498 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



Plukenet (Aim. 240.) says that he received a specimen from 

 Jamaica. If actually of the same species, the plant had proba- 

 bly been brought from India ; but nearly similar plants are 

 often mistaken for each other, and these mistakes lead to an opi- 

 nion of plants extending much further than in reality is the case. 

 Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 45.) indeed quotes a plant of Sloane as sy- 

 nonymous with the Velutta Mandaru ; but this was probably 

 what Plukenet saw. These two authors, however, should be 

 added to the synonyma in Willdenow ; especially Burman, who 

 gives a description. His synonyma respecting the Thomaa ar- 

 bor must be received with caution ; as this name is said to be 

 derived from the flower having been stained red with this saint's 

 blood : but there is no red about the flower of the Velutta Man- 

 daru. The following; are the most remarkable of its characters: 



Folia sinu parvo cordata, apice biloba, lobis semiovatis saepins 

 acutiusculis. Calyx acutus, uno latere dehiscens, reflexus. 

 Petala undique patentia, obtusa, Filament a decern fertilia, 

 basi coalita, alterna breviora, declinata. Stamina minime 

 diadelpha, ut voluit Linnaeus. . 



Canschena Feu, p. 63. Jig. 35. 



Since the time of Linnaeus, botanists agree in calling this 

 plant the Bauhinia tomentosa, a most improper appellation ; as, 

 when the foliage is fully grown, it is nearly destitute of hairiness. 

 The description in Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 44.) shows clearly that 

 this is the plant which he meant, and is good ; but here also we 

 must receive with doubt, or rather altogether reject, the syno- 

 nyma referring to the Arbor sancti Thoma, in cujusfloribus appa- 

 rent sanguinecE stria, ab effuso sanguine F>. Thomce enatai, which, 

 I agree with Plukenet, should be entirely referred to the Bauhi- 

 nia variegata. Plukenet (Aim. 240.) considers his Mandaru 



quart a 



