184 Mr. J. Miers on the Calyceracese. 



distance from Calyceracece in the system. Very similar reasons 

 may be adduced in objection to the alliance of this family with 

 the Primulacece and Plantaginacece*. 



Bearing in view the very numerous features of analogous 

 structure in the Calyceracece and Composite, notwithstanding 

 the difference in position of the ovule and seed, we must con- 

 clude that a very close affinity exists between these two families. 

 So intimate, indeed, is this relationship, that should any new 

 system of arrangement be proposed, whether it be linear or 

 circular, which should compel their becoming parted among 

 separate groups on account of the different structure of their 

 carpels, they will naturally take positions that will still touch 

 one another. 



Conspectus generum. 



a. Lobi calycini imo amplexi et concavi. 



a. Lobi rotundati incrassati. Capitula magna, 

 subscaposa. Receptaculum magnum, carno- 



sum. Involucrum polyphyllum 1. Nastanthus. 



aa. Palese inter se accretae ; lobi obovati integri. 

 Capitula minora et subscaposa. Involucrum 



polyphyllum 2. Gamocarpha. 



aaa. Palese omnino libera?. Involucrum gamo- 

 phyllum. 

 * Lobi lanceolati, scariosi, denticulati. Achse- 



nia consimilia 3. Boons. 



** Lobi oblongi, aris'cati, in nonnullis immu- 

 tati, parvi, in aliis demum excrescentes et 

 spiniformes. Achaenia hinc dissimilia ... 4. Anomocarpus. 



b. Lobi calycini subplani et fere subulati, demum 

 elongati et spiniformes. 



b. Achaenia libera. Receptaculum magnum, latum 



et depressum 5. Calycera. 



bb. Achaenia saepius agglutinati. Receptaculum 



parvum, saepius cylindricum 6. Acicarpha. 



1. Nastanthus. 



In my last journey over the lofty range of the Cordillera of 

 Chile, in 1825, I noticed a very singular plant, of which I then 

 made detailed drawings; these, together with others of much 

 interest, I showed to several botanists during my visit to London 

 in that year : the plant alluded to is the Calycera Andina men- 

 tioned in my ' Travels/ ii. p. 531 . On my return to England 

 in 1838, 1 proposed it as a new genus, under the name of Nast- 

 anthus, which genus was adopted by Prof. Lindley in his c Ve- 



* If anything were wanting to show the little practical value of the affini- 

 ties thus suggested, we have before us the results of two systematists who, 

 starting upon almost identically the same basis, have arrived at conclusions 

 nearly diametrically opposed to each other, and at variance with the esta- 

 blished views of relationship universally acknowledged by botanists. 



