INTRODUCTION 21 
Quercus woodii Hance; F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 208. 
A redescription of Hance’s species, the data entirely from Hance’s original 
diagnosis. 
Quercus jordanae Laguna; F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 208. 
A redescription of this species, the data entirely from Laguna’s original 
diagnosis. 
Quercus vidalii F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 209. 
This form was later figured by Vidal, Sinopsis, Atlas (1883) t. 92 f. B, 
and rightly or wrongly has been reduced by me to Quercus jordanae La- 
guna; see Philip. Journ. Sci. 3 (1908) Bot. 322. A duplicate of Vidal’s 
specimen on which it was based is preserved in the Kew Herbarium. ¢ 
Quercus caraballoana F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 209. 
This I have reduced to Quercus jordanae Laguna, which is apparently 
the correct disposition of it. The type collection, Vidal, does not appear 
to be extant. 
Habenaria cordata Naves Novis. App. (1880) 251. 
From the description and the locality cited, this is apparently a synonym 
of Habenaria diphylla Dalz. 
Semecarpus gigantifolia F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1883) 350. 
This was published on June 15, 1883, but was also briefly described and 
also figured as Semecarpus gigantéfolia Vidal, Sinopsis, Atlas (1883) XXII, 
t. $2 f. A. There is no means of determining which author has priority. 
The species is a most characteristic one, now represented in various herbaria 
by a number of collections from various parts of Luzon. 
CONTEMPORARY OPINIONS REGARDING BLANCO’S WORK AND THE 
EARLY ATTEMPTS TO ELUCIDATE HIS SPECIES 
In the Philippines the work of Blanco was popularly sup- 
posed to be of a very high order, and locally he was ranked 
among the most eminent botanists of the world. The value 
placed on his work by the Augustinian Order, of which he was 
a member, was so high that in 1877-83, over thirty years after 
Blanco’s death, a sumptuous and very expensive third edition 
of his Flora de Filipinas was issued, in six volumes, folio, of 
which four volumes are text and two volumes are plates. This 
edition is fully discussed elsewhere; see p. 9. — 
In Europe, however, Blanco’s work was considered more as 
a curiosity than as a valuable contribution to our knowledge of 
systematic botany, ‘and no botanist familiar with the work is 
justified in giving it high rank in comparison with similar con- 
temporary works on other countries. 
The first mention of Blanco’s Flora de Filipinas of which 
I have any record is the rather extensive review by George 
Toes Lay,’® who abstracts data regarding about fifteen 
_* Chinese Repository 7 (1888) 422-487. 
