Rough translation of last paragraph of StickmanTs 

 Introduction. 



Since the valuable work had not come to our shores 

 at the time when Linaaeus editted his Species Plant . 

 it came about that the names of Rumphius, which for 

 the most part illustrated the rarest plants of the 

 Indies, could not be incorporated . . . consequestly « 

 I believed that my work would not be ddspleasing to 

 botanists if I were to compare the plants of tte 

 Rumphius with the herbarium of Linnaeus in order 

 to extract and connect the names. I felt the need 

 in this little work to acquiesce (pass over ?) *h 

 the most obvious plants and to set aside many 



since the author (Furaphius) deppite the century in 

 which he lived knew how to describe and deliniate 

 the raost minute parts of f ru&tif ications, in which 

 he yfcllds only to the author of Hortus Malabricus . 



Informal translation by R. A. Brooks 

 17 Huly 19lk 



The critical part is the translation of "AcquiescereX 

 .... plantis evidentissimis, multasque seponere. ..." 



To accept the most obvious plants (species?) and 1% 

 set aside many. Meani i tg accepting Linnaean names 

 for obvious matches and nothing for others. Or 

 To accept the Rumphian naraes for what were obviously 

 plants (but nnnaraable) and assigning Linnaean names 

 to the others. 



Meeting of Nicolson,ft Fosberg & Stafleu on Stickman. November 22, 19lk. 



Issue was Efcsssja joined over the defmnition of the word "new" in Art. 36 

 and in Art. k2. Stafleu would define it as "newly described" and Fosberg and 

 Hicolson interpreted it as "nomenclaurally new," i.e., not previously validly 

 named . 



EXAMPLE: Myristica is interpreted as a new iaxBH genus based on a new 

 species by Fosberg I Nicolson under ARt . k2 represented by Nux Mysistica Rheede, 

 Herh. Amb. 2: pl. k since nothing was previously validly named and all elements 

 are nomenclaturally new. Stafleu would say that Rhaede«s %M^e^s not new sxkkk 

 ±h from xas Linnaeus's point because it was already described and illustrated # 



Stafleu"s position would be clarified if "new species" in Art. k2 were 

 changed to "newly described species." W Also if "new taxon" in Art. 36 were 

 changed to read "taxon." The first change would agree with all examples quoted 

 under A~t. k2. The second change would make fcks Art. 36 concord wtth Art. 32, 

 the general article, and make Art. 36 pertain only to when Latin description 

 was required. . , :p* * jf-. j> » 



fe>:..;v fczL^ {a/><mj>. &%tH <w/y t^mf h ^ 6^t~ 



