— 2 - 
v 
It seeras that Loureiro was the first to distinguish 
the Chempedah from the Jack-fruit, but tooth his names are 
antedated (FI.Cochinch,1790, p. 5 ^ 6 - 7 ). I have endeavoured 
to find out exactly what Polyphema champedeh Lour, is, 
because there is said to be a type at the British Museum, 
but I get no answer! 
My chief trouble concerns the name of the Breadfruit 
(see Question J, attached). This can be settled quite 
easily by reference to Forster's work “Char.Gen. ' 0 77^)* 
Unfortunately we have no copy of this in Singapore. I 
see that in your letter of April Jrd you say that Forster 
published Artocarpus as a genus “but no species We do 
not understand how therefore the name A.communis Forster 
could have got into Steudel’s Nomenclator ^otanicus 
(Vol.I, l 8 ifC, to be revived by Merrill (Interpr. 
Ruraph.Herb .Amboin 1 7 p. 190 ). I see that there are two 
editions of Forster’s “Char.Gen.“ (Pritzel, Thesaurus 
Literat.Botan. ) so that the specific name “communis” may 
be mentioned in one and not the other. But see my Question 5 C 
(attached). If Foster’s description of Artocarpus is not 
very long, I wonder if you could have it copied for me, 
I will, of course, be glad to pay for any expense. 
I shall be most grateful to you if you could give 
me your opinion on these points, and I apologise for being 
such a nuisance. But as soon as I can get this straight, 
I will publish the article on Artocarpus. I have been 
preparing detailed comparative drawings of the Jack-fruit 
and Chempedah. 
; vM 
fa /(3 
Yours sincerely, 
