352 Mr. J. Miers on the Canellaceae. 



it is scarcely distinguishable, both being collected and exported 

 under the same name. Its leaves are 5-6 inches long, 1^-lf 

 inch broad, the petiole being 3-4? lines in length ; the raceme is 

 only 4-6 lines long ; the berry is 6 lines in length, and 5 lines 

 in diameter, containing about 10 seeds, which are much smaller 

 than those of Canella, more reniform, much compressed, very 

 rugose, and 1 line in length. 



From the foregoing details of the structure of the flowers and 

 seed of the Canellacece, we may w^ith some confidence venture to 

 assign the place which this small group should occupy in the 

 system. Its structure is so palpably opposed to that of the 

 Clusiacea. (where Canella has generally been arranged by bota- 

 nists), that it is quite unnecessary to enter into any discussion 

 upon the value of such an affinity. This incompatibility was 

 long ago shown by Prof. Lindley*, as before stated, upon very 

 substantial grounds ; he also proved that it could not be asso- 

 ciated with Platonia, and that Gaertner was incorrect in his 

 description of the fruit of Canella. In this uncertainty, he 

 looked to the Pittosporacece as a more probable affinity. There 

 are certainly several points of similitude between them, but the 

 relationship appears to me very distant : the symmetrical number 

 of the parts in the Pittosporace<2, their petals united at the base 

 into a short tube, their perfectly free stamens with introrse an- 

 thers opening by pores in the apex, the deep inflexion and union 

 of the carpels in the centre, where they are placentiferous, — all 

 combine to prove that these two families are far from being 

 akin. 



On the other hand, there exists, as I have already shown, a 

 singular degree of accordance in the general habit of the Canel- 

 lacece with Drimi/s : the same aromatic principle pervades their 

 bark, leaves, and flowers ; they have both similar alternate ex- 

 stipulate leaves, furnished with transparent dots, and they have 

 unsymmetrical biserial petals, with an imbricated festivation. 

 There is also a no less striking analogy between Cinnamodendron 

 and Drimys, as well as lUiciwn, their ovary being unilocular, 

 with longitudinal parietal placentation ; and there is a remark- 

 able parallel in the form and structure of the seed. There can 

 therefore be no doubt that a very close affinity exists between 

 these two groups. The Cunellacea, however, will be found to 

 differ from the Winterace<2 in their monadelphous stamens, and 

 more particularly in their single ovary. In regard to their 

 relative position in the system, if we follow the basis of the 

 Jussieuan method, adopted by DeCandolle and most botanists, 

 and carried out by Endlicher in his ' Genera Plantarum/ we 



* VcK. Kincrd. 442. 



