J 
NOTES ON PHILirPINE BOTANY. 117 
characters. The type of the present species was the first number cited ia the 
original description of Comhretum sexalatum Morr.,* but that species being based 
on two different plants, and the specific name being derived from fruit characters, 
tJiese fruiting specimens being those of Aspidopferis ovata [Malpighiaceae), we ^ 
consider the fruiting specimens to represent the type of Comhretum sexalatum, ' 
and the flowering specimen previously considered under that name is here 
redescrihed. The present species in leaf and stem characters bears a striking 
resemblance to Aspidopteris ovata. (See p. 106.) 
M ELASTOM AT ACE^E. 
ASTRONIA Blume. 
Astronia pulchra Vidal Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1S86) 136. 
Asfroma ^Zauca Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 29 (1905) 31. 
Types of both being compared at Kew, they were found to be identical, and 
Astronia glauca is here accordingly reduced. 
AKALIACE^. 
SCHEFFLERA Forst. 
Schefflera odorata (Blanco) Merrill & Eolfe comb. nov. 
Polyscias odorata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 225. 
Polyscias oltusa Blanco ? 1. c. 226. 
Paratropia crassa Blanco 1. c. ed. 2 (1845) 158; ed. 3, 1 : 285. 
Paratropia ohtusa Blanco 1 11. cc. 159, 285, 
Heptapleurum venuJosum F.-ViU. Nov. App. (1883) 102; Vidal Sinopsis 
Atlas (1883) pi 55, f. E,; Cat. PI. Prov. Manila (1880) 32, non Seem. 
Schefjiera venulosa Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 110 non 
Harms, 
Luzon Vidal 1^30, 2931, 192; Loher 3591, 3592, 3593; Elmer 6W, 831^, 
6058; Whitford 3, 62; Merrill ISSG, 1610. TiCAO, Vidal 2936. Masbate, Merrill 
3021 LuBANG, Merrill 913. Basilan, For. Bur. ^36 Hutchinson. Mt:^danao, 
Copeland 59/f. 
A species very common and widely distributed in the Philippines, apparently 
endemic, but closelv allied to the Malayan Jlcptaplcurum elliptirum Miq. We. 
are of the opinion that it is sufficiently distinct from that species, as well as 
from H. venulosuni Seem., to which it has been referred by the above authors, 
and accordingly Blanco's specific name is hero adopted. 
In the original. descriptions of Heptapleurum Cumingii Seem., and 77. caudafum 
Vidul, there Is an unfortunate confusion in the numl>ers cited, both descriptions 
being' based on specimens representing two species, but neither description apply- 
ing to the first number cited in each case, which was Cuming 800. The material of 
an the numbers of Cuming's collection has been examined in the Keu' Herbarium 
and at the British Museum, and at the former place Vidal's material was also 
available, as well as the collections of Loher and the more recent collections made 
l>y American botanists. The following notes it is believed will clear up the 
confusion that luis occurred regarding the species under discussion. 
^This Journal, 1 (lOOG) Suppl. 2\2. 
\ 
