Bia) 
tation of species, his descriptions, as such, on the whole compare 
favourably with those of his contemporaries. . . . Unfortunately 
Blanco preserved no-herbarium material, and his species must be 
interpreted solely by the published data.’’ 
Prof. Merrill has found that Blanco frequently described the 
same species twice, or sometimes three or even four times, under 
different specific or generic names. In about 143 cases reduc- 
tions have been made in this connection, so that the total number 
of different species actually-described by Blanco amounted to 
about 993. Six hundred and ninety of these species were attri- 
‘ buted to binomials of other authors on the assumption that they 
were the same. Prof. Merrill finds that about 60 per cent. of 
these determinations were incorrect. The vast amount of accumu- 
lated material of the Philippine flora and the author’s own inten- 
sive knowledge have made it possible for him to determine the 
status of a very high percentage of Blanco’s species. In this work 
Prof. Merrill seems to have derived more assistance from the 
vernacular names and uses of the plants than from the actual 
descriptions. For instance, no botanist, except perhaps by 
laborious exclusion, could ever. have found out from the deserip- 
tion of Rhamnus lando, Llanos, that a species of Hmbelia 
(Myrsinaceae) was intended. The native name lando was the 
key to it. Whenever possible he has interpreted a Blancoan 
Species by specimens originating as near as possible from the 
postponed until more propitious times, will be awaited with con- 
siderable interest. By its means, monographers will no doubt 
now be able to account for many of Blanco’s species, which in 
its absence would have been relegated to that most unsatisfactory 
group at the end—the ‘‘ imperfectly known.’’ 
Prof. Merrill is to be warmly congratulated for a work which 
will be invaluable to all students of taxonomic and geographical 
botany of the Malay Archipelago. J. H. 
