x. c, s Merrill-: Erroneous Credits to Philippine Flora 175 
parison, with no correspondence with contemporaneous Euro- 
pean botanists, with but a very few botanical books, and with 
no botanical training other than that he secured through his 
own efforts and his interest in the science, it is no wonder 
that he made many errors in identification. It is distinctly to 
Blanco’s credit that he was correct in his identifications, generic 
and specific, in so many cases. Whatever criticisms may be 
levelled at Blanco’s work, he must be credited with intense 
interest in botany, with great energy, with distinct ability, and 
with perseverance. It must also be kept in mind that the whole 
“Flora de Filipinas” is his work, and that nearly every state- 
ment included in it was the result of his own personal observa- 
tions. 
In the first two editions of the “Flora de Filipinas” Blanco 
considered a total of about 1,127 species and varieties, of which 
about 623 were intended as new species. In numerous cases 
species proposed as new in the first edition were reduced to 
older ones in the second edition, the reduction being sometimes 
correct and sometimes wrong ; in other cases species interpreted 
in the first edition as those of other authors were described as 
new species in the second edition. In the two editions a total of 
approximately 450 species were intended to represent forms 
previously described by other authors, but in interpreting these 
Blanco was correct in but 150 cases, and wrong in about 300 
cases, the errors in interpretation approximating 66 per cent. 
Blanco’s “Flora de Filipinas” is the first great source of error 
in accrediting to the Philippines species that do not occur in 
the Archipelago. The total number added by him is approx- 
imately 300, but most of these have already been satisfactorily 
reduced to their proper places by interpretation of Blanco’s 
descriptions ; a few remain, the status of which is still doubtful. 
Blanco’s immediate successor was Father A. Llanos, who at- 
tempted, with little success, to carry on the botanical work 
inaugurated by his more illustrious predecessor. From a stand- 
point of accuracy Llanos’s work suffers greatly by comparison 
with that of Blanco, and the species he described — fortunately 
not very numerous — are as a rule more obscure than are those 
proposed by Blanco. His chief work was published in 1851, 
entitled “Fragmentos de algunas plantas de Filipinas,” pp. 1-125, 
which, like Blanco’s work, was printed in Manila. This work 
was supplemented by several shorter and less important papers 
published in various scientific periodicals in Europe. Llanos 
not only described new genera and species in his papers, but 
132966 2 
