7 
v t 
Is the**© such s species as ol tod i. u ? int e.K rum in this paper 
or is f .mscrocarpon based on jj adcrrachia interra 9 
A re o.iaacroc a rpon a n d R» Integra v 11 e r n a t i ve n a ne s V o r t he 
same plant i^see Question 5 ) 9 .r is 3 ? mac ro l. a rpon another species 
(perhaps the glabrous Jack-fruit) while H. Integra is the hairy 
Chempadak 9 
p • ke f.» bm 
Is this the first p ace in which Radermachia is valid!... 
pu b 1 i she b ? 
Are k . ire is a :a;>d R , inte-rr.i validly published here n 
If so, eoula I have copies of the generic ; no specific 
descriptions with ref e rer.ces. 
Is this work of Thunbe r fi . f s , earlier than Linnaeus fil. 
Supplement vkef . f) ? If so, then. ThunDerg. ‘ s specific names 
"inciea* ar.d " ml have velocity ever * hose, of hi nr * fil. 
Is Sitooiui. here reds ced to Rademachia and J . ma or oca rpon 
to R. inte» ra ? ( Sse 4\ 1 .*s t . 4 , at the end ) . 
(I an at a complete loss to understand wry Thunberg hud two 
names. Raccnachia ana oitodium, for the same venue ana too names, 
£> . ;.i acrocarton trn a . i n terra f for Ida same species). 
6 • Re f ♦ &. 
If Radervachia (1 JjG) and lit odium are invalid on these 
dates, end. If Ra derm chi a (f ,T'1 - Eef.D) is later than Linn. fil. 
Suppl. (Ref, E), then the names ’’incioue” and "integrif olive" of 
Linn, fil, have priority over Thunber^’s, ever though cased on 
Thunberg's specimens. 
7 
Ref. I. 
would you kindly give me copies of the descriptions (with 
ref e ve nee a) of Artocarpus .jaca Lam . anb A , heterophy 11a Lam .' 
Is A. jaca cased on u specimen (° in Lamark *3 herbarium) or 
a citation of a plate as, far instance, in Ruaiphius Kerb. Amo.? 
fof 
ffo! 
