X, C, 4 
Merrill: Studies on Philippine Anonaceae, I 
PAPUALTHIA URDANETENS1S (Elm.) comb. nov. 
Polyalthia urdanetensis Elm. Leafl. Philip. Bot. 5 (1913) 1738. 
Mindanao, Province of Agusan, Elmer 18931 (cotype). 
This species is very closely allied to Papualthia reticulata and is perhaps 
not specifically distinct from that species. It differs in its somewhat smaller 
flowers, but this apparent difference may be due to the stage of development 
of the flowers. 
PAPUALTHIA TENUIPES (Merr.) comb. nov. 
Polyalthia tenuipes Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 269. 
Luzon, Province of Tayabas, Bur. Sci. 13U72 Foxworthy & Ramos. 
Readily distinguished from all the other Philippine species by its very 
dissimilar petals, the inner ones much shorter than and differently shaped 
from the outer. 
GUAMIA genus novum 
Sepala 3, ovata, brevia, valvata. Petales 6, 2-seriata, valvata, 
crassa, pubescentia, exteriora demum patula, interiora paullo 
minora, angustiora, basi subexcavata, leviter conniventia. 
Stamina co, obconica, connectivo oblique subtruncato. Carpellia 
circiter 12, pilosa; stigmate subcapitato, glabro; ovulis nume- 
rosis. Baccae oblongae, cylindricae, leviter transverse con- 
strictae, pilosulae. Arbor parva partibus junioribus ferrugineo- 
pilosis, pilis haud stellatis; foliis subaequilateralibus ; floribu3 
solitariis, breviter pedicellatis, axillaribus vel subterminalibus. 
GUAMIA MARIANNAE (Safford) comb. nov. 
Papualthia mariannae Safford in Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 2 (1912) 
459, fig. 1, 2; Diels in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 52 (1914) 16, fig. 2. 
Polyalthia mariannae Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 9 (1914) Bot. 83. 
The type of the species was from Guam, collected by Costenoble. Ad- 
ditional collections are Palomo, cited by Safford ; Guam Experiment Station 
209, distributed from the Bureau of Science as Orophea n. sp., fruiting 
specimen; while Diels cites Volkens 559 and a specimen collected by Fritz 
on the neighboring island of Saipan. 
At the time I was studying the Guam material I stated that I could see 
no reason for considering the species other than as a representative of the 
genus Polyalthia, but this statement was made without due consideration 
of the floral characters of the plant. The perianth characters and especially 
the numerous ovules exclude it at once from Polyalthia, with which genus 
it apparently has little in common. My study of the species at this time is 
due to the fact that in examining the original material of ZJnona mindoren- 
sis Merr. its great similarity to the Guam plant at once impressed me, and 
as Unona mindorensis must probably be referred to some other genus, I tried 
to place it in Papualthia with the Guam species; it differs strikingly, 
however, in that the inner petals are spreading from the base, not con- 
nivent, and is scarcely congeneric with Guamia. 
I cannot see how the species can be referred to Papualthia without in- 
validating that genus. The petals are quite free, not united at the base a3 
in the New Guinean and Philippine representatives of that genus, while 
133906 2 
