- 2 - 
Botaniska institutionen 
UPPSALA 
Akademiens Hand linear is dated Batavia Jane 15th 1775 and is thus older' than 
Forster's date Hov. 1775. However it is the date of the printing that counts, 
and all the information I can give you regarding this matter is that Thunberg's 
paper is printed in Yet. Akad;s Handlingar of 1776 (July-Sept.). I cannot get 
nearer to the solution of this question of priority than I have now done. That 
would require close studies that I have not now the opportunity to make, 
3.) Regarding this question I have found,after renewed investigations, that 
Merrill (An interpretation of Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense, (Manilla 1917) p.190) 
is probably right and that the name of the breadfruit should be A, communis Forst . 
I said in my last letter that Forster has published the genus but no species. 
On closer studies (cfr enclosed extractl) I have found the world "communis" at 
the head of the second page (p.102); there is no diagnosis or description of 
species but a reference to the figures of Rumphius, published before January 1st, 
1908. Thus, the name can be valid according to Art, 43* and Merrill seems to have 
been quite right, 
3a.) The fact that Linnaeus fil. uses Forster's genus name Artocarpus but not 
in combination with "communis" but with Thunberg's "incisa" is no doubt only a 
sign that in those days such questions of nomenclature were not taken very 
seriously, 
3b.) As you quite rightly point out, Forster himself uses the combination 
A, incisa. Besides in the papers you quote he does so also in Florula Insularum 
Australium (Gottingen 1786, p. 64 ). This combination A. incisa, is also found in 
the later editions of Linnaeus' Systema Vegetabilium (Ed. XIY, curante A. MURRAY, 
Gottingen 1784> p. 838). Forster himself does not seem to have cared to insist 
on his name. I can give no other explanation, 
3c.) That Forster should have used the world "communis" merely as an ordinary 
adjectiv is quite out of the question, as the species name has the same place as 
all other species names of other genera. This fact is easely overlooked because 
the species name is printed on another page and the diagnosis is lacking and 
replaced by a reference to the illustrations, 
3d.) Forster has not written "communis" on his plate, but this does not matter 
as he has not written any species names on the other plates either, 
I have now made my "best to answer your questions and I can really do no 
more to the solution of this problem. Questions of nomenclature are always difficuil 
and the more so, of course, for a botanist in the tropics where literature is quite 
lacking. 
I repeat my excuse for this delayed answer, my thanks for the plants, and my 
demand for informations regarding the sheets of Ficus. 
Sincerely yours 
/ 
