318 MEUHILL. 



Quercus jordaiiae as a new species, tlie type jiialerial being from the Cara- 

 ballo Mountains in Central Luzon. 



In 1883, F.-Villar ^ credited nineteen species of Qucrcns to tlie J'liili])- 

 pines, two of wliicli M'ere described as new. It is evident tliat nearly all 

 of these were admitted on erroneous ideiiti Heat ions. Many of tlieiii it 

 will be (]uile impossil)le to identify, but some were cleared \ip by Vidal.' 



In 1883, A'idal ^ figured no less than seven species of Quercim and two 

 species of Castanopsis, two of the former being described as new, while 

 in 1886 ten species of Quercus arid one Castanopsis are enumerated by 

 him ® Avith specific names, and two species of Quercus and one Castanopsis 

 without specific names. Two species of Quercus are described as new, 

 while the descriptions of Q. vidalii F.-Vill., and Q. hJancoi A. DC, are 

 amplified. 



Wenzig's paper on "Die Eichen Ost- und Siidasiens" ' adds nothing to 

 our knowledge of Philij>])ine oaks, a single species, Quercus philippinensis 

 A. DC, being credited to the Philippines, Q. llanosH, Q. oralis Blanco, 

 and Q. hJanroi A. DC, being erroneously reduced to it. 



King's valuable ])aper "The Indo-Malayan Species of (Juercus and 

 Castanopsis" ^ does not include the Philippine species, but is the one most 

 useful work in determining the Philippine species of this group. 



Six species of Quercus are enumerated from the Philippines by Von 

 Seemen," and a single one was described by Hance. 



Our Philippine oaks are diificult to determine properl}-, chiefly because 

 of lack of complete material, and because many of the species were 

 originally described from immature specimens. After an examination of 

 Vidal's types at Kew, some of Blume's types at Leiden, and the types 

 of DeCandolle's Philippine species at Geneva, I was impressed with the 

 discrepancies in the identifications of the Philippine species, and on my 

 return to ]\Ianila considered it advisal)le to examine critically the entire 

 iiiatci'ial a\ailable, and publish an ciiiiiiiei'ation of the species. Most of 

 the sj)ecimens cited by A'idal 1 found at Kew, but some of the numbers do 

 not appear to be extant, and while there I succeeded in niatcliing luost 

 of Vidal's species with recently collected specimens, although if X'idal's 

 specimens were now before me, I have no doubt but that the ])i'esent 

 paper would be moi'e accurate, so far as the disposition of his s])ecies is 

 concerned . 



It is fre(piently dinicull to accurately identify spi'ciniens unl(>ss they 

 liave mature fruits, and for this reason, it is to be expected that some of 



Nov. Ai)|). (1883) 2()7-2()l). 

 *Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 260-205. 

 ■•Sinoj)sis Atlas (lSS:n XIJ. t. 92. 

 " K.'V. PI. Vase. Pilij). (1880) 200-265. 

 '■.lahrb. Kfil. liol. (larl. licrlin 4 (1880) 214-240. 

 Vt»«. Hot. ilitril. Cnlruila 2 (1880) 17-107. pi. t',lil',. 

 "Perkins Frag. V\. I'liilip. (1004) 41, 42. 



