|
| |
Musa rosea
Musa rosea J. G. Baker, Annals of Botany 7: 221 (1893).
| Accepted name |
probably Musa ornata W.
Roxburgh, Hortus Bengalensis, 19 (1814) and Flora Indica I: 666 (1820-1824). |
| Synonyms |
|
| Authorities |
Cheesman
1949h. |
| Section |
|
| Distribution |
India? |
| Description |
"Habit of M. coccinea, but leaves much shorter and broader in
proportion to length, thin, green, about a foot long by half as broad, deltoid at the base
and apex ; petiole deeply channelled, nearly as long as the blade. Panicle short,
erect ; rachis pubescent, not flexuose ; bracts pale red ; lower lanceolate, half a foot
long ; flowers 2 - 3 in a cluster. Calyx an inch long ; petal as long as the calyx.
Fruit and seeds not seen". (Baker
1893). |
| References |
Argent 1984, Baker 1893 : 221,
Champion 1967 : 42, Cheesman 1949h : 25-26, Fawcett
1913 : 271 |
| Comments |
Baker's
plant was "described from two specimens in the Calcutta
Herbarium, dried from the Botanic Garden in June 1882". Champion
seems to give [C. A. B. ?] Backer as the author of this taxon but I think this is just a
typo for [J. G.] Baker. Champion also comments that M. rosea "pourait
être M. coccinea?" Well, no, not if one follows Cheesman. If
the Calcutta specimens still exist it should be possible to determine the true identity of
this taxon.
There
is a photograph identified as Musa rosea at the University of Hawai'i website
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/mus_ros.jpg
This
photograph is not Musa rosea but Musa ornata. |
| |
|
