188 Dr. Francis HAMILTON’s Commentary 
the Vitex trifolia, under which name I have sent the plant com- 
mon in India to the Company’s collection. 
SCEETIL i|. fig. 19. 
Commeline considered this plant as unknown to botanists, 
until described by Rheede: but it was soon adopted into the 
system by Breynius, Hermann, and Plukenet,who joined Hermann 
in calling it Jasminum indicum lauri folio inodorum, umbellatum, 
floribus coccineis (Alm. 196. Phyt. t. 59. f. 2.). The elder Bur- 
man (Thes. Zeyl. 125.) to these adds synonyma from Ray and 
the Herbarium Amboinense, then unpublished; but he adds a 
note, that deserves great attention : ** Si vero meam plantam ab 
Hermanno ipso in Zeylona quondam collectam, et ad Breynium 
etiam ab ipso transmissam, examinem, et cum H. Malab. figura 
et descriptione conferam, in quibusdam differre videtur. Nostræ 
enim folia sunt multo longiora, angustiora, acutiora; frequen- 
tiora etiam multo ad surculos proveniunt, interpositis plurimis 
minoribus foliolis, quæ accuratissime omnia in tabula nostra 
(57.) insculpi curavi. Flores Schetti H. Malab. dicuntur in- 
carnati, posteaque dilutiores, flavescentes, cum nostræ plante 
sunt intentissime holoserici, rubri." Now this difference be- 
tween the Schetti and the plant of Durman, Hermann, and Brey- 
nius has not been sufficiently attended to by botanists, although 
I have little doubt that the plants of Rheede and Burman are 
specifically different. While thus we join the synonyma of 
Hermann and Breynius to the plant of Burman, we may leave 
those of Commeline and Plukenet to the plant of Rheede ; only 
it must be remarked, that Durman quotes five different names 
from Hermann, three from the Museum Zeylanicum, one from his 
Paradisi Batavi Prodromus, and one from his Herbarium. 
Whether or not, under these different names, Hermann meant to 
denote 
