330 
MERRILL. 
more densely disposed towards the apex, the upper third extending over 
the top of the glans and nearly inclosing it, leaving a circular ostiole 1 
cm in diameter or less. Gians very hard, bony, the base and sides 
continuous, hemispherical, the top slightly convex, the apex depressed 
and apiculate, about 2 cm high and nearly 3 cm in diameter. 
Luzon, Province of Laguna, Mount Banajao, For. Bur. 7917, 7918 Curran c6. 
Merritt, November, 1907, in forests at an altitude of from 800 to 900 m. 
A very characteristic species, and the only one of the section known from the 
Philippines, allied to Quercus rotundata Bl., of Java, and to Q. pulchra King, of 
Borneo, but very distinct from both. It is the species of which Vidal figured the 
fruits as Quercus sp., Sinopsis Atlas (1883) XLI, t. 92, f. Cl., and which also 
came Mount Banajao, at an altitude of about 1000 m. 
DOUBTFUL AND EXCLUDED SPECIES. 
Quercus cerris Blanco El. Pilip. (1837) 727; ed. 2 (1845) 503, non Linn. 
It is quite impossible to determine what species Blanco had in mind, from 
his very short and imperfect description. It is possible that it is the same as 
Quercus llanosii A. DC.; it is, of course, not at all the European species. 
The following note from Blanco’s discussion of this imperfectly described 
species, throws much light on his methods of botanizing: “It is truly lamentable 
that for the lovers of the study of nature, neither prayers, supplications nor 
money suffice to bring to knowledge the precious things of the Philippine forests.” 
Quercus nitida Von Seem, in Perk. Frag. FI. Philip. (1904) 42, non Blume. 
The specimen, Merrill 1115, at least the one before me, is a mixture, the fruits, 
picked up from the ground, being very similar to those of Q. reflexa King, but the 
leaves are manifestly those of Parinarium (Rosacea) well characterized by tln» 
glands at the base of the lamina. Quercus nitida Blume is a doubtful species, and 
the above specimen, so far as it is a Quercus, does not seem to be at all allied to it. 
Quercus CASTELLArnauiana Merr. in For. Bur. Bull. 1 (1903) 16; Von Seem, 
in Perk. Frag. FI. Philip. (1904) 41, non Vidal. 
This is an undeterminable form, as noted by Von Seemen, with flowers only. 
It is not Vidal’s species. 
The only clue we have to the numerous species credited to the Philippines in 
the Novissima Appendix by F.-Villar, is Vidal’s notes. 15 Those accounted for by 
Vidal have been treated above according to the disposition Vidal made of them. 
It seems probable that of the nineteen species admitted by F.-Villar, none of those 
originally described from extra-Philippine material were correctly identified. 
Eight species were unaccounted for by Vidal, and it does not seem to be worth 
while to enter into any further consideration of them, as there are no specimens 
extant, and their identification would be only a matter of guesswork. 
15 Rev. PI. Vase. Filip. (1886) 260-265. 
