PHILIPPINE URTICACEAE. 
475 
40, non FI. Gall. Loiseleur has probably bare priority over Moris, but if the first 
edition of the Flora Gallica is ihtended, he had long previously used the name 
for a different species, to which I can find no additional reference. 
Local name (Apo) : latong. 
Java. 
SPECIES E GENERE EXCLUDENDAE. 
1. Urtica arborescens Link Enum. Hort. Berol. 2 (1822) 386; Blanco FI. 
Filip, ed. 2 (1845) 483. 
U. baccifera Blanco 1. c. (1837) 695, non Linn. Sp. PI. ed. 2 (1763) 1385. 
Villar correctly reduced U. arboresoens Blanco to Pipturus asper Wedd. How- 
ever, Blanco had correctly interpreted Link’s species, which has no older name. 
This is doubtless the species intended by Weddell on page 102 of the monograph 
as “U. arborescens, Lmk. = M issies-syae spec.” It reappears on page 59 of the 
Prodromus as “U. arborescens Poir.= ? Leucosylces spec.” 
2. Urtica elongata Link Enum. Hort. Berol. 2 (1822) 385, nec J. F. Gmel. 
Syst. (1791) 269, nec aliorum. 
V. sessiliflora Blanco 1. c. (1837) 696, non Sw. in Vet. Akad. Handl. Stock. 
(1785) 33. 
U. capitata Blanco 1. c. ed. 2 (1845) 483, non Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 985. 
Villar’s reduction of Blanco’s species to Fleurya interrupta Gaudich. is almost 
certainly correct, although the description of the pistillate flowers points rather* 
to some Boehmeria, to which genus Weddell 11 doubtfully assigned, probably by a 
slip or misprint for this, an otherwise non-existent U. sessilifolia Blanco. The 
reduction of Link’s species to Fleurya interrupta, though from description, is 
practically certain. 
3. Urtica tjmbeiaata Blanco 1. c. (1837) 696, {umbelata) , non Bory Voy. 3 
(1804) 173. 
U. ferox Blanco 1. c. ed. 2 (1845) 484, non Forst. f. Prodr. (1786) 66. 
U. meyeniana Walp. in Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 19 (1843) Suppl. 1: 422. 
All are synonyms of Laported meyenicma (Walp.) Warb. 
4. Urtica nivea Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 985. 
Correctly credited to the Philippines by Blanco and others, but only an in- 
troduced plant: Boehmeria nivea (Linn.) Gaudich. 
5. Urtica manillensis Walp. Nov. Act. Nat. Cur. 1*9 (1843) Suppl. 1: 423. 
Bureau, 12 after inspecting the type of this species collected by Meyen and 
named by Walpers, reduced it to Fatoua pilosa Gaudich. The description, which 
he had been unable to locate, is quite in agreement with this disposition of the 
species. 
6. Urtica iiorrida HBK. Nov. Gen. & Sp. 2 (1817) 41. 
Reported by Walpers, l. c. 422, to have been collected at Manila by Meyen, 
perhaps from a garden. Kunth’s species, considered by Weddell to be a variety 
of TJrera baccifera (L. ) Gaudich., is a native of tropical America, and is very 
unlikely even to have been cultivated in Manila. Meyen’s specimen, if extant, 
will decide the question. 
7. Urtica villosa Blanco 1. c. (1837) 695, non Thunb. FI. Jap. (1784) 70. 
Blanco’s description is most inadequate and would do for s several Philippine 
species in different genera. Villar’s reduction of it to Pouzolzia indica Gaudich. 
(P. seylanica Benn., sensu latiore), is open to.no other objection, and may well be 
accepted. 
DC. Prodr. 16 1 (1869) 66. 
DC. Prodr. 17 (1873) 256. 
