? Leea javanica
Taxonomy
BLUME’ description reads: ‘: caule tereti punctato-scabro, foliis bipinnatis, foliolis infimis saepe geminis, oblongis acute serrulatis glabris’
No authentic specimen of this species has been traced, a situation which was also reported by KOORDERS & VALETON (). From the description it can be seen that the taxon has bipinnate leaves with glabrous leaflets. Thus, if it is a Leea, by elimination of other possibilities, the description must apply to either L. guineensis G. DON or L. indica (BURM. f.) MERR.
It has variously been interpreted as one or the other by most authors except KOORDERS who, in earlier years, in part identified plants of L. aculeata Bl. ex SPRENG. with this taxon. This clearly is an error as the leaves in this species are always 1-pinnate.
KING, RIDLEY, and BACKER & BAKH.f., interpreted it to have green flowers and thus representing a form of L. indica.
On the other hand, MIQUEL, and MERRILL, considered that it represented a red flowering taxon.
This latter view would seem more probable, as BLUME also described two forms of L. indica under L. sambucina WILLD. and L. robusta Bl. the remaining possible entity of this species likely to be distinguished would be L. sundaica MIQ., but this has pubescent leaves.
If it can be shown conclusively that it represents a red flowered species then clearly this name will take priority over L. guineensis.
No authentic specimen of this species has been traced, a situation which was also reported by KOORDERS & VALETON (). From the description it can be seen that the taxon has bipinnate leaves with glabrous leaflets. Thus, if it is a Leea, by elimination of other possibilities, the description must apply to either L. guineensis G. DON or L. indica (BURM. f.) MERR.
It has variously been interpreted as one or the other by most authors except KOORDERS who, in earlier years, in part identified plants of L. aculeata Bl. ex SPRENG. with this taxon. This clearly is an error as the leaves in this species are always 1-pinnate.
KING, RIDLEY, and BACKER & BAKH.f., interpreted it to have green flowers and thus representing a form of L. indica.
On the other hand, MIQUEL, and MERRILL, considered that it represented a red flowering taxon.
This latter view would seem more probable, as BLUME also described two forms of L. indica under L. sambucina WILLD. and L. robusta Bl. the remaining possible entity of this species likely to be distinguished would be L. sundaica MIQ., but this has pubescent leaves.
If it can be shown conclusively that it represents a red flowered species then clearly this name will take priority over L. guineensis.