96 Dr. Francis HaurrTow's Commentary 
. of the trees) should be supposed to indicate them to be plants 
indigenous to Malabar. Pera was probably corrupted into Pe/a, 
because these trees had a considerable resemblance to that 
which will be next described. 
Plukenet (Alm. 181.) justly considers both the plants of Rheede 
as mere varieties of one species differing in the colour and size 
of the fruit, a distinction that was adopted by Dr. Roxburgh ; 
but Rheede and Linnæus seem rather to have founded the dis- 
tinction on the shape of the fruit, and erroneously held them to 
be distinct species. I may however refer to my Commentary 
on the first volume of the Herbarium Amboinense (p. 140.) for 
what further I have to say concerning these plants. 
Pzrov, p.35 t.36. 
The natives of Malabar call this also Katou Pela; and in fact 
it has a considerable resemblance to the Psidium, as Rheede 
and his commentator observe, although it is more nearly allied 
to the 2nd division of Jussieu's Myrti, especially to the Pirigara 
or Gustavia ; for according to Gærtner (De Sem. ii. 264.) it is 
not yet ascertained that the Pirigara wants the albumen. This 
organ the Pelou decidedly has; and on this account it may be 
doubted if it might not rather be classed with the 2nd division 
of Jussieu's Guaiacane, although its petala are quite distinct. 
Although one of the most common and generally diffused 
trees in India, no notice, so far as I know, was taken of it by 
European botanists until 1800, when I went to Mysore; and on 
my return in 1801 showed it to Dr. Roxburgh, who in the fol- 
lowing year procured plants from Colonel Hardwicke (Hort. 
Beng. 52.), and described it under the name of Careya arborea, 
calling it after the missionary of that name, most justly entitled 
to the honour by his diligence and knowledge of botany, al- 
though I had previously called it Cumbia, and under this name 
gave 
