Ficus ampelas

Content

Description

Shrub or tree up to 15(-25) m tall; Branchlets often drying (dark) brown to blackish. internal hairs abundant. Leaves distichous; stipules amplexicaul (or semi- amplexicaul), 0.2-0.7 cm long, glabrous (or especially when juvenile, minutely puberulous on the keel), caducous.

Distribution

Asia-Temperate: Taiwan (Taiwan present), Asia-Tropical: Borneo present; Jawa (Jawa present); Lesser Sunda Is. present (Bali present); Maluku (Maluku present); New Guinea present; Philippines (Philippines present); Sulawesi (Sulawesi present), Flores present, Lombok present, New Britain present, Ryukyu Islands present, Timor present, Westcoast present, islands present

Ryukyu Islands and Taiwan; in Malesia: Sumatra (westcoast and islands), Java, Borneo, Philippines, Celebes, Lesser Sunda Islands (Bali, Lombok, Flores, Timor), Moluccas, New Guinea (incl. New Britain).

Notes

6Ficus ampelas var. linearis Corner () is in the present treatment included in F. cumingii. 10Ficus ampelas is related to F. leptodictya from which it differs in the smaller ﬁg receptacle and the shorter peduncle. 3Material referred to F. irisana (Corner 1965) appears to be distinct only in the red tepals, and as the colour of the tepals varies in many species from dark red to pink or whitish, there is no good reason to recognize it as a distinct species. Several collections with small (sub)caudate laminas, regarded as representatives of F. irisana and put in its var. validicaudata (Corner 1960), resemble material referred to F. guyeri. 1The species is rather variable. The variation led to the recognition of some varieties by Corner (1960). However, the differences are so small that clear infraspeciﬁc entities cannot be distinguished, at most be regarded as regional variations with regard to (almost) smooth laminas, common in New Guinea and part of the Moluccas. The characters used to distinguish F. guyeri, F. irisina, and F. todayensis (Corner 1960, 1965) are so weak that these entities have to be included in F. ampelas, broadening its variation somewhat. 5A few collections (from the Philippines and Celebes) characterized by relatively large ﬁg receptacles (1.2-1.5 cm diam. when dry) with thick walls and by red-coloured tepals have been inserted in F. todayensis. They cannot be distinguished from more typical F. ampelas material in other features. 7Ficus ampelas var. hispidula is currently included in F. anasomosans. 2A good number of collections from the Philippines (Luzon to Mindanao) are distinct in the caudate apices of the usually smooth lamina in which the basal lateral veins often run up to the middle of the lamina and in the relatively long ﬁg peduncles (up to 1.5 cm, or occasionally up to 2.5 cm long). But this form is linked with the typical widespread form by intermediates (from Luzon, Sibuyan, Panay, Samar), including the type of F. guyeri var. sibuyanensis. 4Material with small caudate laminas are often associated with high altitudes (up to 2400 m) and exposed habitats. These laminas are often small, but may be large, up to 20 cm long (e.g., Ramos et al. 38635, the type of F. tenuicaudata var. major, and Sulit 9938). 8Many collections from the Philippines, the Moluccas, and New Guinea have (almost) smooth laminas. 9The presence of this species in Borneo is not very certain, as it is represented by a single collection (by De Vriese) without precise indication of provenance.

Citation

Corner 1965: – Gard. Bull. Singapore 21: 68

Engl. 1886 – In: Bot. Jahrb. Syst.: 452

Lam. 1788 – In: Encycl.: 496

Elmer 1937 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 3465

Elmer 1911 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 1256

Elmer 1908 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 535

Merr. 1906 – In: Philipp. J. Sci.: 45

Elmer 1914: p. 2406. – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: (excl. Elmer 13719 = F. guyeri Elmer)

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 243

Wight 1843 – In: Ic.: t. 664

Burm.f. 1854 – In: Zoll., Syst. Verz. 2: 93

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 243

Burm.f. 1921: Enum. Born.: 220

Renner 1907 – In: Bot. Jahrb. Syst.: 396

Corner 1965: – Gard. Bull. Singapore 21: 69

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 289, 290

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 244

Diels 1935 – In: Bot. Jahrb. Syst.: 196

Elmer 1914 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 2403

King 1888: p. 90. – In: Sp. Ficus: t. 114

Merr. 1910 – In: Philipp. J. Sci.: 342

emend. Miq. 1848 – In: London J. Bot.: 428

Hayata 1919 – In: Ic. Pl. Formos.: 120

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 288

Merr. 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 67

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 55

Backer 1948 – In: Blumea: 309

Elmer 1907 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 250

Backer & Bakh.f. 1965 – In: Fl. Java: 25

Koord. & Valeton 1906 – In: Bijdr. Boomsoort. Java: 162

Kuntze 1891: p. 626. – In: Rev. Gen. Pl.: (var. ‘politaria’)

Miq. 1851: Pl. Jungh.: 59

Merr. 1923: p. 53. – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: (sub F. guyeri)

Elmer 1908 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 540

Diels 1935 – In: Bot. Jahrb. Syst.: 200

Merr. 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 53

King 1888: p. 161. – In: Sp. Ficus: t. 205A

Sata 1944 – In: Contr. Hort. Inst. Taihoku Imp. Univ.: 289

Corner 1960 – In: Gard. Bull. Singapore 17: 459

Miq. 1851: Pl. Jungh.: 61

K. Heyne 1927: Nutt. Pl. Ned.-Indië: 567

Merr. 1917: Int. Rumph.: 196

Elmer 1906 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 191

King 1888: p. 91. – In: Sp. Ficus: t. 116

Burm.f. 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 45

Merr. 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 65

Miq. 1859 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 298

Steenis 1948 – In: Blumea: 259

Elmer 1907 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 240

Elmer 1914 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 2405

Burm.f. 1859 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 303

Corner 1965: – Gard. Bull. Singapore 21: 67

Elmer 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 52

Merr. 1923 – In: Enum. Philipp. Flow. Pl.: 55

Hochr. 1925 – In: Candollea: 328

Roxb. 1832: Fl. Ind., ed. Carey 3: 555

Elmer 1912 – In: Leafl. Philipp. Bot.: 1317, 1392

Koord. 1898: Minah.: 596

Burm.f. 1867 – In: Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat.: 272, 292