MR. JOHN MIERS ON G(ETZIA AND ESPADEA. 189 
deseription and drawing were, probably, incomplete. Recognizing the identity of 
Lemaire's Armeniastrum with the Espadea of Richard, he admitted that Getzia must be 
distinct from Espadea, unless there be grave errors in Wydler's details; and thus M. 
De Candolle rather implies than expresses his doubts concerning Gætzia. It appears to 
me, however, that Wydler's description is so clearly told, and the drawings so precise, that 
they seem to have been taken from a living specimen, and that they furnish strong evi- 
dence of truthfulness and general accuracy, considering also that they were published 
many years before Espadea was known; the only uncertain points in these details are 
those of the seed, which was probably examined in an immature state; and as he ex- 
pressly states that he placed little reliance on this head, we are bound to consider his 
descriptions in all other respects worthy of confidence. 
As the Getzia of Reichenbach (1828) is a synonym of Rothia, Pers., Wydler's genus of 
the same name (1830) is now valid. | 
Geizia has been referred to several natural orders. By Wydler it was thought to be 
allied to Ebenacee ; but it cannot belong to that order if we regard the structure of the 
flower or organization of the ovary, and especially that of the seed, which in the cognate 
genus Espadea has no albumen, a very different embryo, and an inferior radicle. 
Richard placed his Æspadea in Verbenacee ; but it has little in common with that 
family, except a tubular calyx and corolla, and a drupaceous fruit; it differs in its alter- 
nate, closely veined leaves and the simple structure of its ovary, with two complete cells, 
having two collateral ovules in each cell, and offering no approach to the peculiar organi- 
zation so conspicuous in the Verbenacee. 
Endlicher arranged Getzia in Styracee; but as he included the Symplocacee in that 
family, it is difficult to know which group he meant. With Styracee proper it accords 
in its general habit, its tomentose flowers, its tubular calyx, and a corolla with an æstiva- 
tion approaching to valvate, in its ovary partly imbedded in a large superior fleshy disk, 
in its simple style, compressed and widened at its summit, terminated by a papillose 
stigma; it differs, however, in the corolla being quite gamopetalous, in having long, free, 
filiform, exserted filaments, bearing versatile anthers, in a totally different kind of placen- 
tation, in its fleshy fruit, not nucumentaceous, its exalbuminous seeds, with two or four 
fleshy cotyledons, and a minute inferior radicle. If, on the other hand, Endlicher meant 
to compare Getzia with the Symplocacee, we find little to support such an affinity; it dif- 
fers from them in its tubular calyx and corolla, its few stamens, the structure of the ovary, 
and its superior fruit, which is not nucumentaceous and has only two cells, in its seeds, 
which are deficient of albumen, in its large fleshy cotyledons, and its inferior radicle. 
Lastly, Dr. Grisebach has.united together Getzia and Espadea under the former name*, 
placing it in Solanacee, without offering any reasons; he has given a diagnosis of the 
genus which is incorrect in several particulars. The Solanacee, notwithstanding their 
varied organization, differ from his Getzia in their habit and mode of inflorescence, in 
their ovary and disk, in their very frequent capsular fruit, with numerous seeds attached 
to a large placenta in the middle of the dissepiment, the seeds being small, heterotropous, 
or oops with a curved embryo imbedded in albumen, having a long terete radicle 
* Cat, Pl. Cub. 190, 
202 
