DOUBTFUL AND IMPERFECTLY KNOWN SrECIES. IS 



Ternatana, Miq. in Ann Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 296 



Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pi. 2. 324 



There is an imperfect specimen of this from Ternate in the Herbarium at Utrecht. It is probably 

 F. rudis, Miq. 



F. Timorensis, Dene, (not of Miq.). This is reduced by Miquel (Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 287) to F. super ba, 



Miq. I have never seen a specimen. 



F. Timorensis, Miq. (sub Urostig.) Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 2SG.-Urostig. Timorensis, Miq. Loud. Journ. 



Bot. vi. 569; FL Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2.343. This is probably F infectoria, Roxb., var. caxloca 

 (supra, p. 63). 



F. tonsa, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 234, 297. In the collections at Leiden and Utrecht are a few leaves 



from the Celebes thus named. These leaves appear to belong to a species near F. fstulosa, Reinw. 



F. trichocarpa, Bl. Bijdr. 458 ; Miq. (sub Urostig). Dene, in N. Ann. du Mus. iii. 497 ; Miq. PL Ind. Bat. i 



338 ; Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 286. There is no specimen bearing this name in the 

 Herbaria of Kew, Leiden, Utrecht, or Calcutta. In the Buitenzorg Herbarium there are leaf 

 specimens so named, but they really belong to F. lepicarpa, Bl. From Blume's and Da\aisne's 

 descriptions this appears not to be a Urostigma, in which sub-genus, however, Miquel places it. 

 Miquel does not appear to have seen a specimen, but to have drawn up his description in Fl. Ind 

 Bat. 1. c. from Bluine's and Decaisne's. Blume got the specimen on which he founded the s] iee 

 from the mountain Pangarango in Java, a locality that has frequently been collected over since 

 Blume's day. Blume's original specimens having been lost, 1 suspect the species has been re-named 

 Decaisne's description was written on specimens brought from Timor. 



F. Tsjela, Herb. Ham. Wall. Oat. 45.10, is F. infectoria, Roxb. 



F. ulmifolia, Lamk. Encyc. ii. 499 ; Vahl. Enum. ii. '197. I have seen no authentic specimen of this. Miquel 



in Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 299 gives a description of this, but apparently without having seen it, and 

 bis description does not agree with Lamarck's, Both Lamarck's aud Vahl's descriptions answer 

 for the Australian plant subsequently named F. azpera by Forster. On the typo sheet of F. 

 brevkuspis, Miq., in the Herbarium at Utrecht, " F. ulmifolia, Lamk." has been written by an 



unknown hand. 

 F. undulata, Ham. in Linn. Trans, xv, 133. Miquel identifies with F. nervosa, Ileyne. 

 F. urtkwfolia, Eoxb. Fl. Ind. iii, 553. Roxburgh's description of this is too meagre for identification, and he 



has left no drawing of it. 

 F. vestita, Wall. Cat. 4500. Although mentioned in the catalogue, this is absent from all the sets of the 



Wallichian collection. 

 F. (sub. Urostig.) virgata, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 342. The plant described by Miquel under this 



name is not F. virgata, Reinw., as Miquel at one time thought. Miquel subsequently discovered 



his error. I do not know what Miquel's Urostigma virgatum is, as there is no Specimen of it either 



at Leiden, Utrecht, or Kew, and the only specimens I have seen from Buitenzorg have no receptacles. 



Reinwardt's virgata is F. subulata, Bl. (supra, p. 8) . 

 F. (Urostia.) volubile, Dalz. and Gibs, Fl. Bomb. 242, was afterwards (1. c. 315) identified by its authors ns a 



scandent form of Ut 



Dalz. and Gibs. (Ficus ampelos, Koenig MSS.). N 



F. ampelos, Koenig MSS., as described by Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. iii. 553), is not the true F. ampelos of 

 Burmann, which does not occur in Peninsular India. It is the ecandent variety parasitica of 

 F. gibbosa, BL, a plant rather common in Southern and Western India. 



F. (Pogonot.) Wightiana, Miq. Lond. Journ Bot. vii. 74. Miquel subsequently reduced this (Ann. Mus. Lugd. 



Bat. iii. 293) to F sub-pedunculata, Miq., which in my opinion is = F. glabella, Bl. 



F. Wassa, Roxb. Fl. Ind. iii. 539 ; Wight Ic. 666 ; Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. pt. 2. 298 ; Ann. Mus. Lugd 



Bat. iii 271,291. Roxburgh originally described this species from a specimen received from tin 

 Moluccas and cultivated in the Botanic Garden, Calcutta. A copy of his figure of it was published 

 by Wight, but no specimen of the species exists. Roxburgh himself considered his F Wama as 

 probably the plant figured by Rumphius, Herb. Amb. iii. t. 94. From Rumphius' and B xburgh's 

 own figures, I should think F. Wassa, Roxb. is probably a Covellia. Miquel suggests this in FL Ind. 

 Bat. 1. c. ; but in his final revision of Ficus in Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat., he suggests the reduction 

 of F Wassa, Roxb., to the quite as obscure species F. diffornm, Lamk. 



F. (sub. Urost) Zollingeriana, Miq. Ann. Mus. Lugd. Bat. iii. 264, 287. A plant from Western Java which, 



judging from the imperfect specimens so named in the Dutch Herbaria, must be near, if not identical 

 with, F. Sumatrana, Miq. 



