130 DR. F. E. FRITSCH ON THE 
commenced at the Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and was concluded 
at University College. 
Anatomy has already played some part in the discussion as to the systematic position 
of the genus Juliania of Schlechtendahl, but unfortunately a grave source of error was 
thereby introduced in this case. In 1894, in the course of an investigation into the 
structure and affinities of the Anacardiace:e, Jadin * dealt with the anatomy of Juliania; 
he sums up his results as follows :—“ Par la présence de canaux sécréteurs dans la 
moélle ce genre parait devoir prendre place parmi les Simarubacées; labsenee de 
canaux sécréteurs libériens ne permet pas de le considérer comme une Térébinthacée.” 
These results are totally at variance with those which I have obtained in the present 
investigation, and I have no doubt that the plant which Jadin examined was not a 
member of the Julianiacez at all; possibly it was one of the Simarubaces. Apart from 
the fact that secretory canals are not found in the pith of the stem in all Julianiacee, 
their oecurrence in the phloem is an absolutely constant feature throughout all the 
parts of the plant I have examined. In fact, the canals are so excessively abundant that 
they could never have been overlooked. Jadin’s statements are repeated by Solereder t; 
Juliania is dealt with under the Anacardiaces, but its transference to the Simarubacesx 
is supported. Since Jadin's remarks have been shown to be due to an error, there 
is nothing further in the anatomical structure that affords particular evidence of 
Simarubaceous affinity, and from our point of view such an affinity need no longer be 
considered ; nor do exomorphic characters, so far as I am aware, in any way lend support 
to such a view. 
In his account of the Julianiaceze, Mr. Hemsley 1, in speaking of the affinities of the 
Order, states that the morphological characters evidence closest relationship with the 
Anacardiacese and Cupuliferze. In the type of foliage, viz. alternate, exstipulate, 
imparipinnate leaves, we also have a point of resemblance to Juglandacew, and there 
are some other morphological features common to the two Orders (dioecious flowers 
with dissimilar male and female flowers, the single integument of the ovules, &c.). 
These cannot, however, “be regarded as constituting a close affinity " (Hemsley, p. 191), 
and as far as the anatomy is concerned there is no support for such a view at all. The 
Juglandaceæ are characterised § by the possession of peltate external glands accompanied 
by simple unicellular hairs, and by a somewhat extensive development of parenchyma 
in the secondary wood. These are features which are not found in any of the 
Julianiaceze ; moreover, in special contrast to the latter Order the Juglandacem are 
without any type of internal secretory organ ||. Mr. Hemsley (p. 191), in discussirg 
* Jadin, “Recherches sur la structure et les affinités des Térébinthacées,” Ann. Se. nat. sér. 7, t. xix. 1894, p. 50. 
+ Solereder, * Systematische Anatomie der Dicotyledonen’ (Stuttgart, 1899), pp. 278 & 281. 
£i Hemsley, ‘ On the Julianiacez, a new Natural Order of Plants,’ loc. cit. p. 191. 
§ Cf. Solereder, loc. cit. p. 881. i 
| It may be pointed out that the Leitneriez;, which are placed in the Juglandales by Engler and in the 
Unisexuales by Bentham and Hooker, show one or two points of anatomical agreement with the Julianiace® ; thus 
they possess medullary secretory canals, a somewhat similarly constructed wood, subepidermal cork-development. 
and hairs of an analogous type. There are, however, also very pronounced anatomical differences. The Leitneriei 
also have a unilocular ovary with a single ovule. 
