22 SPECIES BLANCOANAE 
species and gives some additional information based on his own 
observations. 
The next review that appeared is by Lindley,?? who gives a 
brief summary of the contents of the first edition, estimating 
the number of species described at about eleven hundred, and 
enumerating the new genera proposed. Regarding the work 
in general Lindley states: ‘“‘A great proportion [of the species] 
are referred to Linnean plants, it is needless to say with but 
little probability of their belonging to them,” and closes his 
review with this statement: “For the opportunity of examining 
this curious work I am indebted to the Hon. W. F. Strangways, 
by whom it has been presented to the library of the Horticul- 
tural Society.” 
In 1842 Walpers”: published a comprehensive review of the 
first edition of the Flora de Filipinas, translating into Latin 
the descriptions of the new species proposed by Blanco. The 
consideration includes the first 447 species described, up to 
and including Vatica mangachapoi, page 401. About 180 de- — 
scriptions were translated into Latin. No new names appear 
in this work other than Bauhinia pinnata Walp. for what should 
be Bauhinia binata Blanco. The species, with this exception, 
appear under the names assigned to them by Blanco. The 
article closes with the statement “continuabitur,” but no more 
was printed as the “‘Litteratur-Bericht” was discontinued with 
volume 16 of Linnaea. 
Doctor J. K. Hasskarl *? in connection with his work of eluci- 
dating or interpreting the work of the pre-Linnaean authors 
Rumphius and Rheede, commenced the publication of a critical 
consideration of Blanco’s species, but the work does not extend 
beyond a discussion of the first thirty-three species of the first 
edition, pages 1 to 24, as far as Tetrandria, Monogynia. In 
attempting to elucidate the first thirty-three species described 2 
by Blanco, Hasskarl proposed eleven new binomials, which, with 
one exception, fall as synonyms; so that it is perhaps fortunate 
that the work commenced by him was never completed, or at 
least never published. Hasskarl attempted to interpret Blanco’s 
species from the descriptions, had little knowledge of the Phil- _ 
ippine flora, and naturally made numerous errors in his deduc- 
tions and conclusions. 
* Bot. Reg. 25 (1839) Miscel. 75, 76. 
* Linnaea 16 (1842) Litt.-Bericht 1-68. 
*M. Blanco, Flora de Filipinas, tibersetzt und eeenic i beleuchtet von J. 
K. Hasskarl. Flora 47 (1864) 17-23; 49-59. 
we i a Di a i is Oh 
