132 Mr. Brown’s Observations on the 
in both species of Boopis. Another question respecting the lat- 
ter genus is, whether its capitulum be simple, as it certainly is in 
Acicarpha spathulata; or compound, as Jussieu's figure of Boopis 
anthemoides seems to indicate. 3 | 
In the mean time, with the necessary knowledge of structure of 
Acicarpha spathulata only, I shall venture to propose this group 
as a distinct natural family to be placed between Composite and 
Dipsaceæ ; though upon the whole somewhat more nearly ap- 
proaching to Composite. This family, if my conjectures respect- 
ing Calycera and Boopis should be hereafter verified, may be 
called CatycerEem; Acicarpha even as a generic name being 
barely tenable, provided the original species agrees with that 
here described : for on this supposition, M. de Jussieu has mis- 
taken the laciniæ of the perianthium for palez of the receptacle, 
deriving the name of the genus from their form ; and has entirely 
overlooked the real paleæ, which, though they could not have 
suggested this name, may however sanction its being retained, if 
it be not still better to change it to Acicarpa. 
It will be attended with similar advantage to form a separate 
family of [e 
Brunoyia, | 
as a link of equal importance, connecting Composite with Good- 
enoviæ, but from both of which it is in many respects very distinct. 
As I have formerly described this genus, and made several obser- 
vations on its principal affinities*, I shall here only state the 
more important relations and distinctions between it and those 
families to which it appears to me most nearl y to approach. 
Brunonia agrees with Goodenovie in the remarkable indusium 
of the stigma ; in the structure and connexion of the anthere ; in 
* Prodr, Flor, Nov. Holl; p. 589. 
the 
