126 
MERRILL. 
Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 3, t. IlfO ; Vid. Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. 39, f. A, Phan. 
Cuming. Philip. (1885) 106, Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 102; Merr. in Philip. 
Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 61. 
Omphalobium obliquum Presl Epim. Bot. (1851) 207. 
Connarus obliquus Walp. Ann. 3 (1851) 844; Vid. Phan. Cuming. Philip. 
(1885) 106. 
Connarus paniculatus F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 57, ex syn. Blanco, non Roxb. 
C. monocarpus F.-Vill. 1. c. 57, ex syn. Blanco, non Linn. 
Luzon, Province of Abra, Bur. Sci. 7088 Ramos: Province of Ilocos Norte, 
For. Bur. 13801, 13828 Merritt cG Darling: Province of Pangasinan, Cuming 949: 
Province of Ilocos Sur, Cuming 1172: Province of Rizal, Merrill 1859, 2645, 
2723, 2828, Topping 751, For. Bur. 2655 Ahern’s collector, Guerrero 42: Province 
of Bataan, Leiberg 6017, Merrill 2520, Wliitford 323: Province of Laguna, Elmer. 
Lubang, Merrill 97'4- Leyte, For. Bur. 12424 Danao. Bantayan, Bur. Sci. 
1697 McGregor. 
Blanco’s description of Cnestis erecta applies exactly to the specimens above 
cited, and accordingly his specific name is here adopted, being the earliest valid 
one for the species. The name erecta is not particularly applicable, as only 
comparatively young plants are erect, mature ones being more or less procumbent 
or subscandent. However, the description can apply to no other Philippine species, 
as the five carpels mentioned by Blanco and the aril entirely covering the seed 
are characteristic of Rourea, and not of Connarus. Presl’s Omphalobium obliquum 
has also been a somewhat doubtful species, it having been based on a specimen 
collected in Luzon by Haenke, and “Cuming 1171.” The latter is undoubtedly 
an error for Cuming 1172, for 1171 in all herbaria that I have examined is 
Mallotus muricatus Muell. Arg., while Cuming 1172, specimens of which are 
before me, answers Presl’s description perfectly. The date of Presl’s “Epimeliae 
botanicae” is given on the title page as 1849, but it seems quite evident that 
the work did not appear until 1851 or 1852. Hooker 7 states regarding the work 
in question “although it bears on the title-page the date of 1849, it does not 
appear to have been in the hands of booksellers till the commencement of 1852.” 
This is confirmed by the fact that it was not reviewed in the Botanische Zeitung 
until September, 1852. As Blanco’s specific name for the plant under discussion 
is undoubtedly the oldest one, the question of actual date of publication of Presl’s 
work is of no importance in the present case, but if Blanco’s name be not 
accepted, there would be some doubt as to whether Presl’s or Planchon’s name 
had priority. 
A common and widely distributed endemic species. 
4. AGE LAE A Soland. 
1. Glabrous except the inflorescence, the follicles not or but very slightly rugose, 
scarcely beaked 1. A. wallichii 
1. All parts more or less pubescent, the follicles strongly tuberculate-rugose, 
prominently beaked 2. A. everettii 
1. Agelaea wallichii Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 2 (1876) 47; King in Journ. As. 
Soe. Beng. 66 2 (1897) 18; Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 35 (1905) 19; 
Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 61. 
A. vestita Vid. Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. 39, f. D. non Hook. 
Luzon, Province of Tayabas, Merrill 2895: Province of Bataan, Leiberg 6004, 
For. Bur. 3025 Meyer, Whitford 29, For. Bur. 3043 Borden. 
Malay Peninsula to Singapore and Sumatra. 
Journ. Bot. & Kew Miscel. 4 (1852) 286. 
