222 Dr. Francis HauirTON's Commentary 
the mean time, it seems rather doubtful whether the terms fortu- 
natum and infortunatum have been correctly applied by Lin- 
neus. At any rate, as they originated in some silly superstition, 
they might be as well abandoned. 
What is of more importance to my subject is, that the younger 
Burman seems to throw a doubt on the identity of the Peragu 
with the Clerodendrum infortunatum of Linnæus by observing, 
that the former has alternate leaves; and so it appears in the 
figure, with a view of which Burman as usual contented himself ; 
for in the text it is said, “ folia bina et bina proveniunt;" so 
that the appearance in the figure has arisen from a neglect of the 
draughtsman. 
But, further, I have already said, that the Clerodendrum folio 
lato et acuminato of the elder Burman is different from the Pe- 
ragu; and which of these Linnzus really meant by his C. infor- 
tunatum I cannot determine. ‘The difference, however, became 
so obvious, that Willdenow (Sp. PI. iii. 386.) makes them distinct 
varieties, which in uncultivated plants is nearly the same with 
distinct species, implying merely two plants, that have a very 
strong resemblance, although in some points they are not entirely 
similar. 
Willdenow, however, respecting the Peragu, committed a great 
error in quoting as the same the Petasites agrestis of Rumphius 
( Herb. Amb. iv. 102. t. 49.), which has indented leaves. Willde- 
now thus under the term C. infortunatum comprehends three 
distinct plants, and the same is done by Gærtner ( De Sem. i.271.). 
Which of the three each author actually meant I cannot exactly 
say. It is indeed clear, that Gærtner did not mean the Peragu, 
because he represents the calyx of the fruit as not quite so long 
as the berry, to which it closely adheres ; while in the Peragu it 
is much longer than the berry, and spreads out to a distance. He 
probably, therefore, meant the Clerodendron of the elder Burman. 
M. Poiret 
