PHILIPPINE URTICACEAE. 
471 
A most unfortunate conflict regarding dates of publication arose Half 
a century and more ago, owing to the fact that the family was being 
treated in part or whole by different authors at the same time. So far as 
Philippine problems are involved, Weddell, Blume, and Miquel are chiefly 
concerned; and as the facts have a wide bearing, it is thought advisable 
to enumerate here such data as have been gathered. 
Weddell’s papers were three in number, the first published in the 
first volume of the fourth series of the Annales des Sciences Naturelles; 
the second, his monograph of the family, in the ninth volume of the 
Archives du Museum ; the third in th,e first part of the sixteenth volume 
of the Prodromus. The difficulties lie with the second. 
Blume’s references to species of the family are more or less scattered 
throughout his publications, but he deals especially with them in certain 
numbers of the second • volume of the Museum Botanicum Lugduno- 
Batavumj over the dates of these there is much difficulty, especially as 
they were nearly simultaneous with Weddell’s monograph. There seems 
to be no controversy over the actual dates of Mi quel’s publications, their 
relative priority being alone involved. 
The preface to the second volume of the Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. is dated 
January 6, 1852, the first number is dated 1852, numbers 2 to 8 bear 
no date. According to a polemic review by Miquel, these were issued 
together and were on sale on the 1st of February, 1856. 6 It would 
be unfair, however, to consider Blume as claiming fqr them the date 
of 1852, for Weddell’s paper in the Annales of 1854 is cited as of 
that year. Parts 9, . 10, 11, and 12 are dated as appearing on the 
1st of November and December, 1855, and of January and February, 
1856, respectively. Miquel 7 says of these that they were on sale by 
the middle of May, 1856, at Amsterdam, and in Germany somewhat 
earlier: further, that he had himself seen in the Leyden Herbarium in 
December, 1855, some of the sheets from which species were alleged to 
have been published in November, and that- there was no indication 
upon them of anything of the kind having taken place. Parts 13 
to 16 are similarly dated as appearing on the first of the months from 
March to June, 1856; regarding these, I find no definite statements 
by others ; the assigned dates are presumably too early, and it is in them 
that the worst cases of conflict with Weddell occur, so far as Philippine 
species are concerned. 
Contemporaneous bibliographic notes on Weddell’s monograph are 
surprisingly few, the most important found being by Sir William Hooker. 8 
The date of the review is probably October or November of 1857, as it 
is in the second last number of the volume, and the last is dated December 
6 Bot. Zeit. 14 (14 March, 1856) 185-188. 
7 Bot. Zeit. 14 (1 August, 1856) 540, 541. 
s Hook. Jour. Bot. & Kew Gard. Misc. 9 (1857) 347-350. 
