184, Mr. J. Miers on the Calyceraceze. 
distance from Calyceracee in the system. Very similar reasons 
may be adduced in objection to the alliance of this family with 
the Primulacee and Plantaginacee*. 
Bearing in view the very numerous features of analogous 
structure in the Calyceracee and Composite, notwithstanding 
the difference in position of the ovule and seed, we must con- 
clude that a very close affinity exists between these two families. 
So intimate, indeed, is this relationship, that should any new 
system of arrangement be proposed, whether it be linear or 
circular, which should compel their becoming parted among 
separate groups on account of the different structure of their 
carpels, they will naturally take positions that wijl still touch 
one another. 
Conspectus generum. 
A. Lobi calycini imo amplexi et concavi. 
a. Lobi rotundati incrassati. Capitula magna, 
subscaposa. Receptaculum magnum, carno- 
sum. Involucrum polypby!lum .............+. 1, NASTANTHUS. 
aa. Palez inter se accretz ; lobi obovati integri. 
Capitula minora et subscaposa. Involucrum 
POlyphyllum secccccccceseseaccecseecessanccesgeoese 2, GAMOCARPHA. 
aaa. Palee omnino liber. Involucrum gamo- 
phyllum. 
* Lobi lanceolati, scariosi, denticulati. Achz- 
TA CONSIMIIA . .....-scecersceesersceceeseceses 3. Boorts. 
** Lobi oblongi, aristati, in nonnullis immu- 
tati, parvi, in aliis demum excrescentes et 
spiniformes. Acheenia hine dissimilia ... 4. ANOMOCARPUS. 
B. Lobi calycini -subplani et fere subulati, demum 
elongati et spiniformes. 
b. Acheenia libera. Receptaculum magnum, latum 
Ct CepressuM soo..rcosceccesesescrsreccesorcescesecs 5. CALYCERA. 
bb, Acheenia sepius agglutinati. Receptaculum 
parvum, seepius Cylindricum -....secsseeeeeeereeee 6. ACICARPHA. 
1. NAsTANTHUS. 
In my last journey over the lofty range of the Cordillera of 
Chile, in 1825, I noticed a very singular plant, of which I then 
made detailed drawings; these, together with others of much 
interest, I showed to several botanists during my visit to London 
in that year: the plant alluded to is the Calycera Andina men- 
tioned in my ‘ Travels, iu. p. 5381. On my return to England 
in 1838, I proposed it as a new genus, under the name of Nast- 
anthus, which genus was adopted by Prof. Lindley in his ‘ Ve- 
* If anything were wanting to show the little practical value of the affini- 
ties thus suggested, we have before us the results of two systematists who, 
starting upon almost identically the same basis, have arrived at conclusions 
nearly diametrically opposed to each other, and at variance with the esta- 
blished views of relationship universally acknowledged by botanists. 
