PALMAE 85 
ippines. There is no reason for considering that Blanco’s 
description is based on material representing more than one 
species. 
Illustrative specimen from Unisan, Tayabas Province, Luzon, 
May 11, 1916, there known as anahao, comm. Felix Bawan 
(Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 919). 
CALAMUS Linnaeus 
CALAMUS USITATUS Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 265 (sp. nov.) ; ed. 2 (1845) 
185; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 330, t. 99 (C. mollis) . 
After a careful consideration of all the accumulated data 
and material here, in connection with a study of Blanco’s descrip- 
tion, I am obliged to dissent from the current interpretation 
of this species. It has been placed by Beccari and others as 
a synonym of Daemonorops gaudichaudii, but I interpret it as 
the species described and figured by Beccari as Calamus mollis 
(non Blanco!). It was reduced by Naves in part to Daemon- 
orops rumphit Mart., and in part to Calamus pisicarpus Blume, 
neither of which occur in the Philippines. While Blanco’s de- 
scription may have been based on a mixture of specimens, this 
is entirely improbable. Beccari has interpreted Calamus usita- 
tus to be a Daemonorops chiefly from the calyx characters given 
by Blanco. I interpret it especially by the leaf characters given 
by Blanco, its great abundance at low altitudes in the provinces 
contiguous to Manila, its edible fruits, and the almost universal 
and nearly exclusive use of the native name way for this plant. 
See the discussion of Daemonorops mollis, infra. 
Illustrative specimen from Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
December, 1914, there known as way (Merrill: Species Blanco- 
anae No. 682). 
CALAMUS MAXIMUS Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 266 (sp. nov.) ; ed. 2 (1845) 
185; ed. 8, 1 (1877) 381. 
This is a perfectly valid species and is Calamus merrillii Becc. 
in Martelli Webbia 1 (1905) 347, Ann. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 11 
(1908) 105, 390, t. 167. It is the same as Beccari’s original 
identification of Blanco’s species, Merrill 1893, in Perk. Frag. 
Fl. Philip. (1904) 45, which number Beccari later made the 
type of Calamus merrillii Becc., at the same time referring 
Calamus maximus Blanco to Calamus ornatus Blume var. philip- 
pinensis Becc. Palasan is Calamus maximus as here interpreted, 
while Calamus ornatus Blume var. philippinensis Bece. is in- 
variably limoran, and the two are never confused by the natives. 
Both native names are cited by Blanco, the former under Calamus 
maximus, the latter under an undescribed species of Calamus 
