- 6 - 



I believe that these entries in the Appendix constitute 

 Roman type-face entries in the right hand column of the main 

 text, i.e., these are accepted by Linnaeus. Each must be 

 reviewed to determine if all other requirements for valid 

 publication have been met. 



The generic name Soccus is not validly published 

 under Article 41 because there is -n-e ither a diagnosis nor, 

 becc^ A&^ ^ *"r£f wnc^s. -t*=> a single previously effectively published 

 description. In short, Soccus is not monotypic and 

 reference to multiple plates and descriptions cannot 

 validate the name, 



The generic name Dur io is validly published under 

 Article 42. The reference to volume 2, plate 59 of 

 Rumphius constitutes validation of a monotypic genus with 



ia&) 



an unnamed species. This valid publicat ion^ antedates Dur io 

 Adanson (1763). 



Canarius is an erroneous spelling of Canarium , as can 

 be seen by the spellings used by Rumphius and in the text 1 /' 

 U^^-J^LJ^Q^-t^ Linnaeus ^the foot- 



note description can validate the name. Another spelling 

 error appears in frke footnote, Cenarium . FuPthor . ^ on-Mi 

 in " tafo er Ap p e ndi x i-s Canarium indicuTTH 



Casuar ina equiset if ol ia L. " equisef olia " is validly 



fiLj#! ■ ■ *t -.11* '-'i r " " /| . A+fHrtuiti^- 



published here under Article 42 with the cited Rumphian 

 plate 57 in vol. 3 acting as the descr ipt i o generico - 

 specif ica . Bullock (Kew Bull. 14: 40. 1960) took the 

 position that the footnote "is scarcely acceptable as a 

 generic descr ipt ion. " Rather than argue the pro and con 



