240 The Philippine Journal of Science 1915 
Cyathocalyx. The species has, hence, by various authors been 
referred to five different genera in several distinct tribes. 
In such cases as this where a single species is by various au- 
thors referred to several very different genera, it not infrequently 
happens that in reality a distinct generic type is represented. 
The most recent consideration of Unona virgata Blume is 
that by Boerlage,'* who reinstates Meiogyne Miq. as a valid 
genus, for reasons that I consider to be entirely valid. Ac- 
cording to Blume’s first classification of the species it would 
fall in the tribe Unoneae, and to his second in the tribe 
Uvarieae. Hooker f. & Thomson retain it in the Unoneae as 
does King. Boerlage, however, removes it from the Unoneae, 
and correctly, I think, places it in the Xylopieae. 
Unona virgata Blume has been credited to the Philippines on 
the basis of a specimen collected in Leyte '* by Cuming No. 1738, 
but although a specimen of this collection has been in the her- 
barium of the Bureau of Science for some years, the same form 
has not been contained in any modern collections until recently, 
when it was collected by Ramos, again in Leyte. The additional 
material seems to show that the Philippine form is specifically 
distinct from the Javan one, and it is accordingly described 
here as a new species. The synonymy of Meiogyne virgata 
Mig. is as follows: 
MEIOGYNE VIRGATA (Blume) Miq. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 2 (1865) 12; 
Boerl. in Ie. Bogor. 1 (1899) 123, pl. 41. 
Unona virgata Blume Bijdr. (1825) 14; Migq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 1? (1858) 
42. ° 
Uvaria virgata Blume FI. Jav. Anon. (1828) 45, t. 19, 25B. 
Cananga virgata Hook. f. & Th. in Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. 1 (1872) 57. 
Cyathocalyx virgatus King in Journ. As. Soc. Bang. 617 (1892) 28, 
Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 4 (1893) 37, pl. 44. 
The species was originally described from Javan material, and is reported 
from Chittagong, the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and Borneo. From an 
examination of the descriptions given by various authors, and especially 
the figures given by Blume, King, and Boerlage, it seems doubtful whether 
or not all can be referred to a single species. The three figures represent 
forms so different in detail that it would not be surprising if, on critical 
examination of all available material, several distinct species were found to 
be represented. It is almost absolutely certain that the form figured and 
described by King represents a species different from that described by 
Blume, for Blume described the outer petals as one and one-half inches long, 
“Te. Bogor. 1 (1899) 123. 
“Vidal Phan. Cuming. Philip. (1885) 92, Rev. Pl. Vasc. Filip. (1886) 
41; Rolfe in Journ. Bot. 23 (1885) 210. 
