on the Hortus Malabarieus, Part IV. 181 
Kara being the same plant. In fact, however, he meant to describe the plant 
of Herman, because in the generic character he uses the words nucleus cris- 
pus, which are not applicable to the Perin Kara. In the Species Plantarum 
Linnzeus gave the specific name serrata, which has been adopted by Burman — 
(Fl. Ind. 120.) and Willdenow (Sp. Pl. ii. 1169.) ; and to the synonyma in 
the Flora Zeylanica was now added the Ganitrus of Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iii. 
160. ¢. 101.), certainly very different from the Perin Kara, and probably from 
the Weralu. I think it, indeed, probable that Rumphius described the Perin 
Kara by the name of Catiulican (Herb. Amb. iii. 163.), of which he says, 
* ossiculum oblongum non excavatum, vel rugosum uti Ganitri, sed glabrum." 
With these discordant plants M. Lamarck (Enc. Méth. ii. 604.) has joined the 
Dicera dentata of Forster, which, from the figure that he gives (IUl. Gen. t. 459. 
Ff. 1.), seems abundantly different. The only authority quoted in the Hortus 
Kewensis (iii. 301.) is the Thesaurus Zeylanicus ; but the plant described in this 
being different from the Perin Kara in the collection of dried specimens pre- 
sented to the library at the India House, I have called the latter Elæocarpus 
Perincara. I shall here describe its fruit, for by this part alone can the dif- 
ferent species of Elæocarpus be rightly distinguished. 
i 
Drupa acida Olive majoris similis, supera, glabra, carnosa, subobovata, basi 
umbilicata. Putamen osseum, suturis tribus spuriis leve, oblongum, 
utrinque attenuatum, paulo incurvum, abortu forte uniloculare, loculo ad 
unum latus propinquiori, angusto. Semen oblongum, utrinque acutum, 
non compressum.  Perispermum album. Embryo centralis, erectus. 
ManiL, seu Manyu Kara, p. 53. tab. 25. 
Here is another species of the unnatural Malabar genus Kara, or Gale. All 
the names used in Malabar allude to its having been introduced from Manilla 
or China, into which, again, it may have been introduced by the Spaniards 
from America. On account of its having been thus imported from China, 
Commeline carelessly compares it to the Pruno similis fructus Chinensis of 
C. Bauhin, and to the Lechya of the Chinese. 
Rumphius (Herb. Amb. iii. 20.), while he corrects the errors of Commeline, 
confounds the Manil Kara with his Metrosideros macassariensis ; and Burman 
2B2 
