184 FICUS.
F. sagittal a, Vahl. Emini. ii. 183. 1 Lave soon no speoimoa oi tliis ; it is probably foundod on a young
slioot of F. Tamcntncea, Eosb., or F. viUysa, Bl.
F. anrmenlosn, HerL. Ham, No, 4533C in Wall, Cat. = F. scandcm, Roxb.
F. sckmoma, Miq. PI. Juugli. 58 ; FI. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 302, Exaept tlie type specimen at Utrecht,
which consists of two separate leaves and two ssparate reoeptaoles, I have seen nothing- bearing
this name. Miquel himself says that it is near scabrclla, Rosb.; and the fragments which
i o im the t}-pe bear this out. F. scabre!la, Eoxb., itself is in my opinion only a form of F. /leterophi/Ua,
Linn, CI.
F. rubra,? Vahl, Blume in Dijdr. 453. I have seen no specimen of tbis. Doubtless it has been described
under soma other name. Blame's description is too brief for identification. F. rubra, Lamk,, is
a n Aii'iauu plant.
Cove Hi a ru/escem, Kurz, is apparently F. Vrieseam, Miq.
F. serpyUifolia, Bl, Bijdr. 443, is founded on a fragment of some creepiug species.
F. simplic'ssima, Lour. Fl, Cochia China ii. 821 ; Miii- iu Liiid. Jo urn. Bot. I hare not seen any specimen
with this name.
F. stipulala (not of Thuabg), "Wall. Cat. 4574 = F. punctata, Thunbg.
F. siipuiosa, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lucd. Bat. iii. 287; Wrostig. sdpulosnm, Miq. Lond, Journ. Bot. vi. 568. A
species founded on Cuming's Philippine speoimans (No. 1978), whioh I should unhesitatingly refer
to F. infectoria, llosb., Tar. cauiocarpa {supra, p, 63).
F. stupenda, Miq. Ann, Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 286,—ZZmi. giganieum, Miq, in Zoll. Syst. Verz. 90, 96 ; FI.
Ind. Bat. i, pt. 2. 351. This species is founded on Zollinger's Herbarium spocimea No. 1676, which
he says he collected from a very large tree growing at the base of the Salak mountain, near
IBuiteuzorg, in Java. The type specimen, whioh is at Utrecht, consists of leaves only. It is named
TJroitiy. yiganti'um, Miq. But Mi quel himself subsequently changed this to F. stupenda. A young
plant under the earlier name is cultivated (1884) in the Botauio Garden at TJti'Soht It has not
produced receptacles, and is not likely to do so.
F. subcorikita, Bl. Bijdr. 44.0 ; Miq. in Ann. Mas Lugd. Bat. iii. 287 (sub Vrosfig.) ; Miq. in Fl. Ind. Bat.
i. pt. 2. 349. I have seen only cna specimen of this at Leiden, and it coasists of a few loose
lea^-es, which in nervation and testure resemble those of F.^ nemora'is. Wall., but are broader in shape
and net nan-owed at the base.
F. sub-cunenta, Miq, in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 235, 297. This is known only by a few imperfect specimens
in the Leiden and Calcutta Herbaria, collected in Hahnaheira and Ceram.
F. sub-pe.diiiiculota. Miq Ann. Mus. Lu^d. Bafc. iii. 293.--Pogonolropha Tfii/hiiana, Miq. Lond. Jcurn. Bot.
vii. 74. Miquel described two plants under the name F. pediaicul'itn. One, a Urostigma, I have
reduced to F. glabella, Bl. {mpra, p. 49). The second Miquel put into his sub-gonus Pogonotrophe.
H e says it is Indian, and near F. macrocarpn, "Wight, and mijans, Wight ; but 1 have seen no
specimens, and cannot form an opinion as to what it may be.
F. sub-subulata. 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 description I gather that this is probably a small
form of F. subukia, Bl.
F. svboi-na, Ham, MSS. = F. elastira, Eoxb.
F. subrepanda, Wall, Cat. 4568. Sheet B is probably referable to F. in/ectoria, Eosb. Sheet A {supra, p. 20)
= F. mi/iareiisis, Heyne, var, sub-repanda.
F. stioerstUiosa, Link, (name only), said by Miquel to be F. religiosa. Linn.
F. symiihyii/ulia, Lamk.. probably = F. hisjpida, Linn, fil,
F. Tabiny, Miq. Fi. Ind. Bat. Siippl. 430, from Sumatra is described from imperfect materials.
F. Tampang, Miq. FI. Ind. Bat. Suppl. 173, 425 ; Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat . 290. This is a species of AHocarpvs,
as the young fruit on Miquel's type specimen at Utrecht clearly shows. (See Ann. Bot. Gard.
Cale. ii. 8,15.)
F. tenax, Bl. Bijdr. 440. Described imperfectly by Blume as an introduction from China ; probably =
F. pumila, Linn.
F. terminalis. Eoth. 1 have seen no specimens. Miquel reduces doubtfully to F. Allimeraloo, Roxb., which
= F. gibbusa, Bl., var. nispidi/eru.
DOUBTFUL AND IMIPEnPECTLT KNOWK SrECIES. 135
F. Tfrnaiana, Miq. in Ai^n Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 296.—6W/tn ia-mtann, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 324.
Thero is an imperfect specimen of this from Ternate in the Herbarium at Utrecht. It is probably
F. vudi.'i, Miq.
F. Timorensis, Dene, (not of Miq.). This is reduced by Miquel (Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 287) to F. svperba,
Miq, I have never seen a specimen.
F. Tmwensis, Miq. (suh Urostig.) Ann. Mas. Lugd. Bat. iii. 286.—Ci-ositV, Timorensis, Miq. Lond. Joum.
Bot. vi. 569; Fl. Ind. Bat. i, pt. 2.343. This is probably F. w/eciom. Boxb., yax. cauiocarpa
{supra, p. 63).
F. tonsa, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 234, 207. In the collections at Leiden and Utrecht are a few leaves
from the Celebes thus named. Tbese leaves appear to belong to a species near F. fidulosa, Reinw.
F. Irichocarpa, BI. Bijdr. 458; Miq, (sub Urostig.). Dene, in N. Anu. du Mus. iii. 497 ; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i.
pt. 2. 338; Ann, Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 286. There is no specimen bearing tbis name in the
Herbaria of Kow, Leiden, Utrecht, or Calcutta. In the Buitenzorg Herbai-ium there are leaf
specimens so named, but they really belong to F. Icpicarpa, Bl, From Blume's and Decaisne's
descriptions this appears not to be a Urostigma, in which sub-genus, however, Miquel places it.
Miquel does not appear to have seen a specimen, but to have drawn up his description in Fl, Ind.
Bat. 1. c. from Blume's and Decaisne's. Blume got the specimen on which he founded tlie species
from the mountain Paagarango in Java, a locality that has frequently been collected over since
Blume's day. Blume's origimil specimens having been lost, I suspect the species has been re-named,
Decaisne's description was wiitten on specimens brought from Timor.
F. Tyda, Herb. Ham. Wall. Cat. 4oiO, is F. hifcclorin, Rosb.
F. ubm/vlia, Lamk. Eneyo, ii, 499; Vahl. Euum. ii. '197. I have seen no aiithentic 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 Lamarck's aud Valil's descriptions answer
for the Australian plant subsequently named F. as^pera by Forster. On tbe type sheet of F.
breviciispis, Miq., in the Herbarium at Utrecht, " F. ulmifolia, Lamk," has been written by an
unknown hand-
F. uvdulaia, Ham. in Linn. Trans, xv, 133. Miquel identifies with i'. nervosa, Heyne.
i'. urtivmfo/ia, Eosb. Fl. Ind. iii, oo3. Roxburgh's description of this is too meagre for identification, and he
has left no drawing of it.
F. vestita. Wall. Cat. 4.i00. Although mentioned in the catalogue, this is absent from all the sets of the
Wallichiau collection.
i^. (sub. TTrodig.) virgata, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 342. The plant described by Miquel imder this
name is not F. virgata, Eeinw., as Miquel at one time thought. Lliquel subsequently discovered
his error. I do not know what Miquel's Urostiijma virgaium is, as fhei-e is no specimen of it either
at Leiden, Utrecht, or Kew, and tbe only specimens I have seen from Buitenzorg have no receptacles.
Rcinwardt's virgata is F. subulaia, Bl. {supra, p. 8).
F. {Urostig.) colubile, Dalz. aud Gibs, Fl. Bomb. 242, was afterwards (1. c. 315) identified by its authors as a
scandent form of Urostigma ampelos, Dalz. and Gibs. {Ficus afi^pelus, Eoenig MSS.l. Now
F. ampclos, Koenig MSS., as desciibed by Roxburgh (Fl. Ind, iii. 553), is not the true F. anipeius of
Bm'mann, which does not occur in Peninsular India. It is the Ecandent variety parasitica of
F. gibbusa, Bl., a plant rather common in Southern and Western India,
F. {Fogoimi.) Wightiana, Miq, Lond. Joum Bot, vii, 74. Miquel subsequently reduced this (Ann. Mus, Lugd.
Bat. iii. 293) to F. sub-pcduncuhta, Miq., which in my opinion is = F. glabella, Bl.
F. Wasm, Roxb. Fl. Ind. iii. 539; Wight Ic. 666; Miq. Fh Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 298; Ann. Mus. Lngd
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 pablished
by Wight, but no specimen of the specios exists. Roxburgh himself considered his F. IVassa as
probably the plant figured by Eumphius, Herb. Arab. iii. t. 94'. Fi'om Bumpbius'and Roxburgh's
own tigui-es, I should tbiuk F. Wassa, Rosh. is probably a Covellia. Miquel suggests this in Fl. Ind.
Bat, 1.0,; but in his final revision of Ficus in Anu. Mus. Lugd. Bat,, he suggests the reduction
of F. ITassn, Roxb., to the quite as obscure species F. diformia, Lamk.
F. {sub. Urost.) Zolliiigeriana, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat, iii. 264, 287. A plant from Western Java whioh,
judging from the imperfect specimens so named in the Dutch Herbaria, must be near, if not identical
with, F. Sumatranci, Miq.