126 
Philippine Journal of Science 
1919 
prominent lateral veins of the leaf are rather less numerous (about 10 or 11 
on each side) in Loureiro’s plant, and also slightly farther apart. The twigs 
are also thicker in Loureiro’s specimen. We find nothing that agrees 
better with it. 
Dunal 2 seems to be the first author to adopt Loureiro’s gen- 
eric name, making it a section of the genus TJnona. He referred 
both of Loureiro’s species to Unona; Melodorum fruticosum 
Lour. = Unona dumetorum Dunal and Melodorum arbor eum 
Lour. = Unona sylvatica Dunal. He saw no specimen but inter- 
preted both species from Loureiro’s descriptions. In proposing 
the section Melodorum, Dunal referred to it several other species; 
Unona latifolia Dunal — Melodorum latifolium Hook. f. & Th., 
U. lucida DC. = Xylopia longifolia A. DC., Unona acutiflora 
Dunal = Xylopia sp., Unona xylopoides Dunal, and Unona poly- 
carpa DC. = Xylopia polycarpa Oliv. 
In current botanical literature the authority for the generic 
name Melodorum is given as Hooker f. and Thomson , 3 but these 
authors credit the authority for the genus to Dunal, citing as 
synonyms Unona, section Melodorum Dunal ; Uvaria, section Mel- 
odorum Blume; and Polyalthia, section Kentia Blume. Hooker 
f. and Thomson apparently interpreted the genus largely from 
the first species cited by Dunal; namely, the Malayan one cur- 
rently known as Melodorum latifolium (Dunal) Hook f. & Th., 
described and figured by Blume as Uvaria latifolia Blume . 4 
Hooker f. and Thomson examined Loureiro’s type of Melo- 
dorum fruticosum in the herbarium of the British Museum with 
the following comment: 
Loureiro’s Melodorum is different, as we have determined by an inspec- 
tion of the materials in the British Museum. In that collection there is 
an authentic specimen of M. fruticosum Lour., which is an undescribed 
plant, of doubtful affinity, as we have not examined the flower, but cer- 
tainly not belonging to this genus. It has no fruit. There is no authentic 
specimen of M. arboreum Lour., but it is described as a large tree and is 
perhaps a Mitrephora. 
While they excluded both of Loureiro’s species from Melo- 
dorum, Hooker f. and Thomson considered it advisable to retain 
the generic name in the sense in which it was interpreted (in 
part) by Dunal and by Blume (as a section of Unona and of 
Uvaria). All subsequent authors have been content to follow 
Hooker f. and Thomsorf, and we hence have an entirely illogical 
2 Monogr. Fam. Anon. (1817) 98, 115, 116. 
8 FI. Ind. (1855) 112. 
* FI. Jav. Anon. (1828) 37, t. 15, 25A. 
