Parashorea malaanonan (loc&nera)# 
1, Regarding Merrill*s Interpretation of this species, please 
see whether ray remarks made on r llomen Dubium or Mixtum Compos it um w 
(Gardens Bull.IX, pp#244-249) and on Leetotype (ibid pp#296-299) 
are helpful in the solution of the problem. 
2, Proposals made without giviig any adequate reasons rney be ignored 
(cf. Caret,Bull#IX p.249 sub.K)# "What is easily affixed is also easily 
denied 1 * has been an accepted principle in logic * Merrill, in making his fi 
first proposul in X90o (?) rejected the considered opinions of the 
experienced botanists who worked previously on the family* If he could 
set aside their opinions so lightly, why not others give a similar 
treatment to Merrill's opinions? The basic aim of the Rules is to do 
away with nomeneiatorial dictators (cf, Furtado in Blumea 3uppl# I#1937)* 
3, In discarding Merrill*a opinion tnd typifying the species, you 
are giving adequate botanical reasons ’* and so you are not exposing 
yourself to tile same criticisms a© Merrill# 
« « 
4, The amendment regarding the capi ta ligation of &|i€oif lc epithets 
derived fro& vernacular names has ccan passed at the last Congress, 
\ 
Amsterdam ( 1935) • This amendment is to Rec.XLIII and not to any rule# 
It will be incorporated in the supplement to the Pules expected to be 
issued in 1940* However it a asms logical to spell r.XI specific epithets 
with small letters (of# lard# Bull* IX pp*354-353) # 
