NEW OR NOTEWORTHY PHILIPPINE PLANTS, VI. 
239 
slender, terete. Leaves subcoriaceous, shining, elliptical, oblong-ellip- 
tical or narrowly obovate-oblong, 7 to 13 cm long, 3 to 6 cm wide, entire 
or- slightly and obscurely denticulate towards their apices, the base 
acute, the apex short acuminate, the acumen acute or blunt, rarely 
retuse; nerves 5 to 7 on each side of the midrib, not prominent, distant, 
irregular, anastomosing, the secondary nerves and lax reticulations nearly 
as prominent as the primary veins; petioles 5 to 7 mm long. Cymes 
axillary, dichotomous, diffuse, 8 to 10 cm long, the peduncles 3 to 5 
cm long, the flowers numerous, white, 8 to 10 mm in diameter, tire 
bracts and bracteoles linear or acicular, the former about 3 mm, the 
latter 1 mm long. Sepals 5, orbicular to reniform, the margins shortly 
fimbriate. Petals obovate, narrowed below, not clawed, 5 mm long, 
fimbriate. Filaments 2 mm long; anthers 0.5 mm long. Fruit glab- 
rous, red, broadly obovoid or turbinate, nearly 1 cm long, 1.5 cm in 
diameter, 5-lobed, the lobes rounded. 
Mindoro, Cuming 1552. Luzon, Province of Benguet, Elmer 61/62, June, 1904; 
Bur. Bci. 3551 Mcarns, July, 1907; Williams 1021/, October, 1904: Province of 
Rizal, Bur. 8ci. 1037, 11/1/3, 1/612 Ramos, July, August, 1906; August, 1907: 
Province of Tayabas, Lagumanoc, Merrill 3356, November, 1903. Masbate, 
Merrill 3061/, August, 1903. 
A species previously confused with Euonymus timorensis Zipp., which is how- 
ever a synonym of Euonymus javanicus Blume. Most closely allied to E. attenua- 
tus Wall., of British India and to E. gibber Hanee, of Hongkong, differing from 
the former in its shorter cymes, bracts and bracteoles and in the shape of its 
leaves, and from the latter in its longer leaves and cymes, the leaves of Hance’s 
species being rounded and retuse at the apex. Lawson 2 admits Euonymus timo- 
rensis Zipp., as a distinct species, giving its range as from Tenasserim or the 
Andaman Islands to Pegu, Timor, and the Philippines, the Philippine distribution 
being undoubtedly based on Cuming’s number cited above. The Andaman Island 
reference is probably erroneous, as King 3 does not admit the species in his 
“Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula.” Not having seen the other 
specimens examined by Lawson, I am unable to state whether or not they are 
identical with the Philippine plant, but it seems probable that they represent a 
different species, or that the Indian specimens are really the same as Euonymus 
attenuatus Wall. 
SI PHONODON Griff. 
Siphonodon celastrineus Griff, in Calc. Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844) 247, t. 
11, ; Laws, in Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 629; Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. I 2 ( 1859) 
629; Koord. & Valet. Bijdr. Boomsoort. Java 7 (1900) 105. 
Luzon, Province of Bataan, Lamao River, Whitford 1281/, May, 1905: Province 
of Tarlac, Garcia, August, 1903: Province of Rizal, Bosoboso, Bur. Sci. 11/66 
Ramos, September, 1906. Mindoro, Bongabong River, Whitford 11/23, February, 
1906; For. Bur. 1,053 Merritt, April, 1906. Ticao, For. Bur. 1072 Clark, June, 
1904. 
British India and Java. 
2 Hook. f. FI. Brit. Ind. 1 (1875) 610. 
3 Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 6 5 2 (1896) 343. 
72299 5 
