ON THE IDENTITY OF EVODIA TRIPHYLLA. 377 
$397, Palawan, Merrill 736, Bur. Scl 860 Foxworthy. Romblon, Hallier. 
TiCAO, For. Bur. 1069 Clark. Masbatb, Merrill 2289. Negros, Elmer 9529, 
9628f 10432. Cebu, For, Bur. 6422 Espinosa. BoHOL, Cuming 1819. 
We have seen above that Fagara triphylla L^m.=Evodia 
triphylla DC, is really not an Evodia at all, but must be clas- 
sified under the genus Melicope as M. triphylla (Lam.) Merr. 
The numerous Philippine synonyms have been disposed of, but 
there remain to be considered the still more numerous names, 
for the most part based on material from the Asiatic continent, 
that have erroneously been referred to Evodia triphylla DC. 
From an examination of the specimens available here I am 
personally of the opinion that two distinct species are repre- 
sented in the Asiatic material, or at least among the synonyms, 
that have been referred to Evodia triphylla DC. by Guillaumin,^^ 
in this being in agreement with the expressed opinion of Ben- 
tham ^* and Hooker f." 
Much of the material from China and apparently from Indo- 
China in superficial characters very strongly resembles the Phil- 
ippine Melicope triphylla; in fact the resemblances are so great 
that it is difficult if not impossible to separate them unless the 
specimens are in anthesis. The earliest valid name for this 
form appears to me to be that supplied by Xanthoxylum pteleae- 
folium Champ., and the following new combination is accordingly 
made: 
EVODIA PTELEAEFOLIA (Champ.) comb. nov. 
* Xanthoxylum pteleaefolium Champ, ex Benth. in Hook. Kew Journ. 
Bot. 3 (1851) 330, p.p., excl. Cuming 1819. 
Evodia lamarckiana Benth. FI. Hongk. (1861) 59, p.p., excl. syn. 
Lamarck and Chamisso. 
Evodia gracilis Kurz in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 2 (1871) 48. 
I refer here the following specimens in the Herbarium of the Bureau 
of Science: Yunnan, Henry 10351 A, 11658A; Tonkin, Bon 6187. Two 
specimens from Formosa, Nakahara 294, with fruit, and a sterile specimen, 
No. 1268, may be referable here, or they may be the same as the Philippine 
Melicope triphylla Merr. 
The Indian and Malayan material, for the most part deter- 
mined as Evodia roxburghiana Benth., appears to me to rep- 
resent a species distinct from Evodia pteleaefolia. Its leaves 
are apparently always pale when dry, are quite different in 
shape and venation, while the inflorescence is decidedly different. 
The Philippine form described by me as Evodia semecarpifolia *• 
"Lecomte Fl. Gen. Indo-chine 1 (1911) 632. 
"Fl. Hongk. (1861) 59. 
" Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 488. 
"Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1906) 23^ 
