80 



nionadelpha ; filamentis lineari-lanceolatis, merabrana- 

 ceis, apice tenuiori incurvis ; antheris deflexis, oblongis, 

 bilocularibus, basi fixis. Z)iscMs cyathiformis, altus, car- 

 nosus, 10-angularis, subplicatus. (9yarm?w adha3rens, car- 

 nosum, loculis 5, in ima basi pedunculo proximii sepul- 

 tis ; ovulis 20, campylotropis, superpositis, per paria apici 

 placentfe axilis semilibera3 affixis. Stylus pentagoiius, 

 aiigulis subalatis ; stigma disciforme, pentagonum, 5-ra- 

 diatum, intra angulos glandulam verruciformem (an 

 verura stigma) gerens. Fructus (Mali Punici magnitu- 

 dine, pulpa mucosa farctus, cortice austera Dom Whit- 

 field). Semiua faba) magnitudine, reniformia, exalbu- 

 minosa ; cotyledonihus plano-convexis, radicula immersa. 



In the total absence of all correct information as to the real 

 structm'e of this curious genus, Botanists have been unable to 

 arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to its affinities. All 

 that they have been able to settle is its not belonging to 

 any known natural order. 



Palisot de Beau vols stated (1807) that in the opinion of 

 Jussieu, it constituted a new order between Cucurhitacece and 

 Passifioracece; a view that was probably taken in consequence 

 of the double-ringed corolla, which is analogous to the 

 coronet of the Passion-flowers, and the plaited corolla with an 

 inferior ovary, which brings to mind the flowers of the Gourd 

 Tribe. 



Desfontaines, on the contrary (1820), refers it, and another 

 genus which he calls Asteranthus, without any doubt, to 

 SymplocacecBy because of its monopetalous perigynous corolla, 

 its stamens inserted in the base of the corolla, its oblong two» 

 celled anthers, single style, inferior ovary, axillary solitary 

 flowers, shrubby stem, and alternate leaves. 



Him follows Dr. Robert Brown (1822), who formed it 

 and Asteranthus into an order called ^eZuisiete, without, how- 

 ever, attempting to settle its position in the natural system. 

 He objected to approximating it to Symplocaceee, doubted its 

 affinity to Passifloraceee, and compared its structure with that 

 of Rafllesia. 



Latterly no one seems to have attempted to suggest any- 

 thing new as to its relationship. Endlicher puts it next 

 Symplocaceai. Meisner next Passifloraceae, adding to what 

 had been previously known of it, that its seeds are arillate, a 



