PHILIPPINE URTICACEAE. 495 
Weddell * appears to refer Urtica umbellata Blanco to U. umbellata Bory, on 
which his own Pilea umbellata was based: the sign of equality comes at the 
extreme end of a line, and the meaning is therefore obscure. Urtica umbellata 
Blanco is not a Pilea, but Laportea meyeniana (Walp.) Warb. 
5. LECANTHUS Wedd. 
Lecanthus peduncularis Wedd. in DC, Prodr. 16" (1869) 164, pro parte. 
Procris peduncularis Wall. Cat. no. 4634; Royle Il. Bot, Himal. (1839) pl. 83, 
fig. 2, sine deser. 
Lecanthus wallichii Wedd. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. IV 14 (1854) 187, deser. gen. 
exel.; C. H. Wright in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 26 (1899) 480. 
Lecanthus wighttt Wedd. 1. ¢., deser. gen. excl., non C. H. Wright 1. ¢. 
Klatostema ovatum Wight Ic. 6 (1853) 11, pl. 1985. 
Luzon, Province of Benguet, Pauai_ to Baguio, Merrill 4776; Pauai, Bur. 
Sci. 4375, 4382 Mearns ; Mount Pulog, For, Bur. 16048 Curran, Merritt & Zsehokke. 
MINDANAO, District of Davao, Mount Apo, Copeland s, n., Elmer 11512. 
The more important points relating to the history of this species are as follows: 
Procris peduncularis Wall. Cat. was a nomen nudum, and some of the plants 
were of this genus, the others Hlatostema papillosum.* Royle under the name 
of Procris peduncularis Wall. definitely figured the Lecanthus of the Catalogue 
as having the pistillate perianth equally 4-parted; there was no description, a 
note in the Index saying that it had been accidentally omitted. For this infor- 
mation, I am indebted to Mr. W. W. Smith, of Caleutta. Royle also figured P. 
obtusa, with 3-parted perianth. Hlatostema ovata Wight, 1853, also shows the 
4-parted perianth. However, in the succeeding year, Weddell in establishing the 
genus Lecanthus described it as unequally 3-parted, and in this he has been 
followed by all more recent monographers of the family, and by all workers 
except Wright, who found that there were two distinct species, with the pistillate 
perianth of the one equally 4-parted, of the other unequally 3-parted. Upon £. 
ovatum Wight, Weddell, in 1854, based L, wightii, L. major he based upon £. 
oppositifolium Dalz., L. wallichii was based upon the Wall. Cat. citation only, 
and is thus a nomen nudum. In the Monograph, Weddell included all under L. 
wightii, in the Prodromus under JL. peduncularis, based upon P. peduncularis of 
both Wallich and Royle, with P. obtusa Royle and EF, ovatum Wight cited as 
synonyms; with varieties 8. wallichii, based on L. wallichii Wedd., and y. major, 
based on L. major Wedd. and BE. oppositifolium Wedd. The segregation of species 
between the forms with the unequally 3-parted and the equally 4-parted perianth 
was made by C. H. Wright, who adopted for the former the name L. wightii 
Wedd., citing as synonyms L. peduncularis Wedd. ex ‘parte, FB. ovatum Wight ?, 
HB. oppositifolium Dalz. and Procris obtusa Royle; for the latter L. wallichii 
Wedd. is used, the synonyms given being L. major Wedd.?, L. wightii Hook. f. ex 
parte, L. peduncularis Wedd. ex parte, Procris peduncularis Wall.; Royle. 
Wright’s segregation of the species is here followed: his nomenclature is not: 
the perianth of the Philippine plants is of the equally 4-parted type. 
Weddell considered Procris peduncularis to be published by Wallich, but even 
in Royle there is no description, and more common present usage would hold 
the name as unpublished until 1869. If considered published, it is for the species 
with the 4-parted perianth. The next combination is BF. oppositifolium Dalz., who 
makes no reference to the perianth; from Wright’s synonymy, it is the species 
2 DC. Prodr. 16% (1869) 67, 
** Hook. f. Fl. Br. Ind. 5 (1888) 569, 
ae ee eee 
. AL 
