|
| |
Musa religiosa
Musa religiosa J. Dybowski (Dybowsky), Rev. Hort. 72: 262 (1900) and E. A. J. De
Wildeman, Ann. Mus. Col. Marseille ser. 2, 10: 352 (1912).
| Accepted name |
none - nomen nudum |
| Synonyms |
1. Musa gilletii E. A. J.
De Wildeman, Rev. Cult. Colon. 8: 102 (1901).
2. Musa chevalieri F. Gagnepain, Bull. Soc. Bot.
France 55, mém. 8: 87 (1908), and A. Chevalier, Novitates Florae Africanae in Mémoires
de la Société Botanique de France 8: 31 - 109 (1908).
3. Musa dybowskii E. A. J. De Wildeman, err. cal.
Ann. Mus. Col. Marseille ser. 2, 7: 245 (1909).
4. Musa schweinfurthii sensu
Hutchinson & Dalziel in F.W.T.A. ed. 1, 2: 328 (1936) and not of K. M. Schumann &
O. Warburg ex K. M. Schumann in A. Engler's Pflanzenreich 4, 45: 14 (1900), ex Hepper in
F.W.T.A. ed. 2, 3: 69 (1968).
5. Ensete religiosum (J. Dybowski) E. E.
Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 2 (2): 103 (1947).
6. Ensete gilletii (E. A. J. De Wildeman) E. E.
Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 2 (2): 103 (1947). |
| Authorities |
The source for the taxon being rejected as nomen nudum
is Baker & Simmonds 1953.
Synonyms are from:
1, 2 & 4 Hepper 1968 where they are cited as synonyms of E. gilletii
3 & 5 Cheesman 1947a
6 is from Huxley 1992 and Griffiths 1994. |
| Section |
|
| Distribution |
Congo (Brazzaville) |
| Description |
Forming a true bulb like M.
Gilletii, but differing in having roots from the whole surface of the bulb instead of
from the top of the bulb only, as occurs in M. Gilletii. The seeds are of a
grey colour, not black. After germination and growth for a few months all the
leaves die down, and it is found that a bulb has been formed, which, after a period of
rest, starts again into growth, whereas in M. Gilletii the leaves do not die
down. The flowers have not been described. the fruit is full of seeds and not
edible. The plant is considered a fetish by the antives of the French Congo, where
it is indigenous.
(Fawcett 1913). |
| References |
Baker &
Simmonds 1953: 409, Champion 1967: 42, Cheesman 1947a: 103, De
Wildeman 1901, De Wildeman 1903, De Wildeman 1912, Fawcett
1913 : 277, Griffiths 1994, Hepper 1968, Huxley 1992, Legros 1901, Lock 1993, RHS 1956. |
| Comments |
This was one of a number of African Musa
transferrred to Ensete by Cheesman in his 1947 paper reviving the genus Ensete.
It is now recognised that there are no wild Musa native to Africa, only Ensete. However,
Baker & Simmonds consider that the name must be rejected because "there is no type and the species, based on plants grown in Paris from seed
collected in the French Congo, was never properly described. Letters and specimens
of seed in Herb. Brux. comunicated by Dybowski to De Wildeman, however, make it clear that
this is E. gilletii, over which E. religiosum would
have had priority as a name if the type had been properly described".
But it is not quite as simple as that because, in similar circumstances, the combination Musa elephantorum typified in 1900 would also have
had a claim to priority. Musa religiosa is not mentioned in Hepper's discussion
of Ensete gilletii although the location of the type would appear to fall within
the geographic range of the flora.
The inclusion of Musa religiosa as synonym of Ensete gilletii in the New
RHS Dictionary of Gardening (Huxley 1992) and the Index (Griffiths 1994) is a weird
carry-over of the name from the RHS Dictionary of Gardening (RHS 1956) in publications
notable for their lack of continuity with the "first edition". Huxley and
Griffiths both incorrectly cite the author's name as "Dyb.".
"Dyb." refers to W. B. Dybowski; the correct citation for the author of Musa
religiosa, J. Dybowski (or Dybowsky), is "J. Dyb.". |
| |
|