160 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1913 
Doctor F. Vignolo Lutati ^ who has examined specimens of Poa 
cilianensis All. in the herbaria of Bellardi, Balbis, and Biroli, 
all of them from the type locality and presumably received from 
Allioni, whose herbarium, at his death, became the property of 
Balbis. In summing up he says in heavy type “La Cilianensis 
All. non e altro che una Eragrostis megastachya Lk. in uno 
speciale stadio di sviluppo.” He makes the combination Era- 
grostis cilianensis (All.) Lk., but the citation of Link as an 
authority seems to be inaccurate as I cannot find that Link ever 
made or hinted at such a combination. Consequently I believe 
that the correct authority of the combination Eragrostis cilia- 
nensis to be Vignolo Lutati and not Link. The name Eragros- 
tis cilianensis does not occur in Index Kewensis or in any of 
its supplements published to date. 
Roemer & Schultes Syst. Veg. 2 (1817) 556 give Poa cilia- 
nensis with a good description, but Schultes in the Mantissa 2 
(1824) 308 under P. cilianensis gives the following: “Esse ean- 
dem cum Megastachya Eragrosti, et delendam, Bertoloni in litt.” 
Megastachya Eragrostis (L.) R. & S. Syst. Veg. 2 (1817) 584 
(Beauvois did not make the combination) is a synonym of Era- 
grostis major Host. 
Poa cilianensis has been given as a synonym of Eragrostis 
major Host or some of its numerous synonyms by the following 
authors: Schultes Mant. 2 (1824) 325; Kunth Rev. Gram. 1 
(1829) 133; Kunth Enum. PL 1 (1833) 333; Pari. FI. Ital. 1 
(1848) 380; Richer PI. Eur. 1 (1890) 73; MacMillan Metasp. 
Minn. Valley (1892) 75; Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 7 (1896) 320. 
Ascherson & Graebner (Syn. Mitteleur. FI. 2 (1900) 371) un- 
der E. megastachya (Koel.) Link discuss the question of the 
specific name and make a variety, E. megastachya var. /? cilia- 
nensis, giving Poa cilianensis All. as the first synonym of it. 
Their discussion leads to several rather startling deviations 
from the point of view of the present code rules. 
Translating in brief some of the principal points of their dis- 
cussion we find that they accept the name E. megastachya (Koel.) 
Link because E. eragrostis is applicable at will to either major or 
minor and is used by them for what may be termed the holding 
species. They refuse to take up multiflora because Ascherson 
& Schweinfurth renounce it for similar reasons (i. e., it probably 
is a complex species). Poa cilianensis is not the typical plant 
and is a questionable form in its systematic value; consequently 
^Sul valore sistematico della Poa Cilianensis All. (1785). Malpighia 
18 (1904) 380-387. 
