on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 189 
denote the same plant, I cannot say, not having it in my power 
to consult his works; but the plant contained in his Herbarium 
is no doubt the one which Burman described. But of this more 
afterwards. 
It is further to be remarked, that Linnæus in his Flora Zeyla- 
nica (p. 54.) quotes the Prodromus of Hermann alone as de- 
scribing the same plant with the ScAetti, and omits the other 
names given by that author, considering them as not applicable; 
but he adds the Ratabala (Red Bala) as the Ceylonese name, 
which no doubt belongs to the plant of Burman, although it pro- 
bably may be applicable to any Irora with a red flower; for 
Rata, corrupted from Rukta of the Sanscrit, implies this colour. 
At any rate, Linnæus under the denomination of Irora foliis 
ovalibus semiamplexicaulibus comprehended at least two plants, 
the Schetti of Rheede and the Jasminum flore tetrapetalo of 
Burman. 
Burman the elder, when he published his Thesaurus Zeylanicus, 
had quoted for his Jasminum flore tetrapetalo the Flamma sylva- 
rum peregrina of the Herbarium Amboinense (iv. 107, t. A7.) ; 
but when he came to publish this work, he perceived that this 
quotation could not be sustained, and therefore transferred his 
Jasminum flore tetrapetalo to the Flamma sylvarum of Rumphius 
(Herb. Amb. iv. 105. t. 46.), a quite different species from the 
Flamma syloarum peregrina, and still more different from the 
Schetti. 
The younger Burman (Fl. Ind. 34.), imitating the Species 
Plantarum of Linnæus, bestowed on the Irora of the Flora Zey- 
lanica the name Irora coccinea, to which he annexed the syno- 
nyma of his father and Plukenet, together with the Flamma 
sylvarum, and the Schetti, thus including certainly two species. 
He indeed omitted all the synonyma of Hermann and Ray quoted 
by his father ; but he added a new plant from Plukenet (Mant. 
203 20. 
