MALVACEAE 



359 



Novella of Rumphius was first reduced to Hibiscus tiliaceus 

 Linn, by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 10, Amoen. 

 Acad. 4 (1759) 121, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. PL ed. 2 

 (1763) 976, which disposition of it is certainly correct and which 

 has been accepted by practically all authors. The figure is not 

 good. The form described by Rumphius as Novella reperis is 

 certainly the form of Hibiscus tiliaceus Linn, with procumbent 

 trunks that is very abundant in some localities, while Novella 

 rubra is also manifestly merely a form of the same species. 



HIBISCUS M UTABI LIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 694. 

 Flos horarius Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 27, t. 9. 



This widely cultivated form is not represented in our Am- 

 boina collections. The figure, however, is unmistakably refer- 

 able to Hibiscus mutabilis Linn, and was first reduced to this 

 species by Linnaeus himself, in Stickman Herb. Amb. (1754) 

 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 125, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1149, Sp. 

 PL ed. 2 (1763) 977, in which he has been followed by all authors. 



HIBISCUS SURATTENSIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 696. 



Hibiscus convolvulaceus Hassk. in Abh. Naurf. Gesellsch. Halle 9 



(1866) 216 (Neue Schliissel 74) (type!). 

 Herba crinalium domestica Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 40, t. 16. 

 Herba crinalium silvestris Rumph. 1. c. 41. 



Amboina, near the town of Amboina, Robinson PL Rumph.~ Amb. U96, 

 August 8, 1913, near the beach. 



The original reduction of Herba crinalium to Hibiscus surat- 

 tensis Linn, was made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. Amb. 

 (1754) 15, Amoen. Acad. 4 (1759) 126, Syst. ed. 10 (1759) 1145, 

 Sp. PL ed. 2 (1763) 979, which is certainly the correct disposition 

 of it. This reduction has been followed by all authors. Hass- 

 karl, however, Neue Schliissel (1866) 74, decided that Herba 

 crinalium silvestris represented a distinct species, which he 

 named and described after Rumphius, as Hibiscus convolvulaceus, 

 the publication of which has been overlooked by all authors and 

 is not included in Index Kewensis. I consider this to be merely 

 a form of Hibiscus surattensis Linn, with narrowly lobed leaves. 



HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS Linn. Sp. PI. (1753) 694. 

 Flos festal is Rumph. Herb. Amb. 4: 24, t. 8. 



This reduction was first made by Linnaeus, in Stickman Herb. 

 Amb. (1754) 15, and the figure was consistently cited by Lin- 

 naeus in his subsequent writings; while his reduction, certainly 

 correct, has been followed by all authors. The form figured is 

 the commonly cultivated one with double flowers. The form 



