Y” 
81 
mistake (?) that probably originated in De Beauvois' descrip- 
tion of them ** Semina in pulpä carnosä nidulantia." Finally, 
I myself, feeling that these could not be its true affinities, 
placed it in the Campanul alliance, with marks of great doubt. 
It is obvious, from the foregoing description, that Napo- 
leona has nothing to do with any of the orders to which it 
has been referred. From Cucurbitacee it differs utterly in 
its hermaphrodite flowers, axile placentation, highly developed 
corola, and whole habit; it has in fact no resemblance to 
that order. Passifloracex seem at first sight to claim a much 
nearer relationship ; because of the triple-rowed corolla of 
Napoleona, which much resembles the coronet of a Passion- 
flower; but there the resemblance ceases. The tendrils, parietal 
placentze, free ovary, distinct styles, polypetalous corolla, 1m- 
bricated calyx of Passifloracew, are all most essentially at 
variance with the genus. Symplocacez were a far better 
guess, for the monopetalous corolla, indefinite. epipetalous 
stamens, axile placentze, adherent calyx, and definite seeds of 
Napoleona find there a parallel; but the ovary of that genus 
is wholly adherent, with a great epigynous disk, the calyx is 
valvate, and the seeds have no albumen, to say nothing of the 
lacerated condition of the corolla, which is not to be wholly 
disregarded in a consideration of this kind. 
'To me it appears that the true affinity is in the neigh- 
bourhood of the Mangroves (Rhizophoracez); for the follow- 
ing reasons. The ovary is in both inferior, few-seeded, with 
axile placente ; both have a coriaceous valvate calyx; both 
have large amygdaloid seeds without albumen. The placenta 
of Kandelia is almost the same as that of Napoleona, and in 
the former genus the petals are broken up into numerous 
fringes quite analogous to those of the genus in question. To 
this may be added the great resemblance that exists between 
the wood of Napoleona and of young Rhizophora, in conse- 
quence of both consisting in part of slender acicular tubes, 
which give the wood, when broken across, the appearance of 
containing slender bristles. Finally, the ribbing, which is so 
conspicuous in the outer corolla of Napoleona, is repeated in 
the calyx of Bruguiera gymnorhiza. It is true that the one 
genus is monopetalous and the other polypetalous, but I cannot 
attribute much importance to that character 1n a case where 
the stamens adhere so slightly to the corolla. 
While, however, there is this reason to believe that Rhizo- 
