Ficus cerasifolia Kunth & C.D. Bouché. Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot.

Mitidieri-Rivera, Nicole, Damián-Parizaca, Alexander, Gardner, Elliot M., Plata-Castro, Angelo D., Zerega, Nyree J. C. & Pederneiras, Leandro C., 2025, A Nomenclator of Ficus sect. Americanae (Moraceae). Part I: South America, Phytotaxa 711 (3), pp. 215-262 : 222

34. Ficus cerasifolia Kunth & C.D. Bouché. Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot. : 238. 1847, nom. illeg. superfl. TYPE:— Hort. Bot. Berol., origin unknown, s.d., C. Kunth & C. D. Bouché s.n. (lectotype, designated by Berg & DeWolf [1975: 258]: B–100002776!).

Nomenclatural notes:— Kunth & Bouché (1846) described Ficus cerasifolia but did not designate a type specimen or cite a herbarium. They listed F. laurifolia Link (not that of Lammarck), and F. salicifolia Link (not that of Vahl) as synonyms. In his Enumeratio plantarum, Link (1846) provided a list of all plants cultivated at the Royal Garden of Berlin, organized according to the Linnaean System, and included F. laurifolia Lamarck (1788: 495) , a species originally thought to have been collected in America but later recognized as African in origin ( Berg 2011), and F. salicifolia Vahl (1790: 431) , a species from Yemen. It appears that Kunth and Bouché (1846) mistakenly believed that J.H.F. Link had described these species as new, based on cultivated material in Berlin. Because the synonyms listed by Kunth and Bouché (1846) were validly published approximately fifty years prior to F. cerasifolia , the latter name must be considered superfluous and illegitimate.