as distinguished from the Symplocaceae. 275 



on account of its superior ovary (Prodr. viii. 245) : this reason 

 is untenable, because in the structure of its ovary it offers no 

 difference whatever from Styrax and Strigilia. I have examined 

 Cijrta carefully, and find that it agrees with Strigilia in the 

 almost coriaceous texture of its petals and in their valvate aesti- 

 vation, in which respects both notably differ from Styraw. 



Owing to the singularly different structure of the fruit and 

 seed in Halesia and Pterostyrax, it appears desirable to restore 

 the tribe HalesiecB. I do not see the propriety of retaining 

 the tribe Pamphilie(S, which differs in no respect from the Sty- 

 racinea, except in having only one or two erect ovules in each 

 placental division : we find in Styrax Japonica also two erect 

 ovules in each cellule ; so that there is no real character to justify 

 the separation of Pamphilia and Foveolaria to form a distinct 

 tribe. It is true that the former has only five stamens ; but the 

 latter, on the other hand, has the same number as Strigilia. 



Hence I propose to divide the Styracece into two tribes, the 

 limits of which may be thus defined : — 



Tribus 1. Styracine^e. Ovarium superum, 1-loculare, im.o 

 breviter 3-septatum; ovula plurima, erecta aut horizontalia. 

 Fructus drupaceus, omnino superus, 1-locularis, pericarpio 

 indehiscente aut 3-valvari. Semen unicum (rarissime 2), 

 testa ossea, raphide infinitissime diviso in telam cottoneam e 

 vasis numerosissimis spiralibus undique sparsis, et hinc cum 

 endodermide solubili. — Genera Styrax, Cyrta, Strigilia, 

 Foveolaria, Pamphilia. 



Tribus 2. Halesieje. Ovarium semisuperum, 1-loculare, imo 

 breviter 4-5-septatum. Fructus inferus, alatus, pericarpio 

 nuciformi indehiscente, centro omnino vacuo, locellis 1-2-3 

 parvis parietalibus osseis 1-spermis. Semen parvum, testa 

 membranacea, raphide simplici ventrali. — Genera Halesia, 

 Pterostyrax. 



Many other genera have been placed in this family by dif- 

 ferent authors, all of which (if we except Cyrta) have been very 

 properly excluded by Prof. A. DeCandolle in his ' Prodromus ' 

 (viii. 245). Among these is Diclidanthera, a genus which has 

 lately been amply elucidated by Prof, von Martins in his ' Flora 

 Brasiliensis' (fasc. xvii. p. 11. tab. 4), who, while placing it there 

 among the Ebenacece, endeavours to show its nearer affinity to- 

 wards Polygalacece. It appears to me to hold a different rela- 

 tionship, as I shall shortly demonstrate in a separate paper on 

 this subject. 



I will now proceed to offer the characters of each genus of 

 this family in the succession above indicated, mostly derived 



18*' 



