:\rv. J. I\li('rs on the Styvacea?. 125 



XVII. — On the Natural Order Styracece, as distinguished from, 

 the Symplocace?e. By John Miers, F.R.S., F.L.S. &c. 



In my observations on the affinities of the Olacacece, seven years 

 ago, some remarks were offered* to show the relation which that 

 order bears towards the Styracece, on which occasion I took the 

 opportunity of pointing out the great difference in structure that 

 I had remarked between the Styracece and Symplocacece, which 

 appeared to have been associated into one family upon very 

 slight and insufficient grounds. These views were subsequently 

 more clearly detailed in Prof. Lindley's ' Vegetable Kingdom,' 

 p. 593, where the characters of the Symplocacea and Styracece 

 were defined, and where analytical figures were given, showing 

 the incompatibility of their respective structures. I was some 

 time ago led to resume the consideration of this subject after 

 reading the very excellent memoir of Dr. Asa Gray, entitled 

 ' Notes on Vavcea,' in which this learned botanist brought for- 

 ward several arguments in opposition to this conclusion. This 

 has induced me to collect additional evidence in support of my 

 views, and to point out in still clearer terms the normal differ- 

 ence of structure existing between these two families. I will 

 prelude these observations by a review of the discrepant opinions 

 of botanists in regard to the affinities of the Styracece, which 

 seem to have been loosely formed, little attention having been 

 paid to the peculiar structure and growth of the ovary, and the 

 general carpological features that distinguish this family from 

 all others. 



The earliest notice of the affinities of Styrax is by Linnaeus 

 (1751), in his ' Philosophia Botanica,' where, in his systematic 

 arrangement of plants, he classes Sttjrax between Citrus and 

 Clu^sia, in his group Hesperides ; but no i-eason is given for this 

 association. 



Jussieu (1789), in his celebrated work, 'Genera Plantarum,' 

 p. 156, places Styrax in his heterogeneous order of the Guaia- 

 cance, near Halesia, in a diflferent section from Symplocos and its 

 allies ; and at that early period he very feUcitously pointed out 

 its relation to the Meliacece. 



Jussieu afterwards (1799) changed the name of his Guaiacance, 

 at the suggestion of Ventenat, into Ebenacece, still retaining 

 in his first section the same genera as before ; but in doing this, 

 he was dubious as to the admissibility of Sttjrax and Halesia, 

 and a second time hinted at their more probable affinity towards 

 the Meliacece. 



Again, in 1804 (Ann. Mas. v. p. 419), he repeated his doubts 

 of the relationship of Styrax and Halesia with the Ebenacece, 



* Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. viii. p. 162 ; Contributions to Botany, i. p. 22. 



