THE FLORA OF MANILA. 
177 
H. suaveolens Poir., and H. svicigera Lam., all of wide American 
distribution. Of these four species two, H. suaveolens Poir. and 
H. brevi'pes Poir., are now of wide distribution in the tropics of 
both hemispheres, but H. spicigera Lam. is known in the Eastern 
Hemisphere only from the Philippines and Guam, and H. capitata 
Jacq. only from the Philippines, Guam, and Java, although in the 
latter place it presumably is of comparatively recent introduction, 
as it is apparently not of wide distribution there, although com- 
mon in places.^ In confirmation of the American origin of these 
four species, if such were necessary, all are known from Guam, 
a small island in the Marianne group, at which the Spanish 
galleons stopped en route from Acapulco to Manila ; unquestion- 
ably all reached the Philippines through this trade route. None 
of them, although all are common in the Plulippmes, have any 
well-defined native names. 
Gomphrena globosa L. is a commonly cultivated plant in the 
Philippines, and is not infrequently found subspontaneous about 
dwellings, etc. It is by some authors given as of American origin, 
and by others Asiatic. It is certainly not a native of the Philip- 
pines, and it is equally certain that it was purpo.sely introduced 
by the Spaniards, for it is usually known only by names of 
Spanish origin, or corruptions of such names, boton (button), 
botoncillo, etc. In looking up the generic range it is found that 
of the 90 known species, nearly all are American and confined to 
tropical America, hence it is only reasonable to suppose that 
Gomphi'etia globosa L. originated in the same part of the world. 
In Table II, following, is given a summary of the species of 
pantropic distribution that are found in and about Manila, a total 
of 425, distributed into 296 genera and 86 families. Of these 
at least 334 owe their present wide distribution directly or indi- 
rectly to man, and have, for the most part at least, been distrib- 
uted from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western or vice versa 
within historical times, that is, since the first circumnavigation of 
the globe. About 90 are assumed to have been of natural distrib- 
ution, but in at least one-half of the cases so considered, there is 
some doubt as to whether they may not have been distributed by 
man. In very many of the cases man has undoubtedly been 
instrumental in their dissemination whether or not he was instru- 
mental in distributing them from one hemisphere to the other. 
Purposely introduced species, including those of prehistoric dis- 
tribution, aggregate 242, and inadvertently distributed ones, 92. 
” Backer in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenz. Suppl. 3 (1909) 404. 
