4 Mr. J. Miers on the Solanaceae. 



cases being 1 -seeded), there is always seen at their basal point 

 of attachment, one or more scars, each closing the entrance into 

 a corresponding cell, which scar, in every case, represents the 

 end of a kind of plug, evidently analogous to the strophiole (or 

 Calomphala of Schrader), so conspicuous in the nuts of the Bor- 

 raginacea. Another distinction will also be found to exist which 

 has not been noticed by M. Dunal : in the Solanacece the extre- 

 mity of the radicle never points immediately to the hilum, but is 

 directed to a spot removed from it, and even where the embryo, 

 is straight, as in Metternichia , Cestrum, Fahiana, &c. Although 

 the end of the radicle points to the bottom of the seed, the 

 hilura is always lateral or marginal, at some little distance from 

 the base : in Nolanace(e, on the contrary, the exti'emity of the 

 radicle always points to the strophiolar cavity in the base of the 

 nut, and of course to the Inlum, or place of its attachment to 

 the gynobase. This forms another essential and constant dif- 

 ference between the two families. There is still one more mate- 

 I'ial distinction in the structure of the pistillum arising out of 

 the circumstances just mentioned. In the Solanacece, we always 

 meet with numerous ovules in each cell, all attached to the pla- 

 centae springing from the dissepiment ; in the Nolanacees, a single 

 ovule only exists in each ceil, and this is constantly erect and of 

 basal origin. 



Schlechtendal in 1832 (Linnsea, vii. 72) pointed out the ana- 

 logy that exists m the genus Nolana to the families of the Bor- 

 raginacece and Solanucece, admitting its greater affinity with the 

 former, ou account of the structure of its fruit and the aestivation 

 of its corolla ; but as a justification for those who might prefer 

 placing it in Soluaacefe, it was argued by that able botanist, if 

 the genus Li/cium, which differs from other genera of this last- 

 mentioned family in the aestivation of its corolla (the only ex- 

 ceptional case at tliat time known), be retained in this order, 

 then there would be less difficulty in admitting Nolana, notwith- 

 standing the very different structure of its fruit. Dr. Lindley, 

 who first proposed this order in 1833, placed it near the C'onvol- 

 vulaceep. G. Don (1837) was I believe the first who decidedly 

 associated the Nulanacea: as a tribe of the Solanaceae (Diet. iv. 

 399), but he oflered no reasons for this union. Endlicher in his 

 ' Genera Plantarum ' followed the views of Dr. Lindley, in at- 

 taching this group as a suborder of the Convolvulacea. Brongniart 

 (1843) adopted the same views in regard to the affinity of the 

 Nolanacece. A. de Jussieu (1844, Cours Elementaire) equally 

 confirmed the ideas of the before-mentioned botanists, in placing 

 the Nolanacea in contiguity wilh the Dichondreoi, between the 

 Borraginacea and Convolvulacea. In 1845 I adduced many facts 

 and several additional reasons, why the Nolanacea should be placed 



