on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part II. 197 
parentia in propriis suis loculis." Whether or not the C. squa- 
mosa is the same with the C. retusa I cannot say; M. Lamarck 
himself doubts it. 
When the Flora Coromandeliana of Dr. Roxburgh was pub- 
lished, it was judged proper, on account of the near resemblance 
in sound between Clutia and Clusia, to change the former into 
Cluytia, thus assimilating the word more to the name of the 
botanist after which the genus was called. This change was 
adopted by Willdenow, who, without noticing the Clutia squa- 
mosa, gives us the Clutia retusa with the synonyma as in the 
Flora Zeylanica, and quoting the Hort. Mal. as giving a bad 
figure of his plant. 
After all, the figure of the Scherunam Cottam given by Rheede 
is so very like the Briedelia spinosa (Willd. Sp. Pl. iv. 979.), 
and scarcely, if at all, different from the Cluytia stipularis (Willd. 
Sp. Pl. iv. 883.), that I should have no doubt of considering them 
the same, were it not for the description of the fruit in the text, 
which cannot be reconciled with the idea of its being either a 
|. Cluytia or a Briedelia. 
Scuem PARITI, p. 25. fig. 17. 
There can be no doubt of this being the Hibiscus Rosa sinensis 
of all botanists since the time of Linnzus. Why he gave it that 
name is not very evident; for the plant known by old botanists 
as the Rosa sinensis is what Linnæus calls Hibiscus mutabilis. 
Probably he was misled by a careless inspection of the note by 
Commeline, respecting the Schem Pariti, who says, ** Procul 
dubio planta hec est species Rose sinensis Ferrarii :” but this 
does not imply more than that it is a species of the same genus. 
In the Flora Zeylanica (260.) indeed Linnæus quoted as syno- 
nymous the A/thea arborea, Rosa sinensis, flore multiplici of Her- 
mann, and considered the application of the term Rosa sinensis to 
2p2 the 
