on the Hortus Malabaricus, Fart II. 197 



parentia in propriis suis loculis." Whether or not the C. sqtia- 

 mosa is the same with Ijie C. retusa I cannot say ; M. Lamarck 

 himself doubts it. 



.-^When the Flora Coromanddiana 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 

 Floi^a Zeylanica, and quoting the Hort. Mai. 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 {fVilld. Sp. FL iv. 979-), 

 and scarcely, if at all, different from the Cluytia stipularis (JVilld. 

 Sp. Ft. 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. 



ScHEM Pariti, p. 25. ^g. 17- 

 There can be no doubt of this being the Hibiscus Rosa sinensis 

 of all botanists since the time of Linnaeus. Why he gave it that 

 name is not very evident ; for the plant known by old botanists 

 as the Rosa sinensis is what Linnaeus calls Hibiscus mutabilis. 

 Probably he was misled by a careless inspection of the note by 

 Commeline, respecting the Scliem Fariti, who says, " Procul 

 dubio planta haec est species Roscb sinensis Ferrarii :" but this 

 does not imply more than that it is a species of the same genus. 

 In the Flora Zeylanica (260.) indeed Linnaeus quoted as syno- 

 nymous the Althea arborea, Rosa sinensis, flore multiplici of Her- 

 mann, and considered the application of the term Rosa sinensis to 



2 D 2 the 



