x%,¢,3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 189 
Hooker’s correspondence at Kew. It has been collected since in Malacca, 
but has never been found in the Philippines. Cuming’s specimen is cor- 
rectly localized by Kranzlin.” 
- ARUNDINA SPECIOSA Bl. This species has been credited to the Philip- 
. pines by several authors [Vidal Phan. Cuming. Philip. (1885) 150, Rev. 
Pl. Vasc. Filip. (1886) 269; Rolfe in Journ. Bot. 23 (1885) 215], by citation 
of Cuming 2058. The specimen was from Singapore, not from the Philip- 
pines, according to Cuming’s own list of localities. No representative of the 
genus is known from the Philippines. 
BROMHEADIA PALUSTRIS Lindl. This species has been credited to the 
Philippines by Vidal on the basis of Cuming 2054 [Phan. Cuming. Philip. 
(1883) 150, Rev. Pl. Vase. Filip. (1886) 270]. This number of Cuming’s 
collection was from Singapore, not from the Philippines. No representative 
of the genus is known from the Philippines. 
The following species of Orchidaceae, originally credited to the Philip- 
pines on the basis of Cuming’s plants, are hardly worthy of consideration 
here, as all have been found in the Archipelago by recent collectors: Eulo- 
phia squalida Lindl. (Cuming 20538), Spathoglottis plicata Bl. (Cuming 
2055), and Sarchochilus amplexicaulis Reichb. f. = Thrixspermum amplexi- 
caule Reichb. f. (Cuming 2056). All of these numbers of Cuming’s collec- 
tion were from Singapore, not from the Philippines, according to Cuming’s 
own list of localities in Sir William Hooker’s correspondence at Kew. 
LORANTHACEAE 
LORANTHUS RETUSUS Jack; Vidal Rev. Pl. Vasc. Filip. (1886) 232. This 
was admitted as Philippine on the authority of a specimen collected by Lobb, 
and localized as “‘Luzon.’’ The species has not appeared in our compre- 
hensive collections, and can safely be excluded. Lobb’s specimen was prob- 
ably from Singapore, Borneo, or Java. 
SANTALACEAE 
HENSLOVIA PHILIPPINENSIS A. DC. in DC. Prodr. 14 (1887) 631. “In 
Philippinis (Cuming 2255 in h. Boiss.).”’ The specimen was from Malacca, 
not from the Philippines. 
PROTEACEAE 
HELICIA CASTANEAEFOLIA Meisn. in DC. Prodr. 14 (1857) 441. ‘In ins. 
Philippinis (Cuming 2338!).” The specimen was from Malacca, not from 
the Philippines. 
PODOSTEMONACEAE 
TRISTICHA BIFARIA Pres] Rel. Haenk. 1 (1827) 86 “Hab. in insulis Philip- 
pinis ?” It is suspected that this is T. hypnoides Spr., and that Presl’s 
specimen originated in tropical America. No representative of this family 
has been found in the Philippines. 
LEGUMINOSAE 
BAUHINIA LUNULARIA Cav. Ic. 5 (1799) 4, t. 407. “Habitat in Calavan 
[Prov. Laguna, Luzon] et in Acapulco [Mexico] viciniis.” This is most 
certainly not a Philippine Bauhinia. Nothing approaching it appears in our 
* Engl. Pflanzenreich 45 (1910) 182. 
