28 SPECIES BLANCOANAE i 
Oryza, all here proposed being properly reducible to Oryza 
sativa Linn., and under Musa, these being mostly cultural forms 
of Musa sapientum Linn. or M. paradisiaca Linn. Owing to 
changes in nomenclature in the second edition, the total number 
of names proposed by Blanco for his 1,136 species and varieties 
is about 1,386. 
A critical study of Blanco’s species has shown that he fre- 
quently described the same species twice, or sometimes three 
or even four times under different specific names, either in the i 
same or in different genera. In about 148 cases reductions have 
been made in this connection, so that the total number of dif- 
ferent species actually described by Blanco is but about 993 
assuming that the fifty species, still of doubtful status, are 
really distinct from the forms otherwise described by Blanco. 
Fernandez-Villar and Naves reduced all but about ten or 
twelve of Blanco’s species, while in my previous consideration 
of the work, I indicated two hundred and thirty-six as of doubt- 
ful status. This number has now been reduced to about fifty, 
which for one reason or another I have been unable to interpret. 
In many cases these remaining doubtful species are those very 
briefly and imperfectly described, and there is little reason to 
believe that such species can be located. In other cases it is 
entirely probable that data and material may eventually be 
secured by which some of the species can be located and their ~ 
status determined. 
Blanco published about 686 new binomials and trinomials, of 
which approximately 195 supply the valid specific names for 
the various species under the International Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature. Wherever Blanco’s names can be shown to 
be valid, they have been accepted by me, the ——_ being reduced 
in the following critical enumeration. © 
_ Six hundred and ninety binomials originally proposed by other 
authors were assigned by Blanco to Philippine species described 
by him, on the assumption in each case that the Philipine plant 
really represented the species originally described under the 
same binomial. Blanco’s percentage of error in interpreting 
species of other authors is remarkably high, which, however, 
was only the natural result of his methods of work. Over four 
hundred of these binomials, or about 60 per cent, were misapplied. 
I have invariably assumed that these misinterpreted binomials | 
are invalid, which is the only logical method of treating them. 
Hallier f.,°* however, takes a different view of this matter, as) 
ROE ST 
* Beihefte Bot. Centralbl. 34? (1916) 42. 
