180 



FICUS 



F begoniatfolia, Wall., is simply a form of F. cunia, Ham., issued (as 453 IF. of Wall. Cat 



ame 



Wallicli himself reduced this to conglomerate*, Roxb. (which is F. cunia, Ham 



under the ab 



F. Benjaminea, Thunbg. Dissert, No. 15, is probably the same as F. nitida, Thunbg., and F. return Linn 



F. biglandulosa y Wall. Cat. 4480, is a 



recognise it. 

 F. bietipulata. Griff. Notul. iv. 398 : Ic. 5591 



species 



cultivated in the Calcutta Botanic Garden 



I do 



Griffith's material (Kew Distrib. 4616) is rather scanty, and I 



hardly like to deal with it. It is either F. erecta, Thunbg., or near it 



F. caloneura. Kurz F. Flora B. Burmah ii. 448 



K 



urz never 



(prominently biglandular at the base), by which alone the species 



any receptacles of this, and the leaves 



represented in the Calc 



Herbarium, are more suggestive of some Euphorbiacious plant than of a F\ 

 F. cannabina, Lour. Fl. Coch. Ch. ii. 821. No specimen seen by me. 

 F chloroleuca, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 294. Miquel, in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 290, reduces this to one of 



the two plants which he himself named F apiculata, and which in my opinion is F. fulva. Reinw 



F. (JTrostig.) chrysophthalma, Miq. Land Journ. Bot. vi. 575 



This 



specimen of Wight's in Herb. Arnot, No. 949 



species was founded by Miquel on a 



y thing bearing this name, in any herbarium I have consulted 



I have neither been able to find the original 



F. cinerascens, Wall. Cat. 4535. I cannot identify. The leaves 



beneath 



There are no receptacles on the only specimen I have 



oblanceolate, coriaceous, and gl 



F. compressicaulis, Bl. Bijdr. 439, is founded on a leafy branch only. 



F condaravia, Ham. in Trans. Linn. Soc. xv. 131, appears to be F. retusa, Linn. 



F. congesta, Roxb Fl. Ind. iii. 560 ; Wight's Icones t. 644 ; Wall. Cat. 4510 



Lond. Journ. Bot. vii. 463 ; Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 324, t. 23 



CovelUa congesta, Miq 



in 



Wallich's specimens of this (Cat 



\ 



4510) are without receptacles. They agree fairly well as to leaves with Roxburgh's description and 

 unpublished figure, but I have seen nothing else which does so. I think the species is probably 

 near to F. fistulosa, Reinw. Miquel in Fl. Ind. Bat. 1. c. gives this as the Moessoe of the Malays ; 

 but in Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 230 he gives F. sycomoroides, Miq., as the Moessoo (see supra, p. 173)! 

 Miquel also identifies F. congesta with Sycocarpus congesia, Miq. in Ann. Sc. Nat. Ser. Ill, I, p. 33. 



F cordifolia, Bl. Bijdr. ii. 438 ; Miq. in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 260 



Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat 



285, Miquel puts this 



In his list of species of Ficus 



in 



his Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 334, he names it Ut 



description, 

 these I have 



i a Urostigma near F. Dalhomice, Miq. ; and i 

 Javanicum, Miq., and quotes verbatim Blume 



The only specimens of Blume's plant are the 'three in the Herbarium at Leiden, and 



>ptacles. One consists, besides the 

 and the remains of a receptacular 



amined. All thi 



are without attached 



leaf-twig, of a piece of branch with scaly, pale brownish bark 



peduncle *75 in. long and as thick 



globul ar 



ly glabrous, slightly 



quill. In a separate envelope are some receptacles, 



in diameter, and with broad apical 



about *75 



umbilicus. For convenience of reference I give here Blume's and Miguel's descriptions and a figure 

 of one of the Leiden specimens. In my opinion the plant is no Urostigma, but probably a 



Neo?norphe. Blume's description is as folio 



Foliis cordatis, ovatis. vel 



oblong 



acummatis, coriaceiis, supra glabris, subtus tomentosis; fructibus obovatis, pedunculatis, glabri 



caule arboreo ; petiol. longit, 2— 2\ pollic. folior. ; longit. 4£ to 9 pollic. ; latitud. 3— 5 J poll. 



>> 



Miquel's description is as follows 



Arbor ; ramuli subflavido-puberi ; folia alterna e basi cordata 



lata-ovato, acuminata ; prseter costulam utrinque unam e basi costulis utrinq 



6—9 



tran 



reticulatis perte 



albido-pubescentia 



9 — 5 poll, longa, cum petiolis 2 — 3 poll. Ion 



erecta-patulis 

 ubtus molliter 



ptacula subovoidea-globosa, basi tribracteata, glabra, pedunculata 



>? 



Plate 225. — Ficus cordifolia, Bl. From a specimen in the Royal Herbarium, Leiden. 

 F coriacea, Ait. Hort. Kew iii. 453. I have not seen. 



F. comifolia, Kth. et Bouche in Ind. Sem. Hort. Berol. 1846, p. 19. I cannot suggest what this is. 

 F coronata, Colla. Hort. Ripul. t. 8, is identified by Miquel (Lond. Journ. Bot. vii. 234) with F. ulmifolia, 



Lamk., which is itself an obscure species. 



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



296. 



CovelUa costata, Miq. (not of Ait.) in Lond. Journ. 

 Bot. vii. 468. A species founded on Wight's specimen (Herb. Prop.) No. 872. I have not seen this. 

 F. craasinerria, Hort. Berol., is probably F. bengalemis,~L\im. 













