x,C,3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 177 
sponsible. If we take into consideration the comparatively recent 
date at which this work was prepared (1875-83), it is difficult 
to explain the great mass of inaccurate data that was compiled 
by these authors. The errors of Blanco, working between the 
years 1805 and 1845, and of Llanos, working between the years 
1850 and 1873, sink into insignificance when compared with 
those of the authors of the third edition of Blanco’s work. In 
spite of the more recent date at which Fernandez-Villar and 
Naves worked, their errors are caused primarily by the same 
circumstances that influenced the work of Blanco and of Llanos. 
These causes were essentially a lack of knowledge of the Indo- 
Malayan flora; a lack of knowledge of the Philippine flora as 
a whole, due to insufficient botanical exploration; a lack of 
botanical material, both Philippine and extra-Philippine; a lack 
of botanical literature; and an inadequate conception of the 
principles of the geographic distribution of plants. Apparently 
neither author corresponded with European botanists, and they 
certainly sent no botanical material to Europe for identification 
or for comparison with types preserved in various public and 
private herbaria. 
In the introduction to the “Novissima Appendix” the authors 
state that neither claims to be a botanist, that they had no access 
to herbaria nor to botanical books other than thirteen important 
works enumerated by them and others of less importance not 
cited by title. They admitted that they had no botanical ma- 
terial from the collections of any of the earlier Philippine ex- 
plorers and collectors, and claimed that nobody, up to that date, 
had been able to preserve herbarium material against the attact 
of insects and the deteriorating effect of the humid climate of 
Manila. The work, then, was nominally based on an examination 
of fresh material, and no attempt was made to preserve her- 
barium material other than of those plants that could be secured 
only with difficulty, or of those that were especially essential to 
their work. No botanical material, on which this enumeration 
was primarily based, is extant, and the enumeration is trust- 
worthy only in so far as its records are based on previously 
published references to Philippine plants in the works of various 
European botanists. 
“The “Novissima Appendix” is a mere compilation, excellent 
from a bibliographical standpoint, but utterly untrustworthy as 
an enumeration of Philippine plants. A total of 4,479 species 
were admitted, distributed into 1,223 genera and 155 families. 
Of these at least 1 family and about 116 genera have no known 
