MORACEAE 



197 



tions, but the plant figured and described by Rumphius is 

 apparently the same as the Javan form currently referred to 

 Ficus ampelos Burm. f. The Rumphian description and figure, 

 cited by Burman f. in the original description of Ficus ampelos 

 Burm. f., should probably typify the species. It has been re- 

 duced to Ficus politoria Lam., but Lamarck's species, based on 

 specimens from Madagascar, is certainly distinct from the 

 Malayan form. It has also been erroneously referred to Ficus 

 parasitica Roth, and to F. exasperata Roxb. 



FICUS CORONATA Reinw. ex Blume Bijdr. (1825) 470. 

 Ficus obscura Blume 1. c. 474. 



Folium politorium arborescens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 128. 

 Amboina, Kati-kati, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. 183, October 18, 1913, 

 borders of clearings, altitude about 70 meters, locally known as daun plas. 



This form, with very scabrid, somewhat inequilateral leaves, 

 certainly represents Folium politorium arborescens Rumph. 

 I cannot distinguish it from Ficus coronata Reinw. (F. obscura 

 Blume). The form described by Rumphius, 1. c, as Folium 

 politorium flagellare is probably referable to one or the other of the 

 above species with harsh leaves. 



FICUS FORSTEN 1 1 Miq. Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 3 (1867) 214, 285. 

 Varinga supa Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 135, t. 86? 



Nothing resembling this form occurs in our Amboina collec- 

 tions. The figure very strongly resembles both Ficus pilosa 

 Reinw. and F. forstenii Miq., and the form described by 

 Rumphius is probably referable to one or the other of these 

 species. Miquel thought that it might represent Urostigma 

 pilosum Miq.=Ficus pilosa Reinw., but it seems to me that it more 

 closely resembles Ficus forstenii Miq. Hamilton referred it with 

 doubt to Ficus gonia Ham., and Henschel quite wrongly refers 

 it to Ficus citrifolia Willd. The form described by Rumphius as 

 Varinga pelal, in the same chapter, may be referable to Ficus 

 forstenii Miq. or may represent a different species. 



FICUS sp. aff. F. CALOPHYLLA Blume. 



Varinga repens Rumph. Herb. Amb. 3: 134, t. 85. 



Nothing at all agreeing with Varinga repens Rumph. is 

 presented by our Amboina collections. The figure and the 

 description, however, apply closely to the Javan Ficus calophylla 

 Blume and the Philippine Ficus pachyphylla Merr. and cer- 

 tainly represent a species very closely allied to both and perhaps 

 identical with one of them. Varinga repens Rumph. was erro- 

 neously reduced by Linnaeus to Ficus pumila Linn., in Stickman 



