THE FLORA OF MOUNT PULOG. 375 
Suyoe to Pauai, Merrill 4783, November 7, 1907, with mature fruit: District of 
Lepanto, Mount Data, Loher 3817, only leaves seen. 
This proposed new genus is probably most closely allied to Discocalyx Mez, 
from which it differs in its quite different flowers, notably in its triangular 
anthers, which are not sessile but which are borne on distinct filaments, its 
reflexed petals, and also in its seeds having a prominently ruminate albamen. 
In habit it is also quite different from most species of Discocalyx#, but some species 
of the latter genus have their panicles borne on special axillary branches. 
_ Loheria bracteata almost certainly includes, in part, the species described by 
Mez as Embelia porteana,” but the type of that species is interpreted by me as 
being the specimen collected by Porte, from which the specific name was taken. 
There is in our herbarium a specimen of Loher 3817, consisting of leaves only, 
which was identified by Mr. Rolfe at Kew as “Ardisia=Vidal 1771”. This speci- 
men is without doubt identical with the material on which the above generic and 
specific description of Loheria bracteata is based. Mez cites in the description 
of Embelia porteana two specimens, as follows: “Philippinen: Luzon bei Manilla 
(Porte), bei Leponto [Lepanto] (Com. Flor, forest. Filip. n. 1771).—Herb. Leiden, 
Paris.” The latter specimen, Vidal 1771, was from the District of Lepanto, the 
same region from which the other specimens of Loheria bracteata were secured. 
Mr. Rolfe has kindly reéxamined the material in the Kew Herbarium, and informs 
me that the specimen of Vidal 1771 is in fruit, and that Loher 3817, in flower, 
appears to represent the same species. Vidal gives the Igorot name as gubgubao. 
Embelia porteana Mez, as described, is a very characteristic species, but in our 
extensive collections from all parts of the Philippines I could find no specimen 
that agreed perfectly with the description, but the material cited above had been 
tentatively referred to it, partly on the description and partly on the basis of 
Loher’s specimen identified at Kew as equaling Vidal 1771; at the same time 
another series of specimens from Mindoro and Polillo that also agreed with the 
description in many particulars, but which represented a species quite distinct 
from the Benguet-Lepanto form, was placed with Embelia porteana Mez. After a 
careful study of all the material available here I was forced to come to the 
conclusion that Hmbelia porteana Mez is a composite species based on two quite 
‘different plants, although forms having somewhat similar gross characters and 
habit. In order more definitely to determine the matter two specimens, represent- 
ing the two forms I had identified as E. porteana Mez, were sent to M. Gagnepain, 
of the Museum of Natural History, Paris, for comparison with Porte’s specimen, 
the type of Mez’s species. The specimens sent were For. Bur. 18083 Curran, 
Merritt, & ZAschokke, cited above, the high mountain form from the Benguet- 
Lepanto region, and Bur. Sei. 10411 McGregor, a low-country form from Polillo. 
The difficulties in the identification of Hmbelia porteana Mez were pointed out, 
with the suggestion that the species was probably based on a mixture of two 
different forms, and that the Polillo plant, representing the low country form, 
and which agreed in the most essential characters with Mez’s description, would 
probably more closely match Porte’s specimen. It was not at all probable that 
Porte was able to penetrate the interior of northern Luzon at the time of his 
visit to the Philippines (1864), the Lepanto region being at that time rather 
inaccesible. M. Gagnepain has kindly made the desired comparison, and writes 
as follows: 
“Le Muséum ne posséde de cette espece [Embelia Porteana Mez] qu’ une feuille 
eassée & la naissance du limbe (il est impossible done de dire si elle est pétiolée) , 
plus 2 inflorescences détachées. 
® Pflanzenreich 9 (1902) 302. 
