Artocarpus altilis and its synonyms

It seems that the first mention of the breadfruit by Europeans was that of Pedro Fernandez de Quiros, the Portuguese pilot in Mendaña's second voyage through the S Pacific Ocean (1595–1596) (Jarrett 1959b; Maude 1959). In the 16th century, the Spanish undertook several expeditions from Peru into the C Pacific and they were likely responsible for distributing the Polynesian breadfruit into both Micronesia and the Philippines in the 17th century (Jarrett 1959b; Ragone 1997; Zerega & al. 2006).

Among the several pre-Linnaean references (see Jarrett 1959b: 322), one of the most important is Rumphius's Herbarium amboinense, where breadfruit and its close relatives appear as “Soccus Lanosus”, “Soccus granosus” and “Soccus Silvestris” (Rumphius 1741: 110, 112, 114, T. 32, 33, 34). Jarrett (1959b:115) included “Soccus Lanosus” and “Soccus granosus” in the seedless and seeded forms of breadfruit. However, following the current taxonomy and nomenclature, Rumphius's names refer to three different species: “Soccus Lanosus” [= A. altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg] is breadfruit (the seedless type); “Soccus granosus” [= A. camansi Blanco] is seeded breadnut; and “Soccus Silvestris” [= A. horridus F. M. Jarrett] is a wild species of the Moluccas very closely related to breadfruit (Zerega, pers. comm.).

The first Linnaean name of the breadfruit, Sitodium altile Parkinson, was published after the death of Sydney Parkinson by his brother, Stanfield Parkinson, in “Journal of a voyage to the South Seas in H.M.S. Endeavour” (Parkinson 1773: 45–46), in a chapter entitled “Plants of use for food, Medicine & c. in Otaheite”. The species appeared together with the Tahitian name “E ooroo” including a long description with some important characters and general comments on its uses (“… this tree grows to between thirty and forty feet high, has large palmate leaves, of a deep grass green on the upper-side but paler on the under; and bears male and female flowers, which come out single at the bottom or joint of each leaf.”; see  http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ss-jrnl-parkinson-075). In his publication, Stanfield used the scientific names from Sydney's journal. Sydney took the names in his journal from Solander's manuscripts when on board HMS Endeavour (Gooding 2017b) and made the drawings of the natural objects under the direction of Banks and Solander (Parkinson 1773: 36).

In 1776, Johann Reinhold Forster and his son George, the botanists on Cook's second voyage (1772–1775), named the genus Artocarpus (Forster & Forster 1776: 101) and described the species A. communis J. R. Forst. & G. Forst. (l.c.: 102, t. 51–51a–f), disregarding Parkinson's name (Baum 1903; MacCaughey 1917; Steam 1968, 1969). These names first appeared a year previously, in the 1st edition of the Forsters' Characteres generum plantarum (1775), but are not validly published there because this work is fisted among the “opera utique oppressa” (suppressed works) under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (McNeill & al. 2012, hereafter “TCN”; see  http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index.cfm). Also in 1776, the breadfruit was given other names: Radermachia incisa Thunb. (Thunberg 1776: 253) and Rima Sonn. (Sonnerat 1776: 99, t. 57–60). In 1781, the younger Linnaeus transferred Radermachia incisa to Artocarpus, as A. incisus (Thunb.) L. f. (Linnaeus 1782: 411). In the 19th century, the Augustinian friar F. M. Blanco (1778–1845) published his Flora de Filipinas (Blanco 1837), where he described A. rima Blanco (as “Arcthocarpus”) for the plants growing in those islands (Jarrett 1959b). However, this name has been treated as a synonym of A. communis (Jarrett 1959b) or currently of A. altilis (Zerega & al. 2005).

Fosberg (1939: 231) proposed the conservation of Artocarpus against Sitodium Parkinson, because of the continuous use of the former name since 1776, but maintained the priority of the S. altile over A. communis, proposing the new combination A. altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg, the name currently used (see Fosberg 1941, 1960; Dandy Dandy 1967; Berg 2005; Berg & al. 2006; Ragone 2006; Zerega & al. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010; Williams & al. 2017). However, some authors have questioned the validity of Parkinson's name, highlighting deficiencies in the botanical description (Merrill 1954; Jarrett 1959b; St. John 1972; Stone 1974), or have considered that the first acceptable binomial was the name published without a hyphen in the German translation (Parkinson 1774) (see St. John 1972; Stone 1974, 1988). It was likely for the latter reason that Florence (1997: 143) accepted the first valid publication of the name as “Sitodium altile S. C. Parkinson ex Z., Naturforscher (Halle) 4: 244, pl. 2. 1774” (see Degener & Degener 1978), the author “Z” later identified by Pieper (2006) as Friedrich August Zorn von Plobsheim (1711–1789). The name S. altile Parkinson ex Zorn was lectotypified by Florence (1997: 143) with a published illustration reproduced from Parkinson's original watercolour illustration, whereas we lectotypify the name S. altile Parkinson with that original illustration (see below). Because the two types are not the same illustration, the names are heterotypic and therefore homonyms, the later of which is illegitimate under ICN Art. 53.1.

The hyphen in “Sitodium-altile” (Parkinson 1773) was regarded as a orthographic error by Jarrett (1959b: 310). Because Parkinson used a hyphen in all the binomials in this work, we consider it as a typographical device that is not part of the name and can therefore be disregarded for nomenclatural purposes. Jarrett (1959b: 116–117) considered Parkinson's description unscientific and inadequate, and for that reason cited (p. 307) the names Sitodium altile and Artocarpus altilis as “nomina subnuda” and chose A. communis as the validly published name for the breadfruit. However, in our opinion, the description found in Parkinson's protologue is amply adequate for the purposes of ICN Art. 38.1(a) and we therefore consider Parkinson's name to be validly published.

Jarrett (1959b: 307) designated as the lectotype of Artocarpus communis a specimen preserved at BM as “Holotype: without provenance, Forster s.n. (BM); ? isotype, Tahiti (K)”, clearly referring to the sheet now with the barcode  BM000900567. This sheet bears a single leaf, and a duplicate specimen is preserved at K, with the barcode  K000357659 (see Smith 1981).

Regarding the type of Sitodium altile, because Fosberg (1941) did not designate a type when he proposed the combination Artocarpus altilis, Zerega & al. (2005: 611) indicated the same Forster specimen at BM as “lectotype”. However, this “lectotypification” is ineffective according to ICN Art. 7.10 because Forster's specimen at BM cannot be considered part of Parkinson's original material, and any possible correction to a neotype under ICN Art. 9.9 must also be rejected because there exists original material (ICN Art. 9.7 and 9.13). No specimens or illustrations were cited in the protologue by Parkinson, nor were any illustrations published as part of the protologue, but there exist uncited elements that need to be considered.

Among the herbarium material of Artocarpus altilis collected by Banks and Solander on Cook's first voyage, Diment & al. (1987: 157) indicated “2 sheets, 1 — Otaheite, 2 — Otaheite, Huahine, Ulhietea (? syntypes)”. At BM there are two specimens. The first sheet, with barcode BM000752555 (Fig. 1), bears two branches with leaves; it includes a small printed label “Society Islands 1769 / Banks & Solander”, a larger printed label “Plants or / Captain Cook's First Voyage / (H.M.S. Endeavour) / 1768–1771 / Society Islands: Otaheite / 13 April — 1 June 1769 & 4 June — 13 July 1769 / ‘hab. in Otaheite, Huaheine, Ulaietea / reliquisque insulis elevationibus oceani / pacifici’ / Coll. Joseph Banks & Daniel Solander” and a determination label by J. Florence dated 1993. The digital image in Fig. 1 shows an annotation “Tahiti — Banks & Solander (Cook's 1^st Voyage).”, which presumably has been digitally copied from the verso and pasted onto the recto. Berg (1998: 21; 2015: 4) cited this specimen as a syntype “Tahiti, Banks & Solander s.n. (BM!)”. The second sheet, with barcode BM001209950 (Fig. 2), bears two branches with leaves and two separate leaves (all very deeply lobed); it includes a hand-written label “Sitodium altile. Mscr”, a small printed label “Society Islands 1769 / Banks & Solander”, a larger printed label “Plants of / Captain Cook's First Voyage / (H.M.S. Endeavour) / 1768–1771 / Artocarpus communis / Tahiti [and ‘(1769)’ in pencil] / Coll. Joseph Banks & Daniel Solander”, a label indicating that the specimen was sampled for DNA in 2017 and a determination label by J. Florence dated 1993. The digital image in Fig. 2 shows an annotation “Tahiti — Banks and Solander (Cook's 1^st Voyage)”, which presumably has been digitally copied from the verso and pasted onto the recto.

These two specimens at BM, although very different, belong taxonomically to Artocarpus altilis and were undoubtedly collected on Cook's first voyage. Clearly important is that both specimens lack any annotation by Parkinson and neither is linked to any of Parkinson's illustrations (Carter & al. 1981) (see below), and therefore they cannot be considered as original material (ICN Art. 9.3). On the other hand, the term “?syntype” used by Diment & al. (1987: 157) and Berg (1998, 2015) is inappropriate because the specimens were not cited in the protologue (ICN Art. 9.5), and use of the term syntype cannot logically be corrected to lectotype under ICN Art. 9.9. In this sense, Smith (1981: 207) wrote “there may be Tahitian collections of the breadfruit at BM from the first Cook voyage, but it would seem unwarranted to consider any of them a holotype”.

There are, however, unpublished illustrations that are undoubtedly original material for Sitodium atile. While in the Society Islands, Parkinson made 15 sketches and 113 finished watercolours, all preserved at BM (Stearn 1978; Carter & al. 1981; Diment & al. 1987). Among them, there is one finished watercolour of Artocarpus altilis (Fig. 3), depicting a branch with leaves, three infructescences (syncarps) and a male inflorescence, annotated “Sitodium altile. / Sydney Parkinson pinxit 1769” in one hand and “Artocarpus incisa, L. f.” and “Otaheite” in two other hands. From this watercolour, John Frederick Miller made a copy in pen-and-ink wash, which is also at BM, together with  five original pencil sketches by Parkinson, four of which are annotated “Sitodium altile / Otaheite”. The five sketches comprise two drawings of branches with syncarps, one of a branch with male inflorescences, one of a single syncarp in longitudinal and cross-section, and a remarkable study of a single leaf (see Diment & al. 1987: 157–158). At the bottom of one of the sketches of a branch with syncarps, there is the annotation “The leaves dark grass green with pale yellow green veins the underside pale green with prominent veins, the male flower & spatha pale yellow green, the fruit a yellow green.”

Fig. 1.

Specimen of Artocarpus altilis, showing two branches with leaves, collected by Banks & Solander in 1769 in Tahiti, preserved in BM (barcode BM000752555). — Image reproduced with kind permission of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London.

Fig. 2.

Specimen of Artocarpus altilis, showing two branches with three leaves, collected by Banks & Solander in 1769 in Tahiti, preserved in BM (barcode BM001209950). — Image reproduced with kind permission of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London.

The watercolour painting and the five pencil sketches comprise the extant original material of the name Sitodium altile. Fosberg (1960) noted that the type on the name could be selected from these drawings. From among the original material we designate Parkinson's excellent finished watercolour as the lectotype of S. altile. This illustration is very complete and the best original element. Most importantly, it can be identified unambiguously as representing the traditional concept and current use of the name Artocarpus altilis (e.g. Parkinson 1773; Fosberg 1960; Florence 1997; Zerega & al. 2005; Ragone 2006; Berg & al. 2006, 2015).

Sitodium altile Parkinson, J. Voy. South Seas: 45. 1773 [“Sitodium-altile”] = Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 31: 95. 1941. — Lectotype (designated here): Parkinson's watercolour illustration, annotated “Sitodium-altile. / Otaheite / Sydney Parkinson pinxit 1769” and preserved at the Natural History Museum London (Fig. 3).

Artocarpus camansi

The name Artocarpus camansi was published in the first edition of Francisco Manuel Blanco's Flora de Filipinas (Blanco 1837: 670), but he did not cite any gatherings. This species was also included in the second edition of Blanco's work (Blanco 1845: 467). Most of his descriptions were based on fresh material collected by himself or brought to him by other persons, and some descriptions were based on dried specimens received from his various colleagues, but the original material did not survive (Merrill 1918).

With the aim of resolving the problem of the status of Blanco's names, Merrill distributed an exsiccata of 16 sets of “illustrative specimens” for each species that functioned as replacements for the lost original material (Merrill 1918). Many of Blanco's names have been neotypified based on the “illustrative specimens” from Merrill's series Species Blancoanae (Nicolson & Arculus 2001). However, although Merrill (1918: 124) wrote “Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 830” from Manila, Luzon, Philippines as “illustrative specimen” of Artocarpus camansi, this is a gathering consisting of several specimens and could therefore serve only as a “first-step” neotypification according to ICN Art. 9.17, but only if Merrill's statement were considered to be a designation of a type in accordance with ICN Art. 7.10 (see Nicolson & Arculus 2001). Much more recently, Zerega & al. (2005) wrote “NEOTYPE: Manila, Luzon, Philippines, Merrill Species Blancoanae 830, designated by Merrill in Sp. Blanco. 124. 1918 (US!, No. 00904515)”. However, this intended neotypification is ineffective because, in lacking the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent, which is required from 2001 onwards, it is contrary to ICN Art. 7.10. We therefore designate here the same specimen as the neotype of A. camansi.

Artocarpus camansi Blanco, Fl. Filip.: 670. 1837. — Neotype (designated here): [Philippines], Manila, Luzon, Feb 1915, Merrill Species Blancoanae No. 830 (US [barcode  00730771, US catalog no. 904515]!; isoneotype: L [barcode  L0817646]!).

Fig. 3.

Lectotype of Sitodium altile Parkinson (≡ Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg). Finished watercolour by Sydney Parkinson of the breadfruit tree (as Sitodium altile), made at Otaheite (Tahiti) in 1769 during James Cook's first voyage. — Image reproduced with kind permission of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London.