2 



MB. G. BEJSTHAM OK THE 



count proposed to separate ; and the union of Lobeliaceae with 

 Campanulacese, often proposed and rarely distinctly objected 

 to, appears to me to be a most natural one, as I shall presently 

 endeavour to show. 



With regard to Stylidiese, having so recently worked them up 

 for the Australian Flora, I have now no remarks to make with 

 regard to the genera Stylidium and Levenhoolcia, almost exclu- 

 sively Australian, and constituting the great bulk of the order. 



I would only observe, as to the two small southern genera {Fors- 

 tera and Fhyllachne), that they were very well distinguished by 

 Swartz in Schrader's Journal for 1799, and in the first volume of 

 Konig and Sims's * Annals of Botany.' Willdenow and, after him, 

 Endlicher and De Candolle united them under the name of Forstera. 

 F. Mueller in a recent number of his c Fragmenta ' adopts the 

 same view, but proposes to substitute the name of Phyllachne for 

 the generally received one of Forstera. In the * Flora Austra- 

 liensis ' I had only to deal with a true Forstera, which I entered 

 under that name. Dr. Hooker, for his series of Southern Floras, 

 had to examine them both ; but not having before him the fruit 

 of the typical Phyllachne, he presumed that his predecessors were 

 right in treating it as the same as that of Forstera, and main- 

 tained the two only as sections of one genus ; but having received 

 from New Zealand a new species with the habit of his section 



with 



For 



Hera, he therefore proposed it as a new genus under the 

 name of Holophyllum. It is now, however, shown, both by spe- 

 cimens and by Hombron and Jaquinot's figures (under Forstera), 

 that the original Phyllachne has not only the habit and inflores- 

 cence, but also the indehiscent fruit of Holophyllum, and forms 



with it a generic group which Swartz was fully justified in distin- 

 guishing from Forstera. 



Goodenovie m, as the order was originally named by its founder, 

 Robert Brown, or Goodeniacece, as they are styled by the modern 

 advocates of monotony in the names of orders, are, as well as 

 StylideaB, almost exclusively Australian, and are worked up in de- 

 tail in my Flora. On that occasion, having at my disposal a large 

 proportion of original specimens described by De Vriese, I was 

 fortunately enabled to clear up much of the extraordinary confu- 

 sion exhibited in that botanist's monograph. I also there gave my 

 reasons for following Brown in including JBrunonia in the order, 

 which, notwithstanding the anomalies of this monotypic genus, is 



