NOTES ON PHILIPPINE BOTANY. 
117 
characters. The type of the present species was the first number cited in the 
original description of Combretum sexalatum Merr., 4 but that species being based 
on two different plants, and the specific name being derived from fruit characters, 
these fruiting specimens being those of Aspidopteris ovata ( Malpigh iaeeae) , we 
consider the fruiting specimens to represent the type of Combretum sexalatum, 
and the flowering specimen previously considered under that name is here 
redescribed. The present species in leaf and stem characters bears a striking- 
resemblance to Aspidopteris ovata. (See p. 106.) 
MELASTOMATACEiE. 
ASTRONIA Blume. 
Astronia pulchra Vidal Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 136. 
Astronia glauca Merr. "in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 29 (1905) 31. 
Types of both being compared at Kew, they were found to be identical, and 
Astronia glauca is here accordingly reduced. 
AliALIACEyE. 
SCHEFFLERA Forst. 
Schefflera odorata (Blanco) Merrill & Rolfe comb. nov. 
Polyscias odorata Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 225. 
Polyscias obtusa Blanco ? 1. c. 226. 
Paratropia crassa Blanco 1. c. ed. 2 (1845) 158; ed. 3, 1 : 285. 
Paratropia obtusa Blanco ? 11. cc. 159, 285. 
Heptapleurum venulosum F.-Vill. Nov. App. (1883) 102; Vidal Sinopsis 
Atlas (1883) pi. 55, f. E.j Cat. PL Prov. Manila (1880) 32, non Seem. 
Schefflera venulosa Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 110 non 
Harms. 
Luzon, Vidal 11/36, 2931, 7 92; holier 3591, 3592, 3593; Elmer 641-1/, 8312, 
6058 ; Whitford 3, 62; Merrill 1886, 1610. Ticao, Vidal 2936. Masbate, Merrill 
3021/. Lubang, Merrill 913. Basilan, For. Bur. 1/36 Hutchinson. Mindanao, 
Copeland 591/. 
A species very common and widely distributed in the Philippines, apparently 
endemic, but closely allied to the Malayan Heptapleuru-m ellipticurn Miq. We 
are of the opinion that it is sufficiently distinct from that species, as well as 
from H. venulosum Seem., to which it has been referred by the above authors, 
and accordingly Blanco’s specific name is here adopted. 
In the original descriptions of Heptapleurum Cumingii Seem., and H. caudatum 
Vidal, there is an unfortunate confusion in the numbers cited, both descriptions 
being based on specimens representing two species, but neither description apply- 
ing to the first number cited in each case, which was Cuming 800. The material of 
all the numbers of Cuming’s collection has been examined in the Kew Herbarium 
and at the British Museum, and at the former place Vidal’s material was also 
available, as well as the collections of Loher and the more recent collections made 
by American botanists. The following notes it is believed will clear up the 
confusion that has occurred regarding the species under discussion. 
4 This Journal, 1 (1900) Suppl. 212. 
