ENUMERATION OF PHILIPPINE LEGUMINOSAE. 
31 
9. MIMOSA Linn. 
1. Mimosa pudica Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 518; Willd. Sp. PI. 4 (1805) 1031; 
Benth. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 30 (1875) 397; Baker in Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 2 
(1878) 291; Naves in Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 3, pi. 253. 
Mimosa asperata Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 732, ed. 2 (1845) 505, ed. 3, 3: 134, 
non Linn. 
Luzon, Province of Isabela, Merrill 199: Province of Benguet, Williams 919: 
Province of Union, Elmer 5513: Manila, Merrill 31/68: Province of Panga- 
sinan, Merrill 2861: Province of Rizal, For. Bur. 3195 Ahern’s collector: Province 
of Tayabas, For. Bur. 11/68 Reyes, Gregory 28, Merrill 21/11: Province of Albay, 
Bur. Sci. 6251 Robinson. Polillo, Bur. Sci. 9211 Robinson. Cebu, Barrow 12. 
Panay, Yoder 18. 
Universally known among the natives as macahia ( literally “ashamed” ) . 
The sensitive plant. 
Throughout the Philippines at low altitudes, in open lands. A native of 
tropical America, now widely distributed in the tropics of the world, and in 
many regions an extremely troublesome weed. 
DOUBTFUL SPECIES. 
Mimosa blancoana Llanos Mem. Acad. Cienc. Madrid 4 (1858) 503; Blanco 
FI. Filip, ed. 3, 4 1 (1880) 103. 
Nothing at all agreeing with the very imperfect description has been recently 
collected in the Philippines; it is possible that the description was based in part 
on fragmentary material of Entada scandens. It is not a Mimosa. 
10. PROSOPIS Linn. 
1. Prosopis vidaliana Naves in Epliem. “Oriente” (1877) fide F.-Villar, “Pro- 
sopis vidaliana” (1877) 1-19, pi. 1, 2, Blanco FI. Filip, ed. 3, pi. 392 ; Vidal Cat. 
PI. Prov. Manila (1880) 28, Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. 1/1/, fig. C. 
Prosopis juliflora F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1880) 73; Perk. Frag. FI. Philip. (1904) 
7, non DC. 
Luzon, Manila, Merrill 310: Province of Rizal, Feliciano 291: Province of 
Bataan, Williams 319, For. Bur. 5931/, 15562 Curran, Decades Philip. Forest FI. 
no. 192 Borden, For. Bur. 56 Barnes. Basilan, Hallier s. n., DeVore & Hoover 12. 
This species was originally described by Naves in a daily or weekly paper 
published in Manila, and in the same year redescribed in detail and illustrated 
by two plates in a pamphlet entitled “Prosopis Vidaliana Naves. Descripcion de 
la especie botanica Prosopis Vidaliana de la Flora de Filipinas” issued to 
subscribers to the third edition of Blanco’s “Flora de Filipinas.” It was later 
reduced by F.-Villar to Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. which reduction has been 
accepted by recent authors. 
Having noticed that the Philippine material differed remarkably from the 
single American specimen in this herbarium labeled Prosopis juliflora, I asked 
Dr. J. N. Rose to compare the Philippine material in the United States National 
Herbarium with American specimens of Prosopis. This he has kindly done, and 
writes as follows : “I do not think your species is the same as any of our 
United States ones. It is not the same as the one of central and southern 
Mexico, which is probably P. dulcis. Neither do I think that it is P. juliflora of 
the West Indies. It resembles very much some unidentified material of mine 
from the west coast [of Mexico]. The pods of your Philippine plants are rather 
