

DOUBTFUL AND IMPERFECTLY KNOWN SPECIES. 



From the following list, manuscript names {except those of WaUich's Catalogue) and published names 



unaccompanied by descriptions, are for the most pari excluded. 



1. abb) 



Wall. Cat. 4573, is indeterminable 



The only specimens are young shoots of some creepin 



species 



F. albinervia, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 315. I have seen this only in the Herbarium at Utrecht, and the 



material is too scanty to be dealt with. It is from Bali. 

 F. {Cov.) albipila, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. Suppl. p. 434. Miquel describes this from leaf specimens only. 



In his 



revision of F\ 



(A 



Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 283, 296) he subsequently reduces 



F. 





Miq 



Yahl.). An examination of his type specimens of both these species leads me to reject 



this reduction; to consider F. albipila a separable species, which from the want of receptacles I cannot 

 describe ; and to reduce F. mollis, Miq. (non Vahl.) to a form of F. glomcrata, Roxb. 



6 



F. alternans, Wall. Cat. 4555, is present only in M. deCandolle's set. I do not rec< 



F. amara, Noronh. Act. Bat. v. 76, possibly F. hispida, Linn. fil. I have seen no specimen. 



F. amblyphylla, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 286.— Urostig. amblyphyllum, Miq. Lond. Journ Bot. vi. 569 



is F. rubra, Roth., not of Lamk., and = F. retusa, Linn., var. nitida. 

 F. ampelos, Lamk. (not of Burm.), is probably F. gibbosa, Bl. I have seen no specimen. 

 F ampla, Kth. et Bouche, Ind. Sem. Hort. Berol, p. 18, is probably F. infectoria, Roxb. 



This 



F. tsiela. Roxb 



F. amplissima, Sm. in Ree's Encyo. xiv, No. 68. 



F. ampullacea, Wight MSS., is reduced by Miquel to F. humilis, Roxb. I have seen no specimen. 



F. angustata, Miq. in Lond. Journ. Bot. vii. 434. Described from Wight's S. Indian Herbarium, and 



judging from the description— for I have seen no specimen 



F. aibbosa, Bl 



F. angustifolia Roxb. Fl. Ind. iii. 554 



Of this I have 



specimen ; but from Roxburgh's drawing in the 



Calcutta Herbarium, I consider this to be F. glaberrima, Bl 



F. aperta, Wall. Cat. 4552. Present only 



M. deCandolle's set of the Wallichian plants. Sheet A 



collected by Finlayson probably in the Straits 



I do not recognise it, the specimen being a poor 



one. 



Sheet B is from Siam ; it is F. insignis, Kurz 



F. apiculata, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 



species founded by Miquel on Wight 



280 



Ut 



apiculatum, Miq. Lond. Journ. Bot. vi. 570 



A 



No. 1916, of which 1 have been able to find no specimen in 



the Herbaria of Kew, Leiden, Utrecht, or Calcutta 



description of it, Wight 



plant 



was 



Syst. Verz. pp 92, 98) and named 



doubtless 

 s F. amc\ 



Ut 



Miquel never saw receptacles, but, from his 

 ntigma. Unfortunately Miquel described (Zoll 

 another and totally different plant (Herb. Zoll 



651), of which I have 



Miquel's handwriting, attached to it 



specimen at Utrecht with the words 



<< 



F. apiculata, Miq MSS 



in 



This second F. apicuMa is merely a form of Fftlm, Re 



F. 



and has no resemblance to the F. apiculata described in Lond. Journ 



therefore be abandoned. 



iaca. Noronh. Verh. Bat. Gen. v. 75, is probably F obscura, Bl 



Bot. 1. c This name must 



F. auriculata, Lour. Fl. Coch. China ii. 666, is probably F, 



Ham 



I have seen no specimen 



F. Bachhousii, Miq. in Journ. Bat. Neerl. i. 240 



I have never seen this 



F. {Urostig.) balicum, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 348 



I have seen no specimen of this, and I cannot say what 



relation it bears to F. balica which Miquel described on p. 314 of the same 



book 



F. basidentula, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 314 



ptacles 



The leaves 



shap 



no receptacles, i.ne icu-v^ ^ - — r 



texture they are more like those of F callosa, Willd 



A species described by Miquel, but of which he had seen 

 emble those of F cuspidata, Reinw., var sinuata, but in 



