448 NATURAL HISTORY OF PLANTS. 



Molina's Pcumiis x (Boldu) he indicated as an ally of Rubentia and 

 Elceodendron orientate Jacq. After Jussieu, R. Brown, 2 making a 

 special study of the Australian Lauracece, established the two genera 

 Etidiandra and Cryptocarya. Blume 3 also recognised the two new 

 genera, Haasia and CaryodapJuie, in his study of the Javanese 

 Lauracece. Chamisso and De Schlechtendal, too, had just observed 4 

 among the Mexican species the curious type Misanteca, with pseudo- 

 capitulate flowers, when Nees von Esenbeck published his special 

 researches on this important order. 



In 1836, after several preparatory publications, 5 he put forth his 

 Systema Laurinarum* Therein he divides Lauracece into thirteen 

 tribes, 7 and creates twenty-eight new genera, under the following 

 names : Phoebe, Apollonian, Aheodaphne, Hufelandia, Beilschmiedia, 

 Cecidodaphne, Mespilodaphne, Aydendron, Evonymoda/thne, Acrodi- 

 clidium, Bicypellium, Petalanthera, Pleurotliyrium, Teleiandra, Lep/o- 

 daphne, Gozppertia, Oreodaphne, StrychnodapAne, Cawp/ioromcea, Gym- 

 nobalanus, Sassafras, Benzoin, Cylicodaphne, Polyadenia, Lepidadenia, 

 Dodecadenia, Actinodaphne, Daphnidium ; and referred to this order, 

 or established as genera, the types formerly confounded with Laurus, 

 such as Cinnamomum of Bdrmann, 8 ('amphora of Bauhin, 9 Persea of 

 Gvertner, 10 Machilus of Eumphius," Nectandra of Rolander, ,; Tetran- 

 thera of Jacquin, 13 &nd.Litsaa of Jussieu. 14 The genera 15 composing 

 this order, taking into account those that did double service, then 

 amounted to thirty-four in number. Since the time of Neks only a 

 dozen genera have been added to the Lauracece proper. Blume, in 

 1850, 16 proposed Dictyodaphne and Notapheebe. The three genera 

 Symphysodaphne, Silvia, and Ncsodaphne had just been formed by A. 

 Richard, Allemao, and J. Hooker, when Meissner, in 1804, re- 



are as yet known, cannot be certainly referred Oreodaplmea r; 10. FlavMorce; 11. Daphnidia ; 



to any of the Lauracece more distinctly described 12. CassythecB. 



by authors. s Thes- ZeyL (1737), G2. 



1 CkiL, ed. Gekm., 160, 311 (part.). Peumv.r 9 Pinax (1623), 500. 

 proper belongs to Monimiacece (see above, vol. i. 10 Fruct., iii. (1805), 222. 



290). n Herb. Amboin., iii. (1750), 70. 



2 Prodr. Fl. Nov.-Soll, 402 (1810). *• Ex Rottb., in Act. Lilt. JIafn., i. (1778), 



3 Ex Nees, Syst. (1836). 279. 



1 In Linncea, vi. (1831), 367. " Hort. Sclianbr., i. (1797), 59. 



5 In Wall. PI. Asiat. Ear., ii. (1831), 56; " In Diet. Sc. Nat., xxvii. (1823), 79. 



Laur. Disp. Progr. 15 That is to say, those only that we retain as 



6 Berol. (1836) 8vo., pp. ix. & 720. properly distinct, and omitting all account of 



7 1. Ctnnamomece ; 2. Camphorece ; 3. Plice- synonyms. 



been ; 4. Perseeee ; 5. Cryptocaryea ; 6. Acrodi- »« ]jf us Lvgd.-Bat., i. 270, 328, 365. 

 clidia ; 7. Nectandrece ; 8. Dicypelliece ; 9. 



