X, C, 2 Merrill: Studies on Philippine Rubiaceae, II 105 
lists of nomina conservanda adopted by the Vienna and the Brussels bota- 
nical congresses. 
MYCETIA LATERIFLORA (Blume) Korth. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 2 
(1850) 118. 
Bertiera lateriflora Blume Bijdr. (1826) 988. 
Mycetia cauliflora Reinw. Syll. Ratisb. 2 (1828) 8; Valeton in Ic. Bogor. 
3 (1909) 219, t. 281. 
Adenosacme apoensis Elm. Leafi. Philip. Bot. 3 (1911) 1001. 
I can see no valid reason for distinguishing the Philippine form from 
the Javan one. Comparing the full descriptions of Mr. Elmer and Dr. Vale- 
ton differences are evident, but these differences disappear when actual 
specimens are compared. The Philippine plant has more slender and 
somewhat longer calyx teeth than the Javan species as described and 
figured by Valeton, yet some of our Javan specimens present calyx teeth 
nearly as long as the Philippine material. The species, whether considered 
as identical with the Javan one, or whether considered as distinct, is 
represented by the following Philippine specimens: 
MINDORO, Mount Teluto, For. Bur. 11470, 12076 Merritt. MINDANAO, 
Bukidnon Subprovince, Bur. Sci. 15748 Fénix: District of Lanao, Camp 
Keithley, Mrs. Clemens 860, s. n.: District of Davao, Mount Apo, Copeland 
s. n., Elmer 10504 (type number of Adenosacme apoensis Elm.). 
The species is certainly very close to Indian material distributed as 
Adenosacme longifolia Wall. (Hooker & Thompson, Sikkim and Khasia) 
and as Valeton suggests it may prove to be identical with Rondeletia longi- 
folia Wall. ex. Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. Carey & Wall. 2 (1824) 137, which is not 
Adenosacme longifolia Wall., at least as described by King & Gamble in 
Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 72’ (1903) 196. Adenosacme scortechinii King & 
Gamble 1. c. 197 should be critically compared with Mycetia lateriflora 
Korth. 
MYCETIA JAVANICA (Blume) Korth. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. 2 (1850) 
ex Valeton in Ic. Bogor. 3 (1908) 183, t. 270. 
Bertiera javanica Blume Bijdr. (1826) 987. 
Adenosacme longifolia Auct. (non Wall.?), non Rondeletia longifolia 
Wall. ex Roxb. Fl. Ind. ed. Carey & Wall. 2 (1824) 137. 
Adenosacme mindanaensis Elm. Leafi. Philip. Bot. 3 (1911) 1002. 
The Philippine plant is certainly specifically identical with material from 
Singapore (Bukit Timah, Ridley) and Pinang (Deschamps), distributed 
as Adenosacme longifolia Wall. The plant is rather variable in its indu- 
mentum, but in essential characters appears to be decidedly constant. In 
most of the Philippine forms the inflorescence is decidedly more lax than 
in the Javan form as figured by Valeton, and quite similar to that of the 
Singapore and Penang form. Several forms can be distinguished, but I 
am not at all convinced that any of them are worthy of specific or even 
varietal rank: 
Forma A. Inflorescence rather lax, or at least the infructescence lax; 
calyx, corolla, and fruits glabrous or nearly so. This form is very near 
var. genuina Valeton |. c. 185, and includes Adenosacme mindanaensis Elm. 
Luzon, Province of Albay, Cuming 942 (young inflorescence). SAMAR, 
Bur. Sci. 17490 Ramos. Leyte, Wenzel 567. MINDANAO, Subprovince of 
= Pe ae buy — 
ae Mee fe Bn oi re ae 
SS a a 
