THE ANNALS 



AND 



MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY 



[SECOND SERIES.] 

 No. 45. SEPTEMBER 1851. 



XV. — Observations on the Affinities of the Olacacese. 

 By John Miers, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S. 



The family of the Olacacece, first proposed by Mirbel, in 1813, 

 under the name of Olacinece, was placed by him near the Auran- 

 tiacece : Jussieu stationed it in proximity with the Sapotacece, 

 while DeCandolle following the views of Mirbel arranged it close 

 to Aurantiacece, a conclusion adopted by most succeeding 

 botanists, and among these Endlicher and Meisner, who dis- 

 posed it with Aurantiacece, Meliacece, Humiriacece, &c, in a class 

 called Hesperides. Brongniart however followed the original 

 views of Mr. Brown, in regard to the affinity of Olax with the 

 Santalacece ; but upon less satisfactory grounds, he associated with 

 these the Loranthacece, excluding at the same time Ximenia from 

 the family. Dr. Lindley in his ' Nixus Plantarum ' and ' Natural 

 System ' offered a new view, by placing it, under the designation 

 of the Olacacece, in the same alliance with the Pittosporacece and 

 Vitacece, for which position few and not very satisfactory reasons 

 could be offered. Mr. Bentham, in an excellent memoir on the 

 Olacinece (Linn. Trans, xviii. 676), proposed a new arrangement 

 of the order into three distinct tribes, adding several new genera, 

 together with his ingenious views in regard to its affinities, when 

 he justly denied its relation with the Aurantiacece, although he 

 admitted its approach to the Humiriacece, considering both these 

 families to be approximate with the Styracece ; and lastly he 

 allowed, that through Opilia and Cansjera, the Olacinece evidently 

 osculate with the Santalacece. Finally, Dr. Lindley (Veg. 

 Kingd. p. 43) repeated his former views, with some modifica- 

 tions, placing it in his alliance of the Berbei-ales, together with 

 Broseracece, Berberidacece, Vitacece, Pittosporacece, &c, an alliance 

 which, as Dr. Asa Gray very justly remarks (Gen. PI. Un. 

 St. i. p. 78), " is there placed on peculiar grounds by no means 

 compatible with ordinary views of botanical affinity." In 

 Ann. fy Mag. N. Hist. Scr. 2. Vol. viii. 11 



