106 NATURAL HISTORY OF PLANTS. 
The plants of this family have long been distinguished as 
constituting a natural group either on account of their aspect or their 
properties, or because of some prominent character, as the form of the 
malvaceous corolla, or the organization of the co/umniferous fruit. 
From ZaLzuzran' until Linwæus authors have made particular 
mention of this group. But it is necessary to refer to the Genera 
of A. L. pe Jussieu in order to see united in one and the same 
order all the representatives then known of the different series we 
have enumerated. These are thirty-two in the work we have 
just cited. But the successors of A. L. pr Jussrzu soon divided his 
order M/alvacee into several secondary families. VENTENAT* separated 
from it Sterculiace, and R. Brown? from Buettneriacee. In 1824 
De Canpo.utz,° in making these two into one, admitted Bombacea as 
a separate family. The multiplication of these groups is carried 
as far as possible in the works of Enpiicnrr, and above all of 
Linpiny.? But as the characters by which the three principal 
types of Malvacee, Slerculiaceæ, Buettneriacee, are distinguished 
from each other, are far from being constant and absolute,” we see 

1 Meth. Herb. (1592), cl. 16. The Mallows. 
This class is distinguished, according to him, 
among others by J. BAUHIN in 1650, by 
JouNnston (in 1661), by Ma@xor, Morison, 
&e. 
2 Fragm. Meth. Nat., in Cl. Plant. (1738), 
Ord. XXXIV. (Columniferi). 
3 271, Ord. xiv. (1789). 
4 Malmais., ii, (1790), 91. 
5 In Flind. Voy. (1814), ii. 
Works (ed. BENN.), i. 11. 
5 Prodr., i. 429, 475, 481. 
7 K., Diss. Malvac. (1822), 5. KUNTH in- 
cludes in one and the same general group, Hal- 
vaceæ, Sterculiareæ, and Tiliace, After which 
he secondarily divides Sferculiaceæ into series 
corresponding to most of those which we have 
enumerated, 
8 Gen. Plant., 978-1012. The author divides 
his class L, that of Columniferæ into four orders, 
Malvaceæ (209), Sterculiacee (210), Buett- 
neriaceæ (211), and Jiliacee (212). Ster- 
culiaceæ comprise according to him Bombacee 
and Helicteree@ ; and he adds to Buettneriacee, 
Lasiopetalee, Dombeyea, Hermannieæ, ÆErio- 
lenee, and Philippodendree. 
9 Veg. Kingd., 359. he anthor admits also 
Sterculiaceæ, Buettneriaceæ, Malvaceae, as dis- 
tinct families, defining them as ENDLICHER has 
done, 
540; Mise. 
10 To abridge the examples, we see that LINDLEY 
characterizes Sterculiacee as “ Malval Exogens, 
with columnar stamens all perfect, and 2-celled 
anthers turned outwards ;’ and that this family, 
moreover, includes Matisia and Quararibea with 
one-celled anthers properly placed in this group, 
because they are inseparable from the Myrodias 
with two-celled anthers; Helicteris, of which 
the anthers are sometimes those of Myrodia, and 
sometimes thoseof Matisia ; Plagianthus and 
Hoheria, which have anthers really 1-celled ; also 
all the Bombacea, arealso constituted thesame. The 
Buettneriacee are defined as: ‘* Malval Exogens, 
with 1-adelphous stamens, in most cases partly 
sterile, and 2-celled anthers turned inwards.” This 
group, moreover, includes several Zasiopetaleæ, 
with extrorse anthers, almost all the Dombeyee 
having anthers also extrorse,as have most Zerman- 
niew, and Buettneriee, and Philippodendron, which 
is a Plagianthus. It may even be said, that the 
extrorse anthers constitute the exception in this 
family, such as LINDLEY defines it. I do not 
speak of the numerous plants destitute of sta- 
minodes which are necessarily comprised here. 
BENTHAM and Hooker have, without doubt, 
recognised the insufficiency or the inexactitude 
of these various characters, for they have pre- 
served (Gen., 195, 214) but two orders, those of 
Malvaceæe and Sterculiacee, according as the 
anthers have one or two cells. But if such a 
