86 MR. D. OLIVER ON SYCOPS1S, A NEW GENUS OF HAMAMELIDE 
With respect to orders, on the other hand, presenting a less degree of complexity in the 
structure of the flower, a resemblance (to say the least of it) is presented to us between 
Ziqmdambar, the catkin-flowered though hermaphrodite Corylopsis, Distylium, and 
Sycopsis, and the Platanea?, Ulmacece, and BetulinecB *. 
The number of species at present known which may be referred to the Hamamelidece 
I reckon at from 26 to 30 (28). These are grouped under 13 genera, hence in the strik- 
ingly small relative proportion of about 2 or 2*3 species to a genus. Upon the 
value of those characters which have been considered to possess a generic importance 
this order, I may observe that, from the important bearing which it appeared to have in 
connexion with the distribution of its members, I have endeavoured, by the comparison 
and dissection of various species, to form an opinion, although with a view chiefly 
to determine the position and affinities, &c. of Sycopsis. Having in the preceding obser- 
vations alluded to some of these, it is not needful here to enter upon this point, further 
than to observe that nearly each genus is characterized by marks of considerable import- 
ance estimated by the value ordinarily attached to them in other Dicotyledonous orders, 
and might only from special considerations which I think we are not yet in a position to 
decide upon be deemed of less than generic import. 
Coupled with a regard to these peculiar intergeneric relations and one or two other 
concomitants, which I shall briefly touch upon, a consideration of the geographical distri- 
bution of the Ramamelidece acquires considerable interest. The order is tolerably widely 
dispersed ; at least, there occur outlying individuals or small groups far removed from 
what may be regarded as being at the present period their focus. None of the species, 
however, and, with one or two exceptions, none of the genera, present in themselves a 
great extension of area ; on the other hand, not a few of the genera are, so far as 
our knowledge extends, very unusually restricted in this respect, although from our very 
imperfect acquaintance with the botany of the interior of Eastern Asia, probably not so 
remarkably as from our present data it would appear. Dr. Eoyle, in his valuable 
' Illustrations of the Botany of the Himalaya f,' calls attention to the wide extension of 
the genus Hamamelis , of which he states one species to grow in China, a second in Peru, 
and a third in North America. Some singular mistake, however, must have here 
occurred, no species of this genus, nor, to my knowledge, of the order, having been as 
yet discovered in South America, and, indeed, the question as to the propriety of retaining 
in Hamamelis the Chinese species now assigned to it being quite open to doubt, as noted 
by Eobert Brown in his paper on the plants of Abel's Journey %. 
Dr. Royle would appear to have based his statement upon the localities given in the 
1th vol. of the « Prodromus,' in which work are enumerated three species of Hamamelis 
H. virgimca, H. persiea (now Parrottia), and H. chinensis. I have little doubt that, 
through some lapmts, Peru has been substituted for Persia. The distribution of the 
Hamamehdece is pretty nearly as follows ; 
• Agardh in 'Theoria Syst. Plant.' p. 155, says, « Altingiace* sunt Fothergilleis fere collateral foimam aliquau- 
T2Z X 7r m h Plat ™7 COn8tituentes " «* " B«—**** sunt evolutione florum Cornels, Bruniaceis, 
Aratiaceis* Kmznnhnr^i.9 km «*,«i^. *» ' 
t 
Iff 
i 
