OF THE GENUS ACTINIDIA. 397 
were placed by their authors, Несе] * and Gardner f, under the generic names 
of Kalomikta and Пераса, in “Tiliace: æ, an allied natural order, but one 
from which the characters of the embryo would, if they had been known, at 
once have separated them. Planchon ў, in his discussion of the affinities of 
the Cochlospermeæ, added a further argument in favour of Lindley's opinion 
as to the systematic position of Actinidia by drawing attention to the similarity 
in the peduncles of that genus with those of many "Dilleniacez. 
The next contribution to the subject was made by Bentham in 1861 in this 
Journal $, where, in discussing the genera which could most naturally be 
placed together under the name of Ternstræmiaceæ, he pointed out that 
Saurauja and Actinidia could not be separated. While admitting the close 
relationship of the latter with Dilleniaceæ, and especially with Dillenia, he held 
that its anthers and seeds, and its close connection with aurauja, Which, 
though bearing a remarkable superficial resemblance to Dillenia, is widely 
divergent in floral structure, are sufficient to exclude it from that natural 
order. He therefore followed Endlicher in placing Actinidia and Saurauja 
together under the Ternstræmiaceous tribe Sauraujeæ, and. this arrangement 
was followed in the first volume of Bentham and Hooker’s ‘Genera 
Plantarum || which appeared in the following year. А few years later 
ЗаШоп was commencing a critical review of the Polypetalæ for his * Histoire 
des Plantes,’ and in dealing with the Dilleniaceæ included Actinidia є on the 
sole ground of the close similarity of its floral structure to that of Dillenia. 
Among the seven characters upon the great frequency of which throughout 
the Dilleniaceæ ВаШоп relies for the coherence of that Natural Order, as 
understood by him, there are only two which are not common to the 
Ternstræmiaceæ—these are the independence of the carpels and the presence of 
an aril; and when we remember that in these two respects Actinidia is at 
variance with the Dilleniaceæ while in agreement with Ternstroemiacer, it is 
difficult to understand Baillon’s attitude in the matter. At all events most 
botanists who had to deal with our genus up to the date of the publication of 
Engler and Prantl’s ‘ Pflanzenfamilien? seem to have been in agreement 
with Bentham. Maximowiez, however, in describing ** an Actinidia collected 
by Potanin in North-west China in 1885, remarked that the disagreement of 
eminent authorities as to the systematic position of the genus left him in such 
doubt that he preferred to be guided by the anatomical character furnished 
by the presence of raphides in the cells of Actinidia, which thus resembles 
many Dillemaceæ while differing from Ternstreemiaces. In the same number 
of the * Acta,’ however, he transferred Clematoclethra, which was at that time 
* Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. Pétersb. xv. (1857) 219. 
+ Hookers Kew Journ. i. (1849) 298. i London Journ. Bot. у. (1847) 302. 
$ Bot. vol. v. p. 54. || Page 184. © Vol. i p. 114. | 
жж Acta Hort. Petrop. xi. (1890) 34. 
