19, 3 
Merrill: Burman’s Flora lndica 
387 
Burman’s species was based on Japanese material, possibly 
on the same collection that yielded the type of Tussilago japonica 
Linn. The latter typifies Senecio kaempferi DC. Burman’s 
specific name should be retained for the species. 
EMILIA Cassini 
EMILIA JAVANICA (Burm. f.) C. B. Rob. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 3 (1908) 
Bot. 217. 
Hieracium javanicum Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 174, t. 57, f. 1. 
“Java.” 
Prenanthes javanica Willd. Sp. PI. 3 (1800) 1534. 
Sonchus javanicus Spreng. Syst. 3 (1826) 648. 
Emilia flammea Cass, in Diet. Sci. Nat. 14 (1819) 406, t. 5. 
Burman’s specific name should be retained for this species, 
which is allied to, but distinct from, Emilia sonchifolia DC. 
SONCHUS Linnaeus 
* SONCHUS sp. 
? Senecio auriculatus Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 181. “Habitat in Java.” 
This is perhaps a species of Sonchus, possibly 8. oleraceus 
Linn, or S. arvensis Linn.; but the description is too short to 
warrant a more definite reduction from it alone. 
COMPOSITAE OF DOUBTFUL STATUS 
* LAPSANA JAPONICA Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 174. “Habitat in Japo- 
nia.” 
This is clearly no representative of the genus Lapsana. The 
type was from Japan, and Dr. B. Hayata informs me that 
neither he nor any of the other Japanese botanists at Tokyo 
recognizes the species from the description. 
* ERIGERON DENTICULATUM Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 180. 
The type of this genus was a Javan specimen. From the very 
short description it is suspected that it is a synonym of Pluchea 
indica (Linn.) Less., but the correctness of this suggested re- 
duction can scarcely be determined from the description alone. 
* ERIGERON INDICUM Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 180. “Habitat in Java.” 
This is probably not an Erigeron, but Burman’s description 
is altogether too short to warrant a definite reduction of it 
from the description alone. 
SPECIES OF WHOLLY DOUBTFUL STATUS 
* ACER PLATANUS Burm. f. FI. Ind. (1768) 221. “Habitat in India.” 
Pax, in Engl. Pflanzenreich 8 (1902) 76, states regarding 
this species “Vix Aceris species.” There is nothing in the de- 
