126 .MERRILL. 



Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 3., t. UfO; Vid. Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. 39, f. A, Phan. 

 ('inning. Philip. (1885) 106, Rev. PL Vase. Filip. (1886) 102; Men. in Philip. 

 Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 61. 



Omphalobium obliquum Presl Epiin. Bot. (1851) 207. 



Connarus obliquus Walp. Ann. 3 (1851) 844; Vid. Phan. Cuming. Philip. 

 (1885) 106. 



Connarus panicululus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 57, ex syn. Blanco, non Roxb. 



C. monocarpus P.-Vill. 1. c. 57, ex syn. Blanco, non Linn. 



LUZON, Province of Abra, Bur. Sci. 1088 Ramos: Province of llocos Norte, 

 For. Bur. 19801, t$828 Mo-rift rf Darling: Province of Pangasinan, Cuming 9J/9: 

 Province of llocos Sur, Cuming 1112: Province of Rizal, Merrill 1859, 26J/5, 

 2728, 2828, Topping 15 J, For. Bur. 2655 Ahern's collector, Guerrero 42- Province 

 of Bataan, Lcibcrg 6011, Merrill 2520, Whitford 323: Province of Laguna, Elmer. 

 Lubang, Merrill 91). LETTS, For. Bur. /.?}.?} Danao. Baxtayan, Bur. Sci. 

 1691 McGregor. 



Blanco's description of Cncstis erccta applies exactly to the specimens above 

 cited, and accordingly his specilic name is here adopted, being the earliest valid 

 one for the species. The name erecta is not particularly applicable, as only 

 comparatively young plants are erect, mature ones being more or less procumbent 

 or subscandent. However, the description can apply to no other Philippine species, 

 as the five carpels mentioned by Blanco and the aril entirely covering the seed 

 are characteristic of liourea, and not of Connarus. Presl's Omphalobium obliquum 

 has also been a somewhat doubtful species, it having been based on a specimen 

 collected in Luzon by Haenke, and "Coming 1171." The latter is undoubtedly 

 an error for (inning 1172. for 1171 in all herbaria that I have examined is 

 Mallotus muricatus Muell. Arg., while Cuming 1172, specimens of which are 

 before me, answers Presl's description perfectly. The date of Presl's ''Epimeliae 

 botanicae" is given on the title page as 1849. but it seems quite evident that 

 the work did not appear until 1851 or 1852. Hooker 7 states regarding the work 

 in question "although it bears on the title-page the date of 1849, it does not 

 appear to have been in the hands of booksellers till the commencement of 1852." 

 This is confirmed by the fact that it was not reviewed in the Botanische Zeitung 

 until September, 1852. As Blanco's specific name for the plant under discussion 

 is undoubtedly the oldest one, the question of actual date of publication of Presl's 

 work is of no importance in the present case, but if Blanco's name be not 

 accepted, there would be some doubt as to whether Presl's or Plancbon's name 

 had priority. 



A common and widely distributed endemic species. 



4. AGELAEA Soland. 



1. Glabrous except the inflorescence, the follicles not or but very slightly rugose, 

 scarcely beaked I. A. walliehii 



1. All parts more or less pubescent, the follicles strongly tuberculate-rugose, 

 prominently beaked 2. A . cco< ttii 



1. Agelaea walliehii Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 2 (1876) 47; King in Journ. As. 

 Soc. Beng. 66-' (1897) 18; Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1905) 19; 

 Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 61. 



A. vestita Vid. Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. 39, f. D, non Hook. 



Luzon, Province of Tayabas, Merrill 2895: Province of Bataan, Lcibcrg 600^, 

 For. Bur. 3025 Meyer, Whitford 29, For. Bur. 30)3 Borden. 



Malay Peninsula to Singapore and Sumatra. 



7 Journ. Bot. & Kew Miscel. 4 (1852) 286. 



