130 
MERRILL. 
3. Flemingia philippinensis Merr. & Rolfe in Philip. Jourii. Sci. 3 (1908) 
Bot. 103. 
Luzon, District of Bontoc, For. Bur. 16541 Curran: District of Lepanto, 
Merrill 4460. 
Endemic. 
4. Fleminga macrophylla (Willd.) 0. Kuntze ex Prain in Journ. As. Soc. 
Beng. 66 2 (1897) 440, in nota. 
Crotalaria macrophylla Willd. Sp. PI. 3 (1800) 982. 
Flemingia congesta Roxb. ex Ait. Hort. Kew. ed. 2, 4 (1812) 349; Baker in 
Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 2 (1876) 228, pro parte; F.-Vill. Nov'. App. (1880) 67; 
Vid. Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 111. 
Rliynchosia sericea Vid. Sinopsis Atlas (1883) t. JfO, f. D. ! ; F.-Vill. Nov. App. 
(1880) 67, prob., non Span. 
Moghania macrophylla O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. PI. (1891) 199. 
Luzon, Province of Benguet, Elmer 6241, For. Bur. 16224 Curran, Merritt, & 
Zschokke: Province of Laguna, For. Bur. 8867 Curran: Province of Pampanga, 
Merrill 1454: Province of Rizal, Merrill 1342: Province of Bataan, Whitford 76. 
Culion, Merrill 687. Mindanao, Lake Lanao, Mrs. Clemens 825. 
India to southern China and Malaya. 
Flemingia congesta Roxb., as interpreted by Baker in Hooker’s “Flora of 
British India,” has been separated by Prain 62 into no less than six species, and 
two others, considered by Baker as synonyms of F. wallichii W. & A., are 
regarded by Prain as distinct, and are placed by him with the segregates from 
F. congesta. Incidentally Doctor Prain credits O. Kuntze with the new com- 
bination Flemingia macrophylla, but Kuntze originally made the transfer to 
Moghania, not to Flemingia. At my request Dr. H. Harms has compared the 
Philippine material with Willdenow’s type, and writes as follows: “I have 
compared the specimen in Willdenow’s Herbarium, no. 13260, named Crotalaria 
macrophylla Willd., with some Philippine specimens (i.e., Cuming’s) of Flemin- 
gia congesta Roxb., and I think that they are identical; indeed I do not see 
any differences between the specimens, so that Willdenow’s name must be admitted 
as the oldest for the species, according to Doctor Kuntze’s statements. * * * 
The Philippine specimens agree better with Willdenow’s type than do several of 
the Indian specimens, in our herbarium, referred to F, congesta Roxb.” 
5. Flemingia cumingiana Benth. PI. Jungh. (1852) 245; Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. 
I 1 (1855) 67; F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1880) 67. 
Philippines, without locality, Cuming s. n. in Herb. Kew. (type). 
The type impresses me as being a rather densely pubescent form of the preced- 
ing species, and F. cumingiana may ultimately prove, not to be separable from 
that. I am disposed to refer to F. cumingiana the following specimens, although 
some of them have considerably larger leaflets than has the type of the species : 
Luzon, Province of Abra, Bur. Sci. 7130 Ramos: Province of Bulacan, Yoder 152: 
Province of Bataan, Merrill 1601. 
Endemic. 
Flemingia involuckata Benth. is recorded from the Philippines by F.-Villar, 
Nov. App. 67 ; it extends from India to Java, but I have seen no Philippine 
specimens. 
Flemingia Roxb. is here retained as the name for this genus, although 0. 
Kuntze has adopted the generic name Moghania St. Hil. (1813), in which he has 
been followed by Taubert in Engler & Prantl’s “Natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien.” 
Kuntze asserts that Flemingia was not published until 1819, (1814, nomen 
Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 66 2 (1897) 439. 
