389 



Lamao (Wkitford) September, 1905: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (1409 

 llcnilh March, 1903. 



Am endemic (?) species of uncertain value, characterized by iis very long 

 internodea. T., .1 nos. 



(4) Bambusa luconiae Munro in Trana. Linn. Soe. 26 (1808) 115; F.-Vill. 

 Nov. App. ( L883) 323. 



"Ilab. in ins. Philip. Ltu;onia, montibus Mahaihai! Wilkes" Munro. 



Described from sterile specimens and unrecognizable from the description 



alone. 



(.">) Bambusa lumampao Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1837) 373; ed. 2 (184r>) 

 1S«); Merr. in Philip. Jonrn. Sci. 1 (1900) Buppl. 2!) ; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 

 (1859) 4-21. Dendrocalamiu membranaceus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324 ex 

 syn. Blanco, non Munro. 



Luzon, Province of Xueva Viscaya, Quiangan (126 Merrill) June, 1902: Prov- 

 ince of .Batumi. Lamao {Whit ford) September, 1905: Dinalupijan (Merrill) Jan- 

 uary. 1903: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (Merrill) March. 1903. 



An endemic (?) not well-known species, all the above specimens being sterile 

 with the exception of the first which unfortunately has only very old (lowers. 

 Possibly referable to Schizostachyum. T., humampao, Bocaui (Blanco). Sp.-Fil. 



('a fift hoho. 



(<>) Bambusa monogyna Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 ( 1 S:i7 ) 280; ed. 2 (184.")) 

 1S7; Miq. Fl. Ind. But. 3 (1859) 420; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) 

 Suppl. 29. Dendrocalamua atrictua F.-Vill. Nov. A])]). ( 1 s s :i ) 324, ex syn. Blanco, 

 non Nees. 



Apparently represented by the following sterile specimens: Luzon, Province 

 of Bataan, Dinalupijan (Merrill) January, 1903; Lamao (Whitford) September, 

 1905: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (Merrill) March, 1903. 



An endemic ( ?) species of uncertain value. 'I'.. CttUQ.yo.il quiling. 



(7) Bambusa nana Uoxb. Hort. Beng. (1S14) 2.1; Gamble in Ann. Bot. 

 Gard. Calcuta 7 (1896) 40. pi ,is ; F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 323 ; Usteri Beitr. 

 Kenn. Philip. Veg. (1905) 133. 



Occasionally cultivated as u hed<re plant in Manila and probably in other 

 towns in the Archipelago, a native of China and Japan. I have seen no Phil- 

 ippine specimens in flower or fruit. It is possible that the species credited to 

 the Philippines by F.-Villar us Jidiulnistt tuldoidea was the same. F.-Yillar states 

 that he saw only cultivated specimens. 



(8) Bambusa blancoi StewL Syn. 1 (1855) 331; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 

 (1859) 421. Bamluaa mitia Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1837) 271; ed. 2 (1845) 

 188, non Poir.: Dendrocalamua aerioeua F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324. ex syn. 

 Blanco, non Munro. 



An endemic (?) species of uncertain value, known only from Blanco's descrip- 

 t ion. T.. I'iduunac. 



(!)) Bambusa textoria Blanco PL Filip. ed. 1 (1S37) 270; ed. 2 ( 1 S4."> ) 

 188; Miq. FL Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 421. Qigantochloa atter F.-Vill. Nov. App. 

 (1883) 323, ex syn. Blanco, non Kurz. 



An endemic ( ''. ) species of uncertain value, known from Blanco's description. 

 T., Valbang. 



It is probable that by no means all of the above species are liamhitsa, but 

 that some of them are referable to other genera such as DendrooaUunua, Qigan- 

 toehloa, etc., but it is quite impossible to determine Blanco's species and refer 

 them to their proper genera without complete material, and it is probable thai 



