182 PICÜ9.
F. f/rossularia, Herb. Harn. Miquel reduces to his Urosiig. nei-vomm, wliicli is = Jl nenosa, Heyne.
F. havloph'jUa, Kurz Tor, Flora B. Bm-raah ii. 461. Kurz mentions this, witliout describing it fully
ns a species from Eliasia and Chittagong, near conglomcfaia, Eoxb. ( = cunia, Ham.), I have seen
no specimen,
F. Smiteri, Miq. (non Forsk.) Lond Joum, Bot. vü. 225 ; FI. Ind. Bat, i. pt, 2. 296; Ann. "Uns. Lugd,
Btit. iii, 290. I could find nothing bearing this name ia tbo Herbaria at Utrecht or Leiden, It is
the name giyon by Miquel to F. pahmta, Eoxb. (not of Forsk), of which Miquel had Been no
specimen, but winch ho suggests may be a variety of F. fulea, Eeinw. Now Eosburgh's F. pnhnala
cams from Penang, and I incline to believe that Roxburgh had described as F. pahnata a 3-lohed
foi-m of F. alio, Eeinw,, which is stiU a very common plant in Penang ; while F. fiUva does not
occur there. Eoxburgh does not mention F. »Iba from Penang, unless this pahmta be it; and, as
alia, is so common in Penang, ho could scarcely have missed having the plant sent to him in
his colleotioDs from thence.
F. hjpsophUa, Miq. PI. Jungh, 60, consists of specimens which I have referred partly to F. phifera,
"Wall., and partly to F. oUcura, Bl.
F. incUa, Wall. Cat. 4490, The type specimen consists of a few 3-bbed leaves something like those of
F. alba, but different. I do not recognise them.
F. inclinaia Herb, Ham, in WnlL Oat. 4486. Two collectings of this are catalogued by -Wallieli, viz.
A from Julpaigoree (in Bengal) and B from Silhet, On the sheet of the former in the type set
with the Linn®au Society there is no specimen, but only a name ; but on a separate sheet, also
numbered 4486, but bearing the name F pediccUata, there is glued down a specimen which exactly
resembles the specimen in deCandolle's Herbarium numbered 44S6B and named F. mcUnuta.
Both appear to be F. hevis, Bl.
F inco,Mimma, Miq. Fl, Ind, Bat. Suppl. 431, is founded on i
probably = F. rostrala, Lamk.
F indica, Lamk, Encyo. ii. 494, is probably F, Mysoreims, Heyne.
insulans, Miq. in Lond. Joum. Bot. vii. 435; Ann, Mus. Lugd. Bat, üi. 293; Kaxira, in Bull. Awd.
St Petersb. xi- 332. 1 have examined the two type sheets of this at Ecw. They are both from Loo
Choo, One is uudoubtedly referable to F. Decahn-ana, Miq., the other to F yibbosa, Bl. Cuming's
Philippine specimen (No. 1943), which Maximowicz (1. o.) considers as the same as these, appears to
F h.ch.ocamulea ,t o Mbieq .F .A nMnh. uMhtau,s . LBulg d. Bat, iii. 287. I have seen no specimen of this and no description,
F lasiophylta. Link. Enum. n. 449. This is reduced by Miquel (Lond. Jom^n. Bot. vi. hli) to F. bengaknm,
F. Imgifolia, Wall. Cat. 4-570®, is a mixture of the three species indica, apiocarpa, and obtmilblia. ^
F. macropoda. Kurz (not of Miq.) For. Flora B. Burm, ii. 459. Kurz leEt i
his own private herbarium or i
; specimens from Sumatra,
I specimen ot this either
that of the Calcutta Botanic Garden. It is probably n^
F. copiosa, Steud.
F. malabarica, Miq. Lond. Joum. Bot,
chapla aha, Eoxb.
. 457, is founded on Wight's Herb. No. 873, and is Artooarpus
F. ,ncnadma. Miq, in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat.
collected by Teysmann at Menado.
253, 296. This spscies is founded on leaf specimens
unknown ; the leaves look like those of
F. nidii, Miq,
F. montícola, Miq, Ann. Lugd, Bat. iii. 216, 286. This species is founded on the specimen
distributed as Ficus No. 121 of the Herb, Ind, Or. of Hook, fil and Thorns, by whom it was collected
in the Khasia Hills. I find no specimens with good receptacles in any herbariiim l have consulted,
•but I think this comes too near F. inf.cioi-ia, Eoxb. to be separated from that species.
F mori/olia, Vahl. Enum, ii. 203; Miq. Lond, Journ. Bot. vii. ^27; Ann. Mas. Lugd. Bafc. iii. 290.
This is said to bo ex Ind. Or., but I have seen no specimen.
F. mjli-cta, Dene. N. Ann. Mus. iii. 494 ; Miq, (sub. Urostuj.) Fl. Ind, Bat. i. pt. 2. 347. Decaisne gives
Timor as the native place of this species, of which I have seen i
F. reltisa, Linn.
) specimen. It may be near
DOtTBTFUL AND IMPEIiFECTLY ENOWN SPECIES. 183
F. ITepalensis, Spreng. Syst, iii. 779. The only traces of this that I have been able to find in Herbaria are
two drawinss at Leiden bearing this name. The plant figured in both is F. foveoMa, Wall.
J", «af/a, Kurz (not of Miq) For. Flor. B.Burmah ii. 445. Kurz gives two forms of his vwl", viz. var, I,
mula proper, and var. 2, macromrpa. What the former is I cannot say, as the author has left no
specimen of it ; but I think it ia probably F i hoclodendrifoli'!, Miq. It certainly, from the description,
cannot be F. nuét, Miq. The var. macrocarpa, of which he has left specimens, is F. Kurzi, mihi.
F. ohhngifolia, Don Prod. Fl. Nepal, p. 61. I cannot identify this : no specimens are now extant.
F. ovata, Don (not of Tahl.) Prod. Fl. Nepal, p. 61, probably F. acandernt, Eoxb,
F. oxyphylla, Miq. in Zoll, Syst. Verz. p. 93, was reduced by Miquel himself (Ann. Mus, Lugd. Bat, iü. 294)
as probably = F. erecta, Thuubg.
F.pallida, Wall. Cat, 4567 = F. retim. Lion,
F. pellaio, Bl, Bijdr, 438. Blame's description occupies only two lines, and includes no reference to
receptacles. The specimen bearing this name in the Utrecht Herborium is an Aroid.
F. pietà, Noronh. Yerh, Bat. Gen. v, 76, is probably F. Bcnjuniina, Linn.
F^. poBK/,> /omTiST, Schot. t.- nM SS1. ' These are ,b ot„h probably F. Arnottiana, Miq.
J'.jjojJiite««, Kunth et Bo'iche, ) '
F.imUgera, Kurz (not of WaH.. nor of Brandis For, Flora, p, 424) For, Flora B. Burm. ii. 450. The
plant thus named is described by Kurz as a tree. There is no specimen of it at Calcutta.
Kurz's F. pubigera is not Wallich's, which is a climber reducable to F. foveolata, Wall. What
F. foveolata, Kurz, is I do not know, no specimen being extant.
F.pulchra, Wall. Cat. 4o71 ; Miq, in Lond. Journ, Bot, vH, 430. Of this only leaf specimens are
extant, and they possibly do not belong to any Ficus.
F. pyrifolia, Burm. Fl. Ind. p. 226. Burmann's description is too brief to identify any plant by, Miquel (in
Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 294) reduces to F. pyrifolia, Burm.,-F. Japónica, Bl. But Blume's
description is also very meagre, and it is, I think, unsafe to hazard any absolute opinion as to
the identity of the plants thus named by these two authors. Specimens named F. pyrifolia,
Burm. [F. Japónica, Bl.), in the Leiden Herbarium agree exactly with what I understand as
F. erecta, Thunbg. (non alior.), and to that species 1 have doubtfully reduced this (p. 141).
But a plant cultivated in the Botanic Gardens at TJti'echt and Buitenzorg as F. pyrifolia, Burm.,
does net agree with the Leiden Herbarium specimens.
Urostig. pyri/ohitm, Miq. Fl, Ind. Bat, i, pt. 2. 338. A species founded on specimens sent to Miquel
fiom the Buitenzorg Herbarium under the names F. pyrifolia, Burm., and F rubeseens, Bl. I
have not seen the specimens.
F. {sub. Poijonotio.) pyrrh-poda, Miq, Fl, Ind. Bat. Suppl. 43ó, is probably
specimens I have seen are incomplete.
F. racemosa. Linn. Syst. p. 922; Eheede Hort, Malab. i, 25. Rlieede's figure ia the foundation for this
species. Miquel identifies it with F. asperrima, Eoxb,, but it looks
(= hispida, Linn. fil). The description gives the leaves
those of doimonum are hard and scabrid. The figure might be intended possibly for F. glomernt^i.
Willd. A specimen in Herb. Kaw from EotÜer's herbarium (consisting of 3 leaves only),
named F. racemosa, bearing the notes " fmctib. edulibus" and "cum Eheede i. fig. 25, bene
quadrat," belongs to F. giomerata, Willd,
F. ramea, Wall. Cat, 4556. The specimens of this in the Wallichian Herbarium are attributed to Sylhet.
But the specimens and a drawing in the Calcutta Herbarium thus named by Wallich himself are
all F. rubra, Lamk., a plant received from the island of Bourbon and for many years cultivated
in the Botanic Garden, Calcutta.
F. rejicxa, Thunbg. Diss. Fic. 11, No. 16. I do not know what this can be,
F. retimlata, Thonbg, Fio, 13 ; Vahl Enum. ii, 199, is probably F. rostrata, Lamk.
. obtuia, Hassk, The
like F. dinmoiiuiit, Eoxb.
soft {'•molli(I, glabra, et lenia"), whereas
^.^«¿¡Ma, Linn,, var^macrocíiíl^Pd, Kurz, This variety is probably a distinct epi
good specimens I cannot identify it.
F. rhynchophyila, WaU. Cat. 4487 = F. religiosa. Linn.
F. rotumlifolia, Eoxb Fl. Ind. iü. 556. I have seen nothing bearing this i
the forms of F. hetm-ophylla. Linn. fil.
F. rupestris, Bl. Bijdr. 439, indeterminable ; founded on a fruitless branch.
; but in the absence of
It is possibly one of
.i li