308 
trilies, genera, and species iiave been compiled. An attempt lias Ijeen 
made to make the paper complete so far as Philippine synonomy is 
concerned, to acconnt for all the species credited to the Philippines hy 
various authors, and to cite tlic most important literature references 
under each species. 
Among the earliest species of Philippine grasses described are the few 
considered by Cavanilles in his “J cones et Descriptiones Plantarum,” 
1791-1801, and by Lagasca in his “Genera et Species Plantarum,” 1816. 
These early Philippine species were based on material collected l>y 
members of the Malas])ina expedition, hut it is evident that in the 
case of both the al)ove works a considerable number of plants credited 
to the Philippines were erroneously localized and were really from tropical 
America and not from this Archipelago. The next work discnssing any 
considerable numljer of Philippine Gminiiiea: is Presl’s “l\eli(|uiae Haen- 
keanae,” 1830, in which .56 species of Philippine, or supposedly Philip- 
pine, grasses are descril)ed. As was the case with Cavanilles and Lagasca, 
many of the species credited to the Philippines hy Presl were really not 
from this Archipelago hut from tropical America. Haenke, who collected 
the material on which the above work was based, was also a. member of the 
IMalaspina expedition. IMan}^ of the species proposed by Presl have 
been figured and discussed by Scribner,^ who examined the types in the 
Bernhardi Herbarium at the Missouri Botanical Garden. Blanco, in 
his “Flora de Pilipinas” (ed. 1, 1837; ed. 2, 1845), considers but 36 
species and varieties of Graminea’, and although his descriptions are 
vague and imperfect, I believe that, with the exception of a few species 
of Barnhusa, they are correctly reduced in the following enumeration. 
In 1851 Llanos described 29 species of grasses in his “Fragmentos de 
Algunas Plantas de Pilipinas,'’ and these are much more obscure than 
those descril)ed b}^ Blanco, and in my treatment of them T have, where 
consistent, followed F.-Villar, although in some cases F.-A"illar reduced 
Llanos’s species to ])lants which certainly do not extend to the Philip- 
pines, thus showing that he had a misconception of them or of those 
to which they were reduced, or of both. The descriptions of the Pliilip- 
pine species of grasses jiroposed before 1833 are included by Ivunth 
in his “Enunieratio Plantarum,” while those descriljed previously to 
1855 are considered l)y Steudel in his “Synopsis Plantarum Glumacea- 
rum,” and by Miquel, including those described for the first time l)y 
Stendel, in bis “Florae Indiae Batavae” (vol. 3, 1859). In 1883 
F.-Villar published bis “Novissima Appendix” to the third edition of 
Blanco’s “Flora de Fili])inas,” enumerating 254 species and 28 varieties 
of grasses, distril)uted into 72 genera. As this work is a compilation, 
it frequently happens that the same species is enumerated twice, or in 
some cases three or even four times under different names in the same 
^ Rept. Missouri Hoi. GarcL, 189!), 10, 35-59, pis. 1-54. 
