90 MR. D. OLIVER ON THE LORANTHACES. 
Notes on the Lominthacee, with a Synopsis of the Genera. By 
DaxrEL, Orrvife, F.L.S., Professor of Botany, University Col- 
lege, London. 
[ Read January 15, 1863.] 
I wave been engaged for some time upon an examination of the 
Loranthacez; and as it is my intention to continue their study 
chiefly with reference to certain analogies which they present with 
Gnetace:e, I venture to lay before the Linnean Society some notes 
which I have accumulated upon the genera of the Order, which 
may be useful to botanists working them up in further detail. A 
Synopsis of the genera follows these notes. 
I do not enter, at present, upon the relationship which every one 
acknowledges to subsist between the Loranthacex and Santalacez. 
My opinion strongly inclines to their union as subdivisions of one 
Order. Indeed M. Baillon may be right in proposing that both 
Olacinez and Santalaces be united with Loranthacee*. As, how- 
ever, in any arrangement based upon the Candollean sequence it 
would be impossible to arrange these groups consecutively—one 
Thalamifloral, another Calycifloral, and the third Monochlamydeous, 
— I fear we shall be apt to follow the more convenient course and 
keep them apart as hitherto. In the present notice I have omitted 
Myzodendron, which cannot be included in Loranthacez as distinct 
from Santalacez, any more than Henslovia and an Indian leafless 
parasite in Sir W. J. Hooker's herbarium, the name of which is 
uncertain. Mr. Miers's proposal to separate Myzodendron, with 
Viscum and some allied genera, from Loranthus, erecting them 
into a distinct Order, Viscaceet, rests, I believe, chiefly upon 
an incorrect view of the structure of the ovary and fruit in these 
plants. Sinee the recent researches of Hofmeister into the em- 
bryogeny of Loranthus, Viscum, and Lepidocerast, no doubt can 
remain that these are all characterized by a single erect ovule, 
often almost entirely adnate with the wall of the ovary. My own 
observations confirm this view. As is shown by Hofmeister, there 
has been much confusion of embryo-sacs with ovules by observers. 
The plants referred by Korthals to T'upeia with pendulous ovules 
(vide Mr. Miers in Lindl. Veg. Kingd. 791 c) are species of Hens- 
lovia, as stated by Blume$. Mr. Miers describes the embryo of 
Loranthacez, distinguished from Viscaces, as “enclosed in thin, 
almost pellicular albumen, filling the cell, and the fruit as * con- 
* Adansonia, ii. 380. | 
- t Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. viii. 179 ; and Lindley, Veg. Kingd. 791 c. 
f Transl. in Ann. Sc. Nat. 4° scr. xii, 9. $ Mus, Bot, i, 243. 
