MORACEAE 



191 



camansi Blanco. They are both referable to Artocarpus com- 

 munis Forst. as that species is currently interpreted. Both, 

 together with Soccus silvestris Rumph., were reduced to Arto- 

 carpus incisa Linn. f. i • the original description of that species, 

 which is typified by Radermachia incisa Thunb. 



ARTOCARPUS ELASTICA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 481. 

 Soccus silvestris Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 114, t. 34? 



Not represented in our Amboina collections. This has been 

 reduced to Artocarpus communis Forst. (A. incisa Linn, f.) by 

 several authors and may be a sylvan form of that species, or 

 it may prove to be referable to Artocarpus elastica Reinw., where 

 it was placed by Teysmann as quoted by Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel 

 (1866) 16. 



ARTOCARPUS RETICULATA Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 

 213. 



Novella cinerea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 2: 227? 

 Amboina, Wae, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. 173, November 26, 1913, 

 along the seashore, locally known as mulewan. 



The specimen agrees quite closely with Miquel's description 

 of Artocarpus reticulata, but its identity with Novella cinerea 

 Rumph. is rather problematical. 



ARTOCARPUS FRET I SSI Teysm. & Binn. ex Hassk. in Abhandl. Nuturf. 

 Gesellsch. Halle 9 (1866) 189 (Neue Schlussel 47) (type!). 

 Metrosideros spuria I, mas Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 26. t. 13, f. A. 



A species of entirely doubtful status, to be interpreted from 

 the description and figure given by Rumphius. As published, 

 Artocarpus fretissi Teysm. & Binn. is typified wholly by the 

 reference to Rumphius, as no description of the species was 

 published by Teysmann and Binnendyck; the name does not 

 appear in Index Kewensis. It is possible that the specimen 

 intended by Teysmann and Binnendyck to represent the species 

 is the one collected in Amboina by De Fretes and cited by Miquel, 

 Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 213, under Artocarpus 

 lakoocha Roxb. 



ARTOCARPUS sp. 



Metrosideros spuria II femina Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 27, t. 13, f. B. 



The description and figure are apparently those of an Arto- 

 carpus, but a further determination of its status is impossible 

 at this time from the material and data available. 



ARTOCARPUS sp. 



Soccus silvestris celebicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 1: 115. 



The description is hardly sufficient to warrant an attempt 



