I 
430 MEPiRTTX. 
447 species described by Blanco are emiinerated, with T.atin- translations 
of the species that Blanco described as new, and accepting tliose tluit 
Blanco ascribed to other authors without question. The paper is of 
little value and adds but very little to our actual knowledge of Blanco's 
species. The next paper is by Hasskarl, published in Flora, vol. 47 
(1864), pages 17-23, 49-59; this was intended to be a critical review 
of the first edition of Blanco's work, but was apparently discontinued 
after the first thirty-three species described by Blanco were considered. 
Latin translations of Blanco's descriptions are given and some critical 
notes, while some new names appear, most of which must fall as ^^ynonyms. 
Still another reference stipplied me by Dr. Robinson, is a review of 
Blanco's "Flora de Filipinas" by George Tradescani Lay in the Chinese 
Repository 7: 422-437, 1838. Of this I have seen no copy, but Dr. 
Robinson informs me that it is of no scientific importan..e, data regarding 
about 15 species only being abstracted, with additions from the author's 
observations. 
In the following paper notes on a number of Blanco's species are 
included, the arrangement following m}' previous pul)lication,^ the page 
references following the family names referring to that paper. 
MAGN0L1ACE.E (p. 15). 
Kadsura blancoi Azaola is excluded from the Magnoliacece and referred to 
Phytocrene (p. 423). 
ANO:XACE.E (p. 16). 
Uvaria lanotan Blanco, ed. 1, 4B4. Unona latifolia Blanco, ed. 2, 3"24 = 
Mitrephora lanofon (Blanco) Merr. in Govt. Lab. Puld. 35 (1905) 71, with 
description, synonomy and citation of specimens. 
NYMrH.EACE.i: (p. IT). 
Nymphaea lotus Blanco, ed. 1, 450; ed. 2, 317; ed. 3, 2 (1878) 222; F.-VJll- 
Nov. App. (1880) 9, non Linn. 
Following Conard^ true ^ymp1\(ta lotus is found in Africa and ^fadagascar 
only, while the Asiatic-Malayan-Australian form treated by various authors as 
N. lotus is N, puhesce/is Willd., which name should be accepted for the Philippine 
plant. 
riTTOSrORACE.T: (p. 18). 
Bursaria inermis Blanco, ed. 2, 124; ed. 3, 1: 122, previously considered, after 
F.-ViUar, to be probably identical with Pittosporum ferrugineuyyi Ait., is more 
probably identical with Pittosporum pentadrum (Blanco) Merr. The species 
was really described by Azaola and not by Blanco, according to the latter's state- 
ment. See .VemZnn Govt. Lab. Publ. 35 (1005) 18. 
= Ihid. 
■" Carnegie Inst. Ptih. (]!HI5) Xo. 4, 198. 
