46 SPECIES. BLANCOANAE 
Illustrative specimen from -Mandaloyan (topotype), Rizal 
Province, Luzon, August, 1910 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae 
No. 284). 
ADIANTUM PHILIPPENSE Lins Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 831; ed 2 
(1845) 575; ed. 3.3 (1879) 249. 
Adiantum tenuifolium Blanco op. cit. 832; 575; 250, non Lam., nec Sw.= 
ADIANTUM PHILIPPENSE Linn. 
Blanco was correct in his interpretation of the Linnean species, 
and Fernandez-Villar was correct in his reduction. of it to 
Adiantum lunulatum Burm. f. However, the Linnean name 
dates from the year 1753, while Burman’s name dates from the 
year 1768; there is absolutely no doubt as to the correctness 
of the present interpretation of the Linnean species, the only 
Philippine fern described by Linnaeus. Adiantum tenuifolium 
Blanco is manifestly only a thin-leaved (shade) form of. the 
common A. philippense Linn. The species is common and widely 
distributed in the Philippines. Ey 
Illustrative specimen from Antipolo, Rizal Province, Luzon, 
October, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 496). 
PTERIS Linnaeus 
Adiantum lancea Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 833, ed. 2 (1845) 576, ed. 3, 3 
(1879) 250, non Linn. nec. Bak.=PTERIS VITTATA Linn. (P. longi- 
folia Auct., non Linn.). 
Pteris trichomanoides Blanco op. cit. 830; 574; 247, non Linn.=PTERIS 
VITTATA Linn. (P. longifolia Auct., non Linn.). | 
Pteris grandifolia Blanco op. cit. 829; 574; 246, non Linn.=? PTERIS 
VITTATA Linn. (P. longifolia. Auct., non Linn.). 
Adiantum lancea Blanco was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to 
Lindsaya ensifolia Sw.=Schizoloma ensifolium J. Sm., a species 
that does not occur near Manila and one which is very rare in 
the Philippines. The description is very poor, but so far as it. 
goes agrees fairly well with Pteris vittata Linn. which is common 
in and about Manila and which is widely distributed in the Phil- 
ippines; Blanco’s specimens were from Mandaloyan, a suburb 
of Manila. Pteris trichomanoides Blanco was reduced by F.- 
Villar to Nephrolepis ramosa Moore, but from Blanco’s im- 
perfect description it cannot possibly belong in Nephrolepis, — 
but is unquestionably Pteris vittata Linn. Pteris grandifolia 
Blanco was reduced by F.-Villar to P. opaca J. Sm., which is 
unquestionably an erroneous disposition of it. The name taga- 
bas, one of these cited by Blanco, i is now used in parts of Cavite 
Province, Luzon, to designate a species of Dryopteris of the D. 
parasitica group. Blanco’s short description, however, applies — 
