Mr. J. Miers on the Menispermacez. 255 
albumen ruminated by numerous fissures, and enclosing an em- 
bryo much resembling that of Tihacora. 
Prof. Grisebach endeavoured to show, in 1858 (Journ. Proc. 
Linn. Soc. ii. 108), that Abuta, Batschia, and Anelasma con- 
stitute a single genus (Abuta), of which he then gave a new 
generic character in order to embrace the whole; he there con- 
firmed the facts I had stated showing their close relation to 
Tiliacora; but at the same time, following the example of the 
authors of the ‘ Flora Indica,’ he referred both Abuta and Tilia- 
cora to the tribe Cocculee of those botanists. In doing this he 
quite forgot the very important difference between the two oppo- 
site conditions of a deeply ruminated and a simple albumen, 
which are respectively found in the two tribes thus confounded 
together ; also the very different forms of their embryo, and more 
especially the distinction that, in the one case, the cotyledons 
are accumbent, in the other incumbent—circumstances which 
render the one group essentially incompatible with the other. 
In 1861 Mr. Bentham published his “ Notes on Menisper- 
macee”’ (Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc.v. Suppl. p. 45), when he adopted 
the example of Prof. Grisebach in amalgamating Batschia and 
Anelasma with Abuta, and in a sweeping manner annulled most 
of the species I had indicated, reducing each of the genera thus 
fused together to little better than the condition of a single 
species, 
Messrs. Bentham and Hooker, in their ‘Genera Plantarum,’ 
regardless of the peculiar structure of the seeds, persist, as before 
stated, in placing Tiliacora and Abuta (including Batschia and 
Anelasma) in the same tribe, and in juxtaposition with Cocculus. 
Finally, MM. Triana and Planchon agree with Dr. Grisebach 
in associating into one all the three genera in question. 
The difficulty of reversing the decisions of these united au- 
thorities is necessarily great, but perhaps not insurmountable. 
I will therefore venture, in a few words, to show the differences 
existing between Abuta and Anelasma. There exists among the 
individuals forming these groups a very different habit, a notably 
distinct appearance in their leaves, and a dissimilar character in 
their inflorescence—features so striking as to render it almost 
impossible, with a mere glance at the plants, to mistake one 
genus for the other. In Aduta the midrib of the leaves beneath, 
as well as the lateral ramifications, have externally strong, pro- 
minent, pinnate nervures, which are absent in Anelasma; the 
leaves are all densely tomentose beneath, with a few exceptions, 
where they become glabrous with age; but even in that case 
the distinction is maintained by the ‘branches, petioles, and ra- 
cemes, which are thickly tomentose, while in Anelasma the same 
parts are quite glabrous. In Abuta the inner sepals are exter- 
