BOTANISKA INSTITUTIONEN 
UPPSALA 
Oct. 19 , 1937. 
E. J. H. Corner Esq,, 
Singapore. 
Dear Sir, 
First of all I must ask you to forgive my long delay in 
answering your letter of June 26th. It arrived during the summer vacation, 
while I was away, and thus it happened to "be left unanswered, and the packet 
of plants was left unopened. In September at the "beginning of the term, I had 
no time whatever to deal with these questions. 
I will now try to answer them; but I must own that I am not so well 
acquainted with this genus and the difficult questions of its nomenclature that 
I believe myself capable of giving you any principally new informations beyond 
those I have already given you. 
However, I will first thank you for the most beautiful photos of plants as 
well for the herbarium specimens. I suppose that we are meant to keep the 
sheets on the labels of which the world "Uppsala" is written. They are very 
welcome. But what is the meaning with the sheets on which is noted that they 
should be returned to the Singapore Botanical Garden's Herbarium? These plants 
have nothing to do with your questions regarding the nomenclature of Artocarpus, 
and I do not know of anyone here working with the genus Ficus. Please let me 
know what I shall do with them! The have perhaps been sent here by mistake? 
I keep them here until further information. And now to your questions! 
1. ) Whether Rademachia was published in Swedish or Latin makes no difference 
as according- to the Rules of nomenclature Art, 38 first after Jan. 1, 1933 
a name is valid only when it is accompanied by a Latin diagnosis .Thunbefg's 
paper on Rademachia (1776) is written cheafly in Swedish, but the diagnosis in 
Latin. From that point of view, then, there is no objection to the name of 
Rademachia. 
2. ) This question I cannot answer otherwise than I have already done. 
I refer again to the Phil. Transactions of the Royal Society Vol. 69 for the 
year 1779, Part II, London 1780, p.462, which proves that Thumberg has altered 
the name he had already given, R. incisa, to Sitodium. As he does not seem to 
have given any reason whatever for this, a discussion is quite out of question. 
As author for Sitodium cauliflorum (-Artocarpus integrifolia) Steudel /Nomencla- 
tor botanious (184-1) p. 596/ quotes Gaertner. Why the names are not to be found 
in Index Kewensis, I do not know. Probably they have simply been overlooked. 
Index Kewensis is not infallible I 
Regarding the question Artocarpus Forster or Rademachia T hunberg, both 
published in 1776, 0. Kuntae mentions (Revisio Generum Plant arum, II, p. 633 ) 
that the preface to Forster's Characteres Generu/jfcis dated Nov, 1775 a*id that 
Forster is therefore supposed to have priority before Thunberg. This however 
is not known with certainty as it is the date of publication that decides and 
not that of the manuscript, which might have remained unprinted for a long time; 
counting from the date of the manuscript, Thunberg's paper in Svenska Yetenskaps- 
