NOTES ().\ rillLiri'IXE r.OTAXY. 117 



^•haracters. Tlie type of the prt^sciit species was tire tirst numl)ei- cited in the 

 original description of Vomhrrluiit scjcalaluin Merr./ but tiiat species being based 

 on two diflerent plants, and the specific name being derived from fruit characters, 

 these fruiting specimens being tliose of Aspidopteris ovata (Malpighiaceae) , we 

 consider the fruiting specimens to represent the type of Combretum sexalatum, 

 and the llowering specimen jircviously considered under that name is here 

 redescribed. The jiresent species in leaf and stem characters bears a striking 

 resemblance to Aspifloptcris oraia. (See p. 106.) 



MELA HTOM ATACE J]. 



ASTRONIA Blume. 



Astronia pulchra \'i(Uvl Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (IHSd) 130. 

 Astronia glauca INlerr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 29 (1905) 31. 

 Types of both being compared at Kew, they were found to be identical, and 

 Astronia glaura is here accordingly reduced. 



AKALIACE.E. 



SCHEFFLERA Forst. 



Schefflera odorata (Blanco) Merrill et Rolfe comb. nov. 



Polyscias odorata Blanco Fl. Filip. (1S37) 225. 



Pohjscias obtiisa Blanco ? 1. c. 220. 



Paratropia crassa Blanco 1. c. ed. 2 (1845) 158; ed. 3, 1 : 285. 



Paratropia obtiisa Blanco V II. cc. 159, 285. 



Hepfaplcnruni venulosum F.-Yill. Nov. App. (1883) 102; Vidal Sinopsis 

 Atlas (1883) pi. 55, f. E.; Cat. PI. Prov. IVIanila (1880) 32, non Seem. 



Schefflera renulosa Merr. in Philip, .lourn. Sci. 1 (1900) Suppl. 110 non 

 Harms. 



Luzon, ridnl l.',S6, 2931, 792; Loher S591, 3592, 3593; Elmer lUlJ,, 8312, 

 6058; ^Vhitford 3, 62; Merrill 1886, 1610. Ticao, Yidal 2936. Masbate, Merrill 

 302Ji. LuBANG, Merrill 913. Basilan, For. Bur. ^36 Uutehinson. Mindanao, 

 Copeland 59Jf. 



A species very common and widely distributed in the Philippines, appai'ently 

 endemic, but closely allied to the Malayan Heptapleuruni ellipiieum Miq. We 

 are of the opinion that it is sufficiently distinct from that species, as well as 

 from H. veiutlosuDi Seem., to which it has been referred by the above authors, 

 and accordingly' Blanco's specific name is here adopted. 



In the original descriptions of Heptapleurum Cumingii Seem., and H. caudatum 

 Vidal, there is an unfortunate confusion in the numbers cited, both descriptions 

 being based on s^Jecimens representing two species, but neither description ajrply- 

 ing to the first number cited in each case, which was Cuming 800. The material of 

 all the numbers of Cuming's collection has been examined in the Kew Herbarium 

 and at the British Museum, and at the former place Vidal's material was also 

 available, as well as the collections of Loher and the more recent collections made 

 by American botanists. The following notes it is believed will clear up the 

 confusion that has occurred regarding the species under discussion. 



'Tills ./ournal. 1 (190()) ,S'/?/>/</. 212. 



