on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part TI. 193 
seem to have been the circumstance that produced this change 
in the synonyma. 
In 1768, the younger Burman, copying Linneus, calls our 
plant Irora alba (Fl. Ind. 34.), not a very proper name had the 
Bem Schetti been meant; for, although Bem implies white or pale, 
the flowers of the Bem Schetti are only “ albicantes et subflavi, 
pede autem quo calyci insidunt (corollæ tubo) nonnihil quoque 
rubescente.” At this time no change was made in the synony- 
ma; nor did Willdenow make any material alteration, as he 
quoted both the Bem Schetti and Plukenet, although he omitted 
Burman and Hermann, and even the Flora Zeylanica of Linneus, 
which he did probably because he considered Rheede as the best 
authority, and his figure has certainly very little resemblance to 
the Irora coccinea, especially as represented by Burman (Thes. 
Zeyl. t. 91.). 
- In 1789, M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. iii. 343.), justly dissatisfied 
with both name and synonyma, under the appellation of Irora 
lanceolata described the Bem Schetti, to which he rejoined the 
Flamma sylvarum, which at any rate has the strongest affinity to 
the plant of Rheede ; although a strong doubt is thrown on their 
identity by the colour of its flowers (qui minii rubentis sunt 
coloris interne, vetustique sunt sanguinei coloris, ita ut in quo- 
vis florum corymbo bini diversi conspiciantur colores, ipsorum- 
que suavirubentis sunt coloris. Herb. Amb. iv. 105.). We scarce- 
ly therefore can consider the Flamma sylvarum as decidedly the 
same with the Bem Schetti, and it is totally different from the 
Jasminum flore tetrapetalo of the elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 125. 
t. 51), with which M. Lamarck joins it, thinking that the Schetti 
was the Irora coccinea, and perceiving that the plant of Burman 
was different. The Trora lanceolata therefore contains probably 
three plants; and, as M. Lamarck besides quotes, although with 
doubt, the Irora alba of Linnæus, if this great botanist meant 
| really 
