182 Dr. Francis Hamilton's Commentary 



in his observation is so convinced of their identity, that he copies the descrip- 

 tion of the Manil Kara in order to complete the defective account given by 

 Rumphius. Willdenow, however, justly separates the plants of Rumphius 

 and Rheede, calling the former Mimusops Kauki (Sp. PL ii. 326.), and the 

 latter Achras dissecta (Sp. PL ii. 223.), which Willdenow says is the same 

 with the A. Balata of Aublet. 



The Manyl Kara by M. Poiret {Enc. Mdth. iv. 434.) was called Imhricaria 

 Malaharica ; but he remarked, that the genus Imhricaria of Commerson could 

 scarcely be considered as distinct from Mimusops. Afterwards {Enc. M^th. 

 vi. 530.) he found that the Manyl Kara is not different from the Achras dis- 

 secta of Willdenow, and the A. Balata of Aublet ; but he prefers the name 

 given by the latter. In Gangetic India I have found near towns, and probably 

 exotic, what I take to be the Manil Kara, and have given a dried specimen to 

 the library at the India House. This tree is called Kshirni in the Bengalese 

 dialect ; and Dr. Roxburgh says that the Kshirni is the Mimusops Kauki 

 {Hort. Beng. 25.), but he does not quote the Hortus Malabariciis. Unless 

 there be here some mistake, the Mimusops Kauki of Dr. Roxburgh is not that 

 of Linnaeus, but the Achras dissecta, which is in fact a Mimusops. It is true 

 that Mr. R. Brown (Nov. Holl. i. 531.) considers the Mimusops hexandra of 

 Dr. Roxburgh as scarcely different from the Achras dissecta ; but in the Hor- 

 tus Bengalensis we have both a Mimusops Kauki and a M. hexandra, and this 

 leads to a suspicion of there being some mistake about the Kshirni. Perhaps 

 the plant that was so called to me may have been the M. hexandra of Dr. Rox- 

 burgh, and the name Kshirni may be applicable to both species. At any rate 

 the Manil Kara cannot be the M. Kauki of Linnaeus, if that has eight stamina, 

 as Mr. Brown seems to suppose. 



I must here observe, that concerning the genus Mimusops there seems to be 

 a fatality of confusion ; as Burman (Thes. Zeyl. 133.) for the Kauken Indorum 

 quotes the Elenzi of the Hortus Malabaricus, and Herman, (Mus. Zeyl. p. 33.), 

 and says that it is the Murumal of the Ceylonese ; while Linnaeus in the Flora 

 Zeylanica (137, 138.) says that both species of Mimusops are called by the 

 Ceylonese Munamul, or Manghunamul, and quotes p. 23. of Herman for the 

 Kauken of Burman. 



