D. Gaudichaudii j BECCARI, THE SPECIES OF DAEMONOROPS. 159 
side opposite to the raphe, and therefore in opposition to the chalazal fovea and 
not at the base of the seed. 
Hasitat.—The Philippines, where it is apparently a common plant. It was 
first collected at Manilla by  Gaudichaud in November 1836 (Herb. Paris) and 
afterwards by many others. In Luzon: Unisan, Province of Tayabas (Vidal No. 932 
in Herb, Kew. and No. 4063 in Herb. Beccari); Cardona, District of Moron (Vidal 
No. 1911 in Herb. Kew.): in Antipolo, Province of Bizal (Merrill No, 1641); 
Dinalupihan, Province of Bootaan (Merrill No. 1669 in Herb. Berol.); Lamao River, 
Mt. Mariveles (Whitford No. 289 in Herb. |Manill.); Sampalos (Warburg No. 367 in 
Herb. Berol)--in this specimen the fruit often contains two piano-convex seeds; 
Camiguin Island of the Babuyanes group, (E. Feniz No. 4066, Herb. Manill.); Mindanao, 
Province of Surigao, (T. H. Bolster No. 358, Herb. Manill.; Mindoro: (M. L. Merrill 
Jan. 1907, No. 6215 and Whitford, Herb. Manill. No. 1371); Bongabong River’ 
(M. L. Merrill, March .1906, No. 3741, Herb. Manill.); Calapan (Z, Mangudai, June 
1906, No. 948 Herb. Manill.). 
OssERVATIONS.—I have reduced Calamus usitatus of Blanco to Daemonorops 
Gaudichaudii more by exclusion than by the vague characters assigned to it by 
that author. In fact I consider C. usitatus to be a Daemonorops chiefly by reason 
of the character Blanco gives of its calyx ‘‘persistente de seis piezas, las tres 
exteriores mas grandes.” No doubt that by “calyx” Blanco really means the perianth 
and the assertion that the 3 “external? parts of it are larger than the internal May 
be a slip for the reverse. Now there are no Calami that have the corolla of the female 
flowers much larger than the calyx. The globular and apparently large fruit (as it 
is said that the involucre of its seed is edible) and its frequency near Manilla, 
whence no other species of Daemonorops is known, are the reasons which have 
induced me to identify C. usitatus with D. Gaudichaudii. 
D. Gaudichaudit and D. fuscus certainly represent the same species, for this 
latter name has been assigned to the specimens bearing mature fruit, while the 
same plant having the spadices charged with ovaries only in course of development 
has been named D. Gaudichaudii, I have seen in the Paris Herbarium the type 
specimen of D. fuscus, consisting of a male spadix without the spathes, and 
another spadix which still retains 2-3 mature fruits in bad condition; these 
specimens bear the label “Voyage de M. Gaudichaud sur la Bonite, 1836-37 -Manile, 
Novembre 1836”, On the same sheet, without a special label is fastened the typical 
form of D. Gaudichaudit, on one side of which Martius has written “sit, ut nomen 
habeat: D. Gaudichaudii ”. 
Another specimen of a female spadix in flower of D. fuscus has also a label 
like that of D. Gaudichaudi, and Martius has written upon it ‘‘ Daemonorops e serie 
Cymbospatharum " and then *'v. Solenospatharum "; this has been crossed out, and 
*orthostiche 17-18. Sit D. fuscus Mart.! Cal. quam cor. 4-plo brevior" substituted. 
Vidas No. 4063, offers a proof of the conspecificity of D. fuscus and 
D. Gaudichavdii, as one branch, with very young fruit, corresponds to the latter, and 
another, with mature fruit, to the former. 
