192 Dr. Francis HamiLTron’s Commentary 
by Hermann, and through him by Breynius. I cannot however 
say, that I am satisfied with the plant of Plukenet being the 
same with that of Rheede; for the leaves are represented as “‘ob- | 
ovata obtusa" by Plukenet, and as **elliptica acuta" by Rheede ; 
while in the former the stigma scarcely projects from the tube 
of the corolla, and in the latter is almost as long as the limbus. 
Burman however in 1737 (Thes. Zeyl. 126.) called it Jas- 
minum flore tetrapetalo flavo; and along with the Bem Schetti 
quoted Plukenet and his two synonyma, adding moreover the 
Flamma sylvarum of Rumphius, whose work was then in MS., 
and also a W. India plant from Sloane, which was certainly 
quite different. He had thus perhaps four plants included under 
the same name. 
In 1747, Linnæus (Fl. Zeyl. 55.) under the name of /zora 
foliis ovato-lanceolatis took up the Bem Schetti with the synonyma 
of Burman, only he rejected those of Rumphius and Sloane, 
thus freeing himself of two interlopers. Still however, whether 
the plant of Hermann, which Linnæus described, was the Bem 
Schetti or that of Plukenet, remains doubtful. I am inclined to 
think that the latter is the case, because he says admodum ad- 
finis precedenti (i. e. Jasmino flore tetrapetalo Burm. Thes. Zeyl. 
125. t. 57.) et forte sola varietas. Now the figure of Plukenet 
is not very unlike Burman's 57th plate, which has very little 
resemblance to that of the Bem Schetti in the Hortus Malaba- 
ricus. 
In 1750, when Burman published the work of Rumphius, he 
had become sensible of his error in quoting the Flamma sylva- 
rum for the Bem Schetti, and referred it to the Schetti with per- 
haps less accuracy, for the figures of the Bem Schetti and Flamma 
sylvarum are very much alike, much more so indeed than either 
the figure of the Schetti, or that of Burman's Jasminum flore te- 
trapetalo; but the bright red flowers of the Flamma sylvarum 
seem 
