X,C,3 Merrill: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 193 
CONVOLVULACEAE 
CONVOLVULUS SPHAEROSTIGMA Cav. Ic. 5 (1799) 54, t. 481. “Habitat in 
Mindanao * * * et * * * in Regni Mexicani.” I believe that 
Choisy [DC. Prodr. 9 (1845) 397] is correct in reducing this to the South 
American Jacquemontia hirsuta Choisy, although if so, Cavanilles’s specific 
name is the older. There is very little probability that the Mindanao 
record is correct. 
VERBENACEAE 
CLERODENDRON VILLOSUM Blume; Schauer in DC. Prodr. 11 (1847) 667. 
“In Philippinis (Cuming! 2415).” The specimen was from Malacca, not 
from the Philippines. The species, however, seems to be well represented 
in recent collections from the southern Philippines. 
SOLANACEAE 
SOLANUM INDICUM Linn.; Dunal in DC. Prodr. 13* (1852) 309. “Ins. 
Philippines (Cuming 2261).” The specimen was from Malacca, not from 
the Philippines. The species is unknown from the Archipelago. 
SOLANUM TRILOBATUM Linn.; Dunal 1. ¢. 287. “In insulis Philippinis 
(Cuming, pl. exs. n. 2342).” The specimen was from Malacca. The species 
is not known from the Philippines. 
GESNERIACEAE 
DIDYMOCARPUS MARGINATA C. B. Clarke in DC. Monog. Phan. 5 (1883) 
96 “Malacca (Lobb, n. 184 in h. Kew). Ins. Philippinicae; Luzon ? (Lobb, 
in h. Kew, habitatio autem dubia).” Nothing resembling this species has 
been found in the Philippines, so it is probable that Lobb’s specimen labeled 
“Luzon” probably did not originate in the Philippines. See King & Gamble 
in Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 74% (1908) 755 who quote Ridley: “I took this [D. 
ophirensis Ridl.] at first to be D. marginata Clarke * * * which was 
based on a plant collected in Malacca or Luzon by Lobb, but which, from 
the description, may be a form of D. reptans, and the locality of which is 
doubtful.” Didymocarpus reptans is widely distributed in the Malay 
Peninsula. 
OREOCHARIS ? NOTHA C. B. Clarke in DC. Monog. Phan. 5 (1883) 64 
“Manille ? (Barthe in h. Paris).” Barthe’s specimen was probably from 
southern China, not from the Philippines. No representative of the genus 
has been found in the Archipelago. 
ACANTHACEAE 
ERANTHEMUM CRENULATUM Wall.; Nees in DC. Prodr. 11 (1847) 454. 
Cuming 1658 was from the Island of Panay, Philippines, but Cuming 2857 
was from Malacca, not from the Philippines. Under the variety angusti- 
folium Nees 1. c. 454, Cuming 2889 was from Malacca, not from the Phil- 
ippines. 
PLANTAGINACEAE 
PLANTAGO PHILIPPICA Cav. Ic. 4 (1797) 35, t. 859, f. 2. “Habitat in 
Santa Cruz de la Laguna in Philippicis insulis.” This is most certainly 
not a Philippine species. The genus is represented in the Archipelago only 
by an introduced form of Plantago major Linn. Nee’s specimen, on which 
the species was based, was probably from some part of America. 
