, Questions 
1. Was Radem a chia Thunb. validly published with a Latin 
diagnosis (Vet*Akad.Handl.Stockh.vol.^7* '77&> p.25^)? 
1 imagine that a description in Swedish oruy would rot be 
allowed oy the Rules. 1 If not Rademachia, then Si tedium? 
2. You say in your letter (jjrd April) that Thunberg changed 
the names Rademachia and Sitodium because they had been used 
previously. Do you know by what they were antedated, because 
I cannot find such references in the Index Kewensis? May we 
not have to conserve Ar|ocarpus against Rademachia and Sitodium 9 
What is the correct name for the Breadfruit, A* incjsa 
(Thunb.) Linn.? 
Merrill has proposed the name A.c omm uni s Forst. but I can 
find no evidence for this. 
It seems that there is no such name as A. coirmunis Forst. 
because did riot 
a. Linn.fil* (Suppl. bp. Plant.) used Forster’s name Artocarpus but 
did not mention an A.communis, 
1 ■ 1 . ■ I I. - - IT- ' V 
b. Forster* himself, used the name A.incisa without any mention 
mm * ^ ^ ' ' ,ir " 
of an A. communis (i.e. in Flor.Aus.tr. i 7&4- &nd Plant.Bscul* 
Austral. 1/36). 
c. It is possible that Forster (Char * Gen. 1 J?G p.101) may have 
used the word "communis” merely as an ordinary adjective to 
f 
mean the "common Bread-fruit tree” of the Pacific Isles, and 
not as a spe cific epithet in a binomial name . 
Was Rademachia inciaa Thunb. (1 776 ) published earlier than 
Artocarpus Forster (Char« Gen. 1 776) 9 Is it possible to discover 
a monthly difference in their dates of publication 9 
/ 
\r* : 
