LILIACEAE 97 
troduction in the Philippines, but was possibly not introduced 
until after the Spanish occupation of the Archipelago. It occurs 
throughout the Archipelago in the settled areas, but is nowhere 
wild. 
Illustrative specimen from Manila, Luzon, October, 1914 
(Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 512). 
SMILAX Linnaeus 
Smilax pseudochina Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 795; ed. 2 (1845) 548; ed. 3, 
~ 3 (1879) 204, non Linn.=SMILAX BRACTEATA Presl (S. blancoi 
Kunth). 
Smilax fistulosa Blanco op. cit. 796 (sp. nov.) ; 549; 205—SMILAX BRAC- 
TEATA Presl. 
This species is common and widely distributed in Luzon 
and is the only representative of the genus found near Manila. 
There is no doubt whatever that both Smilax pseudochina Blanco 
and S. fistulosa are the same species and that both are identical 
with S. bracteata Presl; Smilax blancoi Kunth is merely a new 
name for S. pseudochina Blanco. Naves was entirely unjustified 
in referring S. pseudochina Blanco to S. china, S. laevis, and 
Heterosmilax borneensts, none of which occur in the Philippines, 
except the first. To Smilax bracteata Presl should probably 
also be referred, in part, Smilax divaricata Blanco op. cit. 795 (sp. 
nov.) ; 548; 206, so far as this species is a Smilaz. The root 
characters and properties assigned to the species belong with 
Smilax, but the description of the leaves applies to Dioscorea: 
“Hojas * * * asaeteadas, con los lobulos laterales mui di- 
vergentes.” The flowers and fruits are not described. 
Illustrative specimen from Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
September, 1913 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 572). 
Smilax latifolia Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 548 (sp. nov.); ed. 8, 3 
(1879) 204, non R. Br.=Smilaw vicaria Kunth Enum. 5 (1850) 
262—SMILAX LEUCOPHYLLA Blume. 
Smilax vicaria Kunth is merely a new name for S. latifolia 
Blanco, non R. Br., and the species, accordingly, must be typified 
by Blanco’s description. I can see no reason, however, for dis- 
tinguishing the Philippine form from the Malayan Smilax leuco- 
phylla Blume. It is not common in the Philippines, but is 
apparently widely distributed, growing in forests at medium 
altitudes. It was erroneously reduced by Naves to Smilax mac- 
rophylla Roxb., a species that does not occur in the Philippines. 
- Tllustrative specimens from Bosoboso, Rizal Province, Luzon, 
December, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 690); San 
Antonio, Laguna Province, Luzon (Merrill: Species Blancoanae 
No. 951). 
151862——7 
