X, C, 3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 187 
Philipp.” ex Index Kewensis. This Philippine record was certainly based 
on an erroneously localized specimen; the genus and species is confined to 
North and South America. 
BROMUS LUZONIENSIS Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 262 “Hab. in Luzonia” 
= Triticum luzoniensis Kunth. This is a species of doubtful status, but if 
properly placed in either Bromus or Triticum, then certainly not a Philippine 
plant. Presl’s specimens were probably from tropical America. 
BROMUS PALLENS Cav. Ic. 6 (1801) 67, t. 591, f. 1. “Habit in Maniliae 
viciniis, ibique Acanthus ilicifolius. Nee legit.” This is apparently a true 
Bromus, but there is no reason to believe that it originated in the Philippines. 
The genus Bromus is represented in the Philippines by but two known 
species, one indigenous, and one introduced European weed, neither occurring 
below an altitude of 1,500 meters in the Archipelago. Nee’s “Manila” speci- 
men was probably from South America, Mexico, or California. 
CHLORIS RUFESCENS Lag. Varied. Cienc. 24 (1805) 148. “Insulae Philip- 
pinae” ex Kunth. I have not seen the original description; probably not a 
Philippine plant. 
CHLORIS DOLICHOSTACHYA Lag. Gen. et Sp. Nov. (1816) 5. Credited by 
Lagasca to the Philippines, but the specimen (probably collected by Nee) 
was undoubtedly from Australia, not from the Philippines. Identical with 
the Australian Chloris truncata R. Br., accordng to Link. 
CHLORIS CRINITA Lag. Varied. Cienc. 24 (1805) 143 “Insulae Philippinae” 
ex Kunth. From the description apparently not a Philippine plant. I have 
not seen Lagasca’s original description, but the species was probably based 
on specimens collected by Nee. 
CYNODON TENER Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 291 “Hab. ad Sorzogon Luzo- 
niae” = Chloris tener Scribn in Rept. Mo. Bot. Gard. 10 (1899) 41, t. 40. 
A species very closely allied to, if not identical with, the American Chloris 
petraea Sw. Haenke’s specimen, on which Presl’s species was based, was 
certainly not from the Philippines. 
EUTRIANA CURTIPENDULA Trin. = Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. 
The Philippine record for this species was probably based on Bouteloua race- 
mosa Lag. Whatever the origin of the Philippine record, it was certainly 
based on an erroneously localized specimen. The species is known only 
from North America. 
ISCHAEMUM MINUS Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 329 “Hab. in insulis Philip- 
pinis.” The specimen is Jschaemum urvilleanum Kunth, a South American 
species. Haenke’s specimen certainly never originated in the Philippines. 
PANICUM STIPATUM Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 297 “Hab. in Mexico, 
Luzonia ?”’ The specimen is the American Digitaria setosa Desv., and un- 
doubtedly came from Mexico, certainly not from Luzon. 
PANICUM LEUCOPHAEUM HBK.; Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 298 “Hab. in 
Mexico, in Luzonia.” The Luzon record was certainly based on an erro- 
neously localized plant; nothing approaching the species is shown from the 
Philippines. 
PASPALUM CHRYSOTRICHUM Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 211 “Habitat in 
Luzonia.” From the description apparently a form of the tropical American 
P. aureum HBK. The Luzon specimen was undoubtedly from tropical Amer- 
ica, not from the Philippines. 
PASPALUM ? FILIFORME Sw.; Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 214 “Hab. in 
Luzonia ? Mexico.” The specimen is Digitaria filiformis Delile, an Amer- 
ican species. 
