320 MR. J. MIERS ON THE HIPPOCRATEACE/E OF SOUTH AMERICA. 
Kunth, in 1821 *, in describing six new species of Hippocratea, gave the first good 
diagnosis of the genus, but did not define the characters of the order, nor offer any 
opinion in regard to its affinities: he placed it, however, between Sapindacee and Mal- 
pighiacee, comprising Trigonia and Lacepedea, genera now excluded from it. 
De Candolle, in 1824+, though apparently inclined to favour the views of Brown, 
nevertheless, in deference to the opinion of Jussieu, arranged the Hippocrateacee after 
the Marcgraaviacee, and before the Malpighiacee, with the intervention of the Ery- 
throxylacee, which had been separated from the latter family by Kunth: these were fol- 
lowed by the Aceraceæ. He was the first who gave an ordinal character of the family, 
which, he confessed, was necessarily incomplete. 
Cambassedes, in 1829 1, in describing ten new Brazilian species, referred two of them 
to Hippocratea, seven to the Asian genus Salacia, and one to the Madagascar genus 
Calypso; but, with one exception, all were thus referred erroneously, and in this manner 
he showed his imperfect knowledge of the family. He removed Hippocrateacee (in- 
cluding Trigonia) to a great distance from Malpighiaceæ and Celastraceæ, placing it 
between Erythroxylacee and Fumariacee. 
Dr. Wight, in his *Illust. Ind. Botany,’ in 1834 $, arranged the Hippocrateacee between 
Guttifere and Erythrozylacee. Yn alluding to the position assigned to it by other 
botanists near Celastracee, he acknowledged that this appeared to be its more natural 
affinity, but he considered that in any artificial system depending on the insertion of the 
petals and stamens, either in a perigynous or hypogynous sense, the above position 
chosen by him must be preferred. In 1856 || he separated the Hippocrateacee from the 
Celastracee by the long interval of 15 families, placing the former after Guttifere, fol- 
lowed by Erythroxylacee and Malpighiacee, and assigning a position to Celastracee 
between Ochnacee and Rhamnacee. 
Lindley, in 1836, following the views of Brown, placed the Hippocrateacee as a sub- 
order of the Celastracee, stating that “in fact there is nothing to divide these families, 
except the cohesion of the filaments into a cup,” a statement unfounded in reality, which 
shows his entire misconception of the structure of the family. - Subsequently, however, 
in 1846 **, he separated them into two distinct families, when he regarded the Hippo- 
crateacee as distinct from Celastracee, on account of the ternary number of its mona- 
delphous stamens, combined with pentamerous sepals and petals, and also its exalbu- 
minous seeds. 
Endlicher, in 1840 tt, considered the Hippocrateacee a most distinct family, differing 
from all others by its ternary stamens, pentamerous sepals and petals, and exalbuminous 
seeds, osculating with Celastracee through Hleeodendron and Ptelidium, the only two of 
its genera then known to be unprovided with copious albumen: he therefore arranged 
it between Celastracee and Ilicinee (Aquifoliacez). 
Mr. Bentham, in 1852 11, when describing some of Spruce's plants, made many able 
remarks, showing the confusion among the several genera recorded by botanists, owing 
* Nov. Gen. & Sp. v. 136. + Prodr. i. 567. + Flor. Bras. Mer. ii. 102. 
$ Introd, p. 120. || Icon. Gen. Index, p. 67. «| Nat. Syst. p. 120. 
** Veg. Kingd. p. 584. Tt Gen. Plant. p. 1090, it Hook. Kew Journ. iv. p. 8. 
