DAEWINIA AKD BARTLINGIA. 177 



w 



South Wales/ described a uew species from the Blue Mountains, 

 which he correctly referred to Eudge's genus Darwinia^ but still 

 without recognizing its Myrtaceous afl&nities, for he placed it 

 tinder Ehamneae. 



J. C. Schauer, in his elaborate monograph of the tribe Cha- 

 maelaucieae of Myrtacese, fully established the generic identity of 

 Hedaroma and Polyzone with Genetyllis^ and their very close 

 connection with Darwinian but still maintained two genera, enu- 

 merating all the western species under Genetyllis, and the two 

 eastern ones under Darwinia. Since then many new species 

 have been added, amongst them several of great beauty ; the heads 

 of flowers enclosed in an involucre of richly-coloured petal-like 

 bracts, which give them a very different aspect from the original 

 Diosma-like plants. These species, three of which have been 

 lately figured in the * Botanical Magazine,' being all western, have 

 been described under Genetyllis. Ferdinand Mueller has also, in 

 his Tragmenta Phytographiae Australise,' i. p. 12, reduced to 

 the same genus one which he had previously proposed under the 

 name of Schuermannia in the Twenty-fifth Volume of the *Lin- 

 ^sea,' p. 387 \ and, from the characters given, it is evidently to 

 Darwinia fascicularis that must be referred a plant which F, 

 Mueller formerly described in detail from a specimen cultivated 

 iu the Melbourne Botanic Garden, under the name oi Cryptostemon 

 ericceus. This description was published by Miquel in the * Neder- 

 landsche Kruidkunde Archiv'; but no specimen appears to have 

 been preserved. We should thus, according to Schauer's views, 

 have one large genus, GenefyUis, presenting great diversity in 

 habit and inflorescence, as well as in calyx, staminodia, Ac, and 

 another older one, Darwinia, of two species only, which are much 

 more closely allied both in habit and in character to correspond- 

 ing species of GeneiylUs than they are to each other. Schauer 

 indeed, in keeping up the two appears to have been much more 

 influenced by geographical than by any other considerations. The 

 characters he gives are at the best theoretical, and, as far as my 

 powers of observation go, purely imaginary. He admits the per- 

 fect identity of the two genera in all but the insertion of th^ 

 staminodia, which indicates, according to him, a diflference in 

 the principle of formation or arrangement in the parts of the 

 flower. The staminodia, he says, in Genetyllis are equally dis- 

 tent from the sepaline and from the petaline stamens (those 

 opposite the sepals and petals respectively), whilst in Darwinia 

 they are nearer to the petaline ones, thus showing that they 

 l>elong to a different series from those of Qenetyllis. I hayft 



. I^WIT. PBGC. — BOTAinr, VOL. IX, ' IT 



