198 Dr. Francis HAMILTON’s Commentary 
the Hibiscus mutabilis as a vulgar error This quotation from Her- 
mann is however probably erroneous, and owing to a mistake in 
the elder Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 133.), who joins the Rosa sinensis 
of Ferrarius and its synonyma with the Schem Pariti of Rheede, 
and the Flos festalis of Rumphius, and the Wadda ghas of the 
Ceylonese, which are the Hibiscus Rosa sinensis of Linnzeus, by 
Hermann called Malva indica, frutescens, flore pleno, roseo, rubro: 
but this Linnzus did not quote ; because, in order to obtain the 
name Rosa sinensis, he had quoted another plant of the same 
author. : 
Burman, in treating of the same plant, seems to have led 
Linnæus into another error, by quoting the Ketmia sinensis 
fructu subrotundo, flore pleno of Tournefort, as being the same 
with the Schem Pariti ; while it no doubt belongs to the Hibis- 
cus mutabilis of Linnaeus, as M. Lamarck (Enc. Meth. iii. 353.) 
justly observes. - 
It is further to be remarked, that Lane quotes only the 
authors who treat of this plant in its unnatural state of bearing 
double flowers, which is the case with the Schem Pariti: but 
Rheede ( Hort Mal. vi. 73. t. 43.) describes the single-flowered 
plant under the name of Ain Pariti. This was quoted by Bur- 
man, which renders the omission by Linnæus the more remark- 
able: nor did even Lamarck remedy this defect. 
| Willdenow (Sp. PL. iii. 812.) has abandoned the error respect- 
ing Hermann, but retains that respecting Tournefort ; and from 
the carelessness of his printer has introduced Scheru Pariti in 
place of Schem Pariti. 
BELiLLA, p. 97. fig. 18. 
The commentator was unable to compare this with any plant 
known to him; and Plukenet did not advance further. It is 
true, that in the Mantissa (49.) he was inclined to compare it 
with 
