208 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
accepted, the first as a synonym of the form variously referred 
to M. edule Roxb., M. ovatum Sm., M. prasinum Naud., and 
M. lucidum Presl, here treated under M. ovatum, and the second 
as the proper name for the form later described by Presl as 
M. cumingianum and M. pyrifolium, and by Naudin as M. clausi- 
florum. 
Soon after the distribution of Cuming’s large Philippine col- 
lections the species of Memecylon represented were independ- 
ently named and described, first by Presl ^ and immediately 
afterwards by Naudin.® Presl’s names, so far as they were 
valid, antedate those of Naudin. The two sets of names and 
Cuming’s specimens were correlated by Bentham in 1861 in his 
Botanical Memoranda, “The Memecyla of Cuming’s collec- 
tions,” * Bentham’s nomenclature being, for the most part, 
accepted and followed by later authors. Without discussing the 
species as considered by Triana and Naudin, in their mono- 
graphs of the Melastomataceae, the next consideration of the 
Philippine forms as such is that of F.-Villar,® who admitted 14 
species, of which 10 have never been found in the Philippines, 
and which were apparently all admitted on erroneously deter- 
mined material. The latest monograph of the family, that of 
Cogniaux, published in 1891, credits 5 species to the Archipelago, 
which represents practically all that was known regarding the 
genus in the Philippines at that date. The list has, in the 
present paper, been increased to 30, most of the additions being 
in the nature of proposed new species, but also due to a different 
interpretation of some of the older species. There is evidence, 
in the material already collected, but inadequate for purposes 
of description, that the list will be considerably increased as 
botanical exploration of the Archipelago progresses. All of 
the following species belong in the section Eumemecylon. 
In the preparation of this paper I am under obligations to Sir 
D. Prain, Director, Royal Gardens, Kew, England for the loan 
of fragments of cotypes of Memecylon cumingianum Presl, M. 
lucidum Presl, and M. pyrifolium Presl; and to Dr. A. Pascher 
of Prague, for the loan of a fragment of the type of Memecylon 
diversifolium Presl. 
= Epim. Bot. (1851) 208-210. 
"Ann. Sci. Nat. Ill 18 (1852). 
“Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 5 (1861) 77, 78. 
‘Novis. App. (1880) 89, 90. 
