MORACEAE 129 
Ficus argentea Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 681 (sp. nov.) ; ed. 2 (1845) 473; 
ed. 3, 3 (1879) 84=FICUS sp. 
Fernandez-Villar reduced this to Ficus polycarpa Wall., 
which Blanco’s description does not apply. Its most likely pro 
seems to be Ficus ruficaulis Merr., yet Blanco’s description does 
apply sufficiently close to this form to warrant its definite reduc- 
tion. Blanco’s specimens were from the beach at Mariveles, 
Bataan Province, Luzon. Perhaps after all the form he de- 
scribed is Ficus ruficaulis Merr. with very young fruits. 
Ficus aspera volubilis Blanco Fl, Filip. (1837) 676 (var. nov.); ed. 2 
(1845) 472; ed. 3, 3 (1879) 82=FICUS sp. 
This was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Ficus hederacea 
Roxb., but there is no warrant for this. Blanco’s name is prac- 
tically a nomen nudum, there being no description, merely the 
statement that it was a small vine with very rough leaves. Its 
status is wholly indeterminable. 
CONOCEPHALUS Blume 
Procris violacea Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 706 (sp. nov.); ed. 2 (1845) 490; 
ed. 3, 3 (1879) 110—CONOCEPHALUS VIOLACEUS (Blanco) Merr. 
in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 27 (1905) 80 (Conocephalus ovatus 
Tréc.). 
This was reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Conocephalus sua- 
veolens Blume (1825), which may be the correct disposition of 
the Philippine form; C. violaceus (Blanco) Merr. if not identical 
with Blume’s species is at least very closely allied to it. It is 
common and widely distributed in the Philippines at low and 
medium altitudes. 
 Tilustrative specimens from Antipolo, Rizal Province, Luzon, 
November, 1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 111 staminate, 
No. 110 pistillate) . 
4 Procris erecta Blanco FI. Filip. (1837) 707 (sp. nov.); ed. 2 (1845) 490; 
é ed. 3, 3 (1879) 111=CONOCEPHALUS ERECTUS (Blanco) F.-Vill. 
Novis. App. (1880) 203 (Conocephalus grandifolius Warb.). 
Blanco’s species is unmistakably the form more recently de- 
seribed by Warburg as Conocephalus grandifolius. The leaves 
are described as “vellosas por ambas paginas * * * umn pie 
de largo,” which applies to no other known Philippine Conoce- 
phalus; the statement that the margins have “grandes escota- 
duras” is not good, as they are usually merely undulate. The 
leaves vary greatly in size. 
HWlustrative specimens from Bosoboso, Rizal Previnds, Luzon, 
‘March, 1915 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 871); Cavite Prev- 
inee, Luzon, asin 1915 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 960). 
151862. 
