I'HILIPriNE FUEYCINETIA. 311 



4. Freycinetia luzonensis Presl Epiiii. Bot. (1851) 238; Warb. in Pflanzen- 

 reich 3 (1900) 35; Miq. VI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 172; Vidal Phaii. Cuming. Pliilip. 

 (1885) 154; Rev. PI. Va.sc. Filip. (1886) 280. 



Freycinetia cumingiana Gaudicli. Bot. Voy. Bonite (1843) f. (iO et t. .H. f. 

 hi-l-'l, sine descr.; C. B. Robinson in Bull. Toir. Bot. Club 35 (1908) (>4. 



Lltzon, Province of Caniarines Sur. CinniiKj IJ/^J; Mount Isarog, For. Bur. 

 11361 Curran, May, 1908. 



I have e.xaniined the number collected by Cuming, cited above, in the Kew 

 and Berlin herbaria, and find that Presl's species is distinct from the form 

 previously determined by me as /''. hizonensis Presl.' It is possible that more 

 than one form is included by Presl in the original description of the species, but 

 this can only be determined by an examination of the material in Presl's her- 

 barium. The specimens I have seen of Cuming's number, seem to agree perfectly 

 with the figure of F. cumingiana Gaudich., which, following Wai-burg, is here 

 considered to be a synonym of F. luzonensis. Although the plate representing 

 Gaudichaud's species was published some years earlier than Presl's species, still 

 the description of the plate, but no description of the plant, Avas not pid)lished 

 until 1866 in Charles d' Alleizette's explanation of the plates, 3: 133. Dr. 

 Robinson considered that the Freycinetia luzonensis of recent botanists, including 

 Warburg, was different from F. luzonensis of Presl, but I am inclined to consider 

 that Warburg correctly interpreted Presl's species, and also correctly reduced 

 to it Gaudichaud's F. euininyiana. The material that has been considered as 

 F. luzonensis Presl, in this office, and distributed as such, certainly does not 

 represent Presl's species, and is below described as new. 



5. Freycinetia vidalii Hemsl. in Kew Bull. (1896) 166; Warb. 1. c. 36. 

 Freycinetia confiisa Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 1 (1907) 213; non Ridley, Mater. 



Fl. Malay Penin. 2 (1907) 233. 



Luzon, Province of Nueva Viscaya, Bayombon, Vidal 39l>.'i in Herb. Kew 

 (type) : Province of Tayabas, Lucban, Elmer 9007, type of F. confusa Elm. 



I have examined the type of this species in the Kew Herbarium, and Elmer's 

 Freycinetia confusa is manifestly identical. The species belongs in the section 

 OUgostigma. although Warburg placed it in the section Pleiostigma. The type 

 is an immature specimen, and there is nothing in the original diagnosis from 

 which the proper section can be determined. 



6. Freycinetia robinsonii sp. nov. § Oligost igma. 



Scandens, 2 ad 4 in alta ; ramis 1.5 ad 2 cm diametro, ramulis 3 ad 5 

 mill erassis; foliis sul)ineml)ranaceis, anguste lanceolatis, circiter 20 em 

 longis, 1 ad 2 cm latis, basi plus minus angustatis vaginantibifsque, apice 

 sensim acuminatis, vnlgo toto margine et subtus in costis spinnloso- 

 serratis; inflorescentiis terminalilms, s])adicibus fcmineis 4 vel 5, bracteis 

 miiltis nibris G ad 7 em longis oblongo-ovatis eaudato-aenminatis, aeumi- 

 nibus spimiloso-scrratis, exteriorilms foliaeeis, circumdatis ; spadicibus 

 fructiferis cylindraccis, ol^longis, 3 ad -") em longis, 1 ad 1..") cm crassis ; 

 fructibns eirciter 5 mm longis, apice angiilato-pyraiiiidatis : stigmatihus 

 2 vel 3 ; pedunculis 3 cm longis, scabris. 



LiizoN, Province of Bataan, Lamao River, Merrill .17!) I. January, 1904; ^Vil- 

 liams .i.iH. December, 1903; For. Bur. 219 'i. 2^27 Metier: For. Bur. 7.'>2, 2Ji(;(>, 

 3037 (type) Borden; Wliilford l-iH. June. 1905 and .s-. ;;.. July, 1904; Copeland 



■' Philip. Journ. ^ei. 1 (1906) Suppl. 25. 



