PHILIPPINE PLANTS, IX. 289 
SEMECARPUS CUNEIFORM IS Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 220, ed. 2 (1845) 
155, ed. 3, 1 : 276, Naves L c. ed. 3, pi 75. 
Semecarpus perrottetii March. Rev. Anac. (1869) 169; Engl, in DC. 
Monog. Phan. 4- (1883) 380; Vid. Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 101; 
Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 28. 
Semecarpus anacardium Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 217, ed. 2 (1845) 
152, non L. f. 
Semecarpus microcarpa F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 55, non Wall. 
Semecarpus puhescens F.-Vill. 1. c, non Thwaites. 
Semecarpus sideroxyloides Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 28. 
This species is common and widely distributed in the Philippines, and 
is the most abundant one of the genus found in the Archipelago. There 
is no valid reason why Blanco's specific name, cuneiformis, should not be 
adopted for the species, although like many of Blanco's descriptions, that 
of Semecarpus cuneiformis is short and imperfect. The one distinctive 
character that he gives is that the leaves are retuse at the apex, which 
is true of a number of specimens manifestly referable to Semecarpus 
perrottetii March. 
The type of Semecarpus perrottetii March, was collected by Perrottet 
in Luzon, and is preserved in the Herbarium of the Paris Museum of 
Natural History. Two sheets are so named by Marchand, one of which 
bears Perrottet's note "tres comun .... a Manille," indicating that the type 
was collected in Manila. The species is still very common in and about 
the city, and in essential characters is rather constant. There is considerable 
variation in the shape of the leaves, their apices varying from broadly 
rounded to retuse on the one hand, and to acute or shortly and broadly 
acuminate on the other. Perrottet's type has broadly rounded leaves, 
according to carbon rubbings kindly made for me by Dr. C. B. Robinson, 
and according to a carbon rubbing made by myself of the single leaf of 
Perrottet's plant preserved in the Berlin Herbarium. 
Semecarpus anacardium Blanco, non L. f., is manifestly the same 
species, although, of course, Blanco may have included in it more than the 
common form. Semecarpus anacardium L. f. certainly does not extend 
to the Philippines. 
Semecarpus microcarpa F.-Vill. is only a mis-identification of Blanco's 
S: cuneifornpis on the part of F.-Villar., while S. puhescens F.-Vill., is a 
manifest mis-identification of Blanco's S. anacardium. 
Semecarpus sideroxyloides Perk., is typical S. perrottetii March., = S. 
cuneiformis Blanco, and is accordingly reduced. A number of specimens 
referred by Doctor Perkins to Semecarpus perrottetii March.' are not 
properly referable to that species. 
I consider Semecarpus cuneiformis Blanco (S. perrottetii March.) to be 
well represented by the following specimens : 
Luzon, Province of Cagayan, For. Bur, 16983 Bacani, For. Bur. 18C05 
Klemme: Province of Ilocos Norte, Bur. Sci. 7676 Ramos: Bontoc Sub- 
province, For. Bur. 10981 Curran: Province of Union, Elmer 5562, 56S7: 
Province of Pangasinan, Alberto 83: Province of Zambales, For. Bur, 
6977 Curran, Merrill 3010, Sankuhl s. n., Hallier fi. n.: Province of Bulacan, 
Mrs. Templeton s. n. Manila, Perrottet (type of S. perrottetii March., 
■Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 28. 
