194 _... The Philippine Journal of Science 
RUBIACEAE 
CINCHONA PHILIPPICA Cav. Ic. 4 (1797) 15, t. 329. “Habitat prope 
Manila in Santa Cruz de la Laguna.” Cavanilles’s species is the basis of 
Exostemma philippicum R. & S.—Badusa philippica Vid. No Philippine 
rubiaceous plant has appeared in our collections that at all approaches the 
form figured and described by Cavanilles. There is every reason to believe 
that Nee’s specimen did not originate in the Philippines, but that it came 
from tropical America, Polynesia, or perhaps Australia. 
COMPOSITAE 
PHARETRANTHUS (gen. nov.) Klatt in Flora 68 (1885) 203 was probably 
based on a Cuming St. Helena specimen although credited to the Philippines. 
Hoffmann in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 4° (1889) 243 under Core- 
opsis states: “Vielleicht gehért auch die homogame, strauchige Gattung 
Pharetranthus Klatt auf den Philippinen hierher,” but in the Nachtrage 
pp. 325, 326 Pharetranthus is reduced to Pterobium, a genus confined to 
St. Helena. 
The total number of species excluded from the Philippine 
flora that have been credited to the Archipelago on erroneous 
identifications, and by the citation of wrongly labeled herbarium 
material, approximates 2,500 species. About 75 of these can 
be accounted for through erroneously or imperfectly labeled 
herbarium specimens, but most of the species have been admitted 
as Philippine through misinterpretation of descriptions. 
