■R08ACE2E. 429 



and Arnerican botanists, who, from 1822 to 18G7, established the 

 thirteen genera NuUalUa, Exochorda, Prinscpin, Adenosfoma, Coivania, 

 Bencomia, Siranvcesia, Maddenia, Canotia, Coleo(jyno, Chamahatia, 

 Neviiisia and Strcphonema. During nearly the same period the 

 Grermans established the genera Euphronia,^ Pterostemon^- Fallugid!' and 

 Lcifcosidea.^ Siebold & Zuccartni, in their investigations of the 

 flora of Japan, discovered the two genera SUpkanandrd" and Rhodo- 

 typos^ A. DE Candolle described the genus Parastemon in 1 842, 

 and MiQUEL has recently given a more detailed account than 

 KoRTHALs of Biemenia and Angelesia, united by others under the 

 generic name of Trichocarya.^ 



It will be asked, does the order Rosacea, of which the genera 

 here retained include from nine hundred to a thousand species, 

 possess any common absolute characters ? We think not. The 

 flowers, for instance, are no doubt very often regular ; but this is 

 not constant, for a large number of Chrysohalanece have a unilateral 

 androceum, an excentrically inserted gynaeceum, a receptacle with 

 a one-sided tubular cavity. Again, the receptacle is ver}'' often 

 concave, with the perianth and androceum perigynous ; so that, 

 generally speaking, we may consider Rosacece a perigynous Ranun- 

 culacece. But the stamens are hypogynous not only in Canotia, 

 which is a genus of doubtful affinities, but also in Sfylobasium,, which 

 cannot be removed to any distance from Lccostemon. The gynaeceum 

 is often polycarpous ; but the ovary is syncarpous and many-celled 

 in a fair number of the Quillajece, such as Exochorda, Lindleya, 

 Eiiphronia, Eucryphia, &c. Albumen is usually wanting in the 

 seeds ; but it is found to a variable amount in Neillia, GiUenia, 

 Neviusia^ EucryjjJiia, Euphronia, Canotia, Pnrshia, ChamceJjatia, Cowa- 

 nia, &c. The leaves are almost always alternate ; yet they become 

 opposite in Rhodofypos, which presents in all other respects the vege- 



' Mart., Nov. Gen.et Spec, i. (1824), 121. 8 J7. Ind.-Bat., i. p. i. (1855), 357. As a 



2 ScHAUEE, Linnepa, xx. (18 17), 736. doubtful genus of Rosacece, has been described 



3 Endl., Oen. (1836-1840), 1246. Sf.aphi/lorfiodos (Tuecz., Bull. Mosc. (1862), 



* ECKL. & Zeth., Enum. Fl. Cap. (1834r- ii. 231), a genus said to couie from New Zealand, 

 1837), 265. but wrongly, say Bentham & Hooker {Gen. 



* Ahh. Milnch. Akad., iii. (1843), 739. 606), who consider this type altogether nn- 



6 Fl. Jap., 187, t. 90 (1835). certain. 



7 Ann. Mus. Lugd, Bat., iii. (1867), 236. 



