ì >
D O U B T r m , AND IMPERFECTLY ENOTVN SPECIES,
B-tm a, /oi/.»», ¡ill, mmcHpt namt, {mpt time of Wallkli, Caahtti) ami puis,lei name,
wiitcco:i<panied hy deieri]ytione, are for the meat ^art excluded,
"'""icieT''"' " »' y «• .loots oi „„.
F. .mner.lt, Mi^ Fl. I . d . Ba t i. pi. 2. 315. I ta™ see» thi. „nlj i , tto H e r b ™ at Utr.ohl, . . d the
matenal is too soanty to be dealt witli. It is from BaH.
F. (a».) Mipita, IE,. Fl. lod. B,,t. Sappl. p. 434. Miquel d.sorib.s t i i s from leaf speoimens only Ib hi,
re-noon of to (Aon, Kus. Logd. Bat. ifi. 283, 296) h . .nbs.c,uently r.duoesit to F. „.lit,
Miq. (non Tabl.). An examination of bis type speoim.ns of both these species leads me to reieot
this rsduetion; to oonsider F. albipila a ..parable speeies, vhioh from the want of reoepta.les I cannot
describe; and to rednce F. mottie, Mi,, (non Valil.) to a form of F Eo i b
F. Wa l l . Cat. 1555, is present only in M. deCandolIe's set. I do not r.oogoise it
F „mim, Notonh. Act Bat. v. 76, possibly F. Uepit,,, Linn hi. I baye seen no specimen
F amUiphjIh, Mi,. Ann. Mus. Lngd. Bat. iii. 2S6. -£r ,w<i , . ambl„l„ill~,, Mi,. Lend. Jonrn l o t ri 569
IS F. rtti™. Roth., not of Lamk., and = F. retnea. Linn., var. nitida. ' '
F. empetoe, Laml;. (not of Barm.), is probably F. itihhem, Bl. I haye seen no specimen
F .mptet, Ktb. et Bouohc, Ind. Sem. Hort. Berol, p. 18, is probably F mfeeterta, Ro,b
F empti„ima, Sm. in Roe's Enoyo. l iy. No. 68. This is F. teieta. R o i .
F. ampttMeea, Wight MSS., is rednccd by Miguel to F. Mmilt,. Eoxb. I haye s,
F. mawtata. Mi,, in Lond. Jomn. Bot. yii. 434. Desoribe
judging from the description—lor I bave seen
n no specimen.
1 from Wight's S. Indian Herbarinm, and
0 specimen—is F. ejUjliom, BL, y
i-. „¡„tifiti, Ro.b. n . Ind. iii. 554. Of this I have seen no specimen: but from I t aburgh' s drawing in tli.
Calcutta Herbarium, I consider this to be F. glaben-ima, Bl.
P. «i irt i . Wan. Cat. « 5 2 . Present only in M. dcCandoIle's set of the Walliohian plants. Sheet A was
collected by Knlayson probably in the Straits. I do not recognise it, the specimen being a poor
one. Sheet B i s from Siam; it is i'.i)isi>iiS,Kura.
f . «jiicsW«, Mi , . Ann. Mus. Lngd. Bat. iii. 280.-I7,™<. apieuhtnm. Miq. Lond. loom. Bol ri 570 A
spccies founded by Miqnol on Wight ' s No. 1916, of ;,hiob I hay, been able to Snd no speoimon in
the Herbaria of Ecw, Leiden, Utrcobt, or Calcutta. Mi,nel noy.r saw r.eeptacies, but from his
description of it, Wight' s plant was donbtless a Vndlpiu,. Uufortuuateiy Mi,uel d.soribed (Zoll
Syst. Vera, pp 92, 98) and named as F. ttpicnlata another and totally different plant (Herb. Zoll'
651), of which I haye seen a specimen at Utreebt with the words " F. <,piceUta, Wiq MSS." ia
M i , u e r s handwriting, attaobed to it. This second F. apkulatti is merely a form of F.futm Roinw
and has no resemblance to the F. apkitU,, described in Lond. Journ. Bot. 1. o. This name tmi
therefore be abandoned.
F. aumntmed, Noronb. Yerb. Bat. Gen. v. 75, is probably F. oleeura, Bh
F. „„rienlcta. Lour. Fl. Coob. Chinaii. 666, is probably F. emia. Ham, I baye seen no speoimen.
F. Baclihmm, Mi,, in Jomai. Bat. Neerl. i. 240. I baye neyer seen this.
R (Kmfis.) b.lte,tut. Mi,. Fl . Ind. Bat. i. p t 2. 348. 1 baye seen no speoimen of this, and 1 o.nuot say .bat
relation it bears to F btthca which Mi,nel described on p. 314 of the same book.
F. i«iii„>ii,;«, Mi, . Fl. Ind. Eat. i. pt. 2. 314. A speoies described by Mi,nel, bnt of which he had seen
no receptacles. The leaves in shape resemble thoso of F, eneptdtiia, Reinw., -
testme they ai'e more like those of F. eattma, Willd.
r einuatii, but in