Spondias pinnata
Content
Description
Tree 20-25(-40) m high and 30-50(-150) cm ø, sometimes 35-50 m high and 100-150 cm ø.
Bark grey, smooth.
Leaves (l-)5-6(-8) pairs, glabrous, rachis 5-22 cm, petiole 4½-15½ cm.
Inflorescences appearing before the leaves or accompanied by very young ones only, paniculate, terminal, rarely also axillary, up to 40 cm long, glabrous, branches up to 15 cm long;
Flowers sessile or subsessile.
Petals ovate-oblong or elliptic-oblong, 2½-3 by 1-1½ mm.
Stamens 1¼-1¾ mm;
Ovary subglobose, c. ¾ mm ø, 5-(or 4-)celled;
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: Jawa (Jawa present ‒ present); Philippines (Philippines present), Indo-Malesia present, West Java present
Indo-Malesia, especially in Java and the Philippines, but difficult to ascertain where it is precisely native because of its wide cultivation and tendency to naturalize; KOORDERS & VALETON (l.c. 105) recorded it as wild in Java but whether this means native is uncertain, as fruit trees are, especially in West Java, planted in clearings and humas which may be abandoned later.
Uses
According to HEYNE (l.c. 975) both timber and fruit are of inferior quality. He mentioned also some minor medicinal uses made of different parts of the plant.
Notes
Kostermans () suggested that what was named Spondias pinnata from Malesia (Malaya to New Guinea) would differ from the typical S. pinnata from India and represent an undescribed species, S. malayana Kostermans.
When writing the paper he could only rely on his memory of former experience and on only three specimens from Malaya. I observed that in one of them the leaf difference mentioned in his key does not fit. His experience can only relate to the size of trees and bears no testimony on the flower details mentioned in the key and their geographical variability, which is in this genus difficult to judge because of the cultivation, domestication, and running wild of cultivated trees. For the present his delimitation does not seem convincing, especially as there are also discrepancies in his key and descriptions.
When writing the paper he could only rely on his memory of former experience and on only three specimens from Malaya. I observed that in one of them the leaf difference mentioned in his key does not fit. His experience can only relate to the size of trees and bears no testimony on the flower details mentioned in the key and their geographical variability, which is in this genus difficult to judge because of the cultivation, domestication, and running wild of cultivated trees. For the present his delimitation does not seem convincing, especially as there are also discrepancies in his key and descriptions.
Citation
BLANCO 1878 – In: Fl. Filip., ed. 3: 146
HASSK. 1844 – In: Flora: 624
Corner 1940: Ways. Trees: 116
Merr. 1917: Int. Rumph.: 332
K. & V. 1896 – In: Bijdr.: 104
K.SCH. & LAUT. 1900: Fl. Schutzgeb.: 411
TRIMEN 1893 – In: Handb. Fl. Ceyl.: 327
Engl. 1883 – In: DC., Mon. Phan. 4: 248
KURZ 1933: Fl. Micron: 190: t. 9, f. 2
Miq. 1859 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 640
Koord. 1898: Minah.: 413
KURZ 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 470
KURZ 1918: Sp. Blanc.: 233
WILLD. 1911: Schoolfl.: 281
BROWN 1950: p. 350. – In: Useful Pl. Philip.: f. 171
BLANCO 1845: Fl. Filip., ed. 2: 274
CRAIB 1926 – In: Fl. Siam. En.: 356
TARD. 1962: p. 133. – In: Fl. C. L. & V.: t. 8, f. 1-7
DE WIT 1959 – In: Rumph.: 407
Hook.f. 1876 – In: Fl. Br. Ind.: 42
BACK. 1907: Fl. Bat.: 373
LAUT. 1920 – In: Bot. Jahrb.: 355
KANEH. 1931 – In: Bot. Mag. Tokyo: 292
WARB. 1891 – In: Bot. Jahrb.: 362
HEYNE 1927: Nutt. Pl.: 975
PARKINSON 1923: For. Fl. Andaman Is.: 141
KRAEMER 1951: Trees W. Pac. Reg: 205: f. 73
AIRY Shaw & Forman 1967: p. 8. – In: Kew Bull.: f. 2: 1 & 2
Miq. 1859 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 641
WIGHT 1840 – In: Ill. Ind. Bot.: t. 76
BURK. 1935: Dict.: 2067