^ 
THE OCCURRENCE OF ANTIARIS IN THE PHILIPPINES. 
By Elmer D. Mkurill. 
{From the botanical section of the liioloyical Lahorutory, Bureau of Science.) 
ANTIARIS Leseh. 
Antiaris toxrcaria (Pers.) Leschen. in Ann. Mus. Paris, 16 (1810) 478. t. 22; 
Blumc, Rumphia, 1 (1835) 56. t, 22, 23; Buiin. PI. Jav. Rar. (1838-1852) 
52. t. 13; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1 ^ (1859) 291; Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 5 (1888) 
537; F. Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 202. 
r 
MiNDORO, Bulalacao (1551 Bermcjos) August 27, 1906. V., Saloydn; T., 
Dalit. 
This interesting species was fir^t called to our attention b}' the Honorable 
Dean C Worcester, Secretary of tlic Interior of the Government of the Pliilip- 
pine IslandS) who brought from Bulalacao early in the year 1906, a small 
quantity of a substance used by the natives in that vicinity for poisoning arrows, 
but Avithout botanical material by wliich the species yielding the product could 
be identified. As Dr. R. F. Bacon of the Bureau of Science had undertaken the 
chemical examination of the different arrow poisons used by the natives of the 
Philippines, a native collector was sent to Bulalacao with instructions to secure 
a quantity of the poison as well as botanical specimens from the tree yielding 
tlie product. Although the material secured was without fruit or flowers, a 
careful examination of it leads me to conclude that it is identical with Antiaris 
foxicaria, while Dr. Bacon informs me that a chemical examination of the 
poison shows it to be identical with that yielded by this species. 
Miquel^ credits the species to the Philippines, citing Camell for authority 
for its occurrence here. That the species was known from the Philippines over 
two hundred years ago, and that from CamelVs time up to the year 1906 this 
much discussed and well known plant had not been rediscovered in the Archipel- 
ago, is at least interesting. 
I F.-Villar includes the species in his Novissime Appendix, citing Miquel and 
Camell for authority for its occurrence in the Philippines, but stating that he 
had not seen specimens. 
4 Camell ^ states the following regarding this plant, under his "De quihusdam 
Arhoritus Venenatis:" 
"I. Ipo, seu Hypo arbor est mediocris, folio parvo, & obscurfe vircnti, quae 
tarn malignae, & nocivae est qualitatis, ut omne vivcns umbra sua interimat, 
unde narrant in circuitu, & umbrae distinctu plurima ossium, mortuorum 
i hominum, anamaliumve videri. Circumvicinas etiam plantas enecat, & aves 
insidentes interficere ferunt, si Nucus Vomicae Igasur, plantam non invenerint, 
qua reperta vita quidem donantur, & servantur, sed defluvium patiuntur plu- 
niarum. Antonius Molero mihi retulit, post iter per Sylvosam viam, passum 
^Fl. hid. Bat. 1 ^ (1859) 292. 
M. Ray: Uist. Plant. 3 (1704) App. 87. 
Ill 
