on the Hortus Malabaricus, Part IF. 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 cri.s- 

 pus, which are not applicable to the Perin Kara. In the Species Planturum 

 Linnaeus 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 

 tlie Flora Zeylanka was now added the Ganitrus of Rumphius {Herb. Amh. iii. 

 160. t. 101.), certainly very different from the Perln Kara, and probably from 

 the JVeralu. I think it, indeed, probable that Rumphius described the Perhi 

 Kara by the name of Catiullcan {Herb. Amh. iii. 163.), of which he says, 

 " ossiculum oblongum non excavatum, vel rugosum uti Ganitri, sed glabrum." 

 With these discordant plants M. Lamarck {Enc. Meth. ii. 604.) has joined the 

 Dicera dentata of Forster, which, from the figure that he gives {III. Gen. t. 459. 

 /. 1.), seems abundantly different. The only authority quoted in the Hortus 

 Keivensis (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 Elceocarpus 

 Perincara. I shall here describe its fruit, for by this part alone can the dif- 

 ferent species of Ela^ocarpus be rightly distinguished. 



Drupa acida Olivce majoris similis, supera, glabra, carnosa, subobovata, basi 

 umbilicata. Putanien osseum, suturis tribus spuriis Iseve, oblongum, 

 utrinque attenuatum, paulo incurnim, abortu forte uniloculare, loculo ad 

 unum latus propinquiori, angusto. Semen oblongum, utrinque acutum, 

 non compressum. Perispermum album. Embryo centralis, erectus. 



Manil, seu Manyl Kara, ;;. 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, 

 Comnneline 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 



2 B 2 



