68 



of the various species of Calogyne, it seems probable that our plant is 

 identical with Calogyne jnlosa R. Br., an Australian species, although it 

 may be more closely related to Calogyne chinensis Benth., a species of 

 southern China, and the only one previously known from outside of Aus- 

 tralia. Bentham^ expresses doubt as to the validity of Calogyne chinensis 

 as a distinct species and suggests that it may prove to be only a variety of 

 Calogyne pilosa R. Br., although it is retained as a distinct species by 

 Ii'orbes and Hemsley.^ If our identification of Blanco's species is correct, 

 the synonomy should be as follows: 



Calogyne pilosa R. Br. Prodr. 1:579. 1810; Benth. Fl. Austr. 4:81. 1869. 

 Goodenia diihia Spreng. Syst. 1: 721. 1825. Balingayum decumhens 

 Blanco, Fl. Filip. ed. 1, 187. 1837; ed. 2, 132. 1845; ed. 3, 1:237; 

 F.-Vill. Nov. App. 93. 1880; Merrill, Govt. Lab. Publ. 27:48. 1905. 



Specimens examinefl, Caloocan, Province of Rizal, Luzon (3669 Merrill), 

 Xovember, 1903; also specimens collected by Hallier, same locality and date. 

 Manila, Balicbalic (173 Rufino Mai'ave), January, 1895. 



A procumbent, more or less pubescent plant, not common in damp places 

 in open grass lands, banks of rice paddies, etc. 



^FI. Austr., 4:80. l§69. ^Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot.. 26:1. 1889. 



