C.i. c 
.y ^ 
\t\^ 
3* I have found no authentic specimens of Artocarpus Lakoocha Roxb. from 
the Malay Peninsula in the Kew herbarium* The ones so identified are not that 
species, but are in my opinion and as you suggest, A. dadah Miq. I have made 
a note on the species cover to that effect. 
I cettainly think that the sheets sent by you (Bidin 4178, Dolman 21496, 
Curtis without number, Ridley 4130 and 6980, Por. Guard 863, Holltum 9204 and 
your 32545) are all A. dadah Miq. 
4* I have not been able to match your Artocarpus sheets (Mdh without 
number, Carttly without number, Ridley 4129 and 4829 and your w A tt ) with any 
species figuring in the Kew Herbarium. It comes near to A» tonkinensis A .Chev. 
and A. macrophylla E lm. , but I do not think it is actually either of them. 
Our sheets of these 2 species, however, do not offer very satisfactory material 
for comparison. 
5. We have not got the type o f Artocarpus peduncularis King, i.e. either 
Kurz from the Andamans or King's Coll. 9530 from Perak. However we have 
King Coll. 530 from Perak which is so named and I have also seen King's Coll. 
9530 at the Brit. Mus. and they agree well, except that in 530 the base of the 
leaf is very shallowly cordate and in 9530 rounded and not at all subcordate. 
I think it is a quite distinct species from A. Lowii King. In A. peduncularis 
the leaves are ova/te, blunt at the apex and rounded or subcordate at the base, 
whereas A. Lowii has elliptic leaves, acute at both ends with more numerous 
nerves, I think the two species must be kept distinct. All the sheets in the 
Herbarium here identified as peduncularis are actually A* Lowii with the 
exception of King's Coll. 530 referred to above. 
