34 Mr. Brown, on the Proteaceae of Jussieu. 
alone, when occurring in several species, would have determined 
me to separate these plants from Conospermum: but being also ac- 
companied by other remarkable differences, both. of structure 
and appearance, no genus, I apprehend, can be better founded 
than this. 
That the opinion of Christian Knaut and Yeu responi 
the non-existence of naked seeds is correct when anatomically 
considered, there can be no doubt; but the practical utility of 
deviating in this subject from the common language of ‘botanists 
may still be questioned: and accordingly Gertner, who was 
fully aware of the truth of their position, has nevertheless con- 
tinued to describe the seeds of many plants as naked. I con- 
fess however I am inclined to adopt the opposite decision of the 
French botanists, at the head of whom is Richard, who has also 
proposed terms for distinguishing the various species hitherto 
confounded under the name of naked seeds. The fruit of the 
monospermous genera of Proteaces. might probably be with 
advantage referred to that which he has termed dhena ; -but as 
Į am unwilling in the present paper to adopt any term not more 
generally sanctioned and understood than this, I shall content 
myself with calling those nuces, which are either not at all or but 
shghtly compressed and not bordered; and apply the term 
samara to such as are either very much compressed, or with a 
less remarkable compression are surrounded or terminated by a 
membranaceous border: that I regard these distinctions how- 
ever as in some cases of very little importance, may be inferred. 
from this, that my genus Leucadendron includes both these kinds 
of fraitic:ss dr ix: 
The first beers l have to a on she, fruits of. Bax 
teaceæ is, that there is no really bivalvular capsule in the order; 
a truth which was not perceived by Gartner in describing his 
Banksia 
