118 
MERRILL AND ROLFE. 
Leaves 5- to 10-foliolate. 
Panicle-branches scattered along the common racliis; leaflets 7 to 10, strongly 
caudate-acuminate - 1. S. caudata. 
Panicle-branches fascicled at the ends of the branches, no common racliis 
present; leaflets 5, slightly acuminate, 3-nerved at the base.. 2. S. Cumingii. 
Leaves 3-foliolate ; leaflets caudate-acuminate, not 3-nerved at the base. 
3. S. trifoliata. 
1. Schefflera caudata (Vidal) Merrill & Rolfe comb. nov. 
Heptapleurum caudatum Vidal Phan. Cuming. Philip. (1885) 175; Rev. PI. 
Vase. Filip. (1886) 145, excl. Cuming 800. 
Schefflera acuminatissima Merr. in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 109. 
Luzon, Province of Albay, Tivi, Vidal 793, Vffl9a, the former being the type 
of the species ex descr. ! : Province of Bataan, Mount Mariveles, Whitford 172, 
1222; For. Bur. 3005 Meyer. 
The original diagnosis of H eptapleurum caudatum Vidal, applies entirely to 
Vidal 793, and not at all to Cuming 800, although the latter is the first number 
cited, and as no type was indicated, Cuming 800 would naturally be taken to 
represent the type of the species, unless the diagnosis was examined carefully 
and compared with the original specimens. Schefflera acuminatissima Merr., was 
described as “quite distinct from Heptapleurum caudatum Vidal,” owing to the 
fact that the conception of Vidal’s species in Manila was based on a specimen 
of Cuming 800. As a matter of fact, however, the type of this species is identical 
with Vidal 793, which we consider to be the type of Schefflera caudata. 
2. Schefflera Cumingii (Seem.) Merrill & Rolfe comb. nov. 
Heptapleurum Cumingii Seem. Journ. Bot. 3 (1865) 81; Rev. Hederac. (1868) 
45, excl. Cuming 800. 
Seemann describes this species as follows : “Foliolis 5 ellipticis acuminatis v. 
ovato-ellipticis longe acuminatis integerrimis 3-plinerviis ; paniculis terminalibus 
pube stellato albido vestitis; drupis obovatis, 5-locularibus. Philippine Islands 
(Cuming! n. 800 et 1293).” 
As was the ease with Schefflera caudata (Vidal), Cuming 800 is the first speci- 
men cited, and would therefore naturally be taken to be the type of the species. 
However, in 5 sheets of Cuming 800 that we have examined, including Seemann’ s 
type material at the British Museum, all the leaves are 3-foliolate, and although 
they are long-acuminate, they are not “3-plinerviis.” In four specimens of 
Cuming 1292 examined, the leaves are 5-foliolate, and although not long-acuminate, 
are strongly “3-plinerviis.” It is apparent that Seemann drew up his description 
from both specimens, but mostly from the second number cited, the characters 
of which predominate in his diagnosis, and which we consider to be the type of 
the species. Cuming 800, while the first specimen cited in the original descrip- 
tions of both the above species, was really described in neither, and is here de- 
scribed as a new species. Seeman cites the number 1293, an error for 1292. 
♦ 
3. Schefflera trifoliata Merrill & Rolfe sp. nov. 
Scandens; foliolis 3, glabris, submembranaceis, 10 ad 20 cm longis, 
oblongis vel oblongo-ovatis, integris, caudato-aeurninatis ; paniculis ter- 
minalibus, ramis elongatis, multifloris, furfuraceis; floribus superis fas- 
ciculatis, prope ramulorum basin umbellatis. 
Scandent, glabrous, branches light-gray. Leaves alternate, trifoliolate, 
