THE GENUS ERIA IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
217 
to which Bliime’s happy name of Dendrolirium may be applied. Some 
terete-leaved plants can hardly indeed be said to form pseudobulbs ; but 
their leaves fall eventually from the summit of very short stems altogether 
analogous to pseudobulbs, although unlike in form. Two divisions are 
affected by taking into account the form of the leaves.” Lindley l. c. 
E. ornata Lindley Oreh. PI. (1830) 66; de Vriese 111. Oreh. t. 13; Reichb. f. 
in Bonpl. 5 (1857) 54; Miquel FI. Ind. Bat. 3:660; Vidal Phan. Cuming. Philip. 
(1885) 78, 149, Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 268; Ridley in Journ. Linn. Soc. 
Bot. 3 2 (1896) 302; Schlechter in Perk. Frag - . FI. Philip. 43; J. J. Smith Oreh. 
Java 380; Ames Orchidaceae 1 (1905) 94, 2 (1908) 195. 
Dendrolirium ornatum Blume Bijdr. (1825) 345. 
Eria armeniaca Lindley Bot. Reg. (1841) Misc. 38, and t. 1/2. 
“Bulbis ovalibus compressiuseulis sub-3 phyllis, foliis oblongo-lanceo- 
latis rigidis nervosis, spica radicali vaginata sepalisque exterioribus fusco- 
tomentosis, bracteis coriaceis margine recurvis, labello intus crispato- 
eristato, limbi lobo medio acuminato. (Bracteae rubrae, demum auran- 
tiacae. Species pulcherrima.) .” Blume l. c. 
Having seen E. armeniaca Lindl. at Kew and E. ornata Lindl. at Leiden, that 
is, Dendrolirium ornatum Bl., the type, with both of which the Philippine material 
has been compared, I agree with J. J. Smith in combining them under the older 
name. If there is any difference between the Javan and the Philippine plants, 
this difference is lost in the dried state, and is too small to be considered 
sjseciflc. 
Luzon, Province of Rizal, Tanay, Merrill 2361, May 20, 1903: Province of Ben- 
guet, Sablan, Elmer 6236, April 11, 1904: Province of Zambales, For. Bur. 7 390 
Curran, May 13, 1907, epiphytic, flowers dull-purple. Negros, For. Bur. 11201^ 
Everett, April, 1908. 
§ MYCARANTHES Reichb. f. in Bonplandia 5 ( 1857) 55; Blume ex J. J. Smith 
Oreh. Java 391. § Eriura Lindley in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 3 (1859) 55; 
Bentham l. c. 18 (1881) 303; Bentham & Plook. f. Gen. PI. 3: 510; Hooker f. FI. 
Brit. Ind. 5: 785; Pfitzer in Engl. & Prantl Nat. Pflanzenfam. 2 C : 175. Not 
§ Mycaranthes Lindley in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 3 (1859) 51, Hook. f. 1. c., 
Pfitzer l. c., not § Mycaranthus Blume ex Benth. in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 18 
(1881) 303; Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. PI. 3: 510. 
Blume merely suggested the addition of his genus to Eria (Mus. Bot. Lugd.- 
Bat. 2: 182) ; but in the absence of definite decision his “si levior videatur vegeta- 
tionis character,” can hardly be regarded as effecting the union. On the other 
hand Reichenbach uses the name definitely as a sectional designation and his 
transference of all Blume’s Mycaranthes species severally, with proper credit, to 
Er,ia under this section, is satisfactory reference to the origin and sufficient 
indication of the limits of the section. Lindley mistook the original genus, and 
applied the name to Erias of quite another kind, making a new section (§ Eriura) 
for species properly belonging to Reiclienbach’s section Mycaranthes ; in which 
error he has been followed by several authors. The small group of species with 
woolly flowers in secund spikes ( Eria stricta Lindl., etc.) characterized by Lindley 
in Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 3: 51, and further defined by Hooker f. in FI. Brit. 
Ind. 5: 785, by both authors under the appellation § Mycaranthes, is therefore 
without a name. I propose the designation § Secundae, nom. nov. 
The section Mycaranthes embraces thus far in the Philippines five species. 
E. gigantea Ames is much like E. bidens Ridley, E. iridifolia Hook. f.. and E. 
85754 2 
