A JOURNAL ON TAXONOMIC BOTANY, PLANT -SOCIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY REINWARDTIA . Editors MIEN A. KIJS WAT A KARTAWINATA N. WULIJARNI-SOETJIPTO 1 Published by ' HERBARIUM BOGORIENSE LEMBAGA BIO-LOGI NASIONAL — LIPI BO.SOR, INDONESIA Eeinwardtia Vol. 9, Part 1, 1 —182 31 December 1974 10- ISSN 0(f34-365X REINWARDTIA Published by Herbarium Boguriensc — LBN, Bogor Vol. 9, Part 1, pp. 71 — 75 (1«74) ORCHIDACEAE NOVAE VEL MINUS COGNITAE H. G. JONES P.O. Box 111, Bridgetown, Barbados [ ABSTRACT and critical Cirrho-petabtm pu crispilabia and E pecies Cymbidium intermedium from India is described, orphological and nomentlatural notes on the Asiatic putidmn as well as the American Hoff-mannseggella clia fragrana are presented. ABSTRAK pertains kali. DisajlKan puJa catatan-catatan pentmg tcntanjg mortologi anggerik Amerika Haffmarmaeggella criepilabia dan Encyclia fragrans. The following paper contains notes on four interesting species of the family Orchidaceae, one of which is described as new to science. The two Asiatic species turned up among a small collection of Indian orchids, which were imported from that country by the author in 1960, and subsequently flowered under cultivation in Barbados. The notes on the two tropical American species have resulted from preliminary studies undertaken for the purpose of preparing taxonomic revisions of the two genera to which these species belong. Cymbidium intermedium H. G. Jones, spec. nov. Epiphyticum robustum, eroctum vel suberectum, usque ad 95 cm altum; radicibus brunneo-albidus, flexuosis glabris, rugulosis; pseudobulbis illis Cymbidium simulans similibus sed paulo minoribus, vagina foliifera arete amplectentibus; foliis erecto-patentibus vel subereetis, anguste linearibus, coriaceis, rigidulis, apice obtusis vel subacutis, leviter bilobis, usque ad 95 cm longis, medio ca 4 cm lato. Inflorescentia pendula, quam folio paulo breviore, racemosa, laxe multiflora, ca 90 cm longa, vagina floriifera minuta, inter floribus ca 2.5 cm distantibus. Floribus expansi ca 4 cm diametribus, color flaveo-purpureis, illis Cymbidium finlayson- ianum similibus sed paulo minoribus: sepalis angust* oblongis, obtusis, ca 2 cm longis, medio ca 5 mm lato; petalis quam sepalia aequimagnis vix paulo brevioribus; labello trilobo, ca 1.9 cm longo, inter loborum lateraliam expansi ca 1 cm lato; lobi lateral! breviore, erecti, apici aeuti, ca 1.5 cm longi; lobo mediano longiore, obtuso vel subacuto, apice REINWARDTIA [VOL. 9 distinete recurvo; lamellis inter lohi laterali 2, continues, non interrupts; columna glabra, distincta curvata, ca 9 mm longa; anthera obtusa, apicc leviter biloba; ovario cum pcdicello cylindraceo, glahro, ca 2.5 cm Ion go. MATERIAL EXAMINED: (1> India, Bombay State, flowered under cultivation in Barbados, 1961. Herb. Jones. Misc. C/85 — Type. (2) Cultivated specimen from tlie island of Trinidad (origin unknown), 1967. Herb. Jones. Misc. C/280. When I first examined the living flowers of this plant, I was completely baffled as to itw identity; for they posessed the size and colouring of C. simulanx Rolfe, but the form of the keels on Ihe labtllum was that of C. finlaysonianum Lindl. I first decided to use the latter name for the plant (Jones 1962), as most recent authors appear to agree in considering the form of the keels to be the decisive factor in separating these two concepts. However, C. intermedium posesses the combined characters of C. simmlans and C. finlaysoniannm to such an extent that were these three plants at any time found growing together, I should not hesitate to declare C. intermedium to be a natural hybrid; but according to Santapau & Kapadia (1962), the only other species of Cymbldium known to occur in the Bombay State of India is C. aloifolmm Sw. The flowers of C. intermedium are of a pale greenish-yellow colour, with purple markings on the petals and the labellum; the leaves are somewhat longer than those of C. simulans and C. finlaysonianum, but are of a softer, less leathery texture. The unidentified Cymbidium (GT 3580), which was published by Seidenfaden & Smitinand (1959- 1965), is probably a large-flowered variety of this new species. ClRRHOPETALUM PUTIDUM T e i j . & B i n n . Cirrhapctalum putidum TVjj. & Binn. in Tjjds. Ned. I ml. t\: 311. 18C2, - BulbapkyUum putidum- (Tejj. & Binn.) J.J. Sin. in Bull. .lard. hot. Baiteti!!. II, 8: 27. 1913. drrkapetalum appendiculatuvi, Holfe in Kcw. Bull. 25: 148. 1901. — Bulbophyllum appendimtlatum (Rolfe) J.J. Sm. in Bull. Jard. bot. Buitenz. II, S: 22. 1912. Cirrhopetahtm fascinator Rolfe in Kew. Bull. 32: 69. 1B08. — Bulbnphyllum fuaciTiatar (Rolfe) Rolfe in Bot. Majr. 134: 8199. IH08. This little plant also proved rather puzzling at first: shortly after it arrived in Barbados, it produced one flower-spike with a single flower, closely resembling C. fascinator, but much smaller; therefore my specimen was presumed to be the small-flowered C. putidum. Later, however, when the plant had become better-established, it produced more robust flower-spikes, with 2—3 larger flowers, of the size of C. fascinator. 1974] JONES : New & critical nrchids Seidenfaden (1972) has pointed out that the two concepts known as C. putidum and C. fascinator are "exactly alike in all details of the flowers, except for size"; but now that it is known that both large and small flowers can be borne on the same plant, there appears to be no justification for maintaining C. fascinator as a distinct species. The unidentified Cirrkopetalum which was illustrated in colour in a recent Russian publication (Paddubnaya-Amol'di & Selezneva 1957) also belongs here. Regardless of what specific name they have adopted, the majority of recent taxonomists who have dealt with this concept — known variously as C. putidum, C- appendicitlatum and C. fascinator — have listed it under the generic name B-idbopkyllum. However, I am in agreement with the view expressed by Hunt & Summerhayes (1966), that the genus Cirrhopetalwn should be reinstated, rather than merged in Bulbophyllwm. Rolfe's C. appendiculatum was based upon a specimen, which had been published by King & Pantling (1898) as C. ornatissimum — but which differed from the true C. ornatissimum Rchb. f. The latter concept is closely related to C. piitidum, but is easily distinguished by its broader leaves, shorter flower-scapes, bearing 5—6 flowers, and the broader floral segments. A good illustration of C. ornatissimum has been published by Latif (1960). HOFFMANNSEGGELLA CEISPILABIA (A. Rich.) H. G. Jones Laetia criepilabia A. Rich, ex Rehb. f.r Xcn. Orch. 2: 61. 1863. - Hefftniatn- leggeltn criepilabia (A. Rich.) H. G. Jones in Bradea 1: 266. 1972. BMitt crispilabiu Rchb. f., Xen. Orch. 2: 61. 1863. There appears to be some doubt as to the correct citation of the author's name for the plant formerly known as Laelia crispilabia. This name was originally given to a specimen in the herbarium of Louis Claude and Achille Richard (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) by the latter botanist; but the species remained unpublished at the time of the author's death in 1852. Reichenbach subsequently published a description of the plant under the name Bletia crispilabia, but he also cited the original name and its author in his diagnosis. In 1875, Warner took up the name Laelia crispilabia A. Rich, in the second volume of his Select Orchidaceous Plants, and all subsequent authors who have dealt with the species have cited the authority for the name as ,,A. Rich, ex Warn." From recent correspondence with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, I gather that there is some doubt there as to whether the correct citation [VOL. a 1974] for the name Laelia crispiloMa should be "(Rchb. f.) Warn." or "(Rchb. f.) A. Rich, ex Warn." However, in view of the fact that Reichenbaeh did publish the name Laelia crispilabia, with A. Richard as its author, in 1863, and since Warner's publication did not appear until some twelve years later, I have decided to use the citation, "A. Rich, ex Rchb. f." for this name. Judging from the correspondence dated July 1911, between Rolfe and Gagnepain, preserved at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Rolfe seems to have suspected that some of the later examples which found their way into the Paris herbarium under the name L. crispilabia A- Rich, were, in fact, examples of L. flava T.indl. This may well be so, but I think there can be no doubt that H. crispilabia (A. Rich.) H. G. Jones is amply distinct from H. flava (Lindi.) H. G. Jones: the holotype specimen of the former concept is rather fragmentary; but this may be supple- mented by more recent collections — notably the one illustrated in colour by Hoehne (1949). The genus Hoffmannseggella was established by the present writer (Jones 1968b) to accommodate the species formerly assigned to the section Cyrtolaelia Schltr. of the genus Laelia Lindl. ENCYCLIA FRAGRANS (SW.) Lemee Epidendrtivi fragrant: Sw., Prodr.: 123. 1788. - Encyclia fragrant (Sw.) Lemee, FL Guy. Fran. 1: 418. 1855. Epidendmm lineatum Salisb., Frodr.: ID. 1796. Epidendrum bulbosum Veil., Flor. Flum. 9: 11. 1827. . Epidendrum cordatam Veil., Flor. Flum. 9: 38. 1827. Epidendrum papilio Veil., Flor. Flum. 9: 28. 1K27. Epidendrum vespa Veil., Flor. Flum. 9: 27. 1827. Epidendrum aemulum Lindl., Bat. Reg. 22: 1898. 1838. Epidendrum vaffinatnm Sesse & Mocifio, Fl. Me*. 2: 201. 1894. Ewsyclia fragrant ssp. acmula Dressier in Phytoiogia 21: 440. 1971. In my paper on Trinidad orchids (Jones 1968a) I gave the original place of publication for the name EncyeUa fragrans as "Dressier, Brittonia 13: 264. 1961", where this name was, indeed, presented as a "new combination"; but Dressier had, apparently, overlooked the fact that the same name had already been published by Lemee, some six years before. In my paper referred to, I followed traditional usage and included the names Epidendmm aemulum Lindl. and E. lambada Linden in the synonymy of E. fragrans, in spite of the fact that I was not too happy about E. lambada. However, this reduction had previously been made by a number of other taxonomista, who bad at their disposal vast herbaria, with many more specimens than were available to me; therefore I believed that they were in a better position to make this decision. Since the publication of my article, two more papers have been published by Dressier (1971a, 1971b) in which E. aemulum and E. lambada were once again separated from E. fragrans, as a subspecies and a species respectively. In the light of information contained in these two studies I have had another look at the E. fragrans complex, as a result of which I have decided to accept Dressler's view in regard to E. lambada. However, I have seen so many examples of E. fragrans in which the characters of that concept and of E. aemula, as illustrated by Dressier, appear to be hopelessly mixed up, that I am still not convinced that the latter can be separated as a variety, much less a distinct subspecies. I have, therefore, included Dressler's latest new combination in the synonymy of E. fragrans. REFERENCES DKESSI.KB, K. L. 1961. A reconsideration of Encyelia (Orchiriaceae). In Brittonia 13: 253-286. DBESSLEE, R. L. 1971 a. Nomenclature] notes on the Orchidsceae. IV. In Phytoiogia 21: 440-443. DHESSLER, R. L. 1971b. El comple.jo dc Encyelia fragrant en los Paisea Andinos. In Or<|uideolosia 6: 195-203. HOEHNE, F. C. 1949. IcoRografia de Orchidaceas do Brazil. Sccretaria de Agricultura Sao Paulo ' HUNT, P. F. & SUMMEBHAYES, V. S. 1966. Notes on Asiatic Orchids. IV. In Kcw Bull. 20: 51-61. • I JONES, H.G. 1962. The culture of orchid species in the West Indies. XI. la Orchid Rev. 70: 146'-147. JONES, H. G. 1968a. Notes on a collection of orchids from the West Indian Island of Trinidad. In Candollea 23: 295-299. JONES, H. G. 1968b. Studies in neotropical orchidology. In Act. Bot. Acad. So. Hung. 14: 63-70. JONES, H.G. 1972. Orchidaeeae austroamericanae. In BradBa 1: 263-266. KING, G. & PANTLINO, R. 1898. The orchids of the Sikkim-Himmalaya. Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta. LATIK, S. M. 1960. Bunga anggerik permata belantttra Indonesia. N.V. Mrj Vorkink - Van Hocve, Bandung. j PODDL-BKAYA - AENOL'IH, V. A. & SELEZNEVA, V. A. 1957. Orchidei i ich kuVtura. Izdatel'stvo Akademii Naut, Moscow. I SANTAPAD, H. & KAPADIA, Z, 1962. Critical notes on the Orchidaccae of Bombay State. IX. 7.( J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 59: 382-404. SEIDENFADEK, G. 1972. Contributions to the Orchid Flora of Thailand. IV. In Bot. Tids. B7: 76-127. SEIDENFADEN, G. & SMITINAND, T. 1959 —1965. The Orchids of Thailand. The Siam Society, Bangkok. i C O N T E N T S P a g e H A T T I N K , T. A. A revision of Malesian Caesalpinia, i n c l u d i n g , Mezoneuroji ( L e g u m m o s a e - C a e s a l p i n i a c e a e ) 1 • J O N E S , H . G < Orchidaceae n a v a e vel m i n u s cogtlitae . . . . . . . 7 1 K E N G , H. Rediscovery of Cheilotheca malayana a n d t h e i d e n t i t y of . Cheilotheca, Audresia and Mo.notropastmm (Ericaceae- . M o n o t r o p o i d e a e ) 7 7 K O S T E R M A N S , A . J . G . H . A m o n o g r a p h o f t h e genus- N.eoanna- •momum L i o u H o 8 5 M a t e r i a l s f o r a r e v i s i o n o f L a u r a c e a e I V . . . . . 9 7 r? A new Bornean species .of Mammea , . 117 Triadodapkne, a. new Jauraceous genua from Borneo . 119 — A monograph of Caryodaphnopsis A. Shaw . ., . . . 123 LARSEN, K. & LAKSEN, S. K. A new Amorphophallus from Thailand ' 139 NAYAK, M. P. A revision of Phtkiandra (Melastomataceae) . . 143 RAO, A. N. £ LEONG, F. L. Pollen morphology of certain tropical , • plants . . . . . . . - . • 153 SKVORTZOV, B. V. On some colourless flagellates from Java and Brasil 177 Distributor BIBLIOTHECA BOGORIENSIS, JALAN RAYA JUANDA 20, EOGOK, INDONESIA by ARCHIPEL Rein.Vol.9,part 1, 1-182_Page_01 71-75 Rein.Vol.9,part 1, 1-182_Page_37 Rein.Vol.9,part 1, 1-182_Page_38 Rein.Vol.9,part 1, 1-182_Page_39 Rein.Vol.9,part 1, 1-182_Page_95