FLORA VITIENSIS. 99 
ship of Balanophoree with other Natural Orders, Bartling seems to have taken a comprehensive view 
of it, though the material at his command must have been scanty. He regarded Zalanophoree, Rafflesia- 
cee, Aristolochiee, Cytinee, and Taecee as forming a closely united class (into which he was inclined to 
admit even Nepenthes as a distinct Order). This class he termed Aristolochiee, and grouped it amongst his 
Chlamydoblasta, a division of Dicotyledons, including Piperacea, ete., now broken up. To this day none of 
the leading botanists have adopted Bartling’s view in its entirety; but hardly any one of them has not 
furnished proofs of its general correctness. Endlicher kept Balanophoree, Cytinee, and Rafflesiacee 
together in his Class Rhizanthee, and associated Aristolochiee with Nepenthee in his Class Serpentarie ; 
but he did not allow Tuccee to have any relationship with Aristolochiee. Meisner and Lindley (Veg. King- 
dom) adopted Endlicher's views. A.. Brongniart, again, showed a greater leaning towards Bartling's 
opinion, grouping together in his Class Asarinee, Balanophoree, Hafflesiacee, Cytinee, Nepenthee, and 
Aristolochiee, whilst retaining Tacca amongst Monocotyledons. Grisebach (Grundriss der Syst. Bot. 1854) 
associated <Aristolochiee with Cytinee (including Rafflesiacee), placed Balanophoree in their immediate 
neighbourhood, though in a different Class (nixus), referred Nepenthee to the neighbourhood of Dro- 
seracee and Sarracemacee, and incorporated Taccee with the Liliaceae. J. G. Agardh (Theoria) supported 
to a great extent Bartling’s view of the relationship of Zaccee, Aristolochiee, Cytinee, Rafflesiacee, and 
Balanophoree. J. Hooker and Bentham (Gen. Plantarum) have not yet dealt with this group of plants; 
though, as they have passed Zaloragee, and not inserted Balanophoree and their allies near them, they 
will probably place them at the end of the Incomplete. The relationship between Taccee and Aristo- 
lochiee was suggested long ago by Brown and Blume; and the objection, that Tacca has no cotyle- 
dons, and can therefore not be placed in Dicotyledons, is removed when we remember that Orobanche has 
always been admitted amongst Monopetala, although it has no cotyledons. I would therefore urge the 
adoption of Bartling's Class Aristolochiee to include Balanophoree, Oytinee, Rafflesiacee, Nepenthea,* 
and Aristolochiee proper. The chief objection formerly entertained to a closer union of Nepenthee with 
their superior ovary, and Aristolochiee with their inferior ovary, is in a measure removed by our knowing 
that the Ceratasarum section of Asarum (Heterotropa, A. Gray) has a semi-inferior, almost superior ovary. 
Granting that the Orders just mentioned are natural allies, the question arrives near what other 
Orders should they be placed in the system. Duchartre, who lately worked up the Aristolochiee for De 
Candolle’s ‘ Prodromus, is silent on this point. Klotzsch, in his paper on “ Aristolochiee”’ (Proceedings 
of the Berlin Academy, 1859) assigns to the Aristolochiea, Nepenthee, Oytinee, and the genuine Raflesia- 
cee a place near Cucurbitacez (Taccee he does not take into consideration), and from that opinion I am not 
inclined to dissent. 
1. Balanophora, Forst. Char. Gen. t. 50; Hook. fil. in Linn. Trans. vol. xxii. p. 30. Fl. d: 
Perianthium 3-6-phyllum. Stamina connata; anthere extrorse. Fl. 9: Perianthium O. Stylus 
l. Pistilla bracteolis clavatis intermixta v. pedicellis bractearum inserta.—Rhizoma tuberosum v. 
ramosum; pedunculis nudis v. squamosis, capitulis 1- v. 2-sexualibus; floribus 1-sexualibus.—Cy- 
nopsole, Endl. Gen. n. 718.  Cynomorium, Willd. Spec. vol. v. p. 177.  Acroblastum, Sol. Prim. Fl. 
Ins. Pacif. p. 310 (ined.). 
1. B. fungosa, Forst. Char. Gen. t. 50; Prodr. n. 333; Icon. (ined.) t. 253; Rich. Élém. de 
Bot. (1833), t. 15; Hook. in Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 46. t. 8; flavo-albida; rhizomate tube- 
roso lobato granulato; pedunculi squamis alternis v. imbricatis; capitulis bisexualibus ovoideis sub- 
globosisve; antheris 3-6 bilocularibus.—Cynomorium australe, Willd. Spec. Plant. vol. v. p. 177. 
Acroblastum pallens, Sol. Fl. Ins. Pacif. p. 310, et in Parkins. Drawings of Tahit. Plants, t. 91 
(ined.).—Moala, up a small brook (Milne). Also found in Tana, New Hebrides (W. Anderson! in 
Mus. Brit.), in the Society Islands (according to Solander's notes and Parkinson's drawing), and the - 
east coast of New Holland (M‘Gillivray!). — . i 
Milne, in Captain Denham's Expedition, gathered a Balanophora on Moala (see Hooker's Kew Misc. 
vol. vii. p. 152), whieh, however, does not seem to have reached the Kew Museum, where most of Milne's 
specimens were sent; and I myself did not see Balanophora fungosa in Fiji, but at the proper season the 
plant, a pale-yellow parasite, is doubtless not rare, growing as it does on the widely-diffused Hibiscus tilia- 
* The only representative of this singular Order in Polynesia is Nepenthes Bongso, Korth., found by 
M*Gillivray in swampy spots near running streams in the Isle of Pines, off New Caledonia, and by Strange 
in New Caledonia itself, according to specimens preserved at the British Museum. I believe these loca. 
lities are the most southern as yet recorded of any Nepenthes. | 
: o2 
