389 



Lamao {Whiiford) September, 1905: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (1409 

 Merrill) March, 1903. 



An endemic (V) species of uncertain value, cliaracterized l)y its very long 

 internodes. T., Anos. 



(4) Bambusa luconiae Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1S08) 115; F.-Vill. 

 Nov. App. (1883) 323. 



"Hab. in ins. Philip. Lugonia, montibus Mahaihai! Wilkes" Munro. 

 Described from sterile specimens and unrecognizable from the description 

 alone. 



(5) Bambusa lumampao Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1837) 373; ed. 2 (1845) 

 189; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 29; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 

 (1859) 421. Dcndrocalamus memhranaccus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324 ex 

 syn. Blanco, non Munro. 



Luzon, Province of Nueva Viscaya, Quiangan (126 Merrill) June, 1902: Prov- 

 ince of Bataan, Lamao (Whitford) September, 1905: Dinalupijan (Merrill) Jan- 

 uary, 1903: Province of Pampanga, Arayat [Merrill) March, 1903. 



An endemic (?) not well-known species, all the above specimens being sterile 

 with the exception of the first which unfortunately has only very old flowers. 

 Possibly referable to Schizostachyum. T., Lumampao, Bocaui (Blanco). Sp.-Fil. 

 Caila holio. 



(0) Bambusa monogyna Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1837) 286; ed. 2 (1845) 

 187; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 420; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) 

 Suppl. 29. Dcndrocalamus strictus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324, ex syn. Blanco, 

 non Nees. 



Apparently represented by the following sterile specimens: Luzon, Province 

 of Bataan, Dinalupijan (Merrill) January, 1903; Lamao (Whitford) September, 

 1905: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (Merrill) March, 1903. 



An endemic (?) species of uncertain A-alue. T., Gauayan quiling. 



(7) Bambusa nana Eoxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 25; Gamble in Ann. Bot. 

 Gard. Calcuta 7 (1896) 40. 2^1- 38; F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 323; Usteri Beitr. 

 Kenn. Philip. Veg. (1905) 133. 



Occasionally cultivated as a hedge plant in Manila and probably in other 

 towns in the Archipelago, a native of China and Japan. I have seen no Phil- 

 ippine specimens in flower or fruit. It is possible that the species credited to 

 the Philippines by F.-Villar as Bamhusa tttldoides was the same. F.-Villar states 

 that he saw only cultivated specimens. 



(8) Bambusa bianco! Steud. Syn. 1 (1855) 331; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 

 (1859) 421. Bamhusa mitis Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1837) 271; ed. 2 (1845) 

 188, non Poir. ; Dendrocalamiis sericeus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324, ex syn. 

 Blanco, non JNIunro. 



An endemic (?) species of uncertain value, known only from Blanco's descrip- 

 tion. T., Tiauanac. 



(9) Bambusa textoria Blanco Fl. Filip. ed. 1 (1'837) 270; ed. 2 (1845) 

 188; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 421. Gigantochloa alter F.-Vill. Nov. App. 

 (1883) 323, ex syn. Blanco, non Kurz. 



An endemic (?) species of uncertain value, known from Blanco's description. 

 T., Calbang. 



It is probable that by no means all of the above species are Bambusa, but 

 that some of them are referable to other genera such as Dendrocalamus, Gigan- 

 tochloa,- etc., but it is quite impossible to determine Blanco's species and refer 

 them to their proper genera without complete material, and it is probable that 



