-3- 



the author who does not intend to Late&4«-ee a new name 



(Art . 34, Note 2) . 



The first footnote (p . 10) referS to Dammara 



nigra Rumphius, which is surrounded by Rumphian taxa 



called Canarium , and says, Canarium est distinctum g enus. 



Cal . 2-f idus . Petala 6. Stamf . _5. Stylus cylindricus 



S 



capitatus . Drupa sicca : Nucleus subtr igonuft . This may be 

 read as " Canar ium is a distinct genus. Calyx 2-fid. 

 Petals 6. Stamens 5. Style cylindrical, capitate. Drupe 

 dry: stone subtrigonous . " Linnaeus is only commenting 

 that this is a distinct genus, not establishing a new 

 genus . 



The second generic footnote (p . 12) refers to 

 Ca^a_rjjia ljjjaxaa Rumphius and says, Generis propr ii , 

 singular is arbor , Equiset i s truc tura . This may be read 

 as "Singular tree of its own genus with the structure of 

 Equisetum , " Linnaeus is again^ only making observations , 

 not establishing a new genus. 



The third footnote (p . 17) refers to Pandanus verus 

 Rumphius , which is followed by a number of taxa called 

 Pandanus by Rumphius, and says, Pandanus genus est nondum 

 cons titutum Monoeciae , Bromel iae f orte af f ini s , f ructu 

 Ambrosiae . This may be read, essentially as did St. John 

 (Taxon 12: 202. 1963), "The genus Pandanus is not yet 

 established, of the Monoeciae, strongly similar to Bromelia 

 v/ith the fruit of Ambros ia . " Again Linnaeus is only 

 making some observations , not recogniz ing a genus novum . 



