RUTACEAE 197 
the form with small leaflets generally referred to Fagara avicen- 
nae Lam. 
Illustrative specimen from Rizal Province, Luzon, July, 1914, 
fruit, October, 1916, there known as cayutana (Merrill: Species 
Blancoanae Nos. 1060, 1002). 
EVODIA Forster 
EVODIA BINTOCO Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 50 (sp. nov.); ed. 3, 1 
(1877) 93. 
This species was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Hvodia lati- 
folia DC., and most of the recently collected Philippine material 
representing it has been determined as Evodia latifolia DC. It 
is not at all certain, however, that the Philippine form is the 
same as de Candolle’s species, which was based wholly on 
Ampacus latifolia Rumph. Herb. Aaah 2 106. ¢, (O12 Ine 
Philippine form has also been described by me as Hvodia minda- 
naensis Merr. in Philip. Forest. Bur. Bull. 1 (1903) 25; this is 
an exact synonym of Evodia bintoco Blanco. Blanco’s material 
was from the Visayan Islands (Samar and Bohol) ; the species 
is widely distributed in the southern Philippines. 
Illustrative specimen from Jaro, Leyte, comm. C. A. Wenzel, 
February, 1916 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 981). 
Orixa ternata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 62 (sp. nov.); ed. 2, (1845) 45; ed. 
3, 1 (1877) 84=EVODIA TERNATA (Blanco) Merr. in Philip. Journ. 
Sei. 9 (1914) Bot. 297. 
This species was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Evodia ro- 
busta Hook. f., a species not known from the Philippines. The 
description is very incomplete and might apply to almost any 
of the Philippine forms of the genus with glabrous leaves. In 
originally making the identification of Evodia ternata the chief 
determining character, other than the description, was the indi- 
cated distribution and time of flowering as given by Blanco; 
there is very little doubt as to the correctness of the interpre- 
tation. 
Illustrative specimens from Rizal Province, Luzon, March, 
September, 1915 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae Nos. 906, 913). 
Melicope tetrandra Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 293, non Roxb.=Evodia tri- 
phylla Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 50; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 92, non DC.= 
? EVODIA GLABRA Blume. 
Cissus frutescens Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 70 (sp. nov.) =Cissus arborea 
Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 51; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 95, non Forst., nec 
Willd.=? EVODIA GLABRA Blume. : 
The first of the above was considered by Fernandez-Villar to 
have been correctly referred by Blanco to Evodia triphylla DC.. 
