188 The Philippine Journal of Science 1915 
PASPALUM FUSCUM Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 214 “Hab. in Luzonia ? 
in Peruviae montanibus huanoccensibus ? Mexico ?” = Syntherisma fusca 
Scribn. = ? Digitaria longiflora Pers. The specimen on which Presl’s species 
was based may have been from Luzon, but it is more probable that it was 
from tropical America. A species of doubtful status. 
PASPALUM MOLLE Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 213 “Hab. in Luzonia” = 
Panicum mollicomum Kunth =Syntherisma molle Scribn. I have seen no 
Philippine material agreeing with Presl’s description. The “Luzon’’ speci- 
mens were probably from tropical America. 
POLYSCHISTES PAUPERCULA Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 294, t. 41, f. 12 
“Hab. in insula Luzonia” = Pentarrhaphis sp. The specimen on which this 
genus and species was based was certainly not from the Philippines, but 
was undoubtedly from Mexico. 
SETARIA GLOBULARIS Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 314 “Hab. in insulis 
Philippinis.” The sheet of this species in the herbarium-of the Missouri 
Botanical Garden consists of three species, fide Scribner, Setaria caudata 
Lam., S. composita Kth., and one undeterminable; S. caudata and S. compo- 
sita are American forms, so that Presl’s Setaria globularis probably origi- 
nated in Mexico, not in the Philippines. 
SPOROBOLUS SCOPARIUS Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1880) 243 “Hab. ad portum 
Sorzogon [Luzon].” Nothing at all resembling the species described by 
Pres] is known from the Philippines. The specimens on which the species 
was based were probably from tropical America, not from the Philippines. 
CYPERACEAE 
CAREX HAENKEANA Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1828) 205 “Hab. in insulis Philip- 
pinis” = C. pseudo-cyperus L. var. haenkeana Kiikenth. This form is 
widely distributed in extra-tropical South America, but has never been found 
in the Philippines. Presl’s specimen labeled “Philippines” was undoubtedly 
from Chile. 
FIMBRISTYLIS CYMOSA R. Br.; C. B. Clarke in Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) 
Bot. 97 “Toubonia (1488 Cuming) in hb. Kew (a false number).” This speci- 
men was not from the Philippines as Clarke supposed, but apparently from 
Cuming’s earlier Polynesian collection as the printed label bears the date 
1831; Cuming’s Philippine plants were collected between 1836 and 1840, and 
distributed in 1841. 
ERIOCAULACEAE 
ERIOCAULON TRUNCATUM Ham.; Ruhl. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 13 (1903) 
107. “Philippinen (Cuming 2326).” The specimen was from Malacca, not 
from the Philippines. 
PHILYDRACEAE 
PHILYDRUM LANUGINOSUM Gaertn.; Caruel in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1881) 
8. “Manilla (Cuming!)” is an error; the specimen was from Malacca, not 
from the Philippines. No representative of the family is known from the 
Philippines. 
ORCHIDACEAE 
DENDROBIUM METACHILINUM Reichb. f. in Bonplandia 3 (1855) 222 “2067 
Cuming Phil.” This species has been credited to the Philippines by several 
authors on this number of Cuming’s collection. The specimen was from Ma- 
lacca according to Cuming’s own list of localities preserved in Sir William 
