A NEW TRIBE OF STERCULIACE®. 259 
Schumann has chiefly relied in proposing his natural order Triplo- 
chitonacee are therefore only relative ones. When, on examining 
the gynecium, we further find an arrangement of parts that is 
in complete accord with the corresponding arrangement in 
Sterculia, and a structure of fruit that, in spite of an initial 
differenee in the number of ovules, is identical with the corre- 
sponding structure in Tarrietia, we are induced to believe that in 
T'riplochiton and Mansonia we have to deal with two genera of 
Sterculiacee. 
When we consider the position which these two genera should 
occupy in that order, we find that, having regard to the calyx, 
Triplochiton might be placed in any of the hitherto recognized 
tribes, while Mansonia might be excluded from all. Having 
regard to the corolla, either genus might be placed in auy of the 
tribes except the Sterculiee, while, having regard to the gyne- 
cium and the fruit, Sterculiee is the ouly tribe to which they 
could with propriety be referred. Along with these mutually 
antagonistic features in other whorls, we find in the andreecium 
an arrangement that on the one hand points to the necessity for 
the inclusion of both genera in Sterculiacee, while on the other 
it excludes both from every hitherto recognized tribe. We 
are therefore left with no alternative but the recognition of a 
new tribe to accommodate them. 
A question arises as to the name which this tribe should bear. 
As it is identical with Schumann’s natural order Triplochitonacee, 
the proposed tribe should under ordinary circumstances be kuown 
as the Triplochitonee. But there is an objection to this name 
because there is an objection to Schumann’s name Triplochiton. 
There is another and an older Triplochiton, proposed by Alefeld 
in 1863 for species that are at present relegated to the somewhat 
unwieldy genus Hibiscus. So long as this view holds the field, 
Schumann’s Triplochiton may stand, but if Alefeld's Triplochiton 
should ever be resuscitated, Schumanu's Triplochiton must auto- 
matically disappear. The use of the name Triplochitoneeé for 
a tribe which may at any time be deprived of its Triplochiton 
is at least awkward, and to guard against the contingency it 
seems desirable to employ the name Mansoniee. The use of 
this name has another advantage ; incidentally it emphasizes the 
view that in the group under diseussion we have to deal with 
an entity that is probably not entitled to the taxonomic status 
postulated by Schumann for his order Triplochitonacee. 
LINN. JOURN.—BOTANY, VOL. XXXVII. T 
