X,C, 3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 179 
Philippine species that were erroneously credited to the Philip- 
pines by the Spanish botanists working in Manila. 
Approxi- Error in 
mate Erro- inter- 
number | neous | preting 
Author. ‘of species identifi- | species 
consid- | cations. | of older 
ered. authors. 
Per cent. 
PRIIOD 6 Sac eel as CRE ea ae erates cng Se cndat al oudciece th cubosau 1,127 300 66 
BODINE i.) ee eo a ee oe ee 265 155 75 
rw TRL ON ICR ec! we ee eee 4,479 1, 958 44 
MOWA  codactieenasude se oco conns cca Seabee te eee ae aoe eee 5, 871 AE sd aa a 
OA. | i en ae cae eae. Ns ai Pe Fed Slee ee fer cy Poe nF 61 
These four authors have burdened Philippine botanical litera- 
ture with the names of approximately 2,413 species, originally 
described from extra-Philippine material, but which have never 
been found in the Archipelago. There is no reason to believe 
that any considerable number of them ever will be found here. 
They were admitted through misconception of species and mis- 
interpretation of descriptions of species. Those actually de- 
scribed by Blanco and Llanos, for the most part, can be reduced 
to their proper places by interpretation of the species from the 
descriptions; those admitted by Llanos and by Fernandez-Villar 
and Naves, by simple enumeration and no descriptions, can for 
the most part never properly be reduced, and must, in the event 
of a future critical consideration of the Philippine flora, be ig- 
nored, or merely mentioned as excluded species. No attempt is 
here made to enumerate these very numerous species that have 
thus been erroneously credited to the Philippines through mis- 
interpretation of descriptions. 
The chief source of error in wrongly admitting extra-Philip- 
pine species as Philippine has been by misinterpretation of de- 
scriptions. That this source of error has been a very large factor 
in the older botanical literature of the Philippines is manifest 
from the above statements. Not until a few years after the 
arrival of Sebastian Vidal in the Philippines was the local botan- 
ical work placed on a logical basis; that is, the actual collection 
and proper preservation of botanical material, and the com- 
parison of this material with types and authentically named 
specimens in European herbaria. Vidal’s plan was formulated 
in 1882, and his studies in European herbaria were executed 
in 1883-84. As a result the errors made by Vidal are insignifi- 
cant and scarcely need consideration. 
In the very numerous published papers on the Philippine flora 
issued since 1902, involving over 250 titles, in which nearly all 
