389 
Laiiiao {Wldlford) Se]iteniboi', 1!)05; rvovinee of Pampanga, Avayat (140!) 
Merrill) March, 1903. 
An endemic (?) species of inicertaiu value, cliaracterized liy its very long 
internodes. T., Anos. 
(4) Bambusa luconiae Munro in Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 (1868) 115; F.-Vill. 
Nov. App. (1883) 323. 
“Ilab. in ins. Philip. Lnconia, montibus Maliailiai! Wilkes'’ Mnnro. 
Described from stoilc specimens and unrecognizable from the description 
alone. 
(5) Bambusa lumampao Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 1 (1837) 373; ed. 2 (1845) 
189; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1900) Snppl. 29; Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 
(1859) 421. Dendrocalamus memhrunaceus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324 ex 
syn. Blanco, non Munro. 
Luzon, Province of Nueva Viscaya, Quiangan (12G Merrill) .June, 1902: Prov- 
ince of Bataan, Lamao {Whitford) September, 1905: Dinalupijan (Merrill) .Jan- 
uary, 1903: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (Merrill) March, 1903. 
An endemic (?) not well-known species, all the above specimens being sterile 
with the exception of the first which unfortunately has only very old flowers. 
Possibly referable to Sohiaostachyum. T., Lumampao, Bocaiii (Blanco). Sp.-Fil. 
Caiia holio. 
(6) Bambusa monogyna Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 1 (1837) 286; ed. 2 (1845) 
187; Miq. FI. Jnd. Bat. 3 (1859) 420; Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) 
Suppl. 29. Dendrocalamus strictus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324, e.x syn. Blanco, 
non Nees. 
Apparentl}^ represented by the following sterile specimens: Luzon, Province 
of Bataan, Dinalupijan (Merrill) January, 1903; Lamao (Whitford) September, 
1905: Province of Pampanga, Arayat (Merrill) IMarch, 1903. 
An endemic (?) species of uncertain value. T., Cauayan quiling. 
(7) Bambusa naua Roxb. Hort. Beug. (1814) 25; Gamble in Ann. Bot. 
Gard. Calcuta 7 (1896) 40. pi. 38; F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 323; Usteri Beitr. 
Kenn. Philip. Veg. (1905) 133. 
Occasionally cultivated as a hedge plant in Manila and probably in other 
towns in the Archipelago, a native of China and Japan. I have seen no Phil- 
ippine specimens in flower or fruit. It is possible that the species credited to 
the Philippines by F.-Villar as Bambusa tuldoides was the same. F.-Villar states 
that he saw only cultivated specimens. 
(8) Bambusa blancoi Steud. Syn. 1 (1855) 331; Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 
(1859) 421. Bambusa mitis Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 1 (1837) 271; ed. 2 (1845) 
188, non Poir.; Dendrocalamus sericetis F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 324, ex syn. 
Blanco, non Munro. 
An endemic )?) species of uncertain value, known only from Blanco’s descrip- 
tion. T., Tiauanac. 
(9) Bambusa textoria Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 1 (1837) 270; ed. 2 (1845) 
188; Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 3 (1859) 421. Giyanfochloa alter F.-Vill. Nov. App. 
(1883) 323, ex syn. Blanco, non Kurz. 
An endemic (?) species of uncertain value, known from BIutico’s description. 
T., Calbang. 
It is probable that by no means all of the above species are Bambusa, but 
that some of them are referable to other genera such as Dendrocalamus, Gigan- 
tochloa, etc., but it is quite impossible to determine Blanco’s species and refer 
them to their proper genera without complete material, and it is probable that 
