x,C,3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 181 
It is most peculiar that the collections of both botanists con- 
nected with the Malaspina Expedition, Luis Nee and Thaddeus 
Haenke, should contain many erroneously labelled specimens. 
Comparatively few of Nee’s specimens have been cited in botan- 
ical literature, as the collection has not been available except 
to a few botanists in Madrid. A very few species were de- 
scribed by Nee himself, some by Lagasca, and a considerable 
number by Cavanilles. Haenke’s material, now mostly at Vi- 
enna, Prague, Berlin, and St. Louis, has been more generally 
available to botanists than has that of Nee. Among the com- 
paratively few Philippine or presumed Philippine forms con- 
sidered by these botanists a relatively high percentage was 
erroneously accredited to the Archipelago; on the other hand, 
some forms manifestly originating in the Philippines were 
accredited to Mexico, California, and to South America. This 
statement holds true for the collections of both Nee and Haenke. 
For example, Ophioglossum pendulum Linn. is credited by Cava- 
nilles ° to South America ‘in Regno Quitensi,”’ but the species 
does not occur in America, its range being from India to Ma- 
laya and Polynesia; Nee’s specimen undoubtedly originated in 
the Philippines or in Guam. Alloteropsis distachya Presl*® 
“Hab. ad Monte-Rey in California” is Axonopus semialatus 
Hook f. (Panicum semiatatum R. Br.), which does not occur 
anywhere in America, but which is abundant in the Philippines, 
and extends from Africa through tropical Asia and Malaya to 
tropical Australia; Haenke’s specimen on which the California 
reference was based was undoubtedly from the Philippines. 
Polypodium irregulare Presl’ “Hab. in Mexico” is the Philip- 
pine Tectaria (Aspidium) irregularis Copel., a species that is 
originated in the Philippines, certainly not in Mexico. Malas- 
pinaea laurifolia Presl “Habitat in regionibus occidentalibus 
Mexici” is the Indo-Malayan Aegiceras corniculatum (Linn.) 
Blanco; Haenke’s specimen certainly never originated in Mexico, 
but was either from the Philippines or Guam. Just how many 
more similiar cases there are in Presl’s ‘“‘Reliquiae Haenkeanae”’ 
can be determined only by a careful study and comparison of 
his types. 
It seems, however, that comparatively few Philippine plants 
were erroneously credited to various parts of America by Presl 
and by Cavanilles. In contrast, at least 35 species based on 
*Ic. 6 (1801) 73. 
* Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 343. 
'L. c. 1 (1825) 25, t. 4, f. 8. 
