- 
A rt geartus inci Be Lirm.f., 1 '/■ 1 t Buypi. 411 
= Rademachia incisa Thunb. 1776 (Ref.A) 
- 3 i 1 00 i u ;n 1 n c i s um Thu n b . 17 7 3 i R e f C) 
a Radermachia incisa Thunb, I’/Ti (Ref.D), 
In place o3 this name Aerrlll (Ref.M) uses A; tocarpus ca. , 'iunis 
F grst. (Ref .B) . 
Re marks : - 
It seems that there is no such species as A. communis 
Fort. 1 JJu (see «.j Question }) . Reasons: a. Linnaeus fil 
(Ref.F'' uses ♦’oreter ’ s ra 1;;e Artocarpus, cut d or s not • en tion 
an A . communi s : b Forster, hi.mself (or theirselves), uses 
the name A^i r jisa , without any menti on of an Aeortnrur. is 
Foret.. in Flora Austr. 17I4 and De Plantes Feculent Austral* 
e in Sef.B. Forster nay nave used 1 com nun Is H as 
an ordina ry a:'active to mean the ?:ia>on .dread Fruit tree 1 ' 
of the Pacific Tales ana nut m a specific eolthet In a 
*r 
binomial mane. 
If Ryder:; achit 1 / J( , is valid, then R * inci su n Thunb . 
ie valid arc A ir ciau a Linn. fil. is a new combination on 
Thunbery f s nt • * e • It is po. cible that R.incisa ^ was poolished 
earlier then Artocarnus Foret.(see my question a). If Rademachia 
^ 4 -r—f a - 1 i ft 1 77b and 17H, and Bitoeium l 77 ) are invalid, or 
rt 
if Radefiiachia 1781 is later than Linneus fil. Buppl. 1781 
x Ref.F) then A. in cl sus L. fil. is t» new name which ie the correct 
name for the Bread-fruit tree (provided A, comm unis Forst 
is invalid). (see my questions 1. -, 5, 4, 5, b). 
