272 MR HIERN, ON EBENACE^E. 



the lower side of the leaves are too distinctly rendered by the lithographer in Plate XL] ; 

 5 10 in. long (besides channelled petioles f 1 in. long) by 1 f 3 in. wide. 



<J. Cymes on young branches, shortly subferruginous-pubescent, bearing 3 10 

 flowers, | | in. long (not including the flowers) ; common peduncle \ J in. long ; pedicels 

 1^ \ in. long ; flowers -1 J in. in diameter, pubescent. Calyx nearly as high as the 

 corolla, 4-lobed at apex, at base somewhat 4-sided outside. Corolla puberulous outside, 

 hirsute or hispidulous inside. Stamens 30 (in one flower), mostly united by their 

 filaments in pairs; anthers hispidulous, filaments hairy inserted near the base of the 

 corolla ; pollen globular, smooth, about 7-^ in. in diameter. Ovary wanting. 



J. Fruit (unripe?) solitary, f fin. high, by 1 lin. thick, crowned at apex by 

 remains of 4-partite style ; fruiting peduncles | J in. long, thickened upwards, puberulous ; 

 fruiting calyx 4-sided, softly hairy on both sides ; lobes widely ovate, acute, somewhat 

 cordate and pouting at base, reaching half the height of the fruit, thickly coriaceous. 



Madagascar, Richard! 388, Nossi-be" ; PervilU ! 6. 



FOSSIL EBENACE.E. 



About 60 specific names of this family relating to fossils have been published ; the 

 first was published by Dr Alexander Braun, about 25 years ago, and the last by Prof. W. 

 Ph. Schimper, in the present year (1872). All these fossils occur in Tertiary strata, with the 

 exception of one, namely Diospyros primceva Heer from the beds 'of Nebraska in North America, 

 which beds have been recently referred to the Cretaceous period, though they were formerly 

 supposed from the facies of the contained flora to be Tertiary. The majority of the species 

 have been founded on leaves alone ; and the venation of these no doubt accords more or 

 less closely with that of those species of Ebenacese, such as Diospyros Lotus, Eoyena hirsuta, 

 Euclea lanceolata, &c., which fossil botanists seem to regard as the types of their respective 

 genera. There is in fact much variety of venation amongst the recent species of the family ; 

 and with respect to recent plants it is quite impossible to assign to the family, with even 

 a moderate amount of certainty, a given leaf of an unknown genus. A few of the 

 fossil species have been described from the calyx fruit or seed, with or without leaves ; 

 and the best of these specimens, such as those which have been named Diospyros brachy- 

 sepala, and Euclea relicta, present fair evidence of belonging to the structure of Ebenaceas, 

 while even in these instances the genus cannot be properly fixed, and other families 

 are not absolutely excluded. With regard to many of the fossil species, the utmost 

 inference founded on reasonable grounds which can be deduced, is a favourable suggestion 

 of Ebenacea? for the family to which the specimens may probably belong ; and with regard 

 to other specimens of the published species, it appears to me that Ebenacea3 is not a 

 probable family for them. It would be much the better plan to refer all fossils, which 

 have nearest affinities to Ebenacese, to a fossil genus Ebenacites, as was done in the first 

 instance by Saporta, but subsequently relinquished by him in favour of Diospyros. On the 

 whole then, as I place but little confidence in the determination of the fossils, I wish in 



