14.S 



s. MA.TSUDA. 



which would include Euptelœa tiiid Cercidiphylhtm, the remaining two 

 genera of Trochodendrea'. 



Summing up, the Maijttoliücea may be split up into the following 

 four groups : 



First group, identical with Magtioliece. 



Second group, identical witli Scliizandreœ. 



Third group, consisting of Trochodendroti and the genera of 

 lllicicœ. 



Fourth group, consisting of Euptelœa and Cercidiphylluiu. 

 Now, it is worth noticing that the four groups into which 

 Mao-noliacecT3 might he divided as the result of a purely anatomical 

 study, correspond in the main to its four tril)es, the distinction be- 

 tween which is based on the external characters ; and we should not 

 perhaps be wrong in making the general statement that resemblance 

 in the external characters of certain plants indicates that there also 

 exists resemblance in their internal or anatomical structure. 



As we have just seen llUcimn and Driuiijs present some marked 

 differences in their anatomical characters, as do also to some extent 

 Etrptclœa, Cercidipliylluiii, and TrocJiodcndiwt, which are the three genera 

 constituting T roch ode lulrav ; but Magnolia, Miclielia, and Einodendron, 

 the three genera belonging to MaynoUea are so similar in their internal 

 structure as not to be distinguisliable from one another, and this is also 

 the case with the two genera of Schiiandreer^ m\n\e\y, Schi :a h dra and 

 Kadmna. From this we see that anatomical structure is not always 

 to be relied up(m in distinguishing different genera of the same tribe or 

 family. However, we must remember that Sclriiafidra and Kadsura have 

 differences so slight in their generic characters* that lîaillon comliines 

 tiiem into «jne genus. t Again, Maynolia, Michelio, and Eiriodendron 



* Generic characters are generally founded on external peculiarities, and not on in- 

 ternal ones. 



t Bâillon, Tlie Natural Uisturij of Plants, (Translated froui the French). 



