PHILIPPINE FREYCINETIA. 
By Elmer D. Merrill. 
( From the Botanical Section of the Biological Laboratory, Bureau of Science, 
Manila, P. I.) 
Philippine Pandanaceae had received little attention before the year 
1900 either from collectors or systematists. However, in 1900, Warburg 
published his monograph of the family, 1 recognizing three genera, Sara- 
ranga, a monotypic genus, its single species, S. sinuosa Hemsl., known 
only from the Solomon Islands and New Guinea, Freycinetia with 62 
species, extending from Ceylon and Burma to Formosa, Malaya, northern 
Australia, Polynesia, and the Hawaiian Islands, with 7 species in the 
Philippines, and Pandanus with 156 species, extending from tropical 
Africa to tropical Asia, Malaya, Australia, and Polynesia, with but a 
single species definitely recorded from the Philippines, and five Phil- 
ippine species described by Blanco considered as doubtful ones. 
Before the publication of Warburg’s monograph four species of Frey- 
cinetia had been described from the Philippines by various authors, 
Warburg adding three additional ones, but recent collections have added 
a considerable number of species of the genus to the known Philippine 
flora, while a second species of Sararanga, (S. philippinensis Merr.), has 
been found on the east coasts of Luzon and Samar, and a large number 
of species of Pandanus have been described and the status determined 
of most of Blanco’s imperfectly described species. 
In Martelli’s recent paper on the Philippine species of Pandanus 2 
twenty-three species with several varieties are recognized as occurring in 
the Archipelago, beside three doubtful species, while more recent collec- 
tions have added two or three additional ones to the list. As many of the 
species of Pandanus and Freycinetia are very local, it is very probable 
that we do not know more than one-half the species of either genus 
actually growing in the Philippines. 
The first species of Freycinetia described from the Philippines was 
F. luzonensis Presl Epim. Bot. (1851) 238, but previously Gaudichaud 
had figured, but not described, what is apparently the same species 
1 Pflanzenreich 3 (1900) 1-97. 
-This Journal 3 (1908) Bot. 59-72. 
307 
