Abstract:
The genus Congea was established by Roxburgh in 1819 with one species C. tomentosa of which a coloured plate was published accompanied by a detailed specific description ( Pl. Corom. III, p. 90. T. 293). The species was stated to be a "native of Chittagong where it blossoms in March." Apparently Roxburgh had described under this genus three manuscript: pentandra, villosa and tomentosa, and the generic name Congea was a latin adaptation of the bengali (khasi) name "Kungea' for Roscoea pentandra from Silhet; but since in 1819 only C. tomentosa Roxb. was published, the remaining two did not acquire any status except much later. This means therefore that as puiblished in 1819, Congea must be typified on C. tomentosa which was based on a specimen from Chittagong. In describing the "Germ" of this species, thus: "subturbinate, etc. etc. exactly as in the former species"; but since the two "former species" (pentandra and villosa) were not published in 1819, this reference has to be ignored.

Abstract:
The genus Sphenodesme was established by Jack in 1820 with one species, S. pentandra, the type specimen of which was collected by him in Penang and now preserved in the Herbarium at Edinburgh. Apparently Wallich, with whom Jack corresponded (Burkill in Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Str. Br. 73,1916, pp. 184 & 261), determined Jack's plant to be identical with the Sylhet species cultivated in Botanic Gardens, Calcutta, and listed by Roxburgh without any description as Roscoea pentandra in his Cat. Hort. Bengalensis (1814) 64. In his protolog Jack referred to Roxburgh's invalid binomial but since that generic was preoccupied, he adopted a new one. Under the present Nomenclatural Code, Jack was quite right in giving this genus a new name as Roxburgh's binomial is not valid and therefore cannot claim priority. Hence the holotype of Sphenodesme pentandra Jack is Jack's specimen collected from Penang. However, a good deal of confusion exists on the use of the name of Sphenodesme pentandra, because early botanists, following the old, now outdated, practice, gave priority to manuscript names attached to the plants cultivated to one herbarium or more. Under the present Code such names are discarded as nomina invalida or nuda. In this category will come the binomial Roscoea pentandra Roxb. or Congea pentandra Wall., adopted without any valid desciption for plants before the publication of Jack's monotypic genus. Hence Jack's species must be regarded, not as Sphenodesme pentandra (Roxb.) Jack, as many modern botanists have done, but merely as Sphenodesme pentandra Jack. The earliest valid publication of Roscoea pentandra was in Roxburgh's Flora Indica III (1832) 54, which is antedated by Jack's publication by twelve years. Similarly, Congea jackiana Wall. (1828 & 1830) which Schauer combined to S. jackiana (Wall.) Schauer is a super-fluous name for Jack's species. Roscoea pentandra Roxb. with its isonym S. pentandra (Roxb.) Griff. is synonymous with S. wallichiana Schauer which is reduced here as as variety of S. pentandra Jack.

Abstract:
The present paper is part of the work on the family Fagaceae from Malesia, now being prepared in Cambridge. Due to the limited time available, the present taxonomic account is restricted to the revision of the genus Quercus L.. from Malesia. During the preparation of this work, I have been able to investigate all specimens collected from Malesia, available in the Herbaria of Bogor, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Florence, Kew, Leiden, Paris, Sarawak and Singapore. Two of the five new species described here, namely Q. steenisii and Q. sumatrana, were recognized as new by Dr. S. Hatusima, a Japanese botanist, who worked at the Herbarium Bogoriense, Bogor, Indonesia, during the period of 1943-1945. He, however, never published his work. Specimens of Q. gaharuensis, and Q. percoriacea, were collected recently by Dr. J. A. R. Anderson from Sarawak. Of the fifth species, Q. pseudo-verticillata, the first collection was made by Fuchs & Collenette in 1963 from Pinosuk Plateau, Mt. Kinabalu, North Borneo. During the second Royal Society expedition to Mt. Kinabalu (1964), Mr. E. J. H. Corner and Dr. Chew Wee Lek collected ample materials of this new species, and their specimens were chosen as type.

Abstract:
Lists of plant disease records for Sarawak have been given by Johnston (1) and Turner (2; 3). The present list of previously unrecorded diseases and entomogenous fungi, noted or collected in Sarawak during 1963 and 1964, includes records from orchid hybrid genera (4).  The causal organisms are arranged alphabetically under their individual hosts.  The frequency of occurence is given, together with the Commonwealth Mycological Institute Herbarium serial number, where identification has been performed by the Institute. Two of the species have been identified at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Abstract:
Between the years of 1956 and 1959 a great deal of activity was centered in the University of Malaya in Singapore on the "Phytochemical Survey of Malaya". The department of Botany and Chemistry together with the Department of the Protector of Aborigines, Federation of Malaya , accumulated a collection of reputed native drug plants, identified these and processed them for alkaloids and other products. Douglas and Kiang (1957) report the results of tests on 214 species of plants collected around Singapore and Malaya. Kiang, Douglas and Morsingh (1961) report on a further 708 species belonging to 104 families and 408 genera. The survey was largely in botanical terms ad hoc, and consequently it was resolved that, on the first available opportunity, a survey with special reference to defined taxonomic groups and a limited area of land would be undertaken. The present survey is the first attempt of its kind along these lines. Two tropical families of plants, the Annonaceae and the Myristicaceae were chosen. These families have been recently revised by Sinclair (1955, 1958, 1961). With the continued presence of Mr. Sinclair at the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, taxonomic problems could be dealt with expeditiously. Again, in the two reports of tests made by Douglas and Kiang (1957) and Kiang, Douglas and Morsingh (1961) a number of annonaceous plants was found to give strong positive tests for alkaloids. Information regarding the distribution and amount of the two families within Singapore Island was sought. By amount is meant the number of plants (classified according to their respective stem diameters at breast height ) existing, as well as the amount of air-dried plant matrerials (in the form of leaves, stem, bark, etc.) that can be got. This knowledge is basic for ecological and phytochemical assessment. The members of these two families are typically forest plants, and the island, aftermore than a century of colonisation, is devoid of any natural vegetation save 4,805 acres of now-protected forests. Of these 4,805 acres, only 163 acres at Bukit Timah are anywhere near the original condition. The present situation can be traced to the pepper and gambier cultivation and timber and firewood exploitation prevalent in those early years. (Wee, 1964).

Book review

Abstract:
Following are descriptions of two ferns which previously have not been recorded for Malaya, so far as I am aware. They are from the Cameron Highlands district of Pahang, where I spent my last fer weeks in Malaya. I concentrated on a small area which is quite well known botanically, where I found besides these two, another not on the Malayan list (Dryopteris hirtipes) and several very rare species. This goes to show how important specialised field work still is, even in places previously collected over for the above mentioned fern, at least, is almost surely a result of Malaya's changing vegetation.

Abstract:
No abstract.

Abstract:
The following additional notes should serve to assist in bringing the list of Malayan grasses up to date. (cf. Gardens' Bulletin vol. XX. Pt. IV, p. 313, 1964).

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
In the present revision the specimens referred to P. bambusetorum in several herbaria have been named as P. bambusetorum and its forma simplicifolia and P. membranacea var malesiana. P. multiflora var solomonensis has been found to be identical with the type form with no affinity to P. sumatrana to which it had been tansferred by Moldenke. P. pubescens is made a variety of P. multiflora. In addition two new taxa have been established, namely P. kinabaluensis and its variety agrestis.

Abstract:
No abstract

Abstract:
During embryological investigations of the Durian plant (Durio zibethinus) some abnormal ovaries were seen to have stamens and carpels developing inside the ovary. These abnormal ovaries had normal ovules developing, and in the central region of the ovary, superfluous carpels as well as stamens were in different stages of development. Previous recorded accounts of such a kind are very few and that too mostly in the family Cruciferae. Masters (1869) describes a few instances of the formation of adventitions flowers and fruits within the ovary. In Cheiranthus cheirii (Cruciferae) the development of a small silique within the normal ovary has been illustrated (Masters, p. 182). This small silique developed on the plasenta amidst the other ovules. In Beckia diosmaefolia (Myrtaceae) formation of stamens within the cavity of the inferior ovary has been recorded. These abnormal stamens, replaced the ovules and had distinct filaments and anther lobes (Masters, p.184, Fig.98). Worsdell (1916) recorded the development of anthers on the inner carpellary margin in Tulipa gesneriana (Liliaceae). In Allamanda grandiflora (Apocynaceae), Kausik (1938) reported the formation of an elongated axis (gynophore) that replaced the ovary, carrying two leaf-like carpels on its distal end. These carpels formed ovaries, with ovules present on their adaxial surfaces. Recently Hulbary et al (1957) have described the development of flowers within the ovary of Raphanus sativus (Cruciferae - Radish). Young and mature flower buds in different stages of development were collected from Durian plants, growing in Singapore Orchid Gardens, Mandai Road, Singapore. The material was fixed in formalin-acetic-alcohol. After removing a portion of the ovary wall they were dehydrated and embedded in paraffin. Long sections of ovaries were prepared and stained to study the development of female gametophyte and seed.

Abstract:
There is a good deal of speculation on the etymology of the word Cocos and many explanations have been proposed to account for it. According to the most common view, the companions of VASCO DA GAMA used the Portuguese word coco, meaning "an ape" or "hugbear", to denote the coconut (fruit) during their first visit to India and through them it was introduced in the modern languages of Europe. This view is explanined by GARCIA DA ORTA (1490 - 1570) who, after a distinguished career at the Universities of Spain and then in his native Portugal, came as a surgeon to India and during his long stay there (1534 - 1570), gathered a good deal of information on the medicinal and economic plants, including their vernacular names and uses. In Coloquios (first published in Goa in 1563), he deals with the coconut palm in Coloquy 16. The following passage explains the origin of Coco: "It gives so many things necessary to man, that I know no other tree that yields a sixth part. It is well that you should know that we call it palmeria (palm-tree). However, the ancient Greeks wrote nothing about it that I have seen, and the Arabs have written little. It will be a good thing to tell this in Castille, though this much is probably well-known through those who return from here, since this is at once noticed. Coming to the names I must say that it (the tree) is called (in Goa) Maro and the fruit Narel. This word narel is common to all, for it is used also by Persians and Arabs. AVICENNA (lib. 2, p. 506) calls it Jauzialindi (Jauz el Hindi) which mean "Nut of India". SERAPIO (Cap. 228) and RASIS call the tree Jaralnare which means the tree (jara) that yields Coquo (narel). The Malabar people call it the Tengamaram and the fruit, when ripe, Tenga. The Malays call the tree Tricam, (Javanese Wit-Krambil ?) and the coco nihor; and we, the Portuguese, because of those three holes, gave it the name coquo, for it looks like the face of an ape or another animal. "It is to be noted here that the Portuguese of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries often use qu for c hard or k, as in Arequa (Areca) so that coco was spelt in the olden times also as coquo or quoquo, though in modern Portuguese qu is employed instead of c before e and i only as in Coqueiro (coco-tree) since before these vowels c acquires a soft sound of s. (qu before other vowels retains the sound u sound so as to be pronounced as cu e.g. quarto, quadro). This is probably the reason why CANDOLLE (1855) could not find the word coquo in the Portuguese dictionaries of his time, since that old spelling must have been discarded as antiquated.

Abstract:
Study leave from the University of Singapore affording the opportunity, the author has been engaged at the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew on further study of Malayan grasses. The unrivalled collection of types and the fine library have brought to light the need for the changes indicated below. Compare the author's previous "Checklist of Malayan Grasses" Gard. Bull. Sing. 19 I, 147. 1962.

Abstract:
The Malay lumut puteh ('white moss') refers to members of the Leucobryaceae which are exceedingly common in both terrestrial and epiphytic habitats throughout Malaysia. This family was established by Hampe (1837) under the name Leucophaneae, which was changed to Leucobryaceae by Mueller (1843) to accord with the principal genus, Leucobryum. It is but poorly represented in temperate regions of the world but well developed in the tropics. In Malaysia there are at least seven genera comprising about thirty-seven species. The family has been regarded as an isolated one (Cardot, 1899) by virtue of the pronounced cellular dimorphism of the anatomical elements of the leaves; or a highly artificial group (Andrews, 1947). The latter author suggests members should be placed partly in the Dicranceae and partly in the Calymbryaceae. In my studies of the Malaysian Leucobryaceae I have inclined to the view that, although related to the Dicranceae, the Leucobryaceae form a distinct natural group with the exception of the last named genus, Exodictyon, which is clearly related to the large but poorly known family, Calymperaceae. Further studies on Exodictyon may show it is not true member of the Leucobryaceae. The very striking plants referred to this family are almost entirely tropical in distribution with the exception of the temperate Leucobryum glaucum. Because of its striking white colour, this species was readily recognised by early botanists. Doody (1696) mentions 'mucus trichoides montanus albidus fragilis,' and this plant was figured by Moris (1699). In Dillenius' catalogue (1719) a moss was described as 'bryum trichoides, erectis capitulis, albidum fragile'. Linnaeus placed this plant in the all-embracing genus Bryum. Legitimate publication for mosses (except Sphagnaceae) begins with Hedwig's Species Muscorum (1801) where it was placed under Dicranum. Other bryologists have referred the same species to Hypnum, Fuscina, Mnium, Oncophorus and Sphagnum. It was not until 1837 that the Leucobryaceae came into their own as a group apart from other mosses.

Abstract:
There are two species of the stinging trees belonging to the genus Laportea (Urticaceae) known in Malaya, but the descriptions in Ridleys Flora (1924) are very scanty. Thus, because I have become familiar with both species in the field, it may be of interest to give descriptions of the living plants. The more familiar species is L. stimulans Miq., and it has been stated to be not uncommon in Malaya, but it is undoubtedly absent from wide areas. The second species L. pustulosa Ridl., is extremely rare, and until I found some in 1959, it was known perhaps only from Father Scortechnii's original collection from somewhere in Perak. Dr. Chew Wee-Lek, who has been studying this genus, now believes that L. pustulosa is conspecific with a species that is widespread in Malaysia and India, and will soon be publishing his conclusions, thus nomenclature will not be discussed here.

Abstract:
Lists of plant disease records for Sarawak have been given by Johnston (1960) and Turner (1963). The present list consists of previously unrecorded diseases, together with a number of entomogenous fungi, noted or collected in Sarawak during the year 1962.  The causal organisms are arranged alphabetically under their individual hosts.  The frequency of occurrence is given, together with the Commonwealth Mycological Institute Herbarium serial number, where the identification has been performed by the Institute.

Abstract:
No abstract.

Abstract:
This widespread species (and genus) apparently does not appear to have been found previously in the Malay Peninsula nor in Singapore, although Beddome (4) does record it from here, and Ridley (16), under Nephrolepis ramosa lists it as having been collected by Mathews in Selangor (Batu Caves), but Holttum (12) states that the genus has not yet been found in Malaya. I have not seen any Malayan material, apart from my own, in other herbaria. According to Holttum's classification (11), Arthropteris belongs to the Dennstaedtiaceae, in the subfamily Oleandroideae, of which both Oleandra and Nephrolepis are represented in Malaya.  Copeland (9), on the other hand puts these into Davalliaceae, as does Miss Tindale in her treatment of this family for SE. Australia (19), (but she uses the subfamily Oleandroideae.)

Abstract:
No abstract.

Abstract:
This is the second precursory paper to the forthcoming publication of a Forester's Manual of the Dipterocarpaceae of Brunei State. Taxonomic and nomenclatural discussion is out of place in the Manual and this paper is therefore presented in order to explain changes that have been made. The late Dr. D. F. van Slooten and C. F. Symington have between them written much on the infrageneric divisions recognisable within Malaysian dipterocarp genera. Symington (1943 and elsewhere) had crystallised his views on this problem, but never proceeded to a complete revision of the infrageneric classifications or to formal publication of new infrageneric taxa. This gap has remained, and therefore must be filled before further manuals or monographs of the family are completed. I have found it necessary to make nomenclatural changes in most genera where infrageneric divisions are recognised; the present paper explains my reasons for these. With the much more complete herbarium material now available, particularly from Borneo, the subdivision of the large genera Shorea and Hopea, which Symington has already done so much to elicidate, can now be reassessed. Here, though agreeing with Symington on the basis for subdivisions, I have, with the exception of one section, found it unnecessary to create new names; they have already been provided by Brandis (1895), Heim (1892) and other previous monographers, though in many cases a redefinition is necessary. I wish to thank the Directors of the following herbaria for putting their facilities at my disposal during my visits to study Dipterocarpaceae: Bangkok Forest Herbarium, Bangkok Agricultural Herbarium, Herbarium Bogoriense, the British Museum, the British Pharmaceutical Society, Cambridge, Kepong, Kew, Kuching, Leiden, the Linnean Society, Oxford, Paris, Sandakan, Singapore and Utrecht. I further thank the Directors of the following herbaria for the loan of material to me at Cambridge: Berkeley, Calcutta, Copenhagen, Florence, Kepong, Kuching, Leiden, and Paris. In order to avoid synonymy when describing new Dipterocarpaceae in my last paper (this journal, 19, 2 (1962) 253), I examined the Type material of all Dipterocarpaceae occuring between Celebes and the Isthmus of Kra. I have been able to discover the true identity of all but two of the species described to date from this area, including species founded on sapling or fallen leaves by Korthals (1841), De Vriese (1861, b) and others. The second purpose of this paper is to explain my reasons for changes in nomenclature and synonomy that I have found necessary. In addition, I have described one more species, Shorea crassa, which was not fully understood by me at the time of completion of my last paper, and have given taxonomic status to the geographical subspecies of some Dipterocarpus and Shorea species. As full field and herbarium descriptions are given in my forthcoming manual, I have excluded them here, though short diagnosis are included with some species in order to clarify my arguments. I have to thank in particular Mr. E. J. H. Corner, F.R.S., for his continued advice and encouragement, and Mr. B. E. Smythies, Dr. W. Meijer, who is also completing a manual, on North Borneo Sell, of Cambridge Herbarium, has on several occasions offered advice on nomenclatural problems. The work has been carried out under the auspices of the Government of Brunei, and my thanks are due to them for their financial support.

Abstract:
Very few plant diseases had been recorded from Sarawak until Johnston (1960), carried out a preliminary survey in 1959. The list given below consists of previously unrecorded diseases, together with a number of entomogenous fungi, noted or collected by the writer from the time of his arrival in Sarawak, in August 1960, until the end of 1961. Fifteen of these records appear in the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1961, but most of them were identified after the Report had been sent to the press. The causal organisms are listed alphabetically under their individual hosts. The frequency of occurrence is given, together with the Commonwealth Mycological Institute Herbarium serial number, where the identification has been performed by the Institute.