128 SPECIES BLANCOANAE 
non Roxb., was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to F’. radiata Decne., 
which is also said to be a synonym of Ficus leucantotoma Poir. 
Philippine material must be critically compared with the types 
of Ficus leucantotoma Poir., F’. leucopleura Blume, and F’. radiata 
Decne., properly to determine the status of Ficus hawili in refer- 
ence to these three species. 
Illustrative specimen from Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
September, 1913 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 522). 
Ficus heterophylla Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 685; ed. 2 (1845) 476; ed. 3, 
3 (1879) 89 (F. hispida heterophylla), non Linn. =FICUS ULMIFOLIA 
Lam. (F. sinuosa Miq.). 
Ficus hispida Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 685; ed. 2 (1845) 476; ed. 3, 3 
(1879) 88 non Forst.=FICUS ULMIFOLIA Lam. 
Ficus hispida linearis Blanco op cit. 685; 476; 88 (var. nov. ) =FICUS ULMI- 
FOLIA Lam. 
Ficus hispida hastata Blanco op. cit. 685; 476; 89 (var. nov.) —FICUS 
ULMIFOLIA Lam. 
_ The species is very common in the Philippines. It is exceed- 
ingly variable in its vegetative characters, entire or nearly entire 
to deeply lobed leaves frequently being found on the same plant 
and even on the same branch. 
The three forms of Ficus hispida described by Blanco are 
manifestly all referable to the protean Ficus ulmifolia Lam., some 
specimens of which show on the same branches all the leaf forms 
described by Blanco. F.-Villar reduced the first, which is merely 
a translation from some edition of one of Linnaeus’s works, 
to Ficus hirta Vahl, a species allied to F. heterophylla Linn.; 
and the third to F. quercifolia Roxb. The typical forms of 
neither Ficus heterophylla Linn. nor F. quercifolia Roxb. occur 
in the Philippines, where their place is apparently taken by 
Ficus ulmifolia Lam. 
Illustrative specimen from -Angat, Bulacan Province, Luzon, 
September, 1913 (Species Blancoanae No. 337). 
Ficus dicarpa Blanco Fl. Filip. (1837) 682 (sp. nov.) =Ficus nepalensis 
Blanco op. cit. ed. 2 (1845) 474; ed. 3, 3 (1879) 85, non Spreng.= 
FICUS sp. 
Fernandez-Villar reduced this to Ficus haematocarpa Blume, 
a species to which Blanco’s short and imperfect description does 
not at all apply. The whole description consists merely of the 
statement that the leaves are distichous, lanceolate, entire, glab- 
rous, petioles short, fruit in axillary pairs, very small, their 
peduncles very long, the calyx (bracts) distant from the fruit, 
the plant known in Cebu as talicot. I can suggest no reduction 
for it. 
