Ficus payapa Blanco

82* Flous payapa Blanco
ficus forstenii Miq.
fieu» Tiàaliaaa Warfc
ficus indloa Blanc c,
FICUS PAYAPA
ed. 3, 3 (18
Ficus
no doubt
received
not àppe
NEW YORK BOTANJCAL GARDEN
04375584
MtnniLxJt
HLANClfÀNAE
Blanco Pl. Filip. (1837) 683 (sp. nov.) ; ed. 2 (1845) 475;
, 3 (1879) 86, t. 203 (as F. pilosa Reinw.)
Blanco FL Filip. (1837) 681; ed. 2 (1845) 473; ed. 3, 3 (1879)
ft'on Linn.=FICUS PAYAPA Blanco,
spite of Blanco’s short and imperfect description there is
as to the form he intended, as this same form has been
several times under the Tagalog name payapa, a name
on any of our other species of the genus. Blanco
his species to “balete” (Ficus indica Blanco, non Linn.),
that it differs only in its “calyx” (bracts) consisting
two scales; and his description of Ficus indica calls for a
Species with oval fruits as large as an acorn. This form, rightly
or wrongly, I previously have referred to Ficus forstenii Miq.,
and it is, at any rate, very closely allied to Miquel’s species; Blan-
co’s specific name, however, is the older. Warburg has ap-
parently described the same species as Ficus vidaliana Warb. in
Perk. Frag. FI. Philip: (1905) 197, distinguishing this from F.
. forstenii Miq. by the absence of bracts. I have examined War-
burg’s type, but can see no reason for retaining the species. The
fruits on the type specimen, Warburg 14.033, are detached and
present neither pedicels nor bracts; it seems probable that the
bracts were present, inasmuch as For. Bur. 237U Borden, from
the same province, matches the type except that Borden’s speci:
mens has attached fruits with bracts, and that the bracts oii
Warburg’s specimen became detached and lost either in preparing
or in mounting the specimen. The leaves vary from acute to
rounded or slightly cordate at the b£ise. Blanco’s species was
erroneously reduced by Fernandez-Villar to Ficus microcarpa
Linn. f. Fernandez-Villar reduced Blanco’s Ficus indica to P.
saxophila Blume, and while Blume’s species occurs in the Philip-
pines, it is very rare and local and does not conform at all to
Blanco’s description. There is not the slightest doubt that it ià
identical with the form that Blanco otherwise described as Ficus
payapa; inf fact Blanco states that the only character by which
he distinguished Ficus payapa from F. indica was that the former
had two bracts and the latter three at the base of. the fruit.
Illustrative specimen from Batangas Province, Luzon, August,
1914 (Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 82).
04375584