XXXVIU PEOCEEDrN'GS OF THE 



pected points of analogy present themselves : they both have fas- 

 ciculated flowers growing upon the trunks of trees, out of brac- 

 teolated nodules ; they have a calyx of five sepals, a corolla quite 

 gamopetalous in one case, pseudo-gamopetalous in the other, both 

 furnished with phalanges of fertile stamens bearing extrorse 

 anthers, as well as sterile stamens placed in separate phalanges 

 in one case, concentrically disposed in the other, a plurilocular 

 ovary with few ovules fixed in the axis of the cells, an indehiscent 

 plurilociilar fruit, orbicular, depressed, and umbilicated at the 

 apex, seeds marked by a ventral scar where they are attached to 

 the axis. But, on the other hand, great differences exist in the 

 aestivation of the sepals, in the corolla completely gamopetalous 

 in one case, pseudo-gamopetalous in the other, in the arrange- 

 ment of the staminodes, in a disk epigynous in one, perigynous 

 Ln the other, in the ovary, which is superior in the one and inferior 

 in the other, in the seeds being albuminous in one case, exal- 

 buminous in the other. Under these circumstances Napoleona 

 cannot belong to Sapotaceee ; but as it offers so many points of 

 resemblance, and as it cannot find a place in any known natural 

 order, it must remain the monotype of a distinct family, to be 

 placed in juxtaposition with Sapotacese. 



In regard to Aster antJios, the author shows by analytical figures 

 that it bears no resemblance in any of its features to Napoleona, 

 except its orbicular corolla, which is differently constructed ; 

 the calyx is quite dissimilar in form ; the flowers show no trace 

 of a corona ; there is no analogy in the form, structure, or posi- 

 tion of the stamens ; the ovary is superior, not inferior ; it has a 

 long slender style, and an extremely different stigma ; its fruit 

 is unknown. A strong resemblance exists in the form of its 

 calyx to that represented by Wight in an Indian species of Rho- 

 dodendron. There seems nothing, therefore, to separate Asteran^ 

 thos from other genera of Ehododendrese, except its more rotate 

 corolla. 



Criticisms on some of the debatable points raised in this 

 paper were made by Dr. Hooker and Professor Thiselton Dyer. 



