Musa mirabilis

Musa mirabilis
T. Nakai, Bulletin of the Tokyo Science Museum. No. 22. II: 17 (1948).

Accepted name Musa (AAB group) 'Pisang seribu'
Synonyms Musa acuminata L. A. Colla
Authorities The synonym is from Hotta 1989.
Section  
Distribution Java.
Description  
References Hotta 1989, Index Kewensis, Nakai 1948: 17.
Comments This is one of several Indonesian banana cultivars given a spurious species name by Takenosin Nakai.  Nakai says of it in his idiosyncratic English; "The stem of this greenish banana attains to 4 - 6 meters high, being very ordinary form of banana, but not pruinose at all.  The basal 2 - 7 bracts have female flowers and others hermaphrodite flowers.  The flowers are halfway persistent, so the small imperfct fruits from the hermaphrodite flowers make long tail crowned by shrinked and dried perianth at the end of spike, which gives a peculiar feature to this banana.  The small imperfect fruits count more than 1000.   The real fruits from female flowers taste rather nice".

This description of M. mirabilis seems very like Musa chiliocarpa C. A. B. Backer more properly known as Musa (AAB group) 'Pisang seribu' except that Nakai distinguishes them as follows:

Flores afeminei steriles in nodis basalibus 4 - 5 biseriales in fructu virides angulati duri inedules.  Flores ceteri omnes hermaphroditi, fructus edules expermos 1000-3100 in una spica densissime collocatos fromant.  Folia subtus pruinosa.  Spica fructifera vulgo 2 - 3 metralis.

= Musa chiliocarpa

Flores basales faeminei fertiles fructus veros formantes
  Axis inflorescentiae velutina
    Folia subtus et petioli non pruinosa
      Pseudocaulis [sera]mineus.  Bractae basales 2-7 cum floribus faemineis
      qui demum fructus veros formantibus, ceterae cum floribus
      hermaphroditis qui demum fructus parvos inedules formantibus

= Musa mirabilis

Hotta frequently gives Musa acuminata as a synonym for cultivated, fruiting bananas.  Even where the cultivar is derived exclusively from Musa acuminata I think this is unhelpful.  Here it is more than likely plain wrong.


 


last revision 23 April 2003