists as the type themselves. This disagreement is all the more surprising when one realises that systematists would be the first to admit the value of uniformity in the naming of type specimens for taxonomic reference. So great, however, is the confusion at present reigning concerning the nomenclature of some kinds of types that it is more than bears out the remark made by Dr. Agnes Chase, the well-known agrostologist, with reference to plant nomenclature in general. "Paradoxical as it may sound, it is the effort made during the last twenty years or so to bring about stability and uniformity in the use of names that has caused such a bewildering diversity". Now in the following summary I have gathered together most of the important terms used to designate type-specimens in the hope that this compilation may provoke the interest of herbarium-keepers in the matter. Obviously, by adopting a uniform system of naming the type material in their charge, herbarium-keepers would increase considerably the value of the specimens. For the sake of clearness I have had to define again a few old terms and add a few new ones. One apology I have to make: I cannot now cite authority for every one of the terms adopted in this paper. This is because the compilation was originally for my own instruction only. However, most of the terms here discussed can be found in Dr. B. D. Jackson's Glossary of Botanical Terms, 4th. Ed. (1928).

Abstract:
In the Journal of Botany, IXXXV, 1937, p. 78, Mr. T. A. SPRAGUE and Mr. A. W. EXELL have conjointly published a note drawing the attention of botanists to the significance of asterisks in LINNAEUS'S Species Plantarum ed. I (1753). They have shown that the use of asterisks was explained by Linnaeus himself in the following paragraph in the preface of the second edition of his work: "DESCRIPTIONS* tantum in obscuris adhibere necessem fuit, easque sine ambagibus. ut obtinerem compendium tironibus gratum". This paragraph without the asterisk, is the verbatim reprint from the first edition of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum. Consequently Mr. Sprague and Mr. Exell assume that the asterisk was accidently omitted after the word DESCRIPTIONES in the first edition of the work. They translate the paragraph as follows : "Only in doubtful cases was it necessary to cite descriptions, and those, straightforward ones, so that I might keep the handbook suitable for beginners." While agreeing with the explanation of the omission of the asterisk from the first edition of the Species Plantarum, I find myself compelled to dispute this translation and, therefore, to reconsider the conclusion of these authors on the significance of the asterisk. The translation appears to me misleading, because it is too free and removed from its context, and is therefore decidedly ambiguous. Linnaeus cited descriptions for nearly every species, but no one imagines that he considered them all doubtful. Is "compendium" really a "handbook" ? And what can be meant by the indefinite phrase "doubtful cases"? Are we to suppose that Linnaeus was doubtful of every species in the synonymy of which he employed an asterisk, or that he was merely doubtful of the unasterisked citations under it; or that he considered the citations with an asterisk to some extent doubtful though supplying a straight-forward descrition, while those without an asterisk were not at all doubtful? It is clear that the translation of the phrase "in obscuris" and the interpretation of the asterisk may be matters of considerate taxonomic importance, for on them will depend the procedure for interpreting a Linnean species with an asterisked citation. In view of this uncertainty I have undertaken an inquiry into the problem. My conclusions are these: 1. The paragraph should be read: "Only in the case of obscure plants was it necessary to indicate with an asterisk such descriptions as were straight-forward, so that I might keep the compendium suitable for beginners." Note :- (a) "obscure" does not mean doubtful (see section 2, subsection V, p. 314). (b) "Compendium" means the list of synonyms or citations, i.e. the synopsis of the species under consideration (see section 2, subsection V, p. 315). 2 LINNAEUS did not mean to invest the asterisks with the force of indicators for discriminating between the synonyms (citations). The asterisks were meant as a guide for beginners, and all synonyms, whether with or without an asterisk, were equally important for the experienced botanist. The evidence for my conclusion is set forth below.

Abstract:
At various times during the past few years I have collected notes on ferns of the Malay Peninsula, and have gathered them together here, with descriptions of five new species, Davallia dimorpha, Diplazium insigne, D. latisquamatum, D. subintegrum, and D. velutinum. The larger Diplaziums, inhabiting the mountain valleys from about 2,000 ft. upwards, still require much field study, and also careful comparison with the species of neighbouring countries. There are certainly several further additions to be made to the Peninsula species of this genus. The notes here published are various kinds. Most are additions to the recorded fern flora of the Peninsula, chiefly based on recent collections, but in some cases on redetermination of old collections. Some are critical notes on nomenclature, based either on my own study of type specimens, or copied from other sources, which are duly acknowledged. There are also field notes on many species, based on my own observations.

Abstract:
In this Bulletin, Vol. 5, nos. 9 - 11 (1932), I gave an account of the above genera, based on all the material then available to me. It subsequently appeared that the bulk of the specimens of "Stenochlaena" from the Herbarium of the Bureau of Science, Manila, had previously been sent to the U.S. National Herbarium on loan and were not with the material I had for study from Manila in 1932. Some of the Philippine collections were represented by duplicates at Buitenzorg, and in the Singapore herbarium, but a great many were not. I was therefore very glad of the opportunity of examining the full Manila collections, which has been possible through the courtesy of Dr. W. R. Maxon of the U. S. National Herbarium and Dr. Quisumbing of the Philippine National Herbarium. At the same time, Dr. Maxon sent me on loan the specimens from the U. S. National Herbarium, which in some cases supplied further information. The result of the examination of these additional specimens is that I am able to add a few notes about the Philippine species of the three genera, and I am able also to correct a misapplication of the name Lomariopsis leptocarpa. My thanks are due to Dr. Maxon and Dr. Quisumbing, and also to the authorities of the herbaria at Kew and the British Museum, where I discovered some further specimens during my leave to Europe in 1934. This paper contains the new combination Teratophyllum leptocarpum (Fee) Holttum.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
This paper embodies some results obtained in the course of my study of rattans belonging to the genus Daemonorops of the section CYMBOSPATHAE. My inquiry is based mainly on the herbarium material, but I have also had opportunities of studying some few species in the field and the results of these also are embodied herein. Both these investigations have strenghtened my previous conviction that much of the vagueness hitherto observable in the specific circumscription of many species is due to the inadequacy of the herbarium material coupled with its faulty numbering. The two aspects of the subject I have already touched on in previous papers (cf. Gard. Bull. S. S. VIII, 1935, pp. 241 - 261, and 339 - 367). But so important is this matter to the systematist that I make no apology for reverting to it here. If the systematist is to clear up the status of the doubtful species and to devise a simpler means of classifying rattans, a large series of herbarium specimens, prepared according to the needs of the systematist, becomes an indespensible preliminary, and part of this preliminary is the issuing of detailed instructions to plant collectors. The opinion that normally the genus Daemonorops is monoecious with unisexual spadices, is herein shown to be fallacious. All the specimens so far seen go to support Beccari's contention that the genus is dioecious, the male-like acolyte of the female being a neuter flower. In some species, however, of the section CYMBOSPATHAE the male plant seems to play no part in the development of the fruit, the female plant itself being apparently pathenogenetic. Further observations are needed to verify this apparent parthogenesis in Daemonorops. My inquiry into the systematics of the Malayan species of Daemonorops of the section herein treated was much simplified by obtaining on loan authentic specimens of Griffith's species from the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Calcutta, and some critical specimens from the herbarium of the Botanical Gardens, Buitenzorg. It is my pleasant duty here to record my indebtedness to the respective Directors, of the two instituitions named, for their kindness in allowing the loan. The results obtained may be summarised as follows :-
(1) New Species : (a) D. angustispathus and D. Curtisii from the Malay peninsula ; and (b) D. javanicus from Java.
(2) New Records: (a) for the Malay Peninsula : D. melanochaetes; (b) for Borneo : D. hygrophilus (doubtful) and (c) for Sumatra : D. hygrophilus, D. Lewisianus and D. pseudosepal.
(3) New Interpretations : D. intermedius (Griff.) Mart., D. Lewisianus (Griff.) Mart., D. malaccensis Mart., and D. monticolus (Griff.) Mart., all of which are indigenous and endemic in the Malay Peninsula. These interpretations have been based on the authentic specimens, (when available in the Calcutta herbarium), as well as on the description and the drawings published by Griffith. (4) New Synonyms (Species newly reduced to the synonymy) : D. aciculatus Ridl., D. bakauensis Becc., D. carcharodon Ridl., D. congestus Ridl., D. imbellis Becc., D. intermedius var. nudipes Becc., D. malaccensis Mart., D. microthamnus Becc., D. monticolus var. pinangianus Becc., D. petiolaris Mart., and D. Schmidianus Becc. The possibility of D. fissus var. cinnamomeus Becc., being identical with D. hygrophilus is indicated.

Abstract:
Early this year (1936) I noticed cultivated in the Botanic Gardens, Buitenzorg, Java, two Calami showing some characters that are rather infrequent in the genus, and on further study both proved to be new. The one, C. Steenisii - named in honour to Dr. C. G. G. J. van Steenis of the Buitenzorg Herbarium, who had taken a great deal of trouble to facilitate my studies during my visit to the gardens - is recorded to have been introduced from New Guinea, and possesses so many anomalous characters that it cannot be made to fit in any of the sixteen groups into which the genus Calamus has been divided by Beccari ( Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard., Calcutta, XI, 1908, pp. 64 - 69 ),though it shows, at the same time, several marks of affinity to some of the New -Guinean species belonging to Group V (vide infra). The second, described here as C. inopitatus, is of unknown origin. It is a stemless palm produces leaflets which are covered in the under surface with minute pinkish tomentum, both of which characters are not common in the genus. It is closely related to C. Burckianus Becc. from Java, a member of Group II of Beccari and possibly also stemless.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
No abstract