172 '/Vie Philippine Journal of Science ms 
doubtedly continue to be erroneously credited to the local flora 
in our current work. It is only with the publication of com- 
prehensive monographs that questions of synonymy and the limits 
of species can satisfactorily be settled, and unfortunately some 
monographs, even very modern ones, are exceedingly unsatis- 
factory in both respects. 
It should constantly be kept in mind that the local botanists 
in the Spanish regime did their work under very unfavorable 
conditions, having but few botanical books, and up to the time 
of Sebastian Vidal, practically no botanical collections. Manila, 
previous to the year 1883, was entirely isolated from other bo- 
tanical centers, and the local botanists, with the exception of 
Llanos, had no correspondence or intercourse with their col- 
leagues working in Europe and in other countries. 
While inaccurate identifications account for the great bulk 
of the species that have in the past been erroneously credited to 
the Philippines in botanical literature, a considerable number 
have been admitted due to inaccurate or misleading labels on her- 
barium material, or through the accidental mixing of labels and 
specimens. 
It is unfortunate that most of the early investigations on 
the Philippine flora was accomplished by local botanists working 
in Manila, a city, at least up to a recent period, isolated from 
other botanical centers. It is equally unfortunate that the local 
Spanish botanists, with the exception of Llanos and Vidal, sent 
no botanical specimens to Europe, and preserved no herbarium 
material. The result is that somewhat over 1,200 species, ac- 
tually described by Blanco, Llanos, and Fernandez-Villar, must 
be interpreted by the published descriptions alone, no type ma- 
terial being extant. As a general rule botanists working in 
European centers, having access to dried material only, and with 
no knowledge of actual floristic conditions in the Philippines, with 
no notes on size, habit, habitat, relative abundance, distribution, 
and native names of plants, have been unable satisfactorily to 
interpret many of the species described by local botanists working 
in Manila. To a still greater degree local botanists, working in 
Manila from descriptions alone, or from descriptions and figures, 
were not able properly to interpret the species described by 
European botanists. 
The general result of the methods pursued by the local inves- 
tigators of the Philippine flora, previous to the year 1883, was 
that numerous Philippine plants were referred to species, de- 
scribed from extra-Philippine material, which really do not extend 
to the Archipelago. Just how badly Philippine botany is bur- 
