APPENDIX. 



65 



as they seem to bring together the several well-marked groups, 

 and with all their defects to oflFer to a great extent a consistency 

 of arrangement, they are at least entitled to the indulgent con- 



mm . * /111 * 1 



sideration of botanists. 



without 



rable work of Dr. Sendtner on the SolanacecB of Brazil (Vienna, 



deserving 



very 



extensive and difficult genus Solanum has been fully adopted by 

 M. Dunal in the ' Prodromus,' in preference to the xmscientific 

 arrangement in Don's * Dictionary/ previously in use among 

 botanists. The system of Dr. Sendtner is founded m great 

 measure on the structure of the stamens, which afford valid cha- 

 racters, as I had long before observed and adopted for my own 

 purposes. Dr. Sendtner has therefore rendered much service to 

 science by this work, which everywhere displays originality of 

 observation, his materials being classically and ably elaborated. 

 His ordinal diagnosis of the Solanacea is infinitely preferable to 

 that of M. Dunal, but notwithstanding this admissioii it is not 

 free from some defects, among which may be mentioned the 

 assertion that in the position of the embryo the extremity of the 

 radicle points to the hilum. His synopsis of the distribution of 

 the few genera indigenous in BrazU answers the purpose there 

 intended, but is one quite unfitted for a classification of the 

 whole family. The Nolanacea are here very properly excluded, 

 although Grabowskya is placed in the Solamcea upon an erro- 

 neous principle, as explained in a former page {ante, p. 43). ihe 

 Cesirinea are likewise excluded from the Solamce^ on account 

 of their straight embryo, and, as suggested by Schlechtcndal, 

 placed in a separate family, while Nicottana, Petunia and Aze- 

 rembergia, also with a nearly straight embryo, are retained m 

 the latter order; this is inconsistent, at the same time that the 

 peculiar mode of estivation in these genera, so different from 

 SolanacecB, is unnoticed. The Brazilian Cestnnece, according to 

 these views, are confined to Cestrum and Metternichia ; the em- 

 bryo in the former is said to be hemlanatropous, m the latter 

 anatropous, but I can perceive little difference in this respect, as 

 in both cases the hilum is somewhat ventral and removed trom 

 the radicle, which points to the base of the seed as m Nicotiana : 

 the only real distinction that I can perceive m the ordinal cha- 



{■P:) 



Solanacece the calyx 



in mediana inter axin secundarium ct primarium obtinente/' 

 and in the Cestrinea the calyx is '^emprosthodroniicus (^ • O • V 



K 



