176 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1916 
referred numerous Philippine plants to forms previously de- 
scribed by other authors from extra-Philippine material, and 
thus reduced a considerable number of Blanco's species. In 
nearly all cases, however, his new genera and species are invalid, 
his interpretations of most of the species of older authors enu- 
merated by him are wrong, and his reduction of Blanco’s species 
equally erroneous. The result of Llanos’s work was to add 
numerous synonyms to Philippine species, and to credit to the 
Archipelago numerous extra-Philippine species that do not extend 
to the Islands. 
Fernandez-Villar and Naves have conveniently reprinted all of 
Llanos’s botanical contributions, and this reprint comprises the 
first part of volume four of the third edition of Blanco’s “Flora 
de Filipinas” (1880) XVIII-)- 1-108. From an examination of 
this compilation it is evident that Llanos considered a total 
of 265 species, of which, however, only about 100 are accom- 
panied by descriptions. The species that are actually described 
for the most part can satisfactorily be interpreted and their status 
can be determined where the descriptions are reasonably com- 
plete. Llanos added a very few short and imperfect descriptions 
in the papers published after the “Fragmenta,” but for the most 
part the species simply enumerated by him do not occur in the 
Philippines, and they must be excluded in any critical considera- 
tion of the whole flora. In many cases there is no method of 
determining just what species Llanos intended his names to 
represent. In the last paper of the reprint mentioned above 
Llanos reduces 68 of Blanco’s species, but 55 of the 68 reductions 
are certainly erroneous. 
Blanco, in considering approximately 1,127 species and vari- 
eties, complicated Philippine botany by crediting to the Archi- 
pelago about 300 species, by misinterpretation of the descriptions 
of other authors; while Llanos, in considering 265 species, 
similarly added to our long list of excluded species about 155 
names. As about 60 species were intended by Llanos to re- 
present new species, his percentage of error in the interpretation 
of the species of older authors is decidedly greater than that of 
Blanco, approximating 75 per cent in contrast to Blanco’s 66 
per cent. 
The most striking example of this phase of Philippine botany — 
that is, the accrediting to the Archipelago of species that do not 
extended to the Philippines — is that presented by the “Novissima 
Appendix” to the third edition of Blanco’s “Flora de Filipinas,” 
for which Fathers C. Fernandez-Villar and A. Naves are re- 
