Bibliographical Notices. 287 



from New Holland named by Mr. Brown Leptophragma, and with 

 Quivisia, Sandoricum and Mallea, deviate from the ordinary rela- 

 tion of parts in having the cells of their ovarium (and conse- 

 quently their compound central placentse) opposite to the divi- 

 sions of the calyx, and not (as in the great majority of Dicotyle- 

 dones, when the number of parts is equal) opposite to the petals. 

 But the ordinary relation recm-s in Melia and in the entire family 

 of Cedrelece, or at least in all the isomerous genera of that family 

 which Mr. Bennett has had the opportunity of examining. 



" In some cases/^ he remarks, "(as for instance in Hypericin^,) 

 this modification appears to be of ordinal value ; but in the pre- 

 sent instance, and in Campanulacece, it is only generic ; and in a 

 very remarkable case {Leptospennum) pointed out to me by Mr. 

 Brown, both modifications occur in the same genus. The last- 

 mentioned case is more especially deserving of notice, inasmuch 

 as Leptospermum is only distinguishable from another genus of 

 the same family {Fabricia) by the latter possessing the full com- 

 ])lement of cells of the ovarium (that is to say, a number equal to 

 the di\dsions both of calyx and corolla), and thus combining both 

 modifications in one. Inlwnea we have a somewhat analogous 

 instance, some of the species having an ovarium consisting of ten 

 cells, or even, according to M. Ad. de Jussieu, of more.^^ 



Phoberos of Loureu-o, and a species of that genus called by 

 Mr. Bennett Phoberos Rldnanthera, as having been formed into 

 a genus by Dr. Blume under the name of Bhinanihera, are the 

 subject of the following article. Mr. Bennett gives a detailed 

 history of the genus Phoberos, and of others with which it has 

 from time to time been confounded ; and enters into an exami- 

 nation of the characters and limits of the family of Flacourtianea 

 to which it belongs, and of Bixinea, nearly all the genera referred 

 to which he agi'ees Avith M. A. Richard and M. Kunth in uniting 

 to Flacourtianece. He doubts the existence in any genus of the 

 family of that remarkable reticular attachment of the seeds over 

 the entire surface of the cavity of the pericarp, which in the cha- 

 racter given by DeCandolle is attributed to the whole family. He 

 believes that Ktihlia of Prof. Kunth is not sufiiciently distinct 

 fi'om Azara ; that Ascra, Schott, is not essentially different from 

 Trilix, L., and that both should be compared with Banara and 

 Prockia ; that Dasyanthera, Presl, is not distinct from Phoberos ; 

 and that Christannia salicifolia of the same author is identical 

 with Pineda incana of Buiz and Pavon. Among published genera 

 he rejects from the family Ryania, including Patrisia (which Mr. 

 Bro\\Ti has shown to belong to PassiflorecB, to which Errjthro- 

 spermum also makes a near approach), Kiggelaria, Melicytus, Hyd- 

 nocarpiis, Mayna, Raddi (the two latter, together with Gynocardia, 



