120 



COTELLIA. 



in the tropics and in stoves in Europe, on account of its handsome white nerved leaves under 

 the names F. eburnea and F. venosa. The latter is the name under which Willdenow 



figures it (Jlort Berol.) 



This name venosa forms part of some synonymy which I have 

 tried to disentangle in my remarks under F. infectoria, Roxb. I reduce to leucantatoma 



2. 327; gives the number 



F. stictocarp 



Miq. ; for although Miquel 



(FL Ind. Bat. i. 



of the primary lateral nerves of the leaves of stktocarpa as 10 to 15, his typ 



in Utrecht Herbarium is 



10-nerved; and in other 



here 



Tl 



specimen 

 pects it appears to me to fall 



a 



j 



a 



under this name 



The 



species was introduced from the Moluccas into the Botanic Garden Calcutt 

 Roxburgh's time. It was named by him F. rapiformis, and is still cultivated at Calcutt 



ptacles borne by the Calcutta plants contain uniformly male 

 d gall flowers : I have never found receptacles with fertile females. 



CoveUii grandi folia, Miq., a species founded on leaves only, appears to fall here. I have 

 ed the type specimen of this and, except that the leaves are very large (18 inches 



examm 



long), I cannot see how it differs from Roxburgh's unpublished figure of his rapifi 



in 



tl 



Calcutta Herbarium 



After careful examination at Kew of the type specimens of 

 F. Oldhami, Hance (Herb. Oldham, No. 553), I cannot see how they differ "from this species. 

 Cuming's Philippine specimens Nos. 1922 and 1923 we™ referred (the latter doubtfullv) 



gibbosa, Bl.); but they 



o 



by Miquel (Lond. Joum. Bot. vii. 435) to F. altimeeraloo, Roxb 



- — r r m 



appear to me to fall under this, as also does Motley's Labuan specimen {Herb. MottL, No. 208) 



Mimiel fin Ann. Mus. Luad. Bat. iii. OQfft rprW^a Tipvd V»; a ™™ c^~;~„ /^.. ?/•. •, 



Miquel 



Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 296) reduc 



his 



species Covellia composita 



but his description of that species {FL Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 324) does not in the least suggest 



w Count 



Solms Laubach has made some interesting remarks {Botanische Zeitung, voh for 1886 



leucantatoma, Poir ; and I think the redu .tion must have been made by an oversight 



VV 



535 



on tl 



female flowers of a specimen named F. stictocarpa by Miquel himself 



d the Count gives excellent figures of these flowers (I.e. taf. v. figs. 6, 7, 8) 



These 



three figures agree perfectly with my dissections of the female flowers of a yellow-milked Fie 



cultivated in the Buitenzorg Garden without 



? 



but which I regard 



F. leucantatom 



Poir. I have a strong suspicion that the plant referred to by the same distinguished author 



as " No. 5, 



Covellia lepicarpa, Miq., Boekoe Boekoe," is also stictocarpa, and not the tr 



F. lepicarpa, as I understand that species 



the milk of N 



5 



My reasons for suspecting this are the yellow colour of 



(I.e. taf. v. figs. 9 and 10) 



Covellia and the shape of its receptacles as figured by Count Solms Laubacl 



i 



Yellow colour in the 



genus Ficus 



y 



and 



3 



y specimen with this character which I have yet 



is an uncommon character in the 



seen I would on 



species 



I am thus 



ed to think that 



other grounds, without hesitation, refer to this 



yellow milk may possibly be found to be a diagnostic mark of the species leucaniatoma 



Pla 



159 



from below ; 2, the same from 



F. leucantatoma, Poir. Branch with mature receptacl 



1 



? 



above; 3, vertical 



section of 



rptacle 



Dptacle 



natural 



seen 



4, unexpanded male flower ; 5, male flower opened oat ; 6, side view of anther; 7 & 8, gall 

 flowers, sessile and pedicellate ; 9, fertile female flower : all enlarged. 













