lavish prfLjajse to the botanical acumen of the old Dutchman. 



It must be remembered that the date 1753 did not then have the 

 special significance it does now, nor did the concepts of valid publica- 

 tion and legitimate or illegitimate names exist, at least in their modern 

 sense. Linnaeus did not look on pre-1753 names as invalid and he only 

 rejected names when he selected or coined what he regarded as more appro- 

 priate ones or ivhen he placed them in synonymy, 



We must examine the "Rumphian names listed in Stickman^s dissertation 

 both in the light of the customs of the times , especially those of 

 Linnaeus, and of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Seattle 

 edition, 1972). 



We cannot assume that Linnaeus was rejecting these names , except as , 

 in majiy cases, he equated them with his own names or those of Rheede. He 

 was mereiy giving his ideas of \v'hat [hjjiey were in the already recorded 

 botanical knowledge of his time. Of course, he accepted, by preference, 

 such names as appeared in his own compendium, the Species Plantarum (ed, 1, 

 1753) and also some 22 binomials that he had not yet published. For some 



