|
| |
Musa assamica
Musa assamica Hort. Bull.
Musa assamica Cat. Hort. Bull 1871.
Musa assamica G. Mann ex J. G. Baker, in J. D. Hooker, The
Flora of British India 6: 263 (1892).
Musa assamica W. Bull ex J. G. Baker, Annals of Botany 7: (1893).
Musa assamica Hort.
| Accepted name |
none - species ignota |
| Synonyms |
|
| Authorities |
The authority for there being no accepted name is Cheesman
1949i. The
sources for the forms of the name quoted above, which all refer to the same thing, are
respectively as follows:
Baker 1893, 222.
Cheesman 1949i, 134.
Index Kewensis cited by Cheesman 1949i, 134.
Schumann cited by Champion 1967, 38.
Champion 1967, 38. |
| Section |
|
| Distribution |
Assam |
| Description |
"This is a peculiarly dwarf-habited and elegant species, and has been
imported from Upper Assam. The slender pseudostems are about a foot and half high,
green, bearing a crowded tuft of several elliptic lanceolate leaves, which are stalked,
about a foot in length, remarkably unequal-sided at the base, acute at the apex, and
running out into a slender tendril-like point. The leaves are green, with a narrow
purple border." (Cheesman
1949 citing the catalogue of William Bull for 1871). |
| References |
Baker 1893 : 222, Baker 1894b
: 263, Champion 1967 : 38, Cheesman 1949i : 134, Fawcett
1913 : 272, RHS 1956. |
| Comments |
As noted above there are references to this plant in the
literature under various forms of the name, respectively; Baker 1894b, Index Kewensis vide
Cheesman 1949i, Fawcett 1913 and Champion 1967 (two name forms cited). They are all
the same thing.
Several of the references link M. assamica specifically with M.
sanguinea e.g. RHS 1956 says that it is "probably identical with M.
sanguinea". This speculation is not warranted because, as Cheesman
says "there is a note among
the Musa material in Kew Herbarium in which Mann (who was reponsible for
collecting altogether four new species of Musa in Assam) states that he does not
know which of the Assam species has been called "assamica". We
may conclude fairly safely that the plants offered for sale [by William Bull] were young specimens of one of the species
subsequently fully described - viz. M. sanguinea, M. velutina,
M. mannii or M. aurantiaca. It is quite
impossible, from a description that would fit almost any Musa seedling at one
stage of its life, to connect M. assamica with any one of the four". |
| |
|