330 MERRILL. 



iiKH'e (Iciiscly disposed tnwards ilio ii]i('.\. the ii|)|)('i' lliii'd rxlnidiiiii' <»\t'r 

 the tup o! the gUins and nearly inclosing- it, leaving a circular ostiole 1 

 cm in diameter or less. Olans very hai'd, bony, the l)ase and sides 

 contiinious, lu'iiiisjilicrical, the lo|) sliglilly convex, the a[iex depressed 

 and apiculate, about 2 cm liigh ami nearly 3 cm in diameter. 



Luzon, Province of Lacuna, Mount lianajao, For. Bur. 7917, 7DIS Ciirran iC- 

 Merritt, November, 1907, in forests at an altitude of from 800 to 900 m. 



A very characteristic species, and the only one of the section known from the 

 Philippines, allied to Quercus rotundata Bl., of Java, and to Q. pulchra tving, of 

 Borneo, but very distinct from both. It is the species of which Vidal tigured the 

 fruits as Quercus sp., Sinopsis Atlas (1883) XLI, t. 92, f. G., and which also 

 canu' Mount Banajao, at an altitude of about lOCO ni. 



DOUBTFUL AND EXCLUDED SPECIES. 



Quercus ckukis 151aiu-o Fl. Filip. (1837) 727; ed. 2 (1845) 503, non Linn. 



It is quite impossible to determine what si^ecies Blanco had in mind, from 

 his very short and imperfect description. It is possible that it is the same as 

 Quercus llanosH A. DC; it is, of course, not at all the European species. 



The following note from Blanco's discussion of this impcrfoctly described 

 species, throws much light on his methods of botanizing: "'It is truly lamentable 

 that for the lovers of the study of nature, neitlier prayers, supi)lications nor 

 money suffice to bring to knowledge the precious things of the Philippine forests." 



Quercus nitida Von Seem, in Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 42, non Blume. 



The specimen, Merrill 1115, at least the one before me, is a mixture, the fruits, 

 picked up from the gi'ound, being very similar to those of Q. reflexa King, but the 

 leaves are manifestly those of Purinarium [Rosaccw) well characterized by the 

 glands at the base of the lamina. Quercus nitida Blume is a doubtful species, and 

 the above specimen, so far as it is a Quercus, docs not seem to be at all allied to it. 



Quercus castellarnauiana Merr. in For. Bur. Bull. 1 (1903) 10; Von Seem. 

 in Perk. Frag. Fl. Philip. (1904) 41, non Vidal. 



This is an undeterminable form, as noted by Von Seemen, with flowers only. 

 It is not Vidal's species. 



The only clue we have to the numerous species credited to the Phili])pines in 

 the Novissima Appendix by F.-Vilhir, is Vidal's notes.''' Those accounted for by 

 Vidal iiave been treated above according to the disposition Vidal made of tliem. 

 It seems probable that of the nineteen species admitted by F.-Villar, none of those 

 originally described from e.xtra-Philippine material were correctly identified. 

 Eight species were unaccounted for by Vidal, and it does not seem to be worth 

 while to enter into any furtlier consideration of tlicni, as there are no specimens 

 extant, and thfir idciit ilical ion would he only a matter of guesswork. 



'■ Kev. I'l. \asc. l''ilip. (IS80) 200-205. 



