188 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1916 
Paspalum fuscum Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 214 “Hab. in Luzonia ? 
in Peruviae niontanibus huanoccensibus ? Mexico ?” = Syntherisma fusca 
Scribn. = ? Digitaria longiflora Pers. The specimen on which Presl’s species 
was based may have been from Luzon, but it is more probable that it was 
from tropical America. A species of doubtful status. 
Paspalum molle Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 213 “Hab. in Luzonia” — 
Panicum mollicomum Kunth = Syntherisma molle Scribn. I have seen no 
Philippine material agreeing with Presl’s description. The “Luzon” speci- 
mens were probably from tropical America. 
Polyschistes paupercula Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 294, t. 41, f. 12 
“Hab. in insula Luzonia” = Pentarrhaphis sp. The specimen on which this 
genus and species was based was certainly not from the Philippines, but 
was undoubtedly from Mexico. 
Setaria globularis Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 314 “Hab. in insulis 
Philippinis.” The sheet of this species in the herbarium of the Missouri 
Botanical Garden consists of three species, fide Scribner, Setaria caudata 
Lam., S. composita Kth., and one undeterminable; S. caudata and S. compo- 
sita are American forms, so that Presl’s Setaria globularis probably origi- 
nated in Mexico, not in the Philippines. 
SPOROBOLUS scoparius Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1830) 243 “Hab. ad portum 
Sorzogon [Luzon].” Nothing at all resembling the species described by 
Presl is known from the Philippines. The specimens on which the species 
was based were probably from tropical America, not from the Philippines. 
CYPERACEAE 
Carex haenkeana Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 (1828) 205 “Hab. in insulis Philip- 
pinis” = C. pseudo-cyperus L. var. haenkeana Kiikenth. This form is 
widely distributed in extra-tropical South America, but has never been found 
in the Philippines. Presl’s specimen labeled “Philippines” was undoubtedly 
from Chile. 
Fimbristylis cymosa R. Br. ; C. B. Clarke in Philip. Journ. Sci. 2 (1907) 
Bot. 97 “Toubonia ( 1433 Cuming) in hb. Kew (a false number).” This speci- 
men was not from the Philippines as Clarke supposed, but apparently from 
Cuming’s earlier Polynesian collection as the printed label bears the date 
1831; Cuming’s Philippine plants were collected between 1836 and 1840, and 
distributed in 1841. 
ERIOCAULACEAE 
Eriocaulon TRUNCATUM Ham.; Ruhl. in Engl. Pflanzenreich 13 (1903) 
107. “Philippinen (Cuming 2326).” The specimen was from Malacca, not 
from the Philippines. 
PHILYDRACEAE 
Philydrum lanuginosum Gaertn.; Caruel in DC. Monog. Phan. 4 (1881) 
3. “Manilla (Cuming!)” is an error; the specimen was from Malacca, not 
from the Philippines. No representative of the family is known from the 
Philippines. 
ORCHIDACEAE 
Dendrobium metachilinum Reichb. f. in Bonplandia 3 (1855) 222 “2067 
Cuming Phil.” This species has been credited to the Philippines by several 
authors on this number of Cuming’s collection. The specimen was from Ma- 
lacca according to Cuming’s own list of localities preserved in Sir William 
