328 1'he Philippine Journal of Science wis 



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

 to it should be referred most of the Philippine material distributed from 

 the Bureau of Science as Scolopia crenata Clos and as S. luzonensis Warb. 

 It is well characterized by its ciliate anther-appendages. 



I think it probable that Banara brevifolia Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 

 426 = Flacourtia parvifolia Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 2 (1845) 560 should also be 

 referred here. Blanco's description is altogether too short and incomplete 

 properly to determine the plant he had in mind, and of which he saw no 

 flowers. F.-Villar has reduced it to Scolopia dasyanthera Benn., which, if 

 correct, would place it under Scolopia luzonensis Warb., for Bennett's 

 designation is only a new name for the plant originally described by Presl 

 as Desianthera luzonensis. This fact I overlooked at the time I worked 

 over the determinations of Blanco's species, which accounts for my state- 

 ment' that Scolopia dasyanthera Benn. was a species unknown from the 

 Philippines. 



Just how constant are the characters selected by Briquet in distinguish- 

 ing the closely allied forms that have, for the most part, been reduced at 

 one time or another to form a comprehensive species, Scolopia crenata Clos, 

 remains to be seen. In our rich Philippine collections evidences of inter- 

 grading forms occur, that to a greater or less degree invalidate the key 

 characters adopted by Warburg and by Briquet in distinguishing the sec- 

 tions Adenoscolopia and Sphenoscolopia. Elmer 5625, 6363, from Benguet 

 Subprovince, Luzon , and Bur. Sci. 10376 McGregor, from Polillo, are in all 

 essential characters typical Scolopia luzonensis Warb., and have the peculiar 

 ciliate anthers of that species; yet all three specimens have glands at 

 the apices of their petioles, or on the leaf margins near the insertion of the 

 petioles which would place them in the section Adenoscolopia, and as a 

 result necessitate the description of the form as a new species. In my 

 mind there is absolutely no doubt but that all three sheets are fairly typical 

 Scolopia luzonensis Warb., a species manifestly belonging in the section 

 Sphenoscolopia. 



SCOLOPIA SAEVA (Hance) Hance in Ann. Sci. Nat. IV 28 (1862) 217; 

 Briq. in Ann. Conserv. Jard. Bot. Geneve 2 (1898) 46. 

 Phoberos saevus Hance in Walp. Ann. 3 (1853) 825. 

 Scolopia lanceolata Clos, in Ann. Sci. Nat. IV 8 (1857) 252, p. p., 

 quoad pi. Philip.; Vid. Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 49. 

 This species is very similar to Scolopia luzonensis Warb., but is dis- 

 tinguished by its entirely glabrous anthers. The following material is ap- 

 parently referable to it : 



Luzon, Benguet Subprovince, For. Bur. 10921 Curran: Province of 

 Pangasinan, For. Bur. 9632 Zschokke: Province of Zambales, Merrill 29U9, 

 For. Bur. 908 Maule: Province of Rizal, For. Bur. U28, 2680 Ahern's 

 collector, Merrill 1 653. 



I have seen no specimen of Cuming 1061, cited by Clos, but the above 

 specimens agree with Hongkong material and with the descriptions avail- 

 able. Scolopia lanceolata Clos is based on Phoberos lanceolata W. & A. 

 Prodr. (1834) 30, and is an older name than that proposed by Hance and 

 accepted by Briquet. The type of Phoberos lanceolata W. & A. was from 

 India, and the species is, presumably, different from the Philippine form. 



'Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 27 (1905) 18. 



