INTRODUCTION 29 
indicated by his proposition to adopt Exacum albens Blanco 
(1837) non Linnaeus (1753) as the valid name for the Malayan 
plant commonly but erroneously referred to Exacum tetragonum 
Roxb. Eaacum albens Linn. is the name-bringing synonym of 
Sebaea albens R. Br., and as a synonym Hallier, like many other 
botanists, does not recognize that it invalidates the use of the 
same specific name for another species of Hxacum. If this prin- 
ciple be applied to all of Blanco’s misinterpreted binomials, his 
specific names would have to be adopted in numerous cases. I 
hold that the publication of a binomial, whether such binomial be 
valid or a synonym, invalidates the future use of the same specific 
name for any other species under the same generic name; any 
other method of treating such names merely adds to the chaotic 
condition of binomial nomenclature. 
In determining the status of Blanco’s species many factors 
must be taken into consideration. The supplementary data given 
by Blanco for his various species are not infrequently of greater 
importance in determining his species than are the descriptions 
themselves. Utilizing our vast amount of accumulated data on 
the Philippine flora and our fairly intensive knowledge of the 
flora of those regions chiefly explored by Blanco, and comparing 
our material and data with Blanco’s descriptions, it has been pos- 
sible to determine with a definite degree of certainty the identity 
of a high percentage of his species. This even applies in those 
cases where his descriptions are faulty or erroneous; short and 
very imperfect; and where they are based on material orig- 
inating from two different species or even from representatives 
of different genera or families. Much of the data necessary to 
a clear understanding of many of the species could, of necessity, 
be secured only by field work with special reference to the 
problem. 
Previous attempts to determine just what Blanco intended 
by many of his species have in many cases proved abortive. 
European botanists working only with dried specimens; with no 
knowledge of the Philippine flora from actual field work; with 
few or no notes accompanying their dried specimens; with 
no knowledge of the local names and uses of plants, their occur- 
rence, relative abundance, time of flowering or fruiting, and 
other factors, have naturally been unable in many cases prop- 
erly to interpret Blancoan species, and authors of various mono- 
graphs have accordingly been obliged to compile descriptions 
from the data given by Blanco and to treat numerous species 
as unknown or imperfectly known. 
Local botanists up to the ene of the ania century 
