Flora of Pingelap—S t. John 
109 
the pounded, fleshy leaves being used as a 
poultice for boils. Few of the Pacific atolls 
support Peperomia, so this locality record is 
noteworthy. 
The specimen was submitted to and iden¬ 
tified by Dr. T. G. Yuncker as P. ponapensis. 
The collector had also studied this species, 
deciding that it was the most similar one, 
but that the plants from Pingelap differed in 
having the leaves averaging smaller, mostly 
not 3-5 cm. long; and the fruit smaller, 
0.5-0.6 mm. in diameter. These differences 
are still evident, but in a genus with so many 
microspecies, he has no desire to add an¬ 
other, so accepts the determination as P. 
ponapensis. Ponape is an adjacent high 
island, lying 168 miles west by north. 
MORACEAE 
22. Artocarpus incisus (Thunb.) L. f., Suppl. 
411, 1781. Cultivated. 
Rademachia incisa Thunb., Vet. Akad. Stock¬ 
holm, Handl. 37: 254, 1776. 
A. communis Forst., Char. Gen. 101, 1776. 
Sitodium-altile Parkinson, Jour. Voy. En¬ 
deavour 45, 1773. 
A. altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg, Wash. Acad. 
Sci., Jour. 31: 95, 1941. 
"Mai.” Observed, but not collected. Abun¬ 
dant and vigorous, the trees attaining a 
height of 20 m. or more. 
Variety with Seed-bearing Fruit: 
(1) "Mei sabarek” 
Varieties with Seedless Fruit: 
(1) "Meipa” 
(2) "Mei si” 
There is confusion concerning the bino¬ 
mial for the breadfruit, and it is not asserted 
that these words will settle it, but they are 
given in justification of the name adopted. 
Rademachia incisa Thunb., published in 
1776, was little used, while Artocarpus com¬ 
munis Forst. of 1776 provided the accepted 
generic name and the combination Artocar¬ 
pus incisus (Thunb.) L. f., made in 1781, 
furnished the binomial that won almost uni¬ 
versal acceptance (as A. incisa') for more 
than a century. Then Merrill (1906: 43) 
readopted A. communis Forst., listing A. 
incisa (Thunb.) L. f. as a synonym. In sev¬ 
eral later publications he continued this 
usage, without giving an interpretation, but 
he apparently preferred communis because 
it was published in the genus Artocarpus. 
The International Rules of Botanical No¬ 
menclature of that date or of this current 
date do not include a rule validating this 
choice, while Art. 4 and 5 apply, as in cases 
of doubt, authorizing the following of es¬ 
tablished custom, as in this case, the choice 
of A. incisus (or incisa). A final basis 
would be that of strict priority, but no one 
has yet been able to establish the exact dates 
within the year 1776 for the two publica¬ 
tions by Thunberg and by Forster. If biblio¬ 
graphic research can establish the exact 
dates, this matter will be finally settled. 
Another detail in question is that of the 
gender of the generic name Artocarpus. The 
name was published by Forster (1776: 101- 
102, t. 51, 51a) and the two Greek roots 
were given— artos, bread, and karpos, fruit 
—from which the name was derived. The 
single species A. communis was listed, but 
with no clear indication of the gender. The 
termination us would ordinarily be mascu¬ 
line, but the practice of making genera fem¬ 
inine was so general, especially with trees, 
that one cannot now be certain that the 
Forsters decided to make the genus mascu¬ 
line. The specific name they used, commu¬ 
nis , is either masculine or feminine. There 
is no other evidence in the Forster book, in 
the index or text, that gives any indication. 
Corner states (1939: 282) that Forster sub¬ 
sequently used A. incisus, but the writer 
notes that G. Forster changed to A. incisa F. 
( = Forst. f.) (1786: 23), though he should 
have credited the combination to L. f. or at 
least to L. f. emend. Forst. f., as based on a 
change of gender. 
