62 



UEOSTIGMA. 



(not B) of Wall. Cat., and can still be consulted. Unfortunately Hamilton described as 

 the normal receptacle of this tree (which is glabrous) some receptacles which are insect- 

 attacked and abnormally hairy (not an uncommon occurrence in some of the Indian species 

 of Ficus). Hamilton's specimens of lacor are, however, unmistakeably specimens of one of the 

 forms of pakur (F. infectoria , Roxb.). Deceived by their hairy receptacles, Miquel re-named 

 Hamilton's specimens Urost, leucocarpum, and described the receptacles as covered with white 



a 



hair. But unfortunately he attached his name Urost leucocarpum to specimens of a plant 



if not identical with F. Chittagonga, Hook. fil. and Th. MS. (= F. glomerata, Roxb 



? 



and thus introduced a further element of confusion. The oldest name of this species 

 is thus F. lacor. Ham., the specific name being doubtless a corruption of the word 

 pakur , which is still in Bengal the vernacular name of this tree. There can be no 

 mistaking Hamilton's specimens as those of a common form of pakur. But Roxburgh 



name infectoria, although originally applied by him in error to a different species from 

 that to which Willdenow first gave it, has been so long identified with the true pakur of 

 Bengal, that I think it better to keep it up than to restore the rather barbarous name lacor 

 originally given by Hamilton. 



There is confusion also in the plants issued by Wall, under the No. 45L9A to F, and 

 under the general name F. venosa, Ait. I have examined the Wallichian sheets in possession 

 of the Linnaean Society and in the Herbaria at Kew and Calcutta, and also those in M. De 

 Candolle's herbarium. The plants indicated by the six letters are not equally represented in 

 all these herbaria; but where they are represented, their names are as follows : 



Wall. Oat 4519A.-«J-. infectoria, Herb. Wight "in all four herbaria is F. tjakela, 



Burm. 



Wall. Cat. 4519B.-"* venom, Ait." is also F. tjahela, Burm. It is absent at 



Kew. 



» » C is absent in all four herbaria. 



D.-« F infectoria, Hb. Ham." is true F. infectoria Eoxb. (absent at 



» » 



Kew) 



„ E is in all four herbaria fragmentary and indeterminable 

 F is unmistakeably F. infectoria, Roxb. (absent at Kew). 



» y> 



In Ann. Mus. Zugd. Bat iii. 286 



whiohlT 9 , m ' 286 ' MiqUel reduces here * ^scens, Bl. Biid 444 of 



which I have seen no authentic specimen Bin™'* A» a ^' *: • , J ' 



be relied on «*<! T fW* ^imen. ±Jlume s description is too meagre and vajme to 



as his F. Lambertiana. Mi„ rwouw. — • . I ™ lni *tion of his types to be the same 



Miq. Griffith's specimen in the Calcutta Herbarium of 



true infectoria, but his fim.ro ^a a„ • x- » UMU " M J^erDarium ot his F. affimor is 



specimen from Timor Z££XL^l£7 h '' ^~ " *»*** ™ * *"* 

 me in no way different ft™ ♦ i T' -T We examined > **& which appears to 



at Leiden or Utrecht 



follows :- CaD ^ *"** sat ^ctonly arranged as geogr aphical varieties as 











