184 FICUS.
of tliis; if; is probably f F. sagiiiata, Vahl. Bmim. ii. 185, 1 have saou ounded on a young
slioot of F. rantentacea, Eosb,, or F. vilhsa, Bl.
F. snnneniiK'J, Herb. Ham. No, 4533C in "Wall. Cat. = F. icandcns, Roxb.
F. sderocoma, Miq. PI. JiiDgli. 58; Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 303. Esoept tbo type specimen at Utreohfc,
wluob consists of two separata leaves and two separate receptooles, I liave seen uotliing bearing
this name. Miquel liimself says that it is near seabretla, Boxb.; and the fragments whioh
foi-m tho t}-po bear this out. F. scabrella, Rosb., itself is in my opinion only a form of F. heierophylla.
Linn. fil.
F. rubra, ? Yahl, Blume in Bijdr. 453. I have seen no speaiinea of tliis. Doubtless it has bean described
under some other name. Blume's description is too brief for idsntifieation. F. mbm, Lamk., is
an African plant.
Covellia rufescen^, Kurz, is apparently F. Vrieseam, Miq.
F. serpyllifolia, Bl. BijtJr. 443, is founded on a fragment of some creeping speoies.
F. simplicUsima, Lour. Pi. Cochin China ii. 821 j Miq. in Load. Journ. Bot. I have not seen any spaoimen
with this name.
F. stipulaia (not of Thunbg ), "Wall. Cot. 4574 = F. puwiaia, Thunbg.
F. stipulosa, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lngd. Bat. iii, 287 ; Umlig. stipuloswn, Miq. Lond. Jouro. Bot. vL 562. A
species founded on Cuming's Philippine specimens (No. 1978), whioh I should unhesitatingly refer
to F i7t/ec(oria, Rosb., var. caulocarpa {s^tpra, p. 63).
F. dupenda, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 286.—?7rosi. gigonteum, Miq. in Zoll. Syst. Yerz. 90, 96 ; Fl.
Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 351. This speoies is founded on Zollinger's Herbarium specunea No. 1676, which
he says he collected from a very large tree growing at the base of tho Salak mountain, near
Buitenzorg, in Java. The type specimen, whioh is at Utrecht, consists of leaves only. It is named
TIrostig. yiganteum, Miq. But Miquel himself subsequently changed this to F dupenda. A young
plant under the earHer name is ouliivated (1884) in the Botanic Garden at Utrecht It has not
produced rcoeptaoles, and is not likely to do so.
F. svbcordata, Bl. Bijdr. 440 ; Miq. in Ann, Mus Lugd. Bat, iii. 287 (sub UroUig.) ; Miq. in Fl. Ind. Bat.
i. pt. 2. 349. I have seen only one specimen of this at Leiden, and it consists of a few loose
leaves, which in nervation and texture resemble those of F. nemora'is, WaU., but are broader in shape
and not narrowed at the base.
F. sub-ou»eata, Miq. in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 235, 297. This is known only by a few imperfect specimens
in tho Leiden and Calcutta Herbaria, collected in Halmaheira and Ceram.
F. sub-piduneulata, Miq Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 29i.—Pogonotrophe Wightiam, Miq. Lond. Joum. Bot.
vii. 74. Miquel described two plants under the name F. pedancuMa. One, a Urostigin«, I have
reduced to F. glabella, Bl. p. 49). The second Miquel put into his sub-genus FogonoUophe.
Ho says it is Indian, and near F. rnacrocarpa, "Wight, and vagans, Wight ; but 1 have seen no
specimens, and cannot form an opinion as to what it may be.
F. mb-mhulaia, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 225, 292. I have never seen this, there being no specimen in
the Herbaria at Leiden or Utrecht. From Miquel's dosciiption I gather that this is probably a small
form of F. subulala, Bl.
F. suboma, Ham. MSS. = F e la stir a, Rosb.
F. subrepanda, Wall. Cat. 4568. Sheet B is probably referable to F. infectom, Rosb. Sheet A {wpra, p. 20)
= F. mysm-eush, Heyne, var. sub-repanda.
F. supersti'iosa, Link, (name only), said by Miquel to be F. re/igiosa, Linn.
F sgmi'hytifulia, Lamk.. probably = F. hhpida. Linn. fil.
F. Tabino, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 430, from Sumatra is described from imperfect materials.
i i Tampang, Miq. Fl . Ind. Bat. Suppl. 173, 425 ; Ann, Mus. Lugd. Bat. 290. This is a species of Artocarpm,
as the young fruit on Miquel's type specimen at Utrecht clearly shows. (See Ann, Bot. Gai'd.
Calc. ii 8, 15.)
F. Unax, Bl. Bijdr. 440. Described imperfectly by Blume as an introduction from China ; probably =
F. pimxila. Linn.
F. Urmimlk. Roth. 1 have seen no specimens, Miquel reduces doubtfully to F. AUimeraloo, Eosb., which
= F. gibboia, Bl., Tur. cwpidijera.
DOUBTFUL AND IMPEEFECILy KNOWN SPECIES.
F. Ternatam, Miq. in Ann. Mus, Lugd, Bat, iii, 'iXlQ.—Covellia Urmtana, Miq. Fl . Ind, Bat. i. pt. 2. 324.
There is an imperfect specimen of this from Ternate in the Herbarium at Utrecht. It is probably
F. rudis, Miq.
F. Timorensis, Done, (not of Miq,). This is reduced by Miquel (Ann, Mus, Lugd. Bat. iii. 287) to F. svperba,
Miq. I have never seen a specimen.
J l fwiowiisii, Miq. (sub ÍZmííSí.) Ann. Mus, Lugd. Bat. iii. 286.— Uroélig. Timorensis, Miq. Lond. Joum.
Bot. vi. 569; Fl, Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 343. This is probably F. in/ectoria, Roxb., var. canlocarpa
{mpra, p, 63).
F. toma, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd, Bat. iii. 234, 297. In tho collections at Leiden and Utrecht are a few leaves
from the Celebes thus named. These leaves appear to belong to a species near F. fistulom, Eeinw.
trichocarpa, Bl. Bijdr. 458 ; Miq. (sub Uro^tig). Dene, in N. Ann. du Mus. iii. 497 j Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i.
pt. 2. 338; Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 286. There is no specimen bearing this name in the
Herbaria of Kew, Leiden, Utrecht, or Calcutta. In the Buitenzorg Herbarium there ore leaf
specimens so named, but they really belong to F. hpicarpo, Bl. From Blume's and Deeaisne's
descriptious this appears not to be a Uiostigma, in which sub-genus, however, Miquel places it.
Miquel does not appear to have seen a specimen, but to havo drawn up his description in Fl. Ind.
Bat. 1. 0. from Blume's and Deeaisne's. Blume got the specimen on which he founded tho speoies
from the mountain Pangarango in Java, a locality that has frequently been collected over since
Blume's day. Blume's original specimens having been lost, 1 suspect the species has been re-named,
Deeaisne's description was written on specimens brought from Timor.
F. Tsjela, Herb. Ham. Wall. Cat. 4520, is F. infecloHu, Roxb.
F. ulmi/olia, Lamk. Encyc. ii. 499 ; Tahl . Enum. ii. '197. I have seen no authentic specimen of this. Miquel
in Fl . Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 299 gives a description of this, but apparently without having seen it, and
his description does not agree with Lamarck's, Both Lamai'ck's and Talil's descriptions answer
for the Australian plant subsequently named F. axpera by Forster, On the type sheet of F.
brcvicvspis, Miq., in the Herbarium at Utrecht, " F. almifolia, Lamk." has been written by an
unknown hand.
F. undulata. Ham. in Linn. Trans, sv, 133. Miquel identifies with F. nervosa, Heyne.
F. urlkcefoHa, Rosb, Fl. Ind. iii, 553. Roxburgh's description of this is too meagre for identification, and he
has left no drawing of it.
F. vistita. Wall. Cat. 4500. Although mentioned in the catalogue, this is absent from all the sets of the
Wallichiaii collection.
P. (sub. nrodig.) urgata, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 342. The plant described by Miquel under this
name is not F. virgata, Reiuw., as Miquel at one time thought. Miquel subsequently discovered
his error. I do not know -what Miquel's TTrosUyma virgatum is, as there is no specimen of it either
at Leiden, Utrecht, or Kew, and the only specimens I have seen from Buitenaorg have no receptacles.
Reinwardt's virgata is F. subulaia, Bl. {supra, p. 8).
i'-. (Urostig.) colubile, Dalz. and Gibs, Fl. Bomb. 242, was afterwards (1. c, 315) identified by its authors as a
acandeut form of Urostigma ampelos, Dalz. and Gibs. {Ficus ampeks, Koenig MSS.). Now
F. anipslos, Koenig MSS,, as described by Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. iii. 553), is not the true F. ampelus of
Bunnann, whioh does not occur in Peninsular India. It is the scandent variety pai-aútica of
F. g'bbusa, Bl., a plant rather common in Southern and Western India.
F. [Pogonut.) Wightiam, Miq. Lond. Journ Bot. vii. 71., Miquel subsequently reduced this (Ann. Mus. Lugd.
Bat. iii. 293) to F. siib-pedicncuMa, Miq., which in my opinion is = F. glabella, Bl.
F. Wassa, Roxb. Fl. Ind. iii. 539 ; Wight lo. C66; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 298; Ann. Mue, Liigd
Bat. iii 271,291. Roxburgh originally described this species from a specimen received from the
Moluccas and cultivated in the Botanic Garden, Calcutta. A copy of his figure of it was published
by Wight, but no specimen of the speoies exists. Roxburgh himself considered his F. (i^asea as
probably the plant figured by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. iii. t. 94. From Rumphius' and Roxburgh's
own figures, I should think F. JFnsaa, Roxb. is probably a Coveliia. Miquel suggests this in Fl. Ind
Bat. I.e.; but in his final rerision of Ficu^ in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat., he suggests the reduction
of F. Wassa, Roxb., to the quite as obscure species F. diforms, Lamk.
F. {sub. Urost.) Zollingeriana, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 264, 287. A plant from Western Java which,
judging from the imperfect specimens so named in the Dutch Herbaria, must be near, if not identical
with, F. Sumatranu, Miq.