318 
MERRILL. 
Quercus jordanae as a new species, the type material being from the Cara- 
ballo Mountains in Central Luzon. 
In 1883, F.-Villar 3 credited nineteen species of Quercus to the Philip- 
pines, two of which were described as new. It is evident that nearly all 
of these were admitted on erroneous identifications. Many of them it 
will he quite impossible to identify, but some were cleared up by Vidal. 4 
In 1883, Vidal 5 * figured no less than seven species of Quercus and two 
species of Castanopsis, two of the former being described as new, while 
in 1886 ten species of Quercus and one Castanopsis are enumerated by 
him 0 with specific names, and two species of Quercus and one Castanopsis 
without specific names. Two species of Quercus are described as new, 
while the descriptions of Q. vidalii F.-Vilh, and Q. blancoi A. DC., are 
amplified. 
Wenzig’s paper on “Die Eichen Ost- und Stidasiens” 7 * adds nothing to 
our knowledge of Philippine oaks, a single species, Quercus pliilip pinens is 
A. DC., being credited to the Philippines, Q. llanosii, Q. ovalis Blanco, 
and Q. blancoi A. DC., being erroneously reduced to it. 
King's valuable paper “The Indo-Malayan Species of Quercus and 
Castanopsis” s does not include the Philippine species, but is the one most 
useful work in determining the Philippine species of this group. 
Six species of Quercus are enumerated from the Philippines by Von 
Seemen, 9 and a single one was described by Hance. 
Our Philippine oaks are difficult to determine properly, chiefly because 
of lack of complete material, and because many of the species were 
originally described from immature specimens. After an examination of 
Vidal’s types at Ivew, some of Blume’s types at Leiden, and the types 
of DeCandolle’s Philippine species at Geneva, I was impressed with the 
discrepancies in the identifications of the Philippine species, and on my 
return to Manila considered it advisable to examine critically the entire 
material available, and publish an enumeration of the species. Most of 
the specimens cited by Vidal I found at Kew, but some of the numbers do 
not appear to be extant, and while there I succeeded in matching most 
of Vidal’s species with recently collected specimens, although if Vidal’s 
specimens were now before me, I have no doubt but that the present 
paper would be more accurate, so far as the disposition of his species is 
concerned. 
It is frequently difficult to accurately identify specimens unless they 
have mature fruits, and for this reason, it is to be expected that some of 
3 Nov. App. (1883) 207-209. 
* Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 260-265. 
3 8 inops is Atlas (1883) XLI, t. 92. 
n Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 260-265. 
7 Jahrb. Kyi. Hot. Oart. Berlin 4 (1886) 214-240. 
* Ann. Hot. Gard. Calcutta 2 (1889) 17—107, pi. 15—10Jf. 
9 Perkins Frag. FI. Pliilip. (1904) 41, 42. 
