430 
MERRILL. 
447 species described by Blanco are enumerated, with Latin translations 
of the species that Blanco described as new, and accepting those that 
Blanco ascribed to other authors without question. The paper is of 
little value and adds but very little to our actual knowledge of Blanco’s 
species. The next paper is by Hasskarl, published in Flora, vol. 47 
(1864), pages 17-23, 49-59; this was intended to be a critical review 
of the first edition of Blanco’s work, but was apparently discontinued 
after the first thirty-three species described by Blanco were considered. 
Latin translations of Blanco’s descriptions are given and some critical 
notes, while some new names appear, most of which must fall as synonyms. 
Still another reference supplied me by Dr. Robinson, is a review of 
Blanco’s “Flora de Filipinas” by George Tradescant Lay in the Chinese 
Depository 7: 422-437, 1838. Of this I have seen no copy, but Dr. 
Robinson informs me that it is of no scientific importance, data regarding 
about 15 species only being abstracted, with additions from the author’s 
observations. 
In the following paper notes on a number of Blanco’s species are 
included, the arrangement following my previous publication, 2 the page 
references following the family names referring to that paper, 
MAGNOLIACEiE (p. 15). 
Kadsura blancoi Azaola is excluded from the Magnoliacece and referred to 
Phytocrene (p. 423). 
ANONACEfiE (p. 16). 
Uvaria lanotan Blanco, ed. 1, 464. Unona latifolia Blanco, ed. 2, 324= 
Mitrephora lanotan (Blanco) Merr. in .Govt. Lab. Publ. 35 (1905) 71, with 
description, synonomy and citation of specimens. 
NYM PIGEACEJE (p. 17). 
Nymphaea lotus Blanco, ed. 1, 456; ed. 2, 317; ed. 3, 2 (1878) 222; F.-Vill. 
Nov. App. (1880) 9, non Linn.. 
Following Conard 3 true Nymphaa lotus is found in Africa and Madagascar 
only, while the Asiatic-Malayan- Australian form treated by various authors as 
N. lotus is N. pubescens Willd., which name should be accepted for the Philippine 
plant. 
PITTOSPORACEiE (p. ,18). 
Bursaria inermis Blanco, ed. 2, 124; ed. 3, 1: 122, previously considered, after 
F.-Villar, to be' probably identical with Pittosporum ferrugineum Ait., is more 
probably identical with Pittosporum pentadrum (Blanco) Merr. The species 
was really described by Azaola and not by Blanco, according to the latter’s state- 
ment. See Merrill in Govt. Lab. Publ. 35 (1905) 18. 
2 Ibid, 
3 Carnegie Inst. Pub. (1905) No. 4, 198. 
