and Affinities of Cephalotus. 317 



in so many other important characters that they cannot be 

 considered as nearly related. 



The place of Nepenthes in the natural series I have long 

 since *, in my account of Rafflesia, suggested to be near Ari- 

 stolochifB or Asarinte, without, however, intending to include 

 it in that family. 



This approximation was adopted by M. Ad. Brongniart, 

 who, however, went further, having absolutely referred Nepen- 

 thes to Cytineae. 



The union of plants so utterly unlike in appearance and 

 oeconomy, and so different, it may be added, in many of their 

 most important characters, seems to have been generally re- 

 garded as somewhat paradoxical ; and accordingly Professor 

 Link, in 1829, has established Nepenthes as a section or 

 tribe of Aristolochiee, and Dr. Bartling and Mr. Lindley, in 

 1830, have considered it as forming a distinct natural family. 



To the numerous and obvious distinctions between Cytineaa 

 and Nepenthes may be added the no less important differences 

 in their internal structure. For while Cytinete, like most, 

 perhaps all, other plants parasitical on roots, are destitute of 

 spiral vessels, Nepenthes exhibits these vessels in the greatest 

 degree of development and abundance, and also produces 

 them in parts in which they are hardly to be met with in any 

 other dicotyledonous plant. 



Thus, in addition to the dense circle or stratum of spiral 

 vessels existing in the stem between the outer jiarenchynia 

 and the wood, they are found also singly or scattei'ed in the 

 pith, in the loose parenchyma situated between the wood and 

 the bark, if it may be so called, even in the fibres of the root, 

 and everywhere in the substance of the leaves, the pitchers, 

 calyx and capsules. And between these solitary or scattered 

 spiral vessels, which are often of considerable length, and those 

 forming the stratum or circle externally bounding the wood 

 and existing in the veins of the leaves, no essential difference 

 in structure will I believe be found. In these points there 

 is little resemblance between Nepenthes and Cephalotus, in 

 the internal structure of which last there is nothing unusual. 



Between the parts of fructification of Nepenthes or Cepha- 

 lotus and Sarracenia, there is still less analogy, and it is ob- 

 viously unnecessary' to compare in this respect any of these 

 genera with Dischidia. 



September 25th, 1832. 



• Transact. Linn. Soc. vol. xiii. p. 219. 



