232 The Philippine Journal of Science 1915 
Province of Bataan, For. Bur. 635, 2045 Borden, For. Bur. 2629 Meyer, For. 
Bur. 5770 Curran, For. Bur. 61, 367, 518 Barnes, Elmer 7000, 6734, Williams 
111, Bur. Sci. 1878 Foxworthy, Merrill 3728: Province of Tayabas, Bur. 
Sci. 13091, 18107 Foxworthy & Ramos, Bur. Sci. 19442 Ramos: Province of 
Camarines, Ahern 67, 258. MINporo, For. Bur. 6202, 3708 Merritt, Whitford 
1374, For. Bur. 11876 Amarillas. Samar, For. Bur. 12852 Rosenbluth, Bur. 
Set. 17496 Ramos. MINDANAO, Prevince of Agusan, Elmer 14184: Province 
of Misamis, For. Bur. 11894 Miranda: District of Lanao, For. Bur. 23163 
Agama: District of Cotabato, For. Bur. 3927 Hutchinson: District of 
Zamboanga, For. Bur. 9205 Whitford & Hutchinson, Hallier: District of 
Davao, Williams 2890. 
This widely distributed species presents considerable variation in the 
size of its leaves and in its indumentum, varying from rather densely and 
softly stellate ferruginous-pubescent to forms that are but slightly stellate- 
pubescent on the midrib and nerves only so far as the leaves are concerned. 
Practically all intergrades are presented in our extensive series of speci- 
mens, and I am of the opinion that but a single species is represented. 
The species was originally described as Mitrephora ferruginea Merr., 
but it was soon discovered that two different species were included in the 
description, fruiting specimens of the form here considered, and flowering 
specimens of an entirely different species, a true Mitrephora, and M. lanotan 
(Blanco) Merr. Robinson proposed the name Mitrephora merrillii in place 
of M. ferruginea, as Boerlage had previously described another species 
under the latter specific name. This change was made without the examina- 
tion of flowering specimens. Mitrephora viridifolia Elm. was more recently 
described from flowering specimens as a species distinct from M. merrillii, 
but I do not consider the form sufficiently strongly characterized to be dis- 
tinguished, unless one wishes to propose, from the material I have above 
referred to Griffithianthus merrillii, several very closely allied species to be 
separated by merely trivial characters. 
While the species is represented by a large number of specimens, nearly 
all of them are in fruit, and no flowering specimens were received that 
with certainty could be referred to Mitrephora merrillii, until 1913. An 
examination of these flowers, and of those described by Elmer under 
Mitrephora viridifolia, shows at once that the species is not a Mitrephora, 
that it does not even belong in the same tribe with Mitrephora, and 
that it is apparently generically identical with the group characterized 
by Maingay as Griffithia, a genus previously known only from the Malay 
Peninsula. Even in Griffithia (=Griffithianthus) it is somewhat anomalous, 
differing, apparently, in its stellate indumentum (I have seen no specimens 
of the species described by King, and in his descriptions and figures there 
is no indication that the indumentum is stellate), its smaller flowers, and 
its sepals not or but very slightly imbricate. 
The flowers are axillary, short-pediceled, densely ferruginous-pubescent, 
each pedicel with a broadly ovate, rounded or obtuse, 3.5 mm long bracteole. 
Sepals broadly ovate, densely ferruginous-pubescent on both surfaces, about 
3 mm long, obtuse to subacute, valvate or obscurely imbricate at the base. 
Outer petals oblong, thick, obtuse, 8 to 9 mm long, 4 mm wide, imbricate, 
somewhat keeled inside, the inner three similar in size or a little shorter, 
valvate by their broadened margins, cohering in bud and perhaps in young 
flowers, later spreading, the basal part excavated, much thinner than the 
upper one-half, but not arched or vaulted, base broad. Stamens about 25, 
