44 APPENDIX. 



nut, and of course to the liilum, or place of its attacliment to 

 the gynohase. This forms another essential and constant dif- 

 ference between the two families. There is still one more mate- 

 rial distinction in the structure of the pistillum arising out of 

 the circumstances just mentioned. In the Solanace(2, we always 

 meet with numerous ovules in each cell^ all attached to the pla- 

 centae springing from the dissepiment; in the Nolanacece^ a single 

 ovule only exists in each cell^ and this is constantly erect and of 

 basal origin. 



Schlechtendal in 1832 (Linnsea, vii. 72) pointed out the ana- 



Nolana 



greater 

 5 fruit a 



of its corolla ; but as a justification for those who might prefer 

 placing it in Solanace^B, it was argued by that able botanist, if 

 the genus Lycium, which diflFers from other genera of this last- 

 mentioned family in the sestivation of its corolla (the only ex- 

 ceptional case at that time known), be retained in this order 



Nolana 



WQ^rs 



ditterent structure of its fruit. Dr. Lindley, 

 who first proposed this order in 1833, placed it near the Convol- 

 vulacece. G. Don (1837) was I believe the first who decidedly 

 associated the Nolanacece as a tribe of the Solanace^s (Diet. iv. 

 399), but he ofi'ered no reasons for this union. Endlicher in his 

 ' Genera Plantarum ^ followed the views of Dr. Lindley, in at- 

 taching this group as a suborder of the Convolvulacece. Brongniart 

 (1843) adopted the same views in regard to the affinity of the 

 Nolanacece. A. de Jussieu (1844, Cours Elementaire) equally 

 confirmed the ideas of the before-mentioned botanists, in placin"- 

 the Nolanacece in contiguity with the Dichondre<e^ between the 

 Borraginacece and Convolvulac€£E. In 1845 I adduced many facts 

 and several additional reasons, why the Nolanaceije should be placed 

 in the system following the Borraginacece {Lo. Jo. Boi, iv. 366 

 et huj. op. i. 46), which position was confirmed in the following year 

 under the arrangement given by Prof. Lindley (Veg. Kingd. 654), 

 where this order is placed in his Echial alliance with the Borra- 

 yinaceiBy Lahiatoi and others. The views of so experienced a 

 botanist as M. Dunal must ever be received with respect, and 

 will claim support from the mere prestige of his name, as well 

 as from the high reputation of the great work to which he has 

 contributed this important monograph ; but we may be allowed 

 to doubt the propriety of his determination, in placing the Nola- 

 naceie, as a tribe of the Solanacece, without refuting the reasons 

 urged by so many botanists against the justness of this arrange- 

 ment, or offering any arguments in favour of such an alliance. 

 This classification may have originated in the too eager desire 



