34 Mr. J. Miers on the Winteracese. 



botanist, in his ' Genera Plantarum/ among the MagnoUaceee, — 

 an association which has been confirmed by most botanists since 

 that time. DeCandolle, in his Syst, Veg. i. p. 548, first an- 

 nounced the opinion of Mr. Robert Brown (in 1818), that Illicium 

 and Drimys, together with Tasmannia, sliould be classed in a 

 separate family under the name of IVinterece, — a suggestion only 

 partially adopted by the former botanist in his 'Prodromus' 

 (1824), when he formed them into a tribe of the Magnoliacea, 

 under the designation of the Illiciea, a classification that has 

 since been generally adopted. Dr. Lindley, however, in his 

 'Nixus' (1833), and in his introduction to" Botany' (1836), is 

 the only one who appears to have carried out the suggestion of 

 Mr. Brown in estalalishing this as a distinct family under the 

 title of the Winteracea; but he subsequently abandoned this 

 arrangement (in 1836), in his 'Vegetable Kingdom' (p. 417). 

 M. Spach (in 1839), in the ' Suites k BufFon' (vii. 432), classed 

 the Winterece as a tribe of Magnoliacece, evidently with much 

 doubt, as he stated distinctly that he considered that group 

 more allied to the Dilleniacea than to Magnoliacece {I. c. p. 432). 

 Endlicher (in 1838), after the example of Spach, classed the 

 Illiciece, in his ' Genera Plantarum,' as a tribe of the Magnoliacece, 

 but expressed his opinion that they ought rather to rank as a 

 distinct order, between that family and the Dilleniacece (Enchir. 

 p. 428). Lastly (in 1 855), we have the authority of the authors 

 of the ' Flora Indica' (p. 72), who give it as their opinion that the 

 Winterece form a very questionable tribe of the Magnoliacece, 

 and may with reason be separated from them, as soon as the 

 systematic characters of other collateral groups are better esta- 

 blished. Having already partially stated my own opinion on 

 this subject*, when treating on the Canellacea, I will now pro- 

 ceed to mention the facts on which that conclusion is founded. 



Although the Winteracece have unquestionably a considerable 

 degree of affinity with the Magnoliacece, they are distinguished 

 from them by several peculiar features : the latter are invariably 

 signalized by very conspicuous and large vaginiform stipules, 

 which fall off and leave a ])rominont annular cicatrice, like an 

 articulation, round each node. In the JVinteracece these stipules 

 are entirely wanting. The wood, in tlie latter family, as well as 

 in the Canellacece, and sometimes in the Schizandracece, contains 

 vessels marked, like those of the Coniferce, with very distinct 

 dots, which are not visible in the Magnoliacece. The bark, as 

 also the foliage of the Ifmteracece and Canellacece, abounds in 

 an aromatic principle, and the younger leaves exhibit many pel- 

 lucid dots, wliich are less visible in an older state, on account of 

 the greater thickness and opacity of the parenchyma : this cha- 

 * Annals, .3d Series, vol. i. p. 352. 



