212 '^he Philippine Journal of Science isis 
3. MEMECYLON GITINGENSE Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 4 (1911) 1195. 
MiNDORO, For, Bur, 8628 MerritL Sibuyan, Elmer 12189, 
A species of which the flowers are unknown, very similar to Memecyloyi 
gracilipes C. B. Rob., from which it differs in its somewhat larger leaves 
and especially in its very much shorter Inflorescence. The Mindoro speci- 
men is not quite typical, the leaves are a little winder than in the type, 
slightly different in texture, and the ultimate branchlets are frequently 
distinctly sulcate. 
4. MEMECYLON LANCEOLATUM Blanco FL Filip. (1837) 301, ed. 2 
(1845) 209. 
Memecylon pyrifolium Presl Epim. (1851) 210. 
Memecylon cumingianum Presl 1. c. 209; Triana in Trans. Linn. 
Soc. 28 (1871) 156; Cogn. in DC. Monog. Phan. 7 (1891) 1168. 
Memecylon claustflorum Naud. in Ann. Sci. Nat. Ill 18 (1852) 274; 
Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1^ (1855) 577; Walp. Ann. 4 (1857) 803. 
Luzon, Subprovince of Benguet, Elmer 631,2: Province of Zambales, 
Merrill 2995: Province of Bulacan, For, Bur. 7171 Curran: Province of 
Laguna, Bur, Sci, 1^929, 16528 Ramos: Province of Bataan, For, Bur, 
ISO^y 1781 Borden, For, Bur, 17312 Curran, Bur. Sci. 617U Robinson, 
Merrill 2563, Leiberg 6163; Corregidor, For. Bur. 13221 Curran: Prov- 
ince of Rizal, Loher 62^8, For, Bur. 1101, 1162 Ahem's collector, Guerrero 
12, Phil. PL 377 Ramos, Merrill 1687, 2633: Province of Sorsogon, For. 
Bur, U527 Zschokke, Polillo, Bur. Sci, 10266 McGregor, Negros, For, 
Bur. 5572 Everett. 
The species is common and widely distributed in the regions from which 
Blanco secured most of his botanical material. It is, in general, very similar 
to some other species, and is the only species known to me that agrees 
with the original description of Memecylon lanceolatum Blanco, and at the 
same time differs from the manifestly similar forms found in the same 
region by its somewhat larger flowers, a character especially noted by 
Blanco. F.-Villar reduced Memecylon lanceolatum Blanco to M. cuming- 
ianum Presl, and I am now of the opinion that he was correct in deter- 
mining the two to be identical. I have, however, retained Blanco's specific 
name on the principle of priority. 
Memecylon pyrifolium Presl was based on Cuming 1816, from the Is- 
land of Bohol, and although it was retained by Bentham* as a distinct 
species, Cogniaux is apparently correct in reducing it to Memecylon cuming- 
ianum Presl=M. lanceolatum Blanco. 
Memecylon cumingianum Presl was based on Cuming 917, from the 
Province of Albay, Luzon, and this specific name was retained by Cog- 
niaux, and is the oldest one other than Blanco's. 
Memecylon clausiflorum Naud. was based on specimens collected by 
Cuming in the Philippines, the number or numbers not indicated. In the 
Museum of Natural History at Paris, Cuming 917, 1151, and 1816, are all 
named M, clausiflorum Naud; No. 1151, however, is probably M, subfur- 
furaceum Merr. 
The species is rather characteristic, but has not been well understood 
here, for some of the specimens cited above have been determined as 
M. cumingianum Presl, and others as M. edule Roxb. The leaves are 
•Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 5 (1861) 78. 
