Ficus benguetensis, AND F. LAEVICARPA

Berg, C. C., 2011, Corrective notes on the Malesian members of the genus Ficus (Moraceae), Blumea 56 (2), pp. 161-164 : 162

FICUS BENGUETENSIS AND F. LAEVICARPA

Identification of some recent Ficus collections from Sulawesi led to a re-evaluation of F. schwarzii Koord. , as defined by Corner (1960b) and, hence, adopted for the Flora Malesiana treatment of the genus ( Berg & Corner 2005). The concept proved to be wrong as it comprised several species of which one, comprising all material collected outside Sulawesi, is to be named F. rosulata C.C.Berg (in press).An account on the species of Sulawesi is in preparation. In the wake of this study attention was also paid to some Ficus species with short fig-bearing branchlets in the Philippines, in particular F. benguetensis , as it shows affinities to the species mentioned above in the warty surface of the fig receptacle and the exfoliation of the epidermis, although not always, and if so, usually only of its upper part.

Examination of numerous specimens received for identification, from BRIT and K, and examined in A, L and NY, including the types of names based on material collected in the Philippines, Ficus cuernosensis Elmer (1908: 545) , F. laevicarpa Elmer (1912: 1395) , F. maquilingensis Elmer (1919: 3094) , and F. peabodyi Elmer (1911: 1267) , which have been reduced to synonyms of F. benguetensis , proved to belong to this species, except for the type of F. laevicarpa and some other collections from Palawan.

The material to be included in F. benguetensis is not quite uniform and, therefore, it is to some extent problematical to define the species. The majority of the collections represent material with the figs apparently confined to the leaf axils. A smaller proportion, including the types of F. cuernosensis , F. peabodyi , and F. maquilingensis bear figs (predominantly) on leafless, up to 15 cm (or to c. 30 cm?) long branchlets on the older wood, down to the base of the trunk (see Walker 1976: t. 10.). In these collections the leaf margin is often (but not always!) crenate-dentate. The weak correlation between cauliflory and dentation of the leaf margin makes it impossible to recognise formal infraspecific entities. The quality of the collections and label data do not provide information whether the predominant position of the figs is a matter of age and they also make it difficult to define the distribution of the two forms: both apparently occur throughout the range of the species, but the cauliflorous form may occur more frequently in the northern part of the range. It is remarkable that the latter form is scarce among recent collections. Material from Taiwan referred to F. fistulosa subsp. fistulosa by Liao (1995) belongs to F. benguetensis , implying that F. fistulosa the former does not occur in Taiwan, as incorrectly stated by Berg & Corner (2005: 420).