|
| |
Musa acuminata malaccensis
Musa acuminata L. A. Colla subsp. malaccensis (H. N. Ridley) N. W.
Simmonds, Kew Bulletin 11 (3): 463 - 489 (1956).
| Accepted name |
Musa
acuminata L. A. Colla subsp. malaccensis (H. N. Ridley) N. W. Simmonds, Kew
Bulletin 11 (3): 463 - 489 (1956). |
| Synonyms |
1. Musa malaccensis
H. N. Ridley Trans. Linn. Soc. Ser. 2. 3, 385 (1893)
2. Musa acuminata L. A. Colla, the Selangor form of
E. E. Cheesman, Kew Bull. 1948, 17 et seq. and N. W. Simmonds, Malayan Nat. J.
10, 3 (1955)
3. Musa flava H. N. Ridley loc. cit.; N.
W. Simmonds, Ann. Bot. Lond. 10, 478 (1954)
4. Musa truncata H. N. Ridley |
| Authorities |
The
accepted name is from Simmonds 1956.
Synonym sources are:1
to 3 are from Simmonds 1956.
4 is from Hotta 1989 but Simmonds 1956 gives M. truncata Ridl. as a synonym of Musa
acuminata Colla subsp. microcarpa (Beccari) Simmonds. |
| Section |
Eumusa |
| Distribution |
Thailand, Malaysia, Sumatra, Java. |
| Description |
Slender plant usually strongly waxy, with midribs commonly
(but not always) bright red beneath, with a horizontal bunch and bright red non-imbricate
male bracts. [ ] If investigation should show that the same sub-species is characteristic
of the lowlands of Java then the name zebrina van Houtte would have to be used as
having priority over malaccensis. Musa flava Ridl. is merely a yellow
bracted mutant of the subspecies [ ]. (Simmonds
1956.) |
| References |
Burkill 1935, Cheesman 1948 b, Hotta 1989,
Jarret 1987, Novak 1992, Simmonds 1956, Stover 1972. |
| Comments |
The relationship between certain of the sub-species of Musa
acuminata is somewhat confusing.
A number of horticultural 'forms' of some of the
subspecies seem to be in cultivation. These tend to be given different names by
different nurseries or different literature e.g. 'Sumatrana', 'Zebrina', 'Rubra' and
'Rojo'. The names are used sometimes as if they were species names. This is
wrong. The names are used sometimes as if they were cultivar names. This
is also wrong in a formal sense because most are probably referable to one subspecies or
another. However, some plants may indeed be distinct selections worthy of cultivar
status. Unless and until someone collects all the cultivated 'forms' together in one
place and evaluates them side-by-side it is likely not to be possible to determine their
true individual status. |
| |
|