Radermachera gigantea
Content
Description
Shrub or tree, (6-)20-40 m, up to 80 cm Ø;
Leaves (l-)2(-3)-pinnate, 12-35(-80) cm, leaflets usually elliptic to oblong, rarely somewhat obovate or lanceolate, shorter or longer acuminate, 4-12(-15) by 2-6(-9) cm, at base underneath mostly with a gland-field, at apex with some scattered glands.
Flowers not rarely fragrant.
Capsule 15-60 cm long, 5-8 mm ø;
Seeds 8-13 by 2-4 mm.
Distribution
Alor present, Asia-Tropical: Assam (Assam present, Manipur present); Lesser Sunda Is. (Bali present); Philippines (Philippines present); Sumatera (Sumatera present), Banka present, Bawean I present, Billiton present, Burma present, Central and East Java present, East Java present, Flores present, Lesser Sunda Is present, SE. Asia present, SE. Borneo present, Sumbawa present, Tavoy present
SE. Asia (Assam: Khasi & Jaintia Hills; Burma: Manipur, Tavoy, WALLICH, CLARKE, L.C., not seen), and Malesia: Sumatra (incl. Billiton and Banka), West to East Java (common in Central and East Java), Lesser Sunda Is. (Bali, Sumbawa, Flores, Alor), Bawean I., SE. Borneo, and Philippines.
Uses
Sometimes cultivated; also suitable for re-afforestation. Timber is said to be strong and durable, locally used for bridges and houses, but not resistent against termites, and therefore of less value for outdoor constructions; used for making matches and matchboxes (HEYNE, l.c.).
Notes
I have come to the conclusion that the large-flowered species of the Philippines, R. borneensis and R. gigantea, should be referred to one variable taxon. Though there may be local races they can not be properly distinguished, not even on subspecific level, as their 'characters' fade away; R. elliptica with 1-pinnate leaves goes via biternate leaves to 2-pinnate leaves. R. sibuyanensis has an almost glabrous corolla; R. fragrans has fragrant flowers, but fragrancy is mentioned frequently on labels, but also sometimes flowers are said to be scentless. Flower colour is said to be white or pink in the Philippines, to which mostly is added the occurrence of yellow streaks in the mouth. White flowers are only reported from Borneo and the Philippines.
Especially a few Philippine specimens from Palawan and Culion are aberrant; earlier collections were described by MERRILL as R. palawanensis and R. biternata. They were collected in grasslands and differ by thicker, often biternate leaves, leaflets with recurved margin and often distinctly arching prominent veins on the undersurface. One number (PNH 12319) has singularly slender tubular flowers 5 cm long. Other specimens with the same vegetative difference from normal R. gigantea have, however, smaller flowers (3-3½ cm) and these I have identified as R. pinnata subsp. acuminata. I must admit that closer field work is needed to check my tentative conclusions.
R. amoena (WALL.) SEEM, was described from a flowering shrub in Hort. Calc. which WALLICH found worthy of an ornamental. WALLICH was somewhat doubtful about its provenance, but assumed that it was introduced by Mr C. TELFAIR from Mauritius, where it must then also have been cultivated. Though it is not known from Malaya and Thailand, it does occur in Assam (Khasia & Jaintia Hills, cf. KANJILAL & DAS) and N. Burma (Manipur: MEEBOLD 5169). These specimens I cannot distinguish from R. gigantea. What KANJILAL & DAS mean in their key by 'rusty-coloured capsules' is not clear to me; they mention the flowers to be white.
Especially a few Philippine specimens from Palawan and Culion are aberrant; earlier collections were described by MERRILL as R. palawanensis and R. biternata. They were collected in grasslands and differ by thicker, often biternate leaves, leaflets with recurved margin and often distinctly arching prominent veins on the undersurface. One number (PNH 12319) has singularly slender tubular flowers 5 cm long. Other specimens with the same vegetative difference from normal R. gigantea have, however, smaller flowers (3-3½ cm) and these I have identified as R. pinnata subsp. acuminata. I must admit that closer field work is needed to check my tentative conclusions.
R. amoena (WALL.) SEEM, was described from a flowering shrub in Hort. Calc. which WALLICH found worthy of an ornamental. WALLICH was somewhat doubtful about its provenance, but assumed that it was introduced by Mr C. TELFAIR from Mauritius, where it must then also have been cultivated. Though it is not known from Malaya and Thailand, it does occur in Assam (Khasia & Jaintia Hills, cf. KANJILAL & DAS) and N. Burma (Manipur: MEEBOLD 5169). These specimens I cannot distinguish from R. gigantea. What KANJILAL & DAS mean in their key by 'rusty-coloured capsules' is not clear to me; they mention the flowers to be white.
Citation
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 992
Miq. 1976 – In: Blumea: 126
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 977
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 445
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 964
LOUDON 1830: Hort. Brit.: 483
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 446
Miq. 1858 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 751
G. DON 1838 – In: Gen. Hist.: 222
Merr. 1908 – In: Philip. J. Sc.: Bot. 333
K. & V. 1894 – In: Bijdr. Booms.: 72
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 445
Merr. 1908 – In: Philip. J. Sc.: Bot. 334
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 994
SEEM. 1870 – In: J. Bot.: 146
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 447
Miq. 1928: p. 253. – In: Bull. Jard. Bot. Btzg: f. 9
HEYNE 1927: Nutt. Pl.: 1371
Elmer 1939 – In: Leafl.: 3709
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 970
Clarke 1884 – In: Fl. Br. Ind.: 384
KANJILAL & DAS 1939 – In: Fl. Assam: 405
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 445
Koord. 1914 – In: Atlas Baum.: t. 356 A-K
STEEN. 1927: Thesis: 983