126 Philippine Journal of Science im 



prominent lateral veins of the leaf are rather less numerous (about 10 or 11 

 on each side) in Loureiro's plant, and also slightly farther apart. The twigs 

 are also thicker in Loureiro's specimen. We find nothing that agrees 

 better with it. 



Dunal ^ seems to be the first author to adopt Loureiro's gen- 

 eric name, making it a section of the genus Unona. He referred 

 both of Loureiro's species to Unona; Melodorum fruticosum 

 Lour. = Unona dumetorum Dunal and Melodorum arboreum 

 Lour. = Unona sylvatica Dunal. He saw no specimen but inter- 

 preted both species from Loureiro's descriptions. In proposing 

 the section Melodorum, Dunal referred to it several other species; 

 Unon/i latifolia Dunal = Melodorum latifolium Hook, f . & Th., 

 U. liLcida DC. = Xylopia longifolia A, DC, Unona acutiflora 

 Dunal = Xylopia sp., Unona xylopoides Dunal, and Unona poly- 

 carpa DC. = Xylopia polycarpa Oliv. 



In current botanical literature the authority for the generic 

 name Melodorum is given as Hooker f. and Thomson,^ but these 

 authors credit the authority for the genus to Dunal, citing as 

 synonyms Unona, section Melodorwn Dunal ; Uvaria, section Mel- 

 odorum Biume; and Polyalthia, section Kentia Blume. Hooker 

 f. and Thomson apparently interpreted the genus largely from 

 the first species cited by Dunal; namely, the Malayan one cur- 

 rently known as Melodorum latifolium (Dunal) Hook f. & Th., 

 described and figured by Blume as Uvaria latifolia Blume.* 



Hooker f. and Thomson examined Loureiro's type of Melo- 

 donim fruticosum in the herbarium of the British Museum with 

 the following comment: 



Loureiro's Melodorum is different, as we have determined by an inspec- 

 tion of the materials in the British Museum. In that collection there is 

 an authentic specimen of M. fruticosum Lour., which is an undescribed 

 plant, of doubtful affinity, as we have not examined the flower, but cer- 

 tainly not belonging to this genus. It hastiio fruit. There is no authentic 

 specimen of M. arboreum Lour., but it is described as a large tree and is 

 perhaps a Mitrephora. 



Vv^hile they excluded both of Loureiro's species from Melo- 

 dorum, Hooker f. and Thomson considered it advisable to retain 

 the generic name in the sense in which it was interpreted (in 

 part) by Dunal and by Blume (as a section of Unona and of 

 Uvaria). All subsequent authors have been content to follow 

 Hooker f. and Thomson, and we hence have an entirely illogical 



= Monogr. Fam. Anon. (1817) 98, 115, 116. 



•Fl. Ind. (1855) 112. > 



*F1. Jav. Anon. (1828) 37, t. 15, 25A. * 



