PHILIPPINE PLANTS, IX. " 289 



SEMECARPUS CUN El FORM IS Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 220, ed. 2 (1845) 



155, ed. 3, 1 : 276, Naves 1. c. ed. 3, pL 75. 

 Setnecarpus perrottetii March. Rev. Anac. (1869) 169; Engl, in DC. 



Monog. Phan. 4 (1883) 380; Vid. Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 101; 



Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 28. 

 Semecarpus anacardium Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 217, ed. 2 (1845) 



152, non L. f. 

 Semecarpus viicrocarpa F.-Vill. Novis. App. (1880) 55, non Wall. 

 Semecarpus pubescens F.-Vill. 1. c, non Thwaites. 

 Semecarpus sideroxyloides Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 28. 



This species is common and widely distributed in the Philippines, and 

 is the most abundant one of the genus found in the Archipelago. There 

 is no valid reason why Blanco's specific name, cuneiformis, should not be 

 adopted for the species, although like many of Blanco's descriptions, that 

 of Semecarpus cuneiformis is short and imperfect. The one distinctive 

 character that he gives is that the leaves are retuse at the apex, which 

 is true of a number of specimens manifestly referable to Semecarpus 

 perrottetii March. 



The type of Semecarpus perrottetii March, was collected by Perrottet 

 in Luzon, and is preserved in the Herbarium of the Paris Museum of 

 Natural History. Two sheets are so named by Marchand, one of which 

 bears Perrottet's note "tres comun .... a Manille," indicating that the type 

 was collected in Manila. The species is still very common in and about 

 the city, and in essential characters is rather constant. There is considerable 

 variation in the shape of the leaves, their apices varying from broadly 

 rounded to retuse on the one hand, and to acute or shortly and broadly 

 acuminate on the other. Perrottet's type has broadly rounded leaves, 

 according to carbon rubbings kindly made for me by Dr. C. B. Robinson, 

 and according to a carbon rubbing made by myself of the single leaf of 

 Perrottet's plant preserved in the Berlin Herbarium. 



Semecarpus anacardium Blanco, non L. f., is manifestly the same 

 species, although, of course, Blanco may have included in it more than the 

 common form. Semecarpus anacardium L. f. certainly does not extend 

 to the Philippines. 



Semecarpus microcarpa F.-Vill. is only a mis-identification of Blanco's 

 S. cuneiformis on the part of F.-Villar., while <S. pubescens F.-Vill., is a 

 manifest mis-identification of Blanco's S. anacardium. 



Semecarpus sideroxyloides Perk., is typical S. perrottetii March., = S. 

 cuneiformis Blanco, and is accordingly reduced. A number of specimens 

 referred by Doctor Perkins to Semecarpus perrottetii March." are not 

 properly referable to that species. 



I consider Semecarpus cuneiformis Blanco (S. perrottetii March.) to be 

 well represented by the following specimens : 



Luzon, Province of Cagayan, For. Bur. 16983 Bacani, For. Bur. 18605 

 Klemme: Province of Ilocos Norte, Bur. Sci. 7676 Ramos: Bontoc Sub- 

 province, For. Bur. 10981 Curran: Province of Union, Elmer 5562, 5637: 

 Province of Pangasinan, Alberto 83: Province of Zambales, For. Bur. 

 6977 Curran, Merrill 3010, Sankuhl s. n., Hallier s. n.: Province of Bulacan, 

 Mrs. Templeton s. n. Manila, Perrottet (type of S. perrottetii March., 



•Frag. FL Philip. (1904) 28. 



