96 M. ALrnonse De Canpoutr’s Review of 
nating with the lobes of the corolla, so that, as in Primulacece, there remain 
only a number of stamens equal to the lobes of the corolla, and opposite to 
them. In this respect Sapotee are but a regular state of Myrsinec and Pri- 
mulacecee. Without this character of a double or simple verticil of stamens, no 
positive distinction would remain between these orders, as the direction of the 
embryo, erect or transverse, has been shown by Mr. Brown to be of no great 
consequence. 
From Primulacee, the only distinctive character seems to be in the fruit 
not being dehiscent; the habit of the two orders is besides very different, 
Primulacee being herbaceous, and Myrsinee more or less ligneous, some- 
times even forming large trees. There may be also some difference in the 
shape of the grains of pollen. In Primula grandiflora they appear under 
the microscope to be rectangular; in Primula sinensis and Primula Auri- 
cula they are oblong, but with some irregularity, and with a disposition to 
show sometimes angular extremities and a quadrilateral form. In Ardisia 
humilis, anceps, crenulata and cubana, Y saw nothing angular in them ; but they 
are ovoid and very obtuse. In both orders they have no asperities by which 
cohesion takes place. Dr. Martius represents the grains of pollen as really 
round in Cybianthus and Conomorpha (Cyb. laxiflorus, Mart.) ; but I suppose 
they have been observed in water, which makes elliptic grains become round. 
Some difficulty arises from the genus Mesa (Beobotrys) having a great . 
number of seeds, as in many Primulacew, and an inferior ovarium, as in the 
well-known and anomalous genus Saniolus. But this last differs more from 
the true Primulacee than Mesa does from Myrsinee, because it has five small 
filaments alternating with the lobes of the corolla, so as to show the natural 
state of Primulacece and the constant abortion that prevails in them. When 
Dr. Bartling constituted a distinct family of Samolus and Mesa among his 
extensive class of Myrsineæ, where Primulacee are also included, he omitted 
the fact of these five rudiments of stamens existing in Samolus and not in Mesa. 
After all, were Samolus an extensive genus, and not limited to a few species 
only, it would have been considered worthy of forming a distinct order, inter- 
mediate, as Myrsinew, between Sapotee and Primulacew. At present, the best 
classification, I suppose, is to include among Myrsinee the tribe of Mesee, 
and in Primulacee that of Samolec. 
