ULMACEJE. 167 



extreme division which the Prodromus of De Candolle l still com- 

 pletely maintains. The principal leaders of this movement were 

 Payer 3 and Seemann 3 who reunited, under the name of Artocarpece 

 nearly all the genera we have just passed in review, but who have 

 recently been surpassed in this respect by Bentham 4 with whom the 

 limits of the Urticea have returned very nearly to what they were 

 in the time of Jussieu. In 1847Trecul 5 published an important 

 memoir on the family of Artocarpece, in which he enumerates (with 

 the description of a hundred species) all the genera, to the number of 

 forty, recognised in it ; 6 he adds the six genera Cudrania, Dicrano- 

 stachys, Helicostylis, Noyera, Pseudolmedia, Treculia and the new 

 genus of Moreœ, Plecospermum. J. E. Planchon, in 1848 7 and in 

 1873, 8 made a monographic study of the Uîmaceœ, among which, to 

 the genera known before his labours, Ulmus, Celtis, Trema (Sponia), 

 Gironniera, Planera, Abelicea (Zclkova) and Parasponia, he added the 

 three types Holoptelea, Aphananthe, and Chœtacme? The genus 

 Ampelocera, proposed by Klotzsch in 1843, ought, in our opinion, 

 to be placed beside the preceding. In 1873 E. Bureau wrote for 

 the Prodromus a complete description of the group of the Moreœ 10 

 and a sketch of that of the Artocarpece. 11 In the former he 

 describes twenty-four genera, 12 comprising about ninety species, 

 and in the latter, he enumerates twenty-nine genera, with ap- 

 proximately seven hundred and fifty species. The new genera 

 of Moreœ established by him in this work, and which we have 

 retained, are six in number, viz. : Diplocos, Phyllochlamys, Pseudo- 



1 xvi. sect. i. 28 (Caunabineœ) ; xvii. 151 la Of which one doubtful, Callus (Blanco. 

 {Ulmaceœ), 211 (Moraeeœ), 280 (Artocarpaceœ). FI. d. Filip. 698), has monoecious flowers, the 



2 Fain. Nat. 169, Fam. 76. He retained the two sexes being united, it is said, in axillary 

 Ulmaceœ as a distinct family. or pedunculate fascicles or glomerulus. The 



3 FI. Vit. 145. He separated from this male flowers have four sepals and four stamens 

 group the Cainabinete which Payer made only with inflexed filament inserted round a rudi- 

 a section of the family Artoearpeœ. mentary gynaicium. The female flowers are 



4 Fl. Austral, vi. 154. those of the Moreœ in general, and the fruit is 



5 Ann. Sc. Nat. sér. 3, viii. 3S, t. 1-6. drupaceous. C. lactesceiis Blanco is a tree 



6 In addition Trophis, rightly classed with the common to the Philippines, which we have 

 Moreœ, Fieus, now referred to the same group, been unable, from the characters ascribed to it, 

 and Qi/nocep/ialitm, syn. of Phytocrenc, and in- to refer to any of the known genera of this 

 separable from the Mappicœ. group. (See p. 151, n. 1). Another doubtful 



I Ann. Sc. Nat. sér. 3, x. 257. genua is Aspidanda (Hassk. Cat. Sort. Bogor. 



» DC. Frodr. xvii. 151, Ord. 183. ed. nov. 47 ; Bot. Zeit. (1856), 803 ; Flora 



9 Not to speak of the genus Semiptelta, by us (1857), 532, syn. of Ri/paria cœsia Bl., and 

 reunited as a sub-genus to Abelicea. which, according to Mueller d'Aroovie (DC. 



10 xvii. 211, Ord. 183 bis. Prodi: xv. p. ii. 1258), is perhaps an Artocarpia, 

 " L"C.cit.280, Ord. 184. 



