809 
or ill (iifferoiit genera. Apsiiming that in most cases F.-\^illar’s identifi- 
cations were correct, I liave reduced many of his species in accordance 
with standard works, excluding those which, he credited to the Philippine.s 
and which have never lieen collected in the Archipelago, and which are 
not to he expected in these Islands. His list was compiled from such 
works as .Kiiiitli’s “Bnumeratio Plantarum,’’ Steudel’s “Synopsis,” and 
MiqueFs “Florae Indiae P)atavae,” including such plants as were credited 
to the Philippines in those works and such others as F.-Villar thought 
should grow in the Philippines. Many of the admitted species are 
followed hy the letters “v. v. sp.,” meaning that he had seen living 
sjieciinens. It is doiihtful if F.-A^illar’s herharium contained more than 
a very small percentage of the species enumerated in the “Novissima 
Appendix,” l.)ut as his herliarium, complete or incomplete, has been 
destroyed," we can not he certain as to just what plants F.-Villar had in 
mind, and in may cases can only surmise what they might have been. 
F.-A^illar also perpetuated the errors of Cavanilles, Lagasca, and Presl 
in crediting to the Philippines a number of American species erroneously 
described lyy those authors as Philippine, the mistake persisting in the 
works of Ivunth, Steudel, and Miquel, cited above. In 1885, A^idal 
enumerated 71 species of Philippine Gramima’. in his “Phanerogamae 
Cumingianae Phili])pinarum,” and in 1886, 72 in his “Revision de Plan- 
tas Vaseulares Pilipinas,” while about the same number is included by 
Ceron in his “Catalogo de las plantas del Herhario” (Manila, 1892). In 
1904 Mez and Pilger mentioned 107 species and varieties in Perkins’s 
“Fragmenta Florae Philippinae,” based for most part on my earlier 
collections. In 1905 Hsteri enumerated 71 species of Philijipiiie grasses 
in his “Beitrage zur Ivenntnis der Philippinen und ihrer Vegetation,” 
based on material collected l)y himself for the greater part in the rsland 
of Negros. Two papers entitled “Notes on Philippine Gramineas” have 
l)een published l)y Plackel.® 
So far as genera are concerned I have followed Hackel * in arrange- 
ment and nomenclature rather closely, l.)ut have retained as genera some 
groups treated by him as suhgenera. In accordance with the action of the 
A^ienna Botanical Congress, I have used BotfboelUa L. f., in place of 
Manisuris Sw. ; Zoisia AVilld., for Osier dammia Neck. ; Leersia Sw., for 
Tlonuilocenchrus Alieg., and Gynodon Pers., in place of Capriola Adans. 
Following the spirit of this same Congress, I have retained Setaria 
Beauv., -for Cltaeiocltloa Scrihn., and in retaining Digitaria as a genus, 
I have accepted that name in ].)lace of SyntJierisiim AATilt. 
I have followed Hackel’s monograph closely as to generic limits in 
-Merrill: Bull. Bureau Agr., Manila (1903), 3, 34. 
^ P'uhlications of the Bureau of Government Laboratories, Manila (1905), No. 
35, 79-82. Phil. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Snppl., 26.3-269. 
MSngl. nnd Prantl : Nat. Pfianzenfam. II, 2, 1-79. 
