BOTANY OF THE PHILIPPINES 365 



proposed by the older authors . . . We can no longer look on 

 the work of this or that author, no matter how incomplete or im- 

 perfect, as unworthy of consideration, nor can we accept Hooker's 

 dictum (Fl. Indica, p. 56) regarding species proposed by such 

 authors as Blanco, that it was ' undesirable to devote time to their 

 identification ' . . . . The general adoption of the principle of priority 

 has emphasized the great importance of what Hooker f. charac- 

 terized as the antiquarian branch of botany .... The strict applica- 

 tion of the rules of priority as to specific names has resulted in many 

 changes of nomenclature, but these changes are inevilal)le if the 

 International Code be followed,'' although "the conservative botanist 

 will be shocked to learn that as a result of the present investigation 

 such common, widely distributed, and well-known species as the pine- 

 apple, the soy bean, the cow pea and the pomelo must receive new 

 specific names." Many such changes occur throughout the volume, 

 but none have been made wantonly on insufficient knowledge, and in 

 cases of complication Mr. Merrill has set forth the evidence on which 

 they are based. Good examples of this occur on pp. 260-1, where 

 CcBsalpinia Crista Linn. Sp. PL ed. 1 and C. jayaho Maza are substi- 

 tuted for the usually employed C. ( Guilandinci) Bonduc and C. ( (r.) 

 bonducella, but they abound throughout the book ; we have seldom 

 seen a niore carefully executed piece of work as regai'ds synonymy 

 than the elaboration of the notes, often at considerable length, which 

 appeal's under each species. The seqvience followed is that of Engler 

 and Prantl ; under each name is giv^en the necessary synonymy, as 

 well as the Rumphian name and the distribution of each species in 

 Amboina, should it occur there : the typographical arrangement, 

 often defective in works of the kind, is excellent ; Ave regret, however, 

 that the "recommendation " that commemorative names should begin 

 wdth a capital letter has been disregarded. At the end of the 

 book is a sequence of the Rumphian names in the order of the 

 Herharium^ with binominal equivalents : we are glad to note that all 

 names are included in one index. 



Since the above was written, Mr. Merrill has issued a " critical 

 revision " of the plants described by Blanco and Llanos, which in 

 every detail of treatment corresponds with his work on Rum])hius 

 and is entitled to equal praise. He had alreadj% as mentioned above, 

 ])ul)lished a " review " of the species described by Blanco, of which the 

 })resent volume may be regarded as a greatly enlarged edition. While 

 the author endorses the criticisms passed by J. D. Hooker and 

 Alphonse de CandoUe u]jon Blanco's work, he points out that Blanco, 

 as shown by his own statement, " made no claim to being a botanist, 

 and credits him with "initiative, industry, and perseverance." "Most 

 of the facts recorded are the result of observation, and even if 

 he did make numerous grave errors in identification of species, his 

 descriptions, as such, on the whole compare favourably with those 

 of his contemporaries. In fact, descriptions in general, on account 

 of their length, are distinctly supei'ior to the very brief diagnoses 

 a])])earing in the older. botanical literature as a means of interpreting 

 the species intended." Mr. Merrill is justly severe on the extrava- 



