ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 121 
as to form but an indifferent union, which, as already observed, Professor Martius proposes to 
amend by the elevation of this section to a distinct order. 
‘The fourth and last section, Symphonieae, of Choisy and DeCandolle’s arrangement is 
also objectionable for the same reasons as the preceding, viz., its quinary proportion, besides 
which Canelia, one of the genera referred to it, has alternate leaves. The stamens in this tribe 
are united into a tube as in Meliaceae, but differ from that order in the extrorse dehiscence 
of the anthers, and in so far might perhaps be advantageously separated from both to forma 
new order, the more so, as their properties are totally different from either; those of Canedla 
alba one of the tribe, being intensely aromatic. Species preseriting differences so marked no 
Bofanist would ever think of combining in the same genus, and I cannot understand on what 
principle genera, in which they occur, should be admitted into the same natural order, since, 
such combinations can only tend to prove the futility of the name by setting natural affinities 
at defiance. ‘ 
have not Cambessides’ memoir to refer to, I follow Meisner’s exposition of his (Cambessides) dis- 
tribution of the order. Here Choisy’s trib tained, but some of the genera transposed —.Mesua 
of t 
for example, one of Choisy’s Calophylieae, is removed to Clusieae, and though strictly binary in its 
which only I am well acquainted, but, judging from the characters of some of the Ame- 
rican ones placed here, I cannot but think that most of them ought to be excluded, an 
the order limited in a great measure to Asiatic species, and I feel but little doubt, when it 
has been subjected to a thorough revision, that such will be the result. Hitherto, it seems to 
