ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. Ol 



among the Chinese as a sHmulentand restorative " but by Europeans and Americans is 

 dered nothing more than a demulcent, approaching Hquorice in its qualities** Lindley. 



consi- 



The same author justly remarks, 



for we can- 



is, " this however requires further investigation, 

 not believe that all the Chinese say, believe, and practice, is fabulous or imaginary." If we look 

 back to the medical history of Sarsaparilla, now so much and deservedly esteemed as a reme- 

 dial agent, though 30 years ago much contemned, the sensible properties and mode of ad 



mi- 



nistration of which greatly resembles Gensing, we will perhaps find an explanation of this dif- 

 ference of opinion. This supposition seems the more probable, as American writers compare 

 Aralia nudicaidis, another plant of the order, with Sarsaparilla, and affirm it to be as valuable a 

 medicine. These cases serve to show that we ought not hastily to reject popular medicines 

 merely on the strength of rough chemical analyses, or because their operation is so imperceptible 

 that they produce no very obvious effect on the human constitution until they have been admi- 

 nistered continuously for some length of time. 



RENf ARKS ON Genkra AND SpECiES. The number of genera assigned to this order by 

 DeCandoUe and some other recent writers on botany amount to thirteen. Meisner raises these 

 to 17 after removing Adoxa, one of DeCandolle's genera, thereby adding 6 to the number indi- 

 cated by the former. But to four of these he has appended a mark of doubt thereby intimatirg 

 that he is uncertain whether they really belong to the order. Of the doubtful ones two are 

 Indian, one beautifully figured by Mr. Griffith in VVallich's PI. Asiat Rariores, the other, des- 

 cribed but not named in our Prodromus under the provisional appellation of Araliacea ? Kleinii. 

 Of the remaining genera several are not I think tenable, the distinctions being very slight and' 

 not supported by marked differences of habit. Between Hedera and Patatropia I can see no 

 sufficient difference. DeCandolle defines Hedera "Stvli .'5-10 connicenfps a.it in nrnnnm 



con- 



creti" and Paratropia " omnia Araliae aut Hederae, sed stigmata sessilia, primo approximata ef: 

 disco epigyno iranriersa" distinctions by no means readily obvious in practice, at least so I find 

 them, as two specimens, one taken from a reputed Hedera the other a Paratropia, when laid side 

 by side on the stage of the microscope, I found so like, that I could scarcely tell the one from the 

 other. Further distinctioas are taken from the calyx, whether the limb is a little longer or 

 shorter, which are variable marks and not to he depended upon. In Hedera the petals are des- 

 cribed in our Prodromus as cohering at the point and separating like a calyptra, while in Pnra- 

 tropia they are said to expand. This also in the examination of a number of specimens I find 

 equally unstable and valueless. The difference between Aralia and these, consists in its styles 

 being free and devaricately spreading, ("styli ^ expansi devaricato-patentis" DC.) surely a very 

 inadequate generic character, though it might serve as a sectional one to aid in dividing a large 

 genus. On this however I do not insist, as I have no genuine Aralia to examine. 



Gilibertia, of which I have a species only slightly difftiring from Roxburgh's G. palmata, 

 perhaps a mere variety, differs from the preceding genera in the length of its style only. In this 

 it h distinctly prominent and conical, projecting some distance beyond the disc, but in other 

 respects it seems sufficiently to associate. Whether the difference indicated, merits the distinc- 

 tion of elevating those plants in which it occurs to the rank of a genus, I am unable to say, 

 yet, as it has already b«en so employed and is readily obvious in practice, T offer no objection, 

 merely observing that G. JValagu, the authority for which is Rheede's plate, Hort. Mab. 2-26, 

 certainly does not belong to the order, but is a species of Leea. Sciodophyllum, the generic 

 character of which, as given by DaCandolIe, is " Omnia Araliae sed petala apicibus in calyp- 

 trae formani cohaerentia," This reduces it to Hedera, as defined by us, but DC. gives Hedera 

 free petals, which I find sometimes the case, sometimes not, a specimen now before me of H. 

 HelR.K var chnjsocarpa DC, having free petals, while the European plant seems to have them 

 cohering. The character in short is one of almost no value, and ought not to have so high an 

 one assigned. The whole of these genera, as now defined, might I think with great advan- 

 tage be reduced to one ; as genera grounded on such variable and inappreciable distinctions, can 

 never be good ones, nor in any way tend to the advancement of science. Genera so purely ar- 

 tificial are misplaced in a natural system, where we look for natural ones, and the sooner they are 

 discarded, and with them the doctrine which incukates the non existence of natural genera the 

 better, as, if appears to me, nothing tends so much to undermine true science, as the mainte- 

 nance of such principles. The existence of such a doctrine, coafers on even the merist tyro, 



