152 SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF TROCHODENDRE^. 
have further in common the anatropous ovule, affixed on the ventral 
suture, with a downwards-bent raphe Q'ovidnm epUropitm" Agardh); 
and, finally, the same relative size of testa, albumen, and embryo. On 
the other hand, their differences are such that we can easily find ana- 
logues in allied Natural Orders. The polygamous, or rather monoicious 
nature of Eup/elia, as contrasted with the hermaphrodite one of Tro- 
chodendron^ we have in a similar manner in the genus Bj'imys, the sec- 
tion Tasmanriia of which agi^ees in this respect with Euptelia, The 
separation of the carpels in Etiptelia, whilst they are connate in the 
ovary of Trochodendron^ is a common occurrence in all allied Orders. 
The development of the points of the carpels in a w^ing, and the inde- 
hiscence of the fruit in Euplelia, have their analogy in Liriodtndron^ 
whilst Trochodendron would agree with those species of Talauma where 
a septicidal separation of the different carpels is accompanied by a 
splitting of the ventral suture. The polyspermous condition of Tro- 
chodendron agrees with Brimys^ whilst Euptdia^ with one or a few 
ovules, reminds us of llUcium^ the nearest ally of Drimys. Other 
important differences have not been observed. All this leaves no 
doubt that the two genera in question are indeed more closely related 
to each other than they are to any allied Order, and that they possess 
that degree of affinity which justifies us in regarding them as belonging 
to one and the same Natural Order. 
Under these circumstances, the establishment of the independent 
Natural Order TrocJiodendreoi, to be ranged with the other Folycarpecey 
appears to be perfectly justified, and as, in comparing them with the 
other TolycarpecE, we have merely to keep in mind the MagnoliacetB, 
Winteracea, and Schizaudreis, we obtain absolute differential characters, 
and a distinct habit. We may be allowed to lav considerable stress 
upon the want of floral envelopes, this character being constant also in 
Euplelia, We must also attach importance to the epitropous nature 
of the ovules (to which Agardh justly assigns great systematic value), 
meeting with it in TrochodendrecB^ and not finding it in the three Orders 
with which we have compared them. If we add to these the diffe- 
rences which they respectively present, as, for instance, the want of 
stipules as contrasted with Magnoliacece (quite apart from the spathe-like 
development, the lower and higher leaf-forraalion of this Natural 
Order), and the want of oil-cells, so widely diffused in the Win{erace<B 
and Schknndre<p.j even in their foliage and bark, — if, finally, we take 
