APPENDIX. No. V. 443 
Of the two generic names given by M. du Petit Thouars, and published 
somewhat earlier than M, de Candolle’s Memoir, Leucosia will probably be 
considered inadmissable, having been previously applied by Fabricius to a 
genus of Crustacea; and Dichapetalum is perhaps objectionable, as derived 
from a character not existing in the whole genus, even allowing it to be really 
polypetalous. It seems expedient therefore to adopt the name proposed by 
M. de Candolle, who has well illustrated the genus in the memoir referred to. 
It appears to me that Chailletia, a genus nearly related to it from India with 
capsular fruit, and Yapwra of Aublet (which is Rohria of Schreber,) form a 
natural order, very different from any yet established. The principal characters 
of this order may be gathered from M. de Candolle’s figure and description of 
Chailletia, to which, however, must be added that the cells of the ovarium, 
either two or three in number, constantly contain two collateral pendulous 
ovula; and that in the regular flowered genera there exist within, and opposite 
to, the petal like bodies an equal number of glands, which are described by 
M. du Petit Thouars in Dichapetalum, but are unnoticed by him in Leucosia, 
where, however, they are equally present. 
It may seem paradoxical to associate with these genera J'apura, whose flower 
is irregular, triandrous, and apparently monopetalous. But it will somewhat 
lessen their apparent differences of structure to consider the petal-like bodies, 
which, in all the genera of this order, are inserted nearly or absolutely in the 
same series with the filaments, as being barren stamina; a view which M. de 
Candolle has taken of those of Chailletia, and which M. Richard had long 
before published respecting Tapura.* It is probable also that M. de Candolle 
at least will admit the association here proposed, as his Chailletia sessilifiora 
seems to be merely an imperfect specimen of T'apura guianensis. 
The genera to which Chailleteze most nearly approach appear to me to be 
Aquilaria of Lamarck + and Gyrinops of Geertner. But these two genera 
themselves, which are not referable to any order yet established, may either be - 
regarded as a distinct family, or perhaps, to avoid the too great multiplication 
of families, as a section of that at present under consideration, and to which I 
* Dict. Elem. de Botanique par Bulliard, revu par L. C. Richard, ed. 1802, p. 34. 
+ Or Ophiospermum of the Flora Cochinchinensis, as J have proved by comparison 
with a specimen from Loureiro himself. 
