DOUBTFUL AND mPERFECTLY KNOWN SPECIES,
From tho foUowhtg list, manuscript names {except those of Wallich's Catalogue) and published names
unaccompanied hj descriptions, are for the most pari excluded.
K abbreviata, WaH. Cat. 4573, is indetermiaablo. The only specimens aro yoiing slioots of somo creeping
species.
F. albinervia, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat, i. pt. 2. 315. I have seen this only i a the Herbarium at Utrecht, and the
matGrial is too scanty to h9 dealt Avith. It is from Bah.
F. {Gov.) albipila, Miq. Fl. lud. Bat. Suppl. p. 434. Miquel describes this from leaf specimens only. In Ms
roTisioa of Ficus (Ann Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 283, 296) he subsequently reduces it to F. mnllin,
Miq. (non Vail,). Au examination of his type specimens of both these species leads me to roject
this reduction ; to consider F. albipila a separable species, which from the want of receptacles I cannot
describe ; and to reduce F. mollis, Miq. (non Vahl.) to a form of F. gloincrala, Eosb.
F. alternans, Wall. Cat. 4Ô55, ia preseot only in M. deOandolle's set. I do not recognise it.
F. amara, Noronh. Act Bat. v. 76, possibly F. hispi<l<i, Linn. fil. I have seen no specimen.
F. amblyphylla, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 2m. — Urostig. amblyphjlhrn, Miq, Loud. Jcarn Bot. vi. 569,
is F. rubra, Roth., not of Lamk., and = F. reticsa, Linn. , var, nitida.
F. ampehs, Lamk, (not of Biu'm.), is probably F. pibbosn, Bl. I have seen no specimen.
F. ampia, Kth. et Bouché, Ind. Sem. Hort. Berci, p. 18, is probably F. Ì7i/eelona, Rosb.
F. aìnpiissima, Sm. in Eee's Eucyo. xiv, No. 68, This is F. tsiela, Eoxb.
F. ampullacea, "Wight MSS., is reduced by Miguel to F. humilU. Roxb. I have seen no specimen.
F, angustata, Miq. in Lend. Journ. Bot. vii. 434... Described from Wight's S. Indian Herbarium, and
judging from the description—for I have seen DO specimen—is F. yibbosa, BL, var. parasitica.
F. angustifolia Boxb. Fl. Ind. iii. 554. Of this I have seen no specimen ; but from llosbui'gh's drawing in the
Calcutta Herbarium, I consider this to be F. ghherrima, Bl.
F. aparta. Wall. Cat. 4553. Present only in M. deCaadolle's set of the Wallichian plaats. Sheet A was
collected by Finlayson probably in the Straits. I do not recognise it, the specimen being a poor
one. Sheet B is from Siam ; it is F. insignis, Kurz.
F. apiculata, Miq. A-nn. Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 280.— Uroat. apiculatum, Miq. Load. Journ. Bot. vi. 570. A
species founded by Miquel on Wight ' s No. l9lfi , of which 1 have been able to find no specimen iu
the Herbaria of Kew, Leiden, Utrecht, or Calcutta. Miquel never saw receptacles, but, fi om his
description of it, Wight' s plant was doubtless a Urostigma. Unfortunately Miquel described (Zoll.
Syst. Terz. pp 92, 98) and named as F. apiculata another and totally different plant (Herb. Zoll.
651), of which I have seen a specimen at Utrecht with the words " F. apiculata, M.ici MSS,," in
M ¡quel's handwriting, attached to it. This second F. apitulata is merely a form of F. fulva, Reinw.,
aud has no resemblance to the F. apiculata described in Loud. Joura. Bot. 1. c. This name must
therefore be abaudoned.
F. aurantiaca, Noronh. Verb. Bat. Gen, v. 75. is probably F. obscura, Bl.
F. auriculata. Lour, Fl. Coch. Chinaii, 666, is probably F. cunia, Ham, I have seea ao specimen.
F. Backhouiii, Miq. in Journ. Bat. Neerl. i. 240. I have never seen this.
F. {Urostig.) balicim, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2, 348. 1 have seen no specimen of this, and I caanot say what
relation it bears to F. balica which Miquel described on p. 314 of the same book.
F. basidentuta, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 314. A species described by Miquel, but of which he had seen
no receptacles. The lea^•es iu shape resemble those of F. cuspidata, Roinw., var sinuata, but in
texture they ai'e more like those of F. callosa, WUld.