RUBIACEAE 361 
name mampol, by which Blanco states it was known in Cebu, 
does not appear on any of our Nauwcleae. Serious objections to 
Uncaria, as the proper genus for this species, are Blanco’s 
specific statement that the receptacle was not paleaceous, his 
description of it as a shrub, and his statements that the flowers 
are red, and that the style is of the same length as the stamens. 
NEONAUCLEA Merrill 
(Nauclea Auct., non Linnaeus) 
Nauclea glandulosa Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 143 (sp. nov.) =Nauclea glabra 
Blanco op. cit..ed. 2 (1845) 101; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 185, non Roxb.= 
NEONAUCLEA CALYCINA (Bartl.) Merr. (Nauclea calycina Bartl.). 
Nauclea lanceolata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1887) 144, non Blume=Nauclea 
calycina (?) Bartl.; Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 101, ed. 3, 1 (1877) 
186=NEONAUCLEA CALYCINA (Bartl.) Merr. 
After a careful consideration of Blanco’s descriptions and our 
abundant Philippine material I am convinced that but a single 
species is represented by the two forms Blanco described, and — 
that both are referable to Neonauclea calycina (Bartl.) Merr. 
a species based on Philippine specimens. The species is a timber 
tree and is still sometimes known as bagarilat, the Tagalog 
name cited by Blanco for N. glandulosa (N. glabra). Fernandez- 
Villar erroneously reduced Nauclea glandulosa (N. glabra) to 
Anthocephalus codamba Miq., but no representative of the genus 
Anthocephalus is known from the Philippines. Vidal referred 
Nauclea glabra Blanco to his N. blancoi, but the type of N. 
blancoi Vid. is manifestly Cuming 890, which represents a species 
_ entirely different from my interpretation of Blanco’s species. 
Nauclea lanceolata Blanco was reduced by him, with doubt, to 
N. calycina, and by Fernandez-Villar to N. purpurea Roxb.; but 
Roxburgh’s species does not extend to the Philippines. I can 
detect no specific differences either in Blanco’s descriptions or 
in specimens that come in as bagarilat and as bagarilao na itim 
(“itim” —black) . 
Illustrative specimen from Mount Maquiling, Laguna Province, 
Luzon, September, 1914, comm. A. Villamil, there known as 
bagarilao-na-itim (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 120). 
7 Ndeted lativettd Biased FE Pitip; 884) 164 (ep. nov.) non Sri Naiicien 
obtusa Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 101; ed. 3, 1 (1877) 187, non 
Blume=NEONAUCLEA MEDIA (Havil.) Merr. (Nauclea media 
Havil.). 
- Blanco described Nauclea latifolia as a new species, without 
reference to Smith’s earlier use of the same name, and erro- 
neously reduced it to Blume’s N. obtusa in the second edition, 
in which he was followed by Fernandez-Villar; Nauclea obtusa 
