(2788) Radermachia rotunda Houtt., Nat. Hist. 2(11): 455. 3 Dec 1779 [Angiosp.: Mor.], nom. utique rej. prop.

Typus: non designatus.

The name Artocarpus rigidus Blume (Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 482. 1825, ‘rigida’) (Moraceae) has long been in near‐exclusive use for a well‐known species of wild fruit tree common throughout much of the Malesian region. It has become clear, however, that the earlier Artocarpus rotundus (Houtt.) Panzer (in Christmann, Vollst. Pflanzensyst. 10: 380. 1783, ‘rotunda’), based on Radermachia rotunda Houtt. (Nat. Hist. 2(11): 455. 1779), likely refers to the same species. To avoid confusion and taxonomic instability, we propose that the name Radermachia rotunda be rejected.

No traceable original material exists for Radermachia rotunda, despite a recent search at G, where the main part of Houttuyn's herbarium resides (Wijnands & al. in Candollea 72: 155–198. 2017). The brief protologue provided the vernacular name “Mandelique” and three diagnostic characters: (1) the leaves are the same as those of Radermachia integra Thunb. (= Artocarpus integer (Thunb.) Merr.) but without roughness; (2) the pistillate inflorescences are completely round; and (3) the rough fruit grows to the size of a child's head. Artocarpus rigidus was validly published over 40 years later with a somewhat more detailed protologue and without mention of Artocarpus rotundus. The lectotype, without information on the collector, is preserved at Leiden (Java, barcode L 0039903).

Merrill (in J. Arnold Arbor. 19: 331. 1938), in a paper on Houttuyn's names, concluded, based on the protologue, that Radermachia rotunda was the same species as Artocarpus rigidus, finding further confirmation in the vernacular name “mandeliké” associated by later authors with A. rigidus (Koorders & Valeton in Bijdr. Kennis Boomsorten Java 11: 19. 1906; also Hasskarl, Aanteek. Nut Java Pl.: 27. 1845; Teijsmann & Binnendijk, Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor: 85. 1866). Merrill (l.c.) therefore reduced Artocarpus rigidus to synonymy under Artocarpus rotundus. In her monograph of Artocarpus, Jarrett (in J. Arnold Arbor. 40: 118, 153–154. 1959) disagreed and considered Radermachia rotunda Houtt. to be a nomen dubium, noting that although Mandelique was a common name for A. rigidus, the protologue was too vague because the leaves of that species are abaxially scabrid, and the infructescence is smaller than a child's head. She, therefore, maintained Artocarpus rigidus as the accepted name for the species. A more forgiving approach might note that although the leaves of Artocarpus rigidus are scabrid abaxially, they are usually (although not always) smooth adaxially, and that larger infructescences may at least attain the size of an infant's (if not a child's) head. Moreover, among the Javan species not separately dealt with by Houttuyn, Artocarpus rigidus is really the only good candidate for Radermachia rotunda.

Artocarpus rotundus was apparently overlooked by early authors, perhaps, as Merrill speculated, because neither Houttuyn nor Panzer indicated their species as new. Blume's Artocarpus rigidus, on the other hand, was widely used and has appeared in all of the major treatments of Artocarpus over the past 170 years (Trécul in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 8: 114. 1847; Miquel in Zollinger, Syst. Verz. 2: 89, 95. 1854–1855, Fl. Ned. Ind. 1: 286. 1859, Fl. Ned. Ind., Eerste Bijv.: 418. 1861, in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno‐Batavi 3: 211. 1867; King in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 5: 540. 1888, in Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard. Calcutta 2: 8, t. 3. 1889; Ridley in J. Straits Branch Roy. Asiat. Soc. 33: 147. 1900, Fl. Malay Penins. 3: 352. 1924; Koorders & Valeton, l.c.: 17; Koorders, Exkurs.‐Fl. Java 2: 93. 1912; Heyne, Nutt. Pl. Ned.‐Ind.: 564. 1927; Burkill, Dict. Econ. Prod. Malay Penins.: 258. 1935; Corner, Wayside Trees Malaya: 657, t. 198, 199. 1940; Browne, Forest Trees Sarawak Brunei: 353. 1955; Jarrett, l.c.: 150; Kochummen, Tree Fl. Malaya 3: 131, t. 6. 1978, Tree Fl. Sabah Sarawak 3: 208, t. 5. 2000; Berg & al., Fl. Males., Ser. 1, 17(1): 100. 2006, Fl. Thailand 10(4): 17. 2011). By contrast, no modern treatments of Artocarpus have taken up Merrill's approach, and Artocarpus rotundus remains an obscure name that likely applies to a well‐known species.

Failure to reject Radermachia rotunda would uphold the principle of priority but would also promote nomenclatural instability and confusion. Because opinions have differed as to the application of the name, future authors who consider the protologue sufficient to equate the name with Artocarpus rigidus may feel compelled to follow Merrill and adopt A. rotundus, even while authors who agree with Jarrett continue to use A. rigidus. Rejecting Radermachia rotunda would eliminate that possibility and promote stability in the nomenclature of this species.

（2788）圆形圆形建筑Radermachia Houtt。，Nat。历史。2（11）：455。1779年12月3日[Angiosp .: Mor。]，名义 尤蒂克河 支柱。

类型：非指定类型。

名桂僵布鲁姆（Bijdr花期斯内德。工业：482 1825，“蒿”）（桑科）长期以来一直是近独家使用野生果树常见的知名品种在整个许多Malesian的地区。现在已经很清楚，但是，早期桂香附（成分，至少。）装甲（在Christmann，Vollst Pflanzensyst 10：380。1783年， '圆形建筑'）的基础上，Radermachia圆形建筑成分，至少。（Nat。Hist。2（11）：455. 1779），可能是指同一物种。为避免混淆和分类不稳定，我们建议拒绝使用Radermachia rotunda这个名称。

尽管最近在G进行了搜索，但Houttuyn的植物标本室的主要部分仍在这里（Wijnands等人，在Candollea 72：155-198。2017），但没有圆形的Radermachia圆形建筑的原始材料。简短的序言提供了白话名称“ Mandelique ”和三个诊断特征：（1）叶子与Radermachia integra Thunb的叶子相同。（=面包果整数（Thunb。）Merr。），但不粗糙；（2）雌蕊花序完全圆形；（3）粗果长到孩子的头大小。僵硬的面包果有效地出版了40年，其后的原型更为详细，却没有提及圆形果皮。没有收集器信息的选型保存在莱顿（Java，条形码L 0039903）中。

美林（在J.阿诺德刀杆19：331 1938），在Houttuyn的名字，总结的基础上，原始描述了一篇论文，认为Radermachia圆形建筑是同一物种桂僵，在俗名发现进一步确认“ mandeliké ”后来的作者与相关A.僵。。。（Koorders＆Valeton在Bijdr KENNIS Boomsorten Java的11：;也Hasskarl，Aanteek螺母的Java PL：27. 1845年，1906年19 - Teijsmann Binnendijk，猫园艺博特茂物： 85. 1866）。因此，Merrill（lc）在硬皮面包果下将硬皮面包果树化为同义词。贾瑞特（Jarett）在专着《面包果专论》中（J. Arnold Arbor。40：118，153–154。1959）不同意并认为Radermachia圆形大厅。是一个学校名称柱木，并指出，尽管Mandelique是为一个共同的名字A.僵，原始描述太含糊，因为该品种的叶子背面粗糙，而且果序比小孩的头越小。因此，她将硬皮面包果树作为该物种的公认名称。一种更宽容的方法可能是，虽然硬皮面包果的叶子背面呈叶片状，但通常（尽管不总是）背面光滑，并且较大的花序至少可以达到婴儿（如果不是儿童）头部的大小。此外，在未由胡图恩单独处理的爪哇物种中，硬皮面包果确实是Radermachia圆形大厅的唯一好人选。

最早的作者显然忽略了圆形果皮，正如美林所推测的那样，因为胡图恩和潘泽都没有指出它们是新物种。另一方面，Blume的硬皮面包果被广泛使用，并出现在所有主要的皮果治疗方法中100.2006年，佛罗里达州 泰国10（4）：17. 2011）。相比之下，没有现代的治疗方法面包果树已经采用了美林的方法，而圆形果面包树仍然是一个晦涩的名称，可能适用于知名物种。

不拒绝圆形圆形大厅将坚持优先原则，但也会促进命名上的不稳定性和混乱。由于对名称的使用意见不一，因此即使认为Protologue足以使该名称与硬皮面包果等同的未来作者也可能会被迫效仿Merrill并采用圆角曲霉，即使同意Jarrett的作者继续使用A.僵硬。拒绝圆形Radermachia将消除这种可能性，并提高该物种命名的稳定性。