ORCHIDACEAE ~~ 117 
Illustrative specimen from Antipolo, Rizal Province, Luzon, 
January, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 733). 
RHYNCHOSTYLIS Blume 
Orchis.lanigera Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 641 (sp. nov.); ed. 2 (1845) 446; 
ed. 3, 3 (1879) 37=RYNCHOSTYLIS RETUSA Blume. 
This was reduced by Naves to Aerides virens Lindl. where it 
certainly does not belong. The country of origin of Lindley’s 
species is unknown, but there is no reason for considering that 
it was Philippine. Blanco’s description applies very closely to 
Rynchostylis retusa Blume, a species of wide distribution in 
the regions from which he received most of his botanical mate- 
rial. Orchis lanigera Blanco is not included in Index Kewensis; 
the specific name was not from any pubescent character of the 
plant but from the “especie de lana algo Aspera’”’ inside the 
capsules. 
Illustrative specime: from Bosoboso, Rizal Province, Luzon; 
September, 1916 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 1030). 
ORCHIDACEAE OF UNCERTAIN STATUS 
Cypripedium bulbosum Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 637; ed. 2 (1845) 444; ed. 
3, 3 (1879) 33, non Linn.=Orchidaceae indet. 
Blanco’s description is so exceedingly indefinite that I cannot 
suggest a definite reduction of the form he erroneously ascribed 
to Cypripedium bulbosum Linn. He may have seen some species 
of Cestichis or Malaxis. The form he described is certainly no 
Eulophia, although Naves referred it to Eulophia sumatrana 
Blume. 
Pelexia ? falcata Llanos Frag. Pl. Filip. (1851) 95; F.-Vill. & Naves in 
Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 3, 4* (1880) 73=Orchidaceae indet. 
_Naves reduced this to the Australian Phreatia limenophylax 
Benth. with which Llanos’s description has nothing in common. 
The description may apply to Oberonia, but beyond this I can 
make no suggestion as to the identity of the iblent described. 
The description is very imperfect. . af 
Gongora philippica Llanos in Mem. Acad. Cienc. Madr. 2 (1859) 498 (sp- 
nov.) ; F.-Vill. & Naves in Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 3, 4* (1880) 100. 
The entire description is as follows: “species mihi videtur 
novissima. Habitat epiphyta in montibus Angat. Sepalis in- 
terné violaceis: labello albo-violaceo; foliis ovatis apice retusis 
mucronatisque. Planta speciosissima.” Naves reduced it to 
Renanthera coccinea Lour., which, at least as to the species, is 
certainly a wrong disposition of it. 
