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 TVadda ghas of the 

 Ceylonese, which are the Hibiscus Rosa sinensis of Linnaeus, by 

 Hermann called Malva indica,Jrutescens,Jlore pkfio, roseo, rubro : 

 but this Linnaeus 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 

 Linnaeus into another error, by quoting the Ketmia sinensis 

 fructu subrotundo, Jlore 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 Linnaeus 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 Mai. 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 Linnaeus the more remark- 

 able : nor did even Lamarck remedy this defect. 



Willdenow (Sp. PL iii. 813.) has abandoned the error respect- 

 ing Hermann, but retains that respecting Tournefort ; and from 

 the carelessness of his printer has introduced Schem Pariti in 

 place of Schem Pariti. 



Belilla, p. 27- fig' 18. 

 The commentator was unable to compare this with any plant 

 knoAvn to him ; and Plukenet did not advance further. It is 

 true, that in the Mantissa (49.) he was inclined to compare it 



with 



