808 



tribes, genera, and species lia\c Keen eoiiipilcd. An attempt has been 

 made to make tlie ])aper coniplctc so far as I'liilijjpine synonomy is 

 concerned, to account for all the species creditc(l to the Philippines by 

 various autJKH's, and to cite the most important literal iwc I'cfci'cnccs 

 under each species. 



Aniont; the earliest species of IMiilippinc grasses described are the few 

 considered by Cavanilles in his "Iconcs et Descriptiones Plantarum," 

 1791-1801, and by Lagasca in his "(genera et Species Plantarum," 181G. 

 These early Philippine species were l)ased on material collected by 

 members of the Malaspina expedition, but it is evident that in the 

 case of both the above works a c(msiderable number of plants credited 

 to the Philippines were erroneously localized and were really from tropical 

 America and not from this Archipelago. The next work discussing any 

 considerable nund)er of Philippine Graininea' is Presl's "Keliqniae Haen- 

 keanae," 1830, in which o(> species of Philippine, or supposedly Philip- 

 pine, grasses are described. As was the case with Cavanilles and Lagasca, 

 many of the species credited to the .Philippines by Presl were really not 

 from this Archipelago but from tropical America. Haenke, who colUxtcd 

 the material on which the above work was based, was also a member of the 

 Malaspina expedition. Many of the species proposed by Presl have 

 been figured and discussed by Scribner,^ who examined the types in the 

 Bernhardt Herbarium at the ^[issouri Botanical Garden. Blanco, in 

 his "Flora de Filipinas" (ed. 1, 183: : ed. '2. 1845). considers but 36 

 species and varieties of (Traniinra', and although his descriptions are 

 vague and imperfect. 1 believe that, with the exception of a few species 

 of Ba)iihii.sa, they are correctly reduced in the following enumeration. 

 In 18r)l Llanos described 29 s])ecies of grasses in Ids "Fragmentos de 

 Algunas Plantas de Filipinas."" and these are nuicli nioi'c obscui-c than 

 those described by Blanco, and in my treatment of them 1 have, where 

 consistent, followed F.-Villar. although in sonu' cases F.-A'illar reduced 

 Llanos's sj)ecies to plants which cci-tainlv do not extend to the I'hilip- 

 ])ines, thus showing that he had a misconception of them or of those 

 to which they were reduced, or of both. The (lescri]>tions of the Philip- 

 pine species of grasses pi'oposcd befoi'c 183.3 are included hy Kuidh 

 in his "Enumeratio Plantarum." while those described previously to 

 1855 are considered by Steudel in his "Synopsis Plantarum (Jlumacea- 

 rum," and by Mi(pU'l, iiuluding those described foi' the lirst time hy 

 Steudel. in bis "Florae Indiae I'atavae" (vol. ."i. is:)!)). In ISS;; 

 F.-Villar |)ublished his "N'ovissiiua Appendix"" to the thii'd edition of 

 P>lanco's "l-"l(ii'a de Fi li|)iiias,"" enniiiei'at ing ;?.")! species and ".S \arieties 

 of grasses, distributed into "I'i genera. As this woi-k is a conii)ilation, 

 it frefpu'ntly happens that the same species is enumerated twice, or in 

 some cases three tty cMMi four limes nndei' iliU'ereiil names in the saini' 



' lirjil. Missouri Hnl. (;<ii(f.. ISil'.i. 10, .■{."■) ;')!», pis. / ,7J. 



