‘DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS OF QUERCUS AND CASTANEA., 181 
- Distegocarpus, Sieb. et Zuce., has been shown by Blume to differ in 
no respect from Carpinus. 
Fagus, which Zucearini, to judge from his note above quoted, would 
appear to have thought not distinct from Castanea, is, as it were, in- 
termediate between that genus and Quercus in the structure of the co- 
tyledons, which are plaited only on their faces. It is further well 
distinguished from both these genera by the male flowers having a 
gamophyllous campanulate perianth, and also ‘by its inflorescence. 
MM. Hombron and Jacquinot have separated the Antarctic Beeches 
from their northern congeners, and formed from them two genera, 
Calusparussus and Calucechinus, on what grounds I do not know. 
Blume has also since proposed to distinguish some of these under 
the name of Nothofagus, but there is assuredly nothing in his character 
(Mus. Lugd.-Bat. n. 20, p. 307) to justify such a proceeding. Indeed, 
the chief distinction between the species of the northern and southern 
hemispheres appears to be that the latter have the male flowers either 
single or at most ternate, and arranged on very short axillary stalks ; 
whilst in the former they are disposed in capitula (usually called catkins 
by authors, but which a comparison between the two series seems to 
render an improper term in this case) of twelve or thereabouts, sup- 
ported on an extremely long common peduncle. 
Synedrys, founded by Lindley on Loureiro’s Quercus cornea, and 
which Endlicher, without knowing the type, was inclined to refer to 
Lithocarpus, differs in no respect from Quereus. It is true that im- 
perfect septa, formed by laminz of the hard bony pericarp, often but 
not invariably project from its inner surface, which is always irregular 
in contour, and thus cause the seed to be more or less sulcate, but it 
is impossible to lay any stress on this peculiarity, shared in a still 
higher degree by Q. Skinneri, Benth., evidently a near ally, as its bony 
fruit proves, but which is notwithstanding retained by Dr. Lindley 
imself among the Oaks. Nor can greater importance be attached to 
the trivial character of the flattened or depressed top of the fruit, pro- 
Jecting beyond the sides. 
Lithocarpus has no better claims to separation, being merely kept 
apart on account of its rugose and stony acorn, the latter peculiarity 
being, as just observed, common to other Oaks, whilst the sculpturing 
of its surface is of no value at all. I may add, that the included por- 
tion of the acorn of Q. cornea is evidently though superficially rugulose. 
