VERBENACEAE . 333 
description applies unmistakably to two different species, the 
“arbolillos” from Mandaloyan and Pangasinan (V. negundo), 
and the tree growing in the forests which is probably Vitex par- 
viflora Juss. (V. littoralis Decne.) ; the native name lagundi 
goes with the former, and the name molavin with the latter. 
Illustrative specimen from Antipolo, Rizal Province, Luzon, 
January, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 440). 
Vitex altissima Blanco Fl. Filip (1837) 516; ed. 2 (1845) 859; ed. 3, 2 
(1878) 299, t. 227, non Linn. f.=VITEX PARVIFLORA Juss. (V. 
littoralis Dene.). 
Vitex geniculata Blanco op. cit. 514 (sp. nov.); 358; 299=VITEX PARVI- 
FLORA Juss. 
Vitex latifolia Blanco op. cit. 514 (sp. nov.); 358; 298, non Mill.=VITEX 
PARVIFLORA Juss. 
There is no doubt in my mind, after studying our very full 
series of Philippine Vitex, and Blanco’s descriptions, that the 
three species described by Blanco are all referable to the common 
Vitex parviflora Juss. (V. littoralis Decne.). In both Vitex 
altissima and V. geniculata I interpret Blanco’s description to 
include 3-foliolate and 5-foliolate leaves, which is probably due 
to the inclusion of Vitex turczaninowii Merr., for Vitex parvi- 
flora invariably has 3-foliolate leaves. Fernandez-Villar’s re- 
duction of Vitex latifolia Blanco to V. pubescens Vahl is cer- 
tainly incorrect, for Blanco’s description does not apply to Vahl’s 
species, and moreover Vitex pubescens is not found in Luzon; 
the type of V. latifolia Blanco was from San Mateo, not far from 
Manila. Vitex parviflora Juss. is very common and widely dis- 
tributed in the Philippines and yields the very hard timber com- 
mercially known as molave or molawin. 
Illustrative specimen from Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
September, 1913 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 340). 
GMELINA Linnaeus 
Gmelina asiatica Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 492; ed. 2 (1845) 344; ed. 3, 2 
: (1878) 274, non Linn.=GMELINA PHILIPPENSIS Cham, in Linnaea 
7 (1832) 107. 
Gmelina inermis Blanco op. cit. 493 (sp. nov.) ; 345; 274, t. 215=GMELI NA 
PHILIPPENSIS Cham. 3 
Fernandez-Villar considered that Blanco correctly interpreted 
the Linnean species Gmelina asiatica and reduced to it G. phil- 
ippensis Cham., but the Philippine form is distinct. He also_ 
reduced G. inermis Blanco to G. villosa Roxb., but there is no 
justification for this reduction, as Blanco merely states “Ramas 
sin espinas. Hojas anchas, lanceoladas. En lo demas como la 
