260 
Philippine Journal of Science 
1919 
2U71, March, 1918; Ukantin, Hongkong Herbarium 10918, dis- 
tributed as Randia densiflora Benth. 
This species is manifestly allied to Randia racemosa (Cav.) 
F.-Vill. (R. densiflora Benth.), from which it is easily distin- 
guished by its indumentum. 
COMPOSITAE 
GYNURA Cassini 
GYNURA SEGETUM (Lour.) comb. nov. 
Cacalia segetum Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 486, in nota. 
Cacalia pinnatifida Lour. 1. c. non Linn. 
Gynura pinnatifida DC. Prodr. 6 (1837) 301. 
Kwangtung Province, Kochow region, Kwong T’am Mountain, 
To Kang P’eng 2671, March 22, 1919, in a garden, with the 
local name tung fung ip. 
The type of Loureiro’s species was from Canton, where he 
observed it growing in rice paddies. He records the Cantonese 
name as cien fan sat. His description applies closely to the 
specimen cited above. I consider his specific name pinnatifida 
to be invalidated by the earlier Cacalia pinnatifida Linn., an 
entirely different species, and hence adopt the casual name 
published by him: “unde vernaculum nomen Sinense Cacalia 
Segetum.” 
CROSSOSTEPH I U M Lessing 
CROSSOSTEPH I U iVl CHJNENSE (Linn.) comb. nov. 
Artemisia chinensis Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 649, excl. syn. Gmelin; Lour. 
FI. Cochinch. (1790) 492. 
Artemisia judaica Lour. FI. Cochinch. (1790) 489, non Linn. 
Crossostephium artemisioides Less, ex Cham. & Schlecht. in Linnaea 
6 (1831) 220. 
The genus Crossostephium was based on cultivated specimens 
from Manila and from Canton, the species being widely cul- 
tivated in Japan, China, the Philippines, and Indo-China. I 
have seen no specimens from wild plants, although the species 
is manifestly a native of either China or Japan. It is currently 
known in Manila, where it is cultivated in pots, as ajenjo, a 
Spanish name properly belonging to Artemisia. The type of the 
Linnean species was a specimen collected in China by Lager- 
stroem, and the Linnean description based on this specimen 
clearly applies to the species currently known as Crossostephium 
artemisioides Less. The species is still common in cultivation 
in Canton. Both of Loureiro’s descriptions cited above apply 
to this species. 
