Nymphaaceff'.] flora indica. 233 



fructum muHilocularem coalita ; stiymatibus sessilibus, linearibus, ra- 

 diautibus, appendiculatis v. inappeiidiculatis. Ovula pauca v. pluriraa, 

 anatropa, per totam cavitatem sparsa, rarius 2-3 sutura dorsali inserta. 

 Carpella pauca, libera, v. plurima in baccaui multilocularem polysper- 

 mam putredine dehiscentem mediaute toro coalita, carpellis rarius dorso 

 obscure dehiscentibus. Semina libera v. iu pericarpii pulpa immersa, 

 arillata v. exarillata ; testa coriacea Crustacea v. subossea, scabra v. 

 lsevi 5 tegmuie membranaceo ; albumen farinaceum v. subcarnosum, axi 

 pleruraque canale percursum. Embryo orthotropus, sacculo nuclei in- 

 clusus, albunrinis cavitate prope hilura semi-immersus ; cotyledonibus 

 crassis, plerumque intus cavis, plumulam foventibus ; radicula brevi. — 

 Hcrbae aquatic^ rhizomate crasso prostrato folia et seapos rarius ranios 

 foluferos et Jioriferos gerenie, foliis natantibus peltatis Jiastatis corda- 

 tisve rarius demerits seclisque, petiolo stipulate v. exstipulato, pedunculis 

 exlra-axillaribus, floribus natantibus nuptm peractis plerumque demersis. 



The true position of this Order we believe to be between Berberidea and Papa- 

 veracea, as far as this can be shown in a linear series. Before proceeding to discuss 

 its affinities, it is necessary to enter into the conflicting statements and opinions of 

 some able botanists who have studied its organization and relationship. 



Brown long a<ro announced it as his opinion (< Flinders' Voyage/ li. 598, and lat- 

 terly, Plant, fa*. Bar. 108), that the Cabambe* are only a section of Nymph <eare<r, 

 a conclusion in which he has been followed by none, though Asa Gray (Gen. .limits 

 United States, i. 91) has, under the former Order, recorded his adhesion to this opi- 

 nion, and we know it to be Bentham's also ; and, niter a very careful examination of 

 the structure of all the genera, we have no hesitation m adopting it too. 



The Orders Nvmpteacecr, Cabombea, and Nelumbia* i have long been considered 

 as forming one group or alliance; which bas been called ^> ;/ >W by Salisbury 

 (Ann. Bot. ii. 70), Eydrapettidem by Bartling, Vitelliger* by Martins, byinphmne* 

 by Bron-niart, Nmphales by Lindley, Chlamydnblastea by Adrieu de Jussieu, Ne- 

 lumbia by Endlichcr, and Nympiaddm by Meisner (including in the last two cases 

 the &trraceniacea). _ _ #J> , n , . .- . 



It is useful to quote these terms, for they show how umtormly all. ^c', te bo- 

 tanists have regarded the alliance as natural. Much difference of opinion has, how- 



prove 



tyledons, and Humnhceacea perhaps referred to Endogens. 



I. is not necessary to do more than allude to the opinions of some of the earl.e 



botanists, of whom Cjesalpinius. M agnoiius, and Bernard de « eu re erred *»J»>P*<™ 

 to Amw«; or of their followers., who, being ignorant ot the structure and de- 

 velopment of the embryo and young plant, were led away by analogies and classed 

 Nympha* with Hydkrecharide* and other Monocotyledons ; such were Gartner A 

 I. Jussieu, Claude Richard, and J. St. Hilairc: their views have been d,s ; *ed at 



length by De Candolle and others. Of the modem systematic authors « ho have ^stu- 

 died the snbiect we believe that the following consider .he p ace of Bfwph to he 



\rnott, Brown, Brongniart, Battling, Bentha.u De tarn 



. , t • a«-: c n i; c lMirv Snarh. \\ lffht : th09e 



where w 



incline to consider it Monocotyledonous are iinu ey auu r*?y ■TJ'u^Zw 

 who discusses the question in an anatomical aud physiological pomt of view only, 



* For the dates and relative merits of these names see Planchon's exoeUent « fitu.los 

 sur les Kvmpheacces' (Ann. Be. Nat. ser. 3. M. 17), which contains by very far the 

 best systematic account of the Order that has hitherto appeared. 



