Planchonia valida
Content
Description
Trees, up to 50 m high, up to 2 m diam.;
Bark greyish brown, 2-6 mm thick, scaling off in small, irregular pieces;
Branchlets angular (young);
Leaves:
Stipules early caducous, inserted at the base of the petioles of very young leaves, subulate, c. 0.4 by 0.1 mm, tip very sharp.
Inflorescences racemes, generally many-flowered, up to 13.5 cm long, puberulous to glabrous;
Petals obovate-oblong, 15-35 by 7-10 mm, membranaceous, greenish, reflexed, base tapering, apex obtuse.
Fruits ovoid to ellipsoid, without basal neck, 3-4 by 1.5-2.5 cm, pale green;
Seeds 1-15, ovoid, 3-4-angular;
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: Borneo present; Jawa (Jawa present); Lesser Sunda Is. present (Bali present); Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia present); Sulawesi (Sulawesi present); Sumatera (Sumatera present), Lombok present, Timor present
Malesia: Sumatra, Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo, Java, Sulawesi, the Lesser Sunda Islands (Bali, Lombok, Timor).
Uses
The wood is useful and, therefore, it is recommended as replacement of teak in regions where it is too wet for teak, but not near stagnant water or marshes. The wood is easy to work and does not warp much (according to Keith 1947, warps a great deal if not carefully seasoned). It is a good to very good firewood; not very durable. It is used for house building, heavy constructions, poles, furniture and cabinet work, beams, joints, rafters, flooring, sheathing, panelling, bentwood work, ship-framing and vehicle shafts. Young leaves and red shoots are eaten as lalab (raw vegetables) or the steamed ones are mixed with fish and other spices. The plant is probably a fish poison as Barringtonia, but which part of the plant should be poisonous is not indicated (). The species is devoid of saponins ().
Notes
1. As the type specimen of P. littoralis the sheets marked Blume 1526 in the Leiden Herbarium were selected, which have ribbed fruit as indicated in Blume’s description.
2. Several names were considered to be synonyms, because of the small differences between them. Blume distinguishes P. littoralis from P. valida by having elongate-ellipsoid and costate-subangular fruit, while those of P. valida are ellipsoid and smooth.
3. The only difference mentioned between P. valida and P. sumatrana is the crenulate or unequally bluntly denticulate leaf margin in the former and the appressed serrulate to denticulate in the latter.
4. The type specimen of P. alata (Zippel s.n. in Leiden) might represent a sapling of P. valida, which has longer leaves than usual.
5. Miquel combined P. valida, P. littoralis and P. sumatrana and called this species P. sundaica, which is not allowed under the present rules.
6. Knuth distinguishes P. forbesii from P. sumatrana by having reddish brown, obovate leaves in P. forbesii and slightly black, lanceolate-oblong leaves in P. sumatrana. In the specimens of P. sumatrana, identified by him, no lanceolate-oblong leaves can be found; the leaves are obovate to elliptic-oblong. The colour of the dry leaves is not reliable for distinguishing species.
7. Kostermans, who studied the type specimens, is of the opinion that P. elliptica is conspecific with P. valida.
8. The name P. tetraptera was incorrectly introduced by Miers to prevent confusion between P. alata and Barringtonia alata.
9. For differences with P. timorensis see note under latter, and note under P. spectabilis for differences with that species.
2. Several names were considered to be synonyms, because of the small differences between them. Blume distinguishes P. littoralis from P. valida by having elongate-ellipsoid and costate-subangular fruit, while those of P. valida are ellipsoid and smooth.
3. The only difference mentioned between P. valida and P. sumatrana is the crenulate or unequally bluntly denticulate leaf margin in the former and the appressed serrulate to denticulate in the latter.
4. The type specimen of P. alata (Zippel s.n. in Leiden) might represent a sapling of P. valida, which has longer leaves than usual.
5. Miquel combined P. valida, P. littoralis and P. sumatrana and called this species P. sundaica, which is not allowed under the present rules.
6. Knuth distinguishes P. forbesii from P. sumatrana by having reddish brown, obovate leaves in P. forbesii and slightly black, lanceolate-oblong leaves in P. sumatrana. In the specimens of P. sumatrana, identified by him, no lanceolate-oblong leaves can be found; the leaves are obovate to elliptic-oblong. The colour of the dry leaves is not reliable for distinguishing species.
7. Kostermans, who studied the type specimens, is of the opinion that P. elliptica is conspecific with P. valida.
8. The name P. tetraptera was incorrectly introduced by Miers to prevent confusion between P. alata and Barringtonia alata.
9. For differences with P. timorensis see note under latter, and note under P. spectabilis for differences with that species.
Citation
Hassk. 1866 – In: Flora: 438
Janssonius 1914 – In: Mikrogr. Holzer Java: 508
Hassk. 1844 – In: Flora: 595
Koord.-Schum. 1911 – In: Syst. Verz.: 42
Müll.Berol. 1857 – In: Walp., Ann. Bot. Syst. 4: 853
Burkill 1935 – In: Dict. Econ. Prod. Malay Penins.: 1766
Koord.-Schum. 1912 – In: Syst. Verz.: 19
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 54
Koord. 1912 – In: Exkurs.-Fl. Java: 666
Miers 1875 – In: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.: 92
C.B.Clarke 1879 – In: Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 2: 511
Miers 1875 – In: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.: 9
Miq. 1855 – In: Fl. Ned. Ind.: 493
Ochse & Bakh. 1931: Veg. Dutch East Indies: 361: f. 228
G.Don 1832 – In: Gard. Hist.: 870
Whitmore 1973 – In: Tree Fl. Malaya: 264
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 54
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 55
Endert 1925 – In: Tectona: 50
Miers 1875 – In: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.: 94
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 55
Koord. & Valeton 1900 – In: Meded. Dept. Landb. Ned.-Indië: 24, 26
K.Heyne 1950 – In: Nutt. Pl. Ned.-Ind., ed. 3: 1159
Duyster 1927: Giftige Ind. Pl.: 117
Pinard 2002 – In: Soepadmo et al., Tree Fl. Sabah & Sarawak 4: 128
Kessler & Sidiy. 1994 – In: Tropenbos-Kalimantan Ser.: 160
Backer & Bakh.f. 1963 – In: Fl. Java: 352
Miers 1875 – In: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.: 94
Den Berger 1926 – In: Meded. Proefstat. Thee: 137
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 55
Kuswata 1965: p. 168. – In: Bull. Bot. Surv. India: f. 4, 12
Prance 2012 – In: Kiew et al., Fl. Penins. Malaysia 3: 216
R.Knuth 1939 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 219: 55
Merr. 1921 – In: J. Straits Branch Roy. Asiat. Soc.: 420
King 1901 – In: J. Roy. Asiat. Soc. Bengal: 142
Foxw. 1909 – In: Philipp. J. Sci., Bot.: 526
Ridl. 1922 – In: Fl. Malay Penins.: 760
Müll.Berol. 1857 – In: Walp., Ann. Bot. Syst. 4: 852