192 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



by Hermann, and through him by Breynius. I cannot however 

 say, that I am satisfied with the plant of Plukenet being the 

 same with that of Rheede ; for the leaves are represented as " ob- 

 ovata obtusa" by Plukenet, and as "elliptica acuta" by Rheede ; 

 while in the former the stigma scarcely projects from the tube 

 of the corolla, and in the latter is almost as long as the limbus. 



Burman however in 1737 {Thes. Zeyl. 126.) called it Jus- 

 minum jlore tetrapttalo jlavo ; and along with the Bern Schetti 

 quoted Plukenet and his two synonyma, adding moreover the 

 Flamma sylvarum of Rumphius, whose work was then in MS., 

 and also a W. India plant from Sloane, which was certainly 

 quite different. He had thus perhaps four plants included under 

 the same name. 



In 1747, Linnaeus {Fl. Zeyl. 55.) under the name of Ixora 

 foliis ovato-lanceolatis took up the Bern Schetti with the synonyma 

 of Burman, only he rejected those of Rumphius and Sloane, 

 thus freeing himself of two interlopers. Still however, whether 

 the plant of Hermann, which Linnaeus described, was the Bern 

 Schetti or that of Plukenet, remains doubtful. I am inclined to 

 think that the latter is the case, because he says aclmodum ad- 

 Jinis pracedenti (i. e. Jasmino Jlore tetrapetalo Burm. Thes. Zeyl. 

 125. t. 57.) et forte sola varietas. Now the figure of Plukenet 

 is not very unlike Burman's 57th plate, which has very little 

 resemblance to that of the Bern Schetti in the Hortus Malaba- 

 ricus. 



In 1750, when Burman published the work of Rumphius, he 

 had become sensible of his error in quoting the Flamma sylva- 

 rum for the Bern Schetti, and referred it to the Schetti with per- 

 haps less accuracy, for the figures of the Bern Schetti and Flamma 

 sylvarum are very much alike, much more so indeed than either 

 the figure of the Schetti, or that of Burman's Jasminum Jlore te- 

 trapetalo; but the bright red flowers of the Flamma sylvarum 



seem 



