Why did boeing start the 787 program with the -300,-800, and -900. Not like other aircraft with -100, -200, and -300?

>Why did boeing start the 787 program with the -300,-800, and>-900. Not like other aircraft with -100, -200, and -300?I think I read somewhere, where -100 and -200 were initially proposed variants, and the first version to survive the design/study process was the -300.Personally I think they should have made the -300 the -100 and finalized their numbering scheme *then* as opposed to before they had done their market studies and so forth.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

The A380 started this trend, Airbus marketing bunf at the time explained that the decision to call the base model the -800 was to signify an already mature product. Where as an A380-100 would imply it's a basis for development with room for improvment, an A380-800 suggests it's already as good as it's going to get.Boeing caught on and followed suit with the 787, and Airbus continued with the pattern with the A350.

Also 8 is a lucky number in asia an area with some very high superstitions.