Mr. J. Miers on the Menispermacese. 15 



The question of the affinities of the group was considered in 

 my first "Remarks on Menispermacese" (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. 

 vii. 34) : this has since been so ably discussed by the authors of 

 the ' Flora Indica^ (p. 170) that it is unnecessary to go over the 

 same ground, as I concur in most of their views on the subject. 

 The relationship towards Lardizahalacece, Magnoliacea, and 

 Anonacea, as is there shown, cannot be doubted ; but this is 

 not so considered in the new ' Genera Plantarum/ where the 

 apocarpous order Lardizabalacece is transferred as a mere tribe 

 into the monocarpous family of Berberidacece, and that of the 

 Canellacece (intimately related to this last family) is carried far 

 away and placed between Violacea and Bixacea : this appears 

 to be a very illogical view of their true relationship. The apo- 

 carpous Thalamiflora, with parietal placentation, constitute so 

 natural a group, and are connected together by so many similar 

 characters, that it is difficult to conceive why any of them should 

 be placed elsewhere ; and, in regard to CanellacecB, the fact of 

 having two or four lines of parietal placentation, as in some 

 Lardizabalacea, the resemblance of the ovary and seed to those 

 of Drimys (especially in the shape and position of their small 

 embryo), their many-seried imbricated sepals and petals (as in 

 Magnoliacece), their extrorse anthers (as in Anonacece), the ex- 

 trorse monadelphous stamens (as in many Menispermacea), their 

 solitary carpel (as in Berberidacece) , and the resemblance to the 

 whole of these orders in their mode of placentation, are charac- 

 ters extremely manifest *. The weight of this evidence leads to 

 the conclusion and confirms the opinion that the Canellacea 

 should rest in contiguity with Berberidacea, osculating at the 

 same time with the above-mentioned apocarpous group, and not 

 with Bixacece or Violacets, with which they have little analogy. 

 If these eminent authorities had classed the Canellacece where 

 they have placed the Lardizabalacea (before Berberidacece), and 

 had retained the Lardizabalacece in their former position among 

 the climbing polycarpous families, near Menispermacea, such an 

 arrangement would have met with the general accord of botanists; 

 and this it is to be hoped they will be induced to do in a second 

 edition of their important work. 



* Having lately defined the characters of the Canellacea (Contrib. Bot. 

 i. 112, pi. 23, 24), I cannot be considered presumptuous in venturing to 

 diflFer in opinion from the above-mentioned eminent botanists, who acknow- 

 ledge the resemblance of the seeds to those of Winteracea, but who object 

 that the Canellacece differ widely in the structure of the perianth, stamens, 

 and ovary. This can hardly be conceded ; for if we compare the sepals 

 and petals of Cinnamodendron (pi. 24) with those of Drimys (pi. 26) or of 

 Illicium, they will be found to accord in a remarkable manner ; and if we 

 conceive the extrorse stamens of Drimys united by their margins, we have 

 precisely the staminal tube of Canella j in like manner, by joining the five 



