i 66/5 7 . 
l6th April, 
7 
\ 
Dear Mr. Rain sb o 11o®, 
Re. Artocarpus 
I have just heard from Prof*N.E.Sveclelius, at Bppsala, 
. * 
that Thunberg's type-specimen of Rafl c.ua chia Integra is the 
CheiupedaK and not the Jack-fruit. This same type-specimen 
is the basis of Sitodiu n macrocarpon and of Artocarp us, 
intoarifolia Linn.f. Hence the Chemped&k, and not the 
Jack-fruit, must be called a. Integra (Thunb.) Merrill, 
This simplifies the researches considerably, so I take 
the earliest opportunity to inform you* Prof.Svedelius 
has gone into the matter, at my request, caretully comparing 
specimens which I sent with Thunberg’© and he has sent me 
photographs of the type* he agrees that we must ctiCiC to 
the fact and 'hang the consequences 1 and call the Chempedak 
Aa Integra * After all, it is merely a case of perpetuated 
misidentification. 
We have then to find a new name for the Jack-fruit. 
It will be either Sitodium cauliriorum Gaertn. or Artocarpus 
jaca Lam, as given in question J of my letter ^. i •?/ * Thi.s 
depends on the date of puplication of Lamark s species. 
It looks to me that wa must conserve Artocarpus against 
both Rademachia and Sitodium. It seems that Ant.oenrpus 
Forst. was described as a genus without a species* tnat 
all owed? It scarcely seems x^easonable. The first species 
attributed to the genus would thus be those oi Linneus fil* 
J.Ramabottom, Ssq*, 0*B.E., 
British Museum,"Cromwell Rd., 
T *f4* London S.W 7 , ENGLAND. 
