402 MERRILL. 



FICUS Linn. 

 F. ampelas Burm. 

 Sabtan, SloJf Fenix. 

 Ratlicr common in the Philippines; India to Malaya. 



F. caudatifolia Warb. 



Camiuuin, -'/ISl, JflOl Fenix. Batan, 8anto Domingo de Basco, 378/ Fenix. 

 N. v., Alintahao. 



An endemic form, closely allied to F. rostrala Lam., and frequently so identified. 



F. stipulosa Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd.-Bat. 3 (1867) 287; King, in Ann. Bot. 

 Gard. Calcutta V (1887) 284. 



Urostigma stipulosum Miq. in Lend. Journ. Bot. 6 (1847) 568. 



Urostigma caulocarpum Miq. I. c, non Ficus caulocarpa ]\Iiq. Ann. Mus. Liigd.- 

 Bat. 3 (1867) 235. 



Ficus infectoria Roxb., var. cauluvarpa (Miq.) King, 1. c. 63. 



Batan, Santo Domingo de Basco, 31106 Fenix. 



Common and widely distributed in the Philippines; Borneo. 



The synonymy of this species is rather complicated, as Miquel in 1867 described 

 Ficus caulocarpa without any reference to his earlier Urostigma caulocarpUHi. 

 the latter being based on a Philippine specimen, Cuming no. 1930, and the former 

 on Celebes material. As the specific name caulocarpa is thus invalidated in 

 Ficus for tlie present form, another name becomes necessary, and I have here 

 adopted Ficus stipulosa Miq., to designate the Philippine form. King 1. c. 184, 

 expresses the opinion that F. stipulosa Miq., is identical with Urostigma caulo- 

 carjmm Miq., and after examining the various numbers of Cuming's Philippine 

 plants, I am of the same opinion. F. stipulosa Miq., is certainly only immature 

 Urostigma caulocarpum, with the stipules not fallen. The form is exactly 

 matched by some of our recently collected material. 



F. megacarpa Merr. in Govt. Lab. Publ. (Philip.) 17 (1904) 14. 



/''. ellipiica Miq. in Lond. Journ. Bot. 7 (1848) 440, non H. B. K. 



Camiguin, /flOJf Fenix. 



A species known only from the Philippines. 



Ficus elliptica Miq., was described from a sterile specimen, Philippines, Cuming 

 1927, and was later reduced by Miquel himself to F. disticha Blume. in which he 

 was followed by King. I have examined Cuming's specimen and am of the 

 opinion that it is identical with the species which I described as /'. megacarpa, 

 which is not at all allied to F. disticha Blume. Miquel's name is however invali- 

 dated by the earlier F. elliptica 11. P.. K. 



F. hauili Blanco. 



Camiguin, 3995 Fenix. Batan, Santo Domingo de Basco, 3567 Fenix. X. v., 

 Yabnag. 



This species is scarcely distinct from Ficus Icurantatoma Poir., and is (he 

 Philippine form so identified by many authors. It has recently been described 

 by Warburg as Ficus didgmophylla, but Blanco's name is much the older, and 

 sliould be maintained, if the plant is to be retained as distinct from /•'. hucnnta- 

 ioma Poir. Kndemic in the Philippines. 



Ficus mearnsli sp. nov. § Eusyce. 



Frutex 7'epens; ramis tcretibus glabris. i-amiilis jniiiorilnis hniniicis, 

 plus minus ffTi-ufj^inoo-liirsutis ; foliis PuhcoriiU-eis, .';ul)(n-l)icularil)us vol 

 ellipticis, glabris, 5 ad 12 cm longis, apice I'otumlatis, basi late rotundatis, 

 subpeltatis; ncrvis uli'inqiie circiter (!, promiiientil)iis, dislaiilibus, anas-* 



