360 SPECIES BLANCOANAE 
August, 1913, under the Tagalog name huliganga; a topotype 
(Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 643). 
MITRAGYNA Korthals 
Mamboga capitata Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 140 (gen. et sp. nov.) =Nauclea 
luzoniensis Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 102; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 187, non 
D. Dietr.=MITRAGYNA ROTUNDIFOLIA (Roxb.) O. Ktze. (M. 
diversifolia Havil.). 
Nauclea adina Blanco FI. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 102; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 188, ¢. 131, 
non Sm.=MITRAGYNA ROTUNDIFOLIA (Roxb.) O. Ktze. 
The generic designation Mamboga Blanco has priority over 
Mitragyna Korthals, the latter having been published in the year 
1839; however, Korthals’s name is retained in the list of nomina 
conservanda adopted by the Vienna Botanical Congress. Mam- 
boga capitata Blanco was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Stephe- 
gyne speciosa Korth., and Nauclea adina Blanco to S. diversifolia 
Korth. While both species occur in the Philippines, I am now 
of the opinion that both of Blanco’s descriptions apply to a 
single species, the common and widely distributed Mitragyna 
rotundifolia (Roxb.) O. Ktze. Blanco was certainly in error 
in describing the species as a large tree. The maximum size 
indicated on our abundant material is 15 meters, but most of 
the specimens are indicated as from trees from 6 to 12 meters 
high. The only difference indicated in Blanco’s two descriptions 
is that the leaves of Mamboga capitata are described as smooth, 
while those of Nauclea adina are described as somewhat pubes- 
cent beneath; the species is decidedly variable in this character. 
Widely distributed in the northern and central Philippines at 
low altitudes and very generally known as mambog. 
Illustrative specimen from Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
September, 1913 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 524). 
UNCARIA Schreber 
Tapogomea rubra Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 145 (sp. nov.) =Cephaelis ex- 
paleacea Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 103 (nom. nov.); ed. 3,1 (1877) : 
189=? UNCARIA sp. 
Fernandez-Villar reduced this to Uncaria acida Roxb., a species 
not known from the Philippines and one to which Blanco’s de- 
scription does not conform. Blanco’s description is sufficiently — 
ample and certainly applies to some representative of the 
Naueleae, yet of all the numerous Philippine representatives of 
this tribe no single species conforms entirely with the descrip- 
tion as given by Blanco. It is suspected, however, that the form — <1 
described was a Nauclea, and that the description itself is faulty 
in some particulars. If an Uncaria, it should be near U. perrot- ae ; 
tetit Merr., U. setiloba Benth., and U. philippinensis Elm. The _ 
