139 DR. F. E. FRITSCH ON THE 
d 
the Cupulifere. As far as ovary and ovule are concerned there is considerable agree- 
ment with the Anacardiaces, the most essential difference being the single integument 
of the ovule in the Julianiacez (Hemsley, p. 191). There is, however, certainly little in 
the morphology of the Julianiaceze that speaks markedly in favour of one or other view. 
We have therefore to decide whether a complete anatomical correspondence is to bear 
more weight than a certain degree of morphological resemblance, or, in other words, 
whether the close similarity between the anatomy of the J ulianiacee and Anacardiacese 
is a point of greater importance than the limited morphological resemblance between 
Julianiaceze and Cupuliferze. 
In considering this question it is well to turn our attention for a moment to the 
general value of those anatomical characters which constitute the main point of 
resemblance between Julianiaceze and Anacardiacez. Secretory canals are known to 
be characters which generally appertain to a fairly wide systematic group: as examples 
I may mention the resin-canals of the Coniferze, of the Umbelliferze and Araliacez, and 
of the Hypericineze and Guttiferze. Similar examples could be adduced in the case of 
other secretory elements, such as secretory cells, mucilage-cells, mucilage-ducts, &c. 
On the other hand, we occasionally find an Order or certain members of an Order 
possessing some characteristic secretory organ which is completely wanting in closely 
allied Orders or in other members of the same Order; examples of this kind are specially 
noticeable in the case of laticiferous tissue, but other examples are not difficult to find. 
Thus a considerable number of the Rhamnese are characterised by the possession of 
mucilage-receptacles in stem and leaf; but these are practically unknown in the related 
Celastrineze and Hippocrateaces. On the whole, however, secretory organs tend to 
characterise large systematic groups, and may consequently be looked upon as an 
indication of affinity of some importance. Similar considerations on the distribution of 
glandular hairs would lead one to an analogous result. As regards the structure of the 
wood, such a complete correspondence as exists in the case of the Anacardiacee and 
Julianiacee is bound to be of importance in considering affinities, especially when 
supported by other characters. | 
We must therefore come to the conclusion that the points of anatomical similarity 
between Anacardiacez and Julianiacez are no trivial ones, and cannot be neglected. 
The weight of anatomical evidence cast into the scale-pan of the exomorphic indications 
of Anacardiaceous affinity must more than counterbalance any slight excess of morpho- 
logical resemblance on the side of the Cupuliferze. An assumption of an Anacardi- 
aceous affinity for the Julianiaces need not, of course, lead to a rejection of Cupuliferous 
affinities ; but it seems to me impossible to regard the Julianiace:e as being more closely 
allied with any other Order than they are with the Anacardiacese. 
Before passing on to special considerations I should like to take this opportunity of 
cordially thanking Mr. Hemsley for the material which he kindly placed at my disposal. 
This material was of necessity somewhat limited, especially in the case of some of the 
species; and that may be my excuse for any imperfections contained in the following 
detailed description of the anatomy of the Julianiacese. I have endeavoured to deal with 
all the different parts of the plant (the root, of which no material was available, alone 
=- 
