130 SPECIES BLANCOANAE 
URTICACEAE 
LA PO RT EA Gaudichaud 
Urtica umibeliata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 696, non Bory=Urtica ferox 
Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 484; ed. 3, 3 (1879) 102, non Forst,= 
LAPORTEA MEYENIANA (Walp.) Warb. (L. gaudichaudiana 
Wedd.). 
This species is widely distributed at low altitudes in central 
and northern Luzon and is well known from its violent stinging 
properties. The leaves reach 40 cm in length. The most com- 
mon native names are lipa and lupa. 
Illustrative specimen from Umingan, Pangasinan Mliviniee, 
May, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 401). 
FLE U RYA Gaudichaud 
Urtica sessiliflora Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 696, non Sw.= uidrdcacanbeas 
Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 483; ed. 3, 3 (1879) 101, non, Linn.= 
FLEURYA INTERRUPTA (L.) Gaudich. 
This is common and widely distributed in and about towns 
at low and medium altitudes in the Philippines ; sEeety 
an introduced species in the Archipelago. 
Illustrative specimen from Antipolo, Rizal Province, “Luzon, 
October, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 455). 
ELATOSTEMA Forster 
Dorstenia pubescens Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 692; ed. 2 (1845) ° 481; ed. 
3, 3 (1879) 98, non Forst.=ELATOSTEMA LUZONENSE C: B. Rob. 
-in Philip. Senrns Sci. 5 (1910) Bot. 512. 
This reduction is not entirely satisfactory as Biation’ s immedi 
tion does not fit Robinson’s species in all respects. . At the same 
timeit is the only species that. we have been able to find near 
Manila that at all agrees with Blanco’s data. It was reduced by — 
Fernandez-Villar to Elatostema obtusum Wedd., which is cer- 
tainly an error. Blanco’s specimens were from Pasig, while the: 
illustrative specimens, cited below, were from just aernss the 
river from Pasig. ee 
Illustrative specimen from near Fort William McKinley, Rizal 
- Province, Luzon, October, 1914 AM ont ae Species Blancoanae No. 
Z 58); 
BOEHMERIA {alate Sad 
Urtica nivea Linn.; Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 697; ed. 2 (1845) 484; ed. 3, 
3 (1879) 102, t. $885=BOEHMERIA NIVEA (Linn.) Gaudich. - i 
The Linnean species was certainly correctly interpreted by _ 
Blanco, although it properly belongs in the genus Boehmeria _ 
where it was placed by Gaudichaud. The species is renapatgne ee 
