Mr. J. Miers on Diclidanthera. 129 



XIV.— On Diclidanthera. By John Miers, F.H.S., F.L.S. &c. 



This genus, established by Prof. Von Martins in 1826, was 

 referred by him to Styracetp, on account of its gamopetalous 

 corolla (its stamens being adnate to it, and double the number 

 of its lobes), its simple style, its 5-celled ovary with pendent 

 ovules, its drupaceous fruit, often by abortion monospermous, 

 and its albuminous seed, enclosing an embryo with a superior 

 radicle. 



Prof. Lindley (in 1836), following this indication, in his 

 1 Introduction to Botany/ placed the genus in Styracece, after 

 Halesia. 



Owing to the peculiar structure of its anthers, Endlicher (in 

 1839), in his ( Genera Plantarum/ retained it in the same linear 

 position, but separated it as a distinct section, following Styracece. 



No further notice was taken of it until Prof. A. DeCandolle 

 (in 1844), in his monograph of the last-mentioned order (Prodr. 

 viii. 215), merely alluded to it when he excluded it from that 

 family, on the ground of its free ovary, its anthers fixed in the 

 mouth of the tube of the corolla, its pollen striated transversely, 

 and its minute embryo; but he did not assign it any other 

 position. 



Prof. Lindley (in 1846), in his ' Vegetable Kingdom/ arranged 

 it, in the Appendix, among those genera whose precise locality 

 in the system is not ascertained. 



In 1852 I offered a few observations*, indicating its probable 

 affinity with Hamamelidacece ; but a more critical examination of 

 the genus has since convinced me that it has a nearer affinity 

 elsewhere. 



Prof. Von Martius (in 1856), in his 'Flora Brasiliensis ' 

 (fasc. 17. p. 11. pi. 4), extended the recital of its generic fea- 

 tures, describing at full length, and figuring with much detail of 

 analysis, the two species he had delineated in his f Nova Genera 

 et Species ' thirty years previously. My own observations, 

 aided by the drawings and analyses made in 1837 upon the 

 living plant, differ in several points of structure from those 

 details, as I will presently show ; and upon these facts I will 

 proceed to discuss the question of the true affinity of the genus. 



Prof. Von Martius, in his later work, after enumerating the 

 several characters showing its affinity towards Styracece, expresses 

 his opinion that this relationship rests more on outward appear- 

 ances than on reality ; and he proceeds to state his reasons for 

 suggesting its neai'er affinity to Moutabea (which genus he 

 illustrates at the same time), and, through it, to Polyyalacece. 



* Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. ix. 130; Contrib. to Bot. p. 130. 

 Ann. § May. N. Hist. Ser. 3. Vol.iv. 9 



