TERNSTRŒMIACEÆ. 253 
upon this question, united the two groups into one and the same 
family of Zerustremiacee, the history and the general organiza- 
tion of which he made known. The genera before established 
which he admitted' were thirteen in number :—Cochlospermum, Tern- 
stremia, Eroteum (Freziera, Cleyera), Eurya, Saurauja, Stewart, 
Gordonia, Architea, Mahurea, Marila, Kielmeyera, Caraipa, Thea; he 
added Laplacea and Bonnetia, but he left there wrongly one of the 
Bivacee—Ventenatia* In 1855, Cuotsy, continuing the study of this 
family in a detailed monograph,’ found there as newly-established 
genera,’ Adinandra, Jack ÿ Anneslea, Wauuicu ; Pyrenaria, Buus,’ 
and Schima, Rernwarvt.s He admitted besides the genus Penta- 
phylaw, Cuampion, which has been finally rejected. BENTHAM AND 
J. Hooker, in their Genera,’ comprise in this family /czodolee, that 
is to say, the genera Caryocar and Anthodiscus ;° Marcgravie, with 
the three old genera, Maregravia, Norantea, and Ruyschia ; Actinidia 
and Stachyurus, genera belonging to other groups," and which they 
united in the same tribe with Sawrauja; the Omphalocarpum of 
Parsor pr Brauvois, which is one of the African Sapotacee ; the 
Microsemma of LaABILLARDIÈRE, whose place among the Zerastre- 
miaceæ has also been contested ;” also Pelliceria, whose existence in 
Columbia Triana had just indicated, and Haploclathra, detached 
by Brenruam™ from the ancient genus Caraipa. In 1865, Beppomr” 
added Pæciloneuron to the preceding genera; which, besides the 
doubtful types,” makes the number of genera which we can preserve 
as autonomous twenty-eight. 

? Only counting those which we have pre- 2 Tr. & Px, in Ann. Sc. Nat. sér. 4, xvii. 
served as distinct. A 
? He did not include Visnea (Mocanera) 18 Ex B. H., Gen., 186 (1862); in Ann. Sc. 
which Jussrev (Gen., 318) had placed, we know Vat., loc. cit., 380 (1863). 
not why, among the Onagraceæ. M In Journ. Linn, Soc., v. (1861). 
3 Mém. sur les Fam. des Ternstraemiacées et © In Journ. Linn, Soc., viii. (1864). 
Camelliacées (in Mém, Soc. Phys, et Hist. 16 These are: 1. Michovia NVELLOZ. (Fl. 
Nat, de Gen., xiv. 94). Flwm.,y.t. 103), ascribed doubtfully by BENTHAM 
4 Without citing those which had not been 
kept as autonomous. 
5 In Comp. to Bot. Mag., i. (1835). 
6 Pl, As. Rar., i. (1830). 
7 Bijdr., 1119 (1826). 
8 In Bl, Bijdr., 129 (1825). 
9 I. (1862-1567), 177, 981, Ord. 28, 
0 G.F. Mey., Prim. Fl, Essequeb. (1818). 
11 The former has been studied among the 
Dilleniaceæ (vol. i. 114, 134); the latter was 
formally placed among the Piftosporeæ (ENDL.. 
Gen., n. 5699), and appeared nearly allied to 
certain Æricacee. 
& Hooker (Gen. 438) to the genus Ternstræ- 
mia, but finally rejected from this genus by the 
same authors on account of its 2-fid calyx and its 
cucullate nectary. 2. Hexadica Lour. (Fl. 
Coch., 562), which Muezzer d’Argovie ascribes 
(in DC., Prodr., xv. p. ii. 1259) to Ternstræ- 
miacee, or to Clusiacee; an opinion which 
BentuamM & Hooker find inadmissible. 3. Cato- 
stemma BENTH, (in Hook, Lond. Journ., ii. 365 ; 
ii. 365). In this tree of British Guiana, 
which was first ascribed to the abnormal Tern- 
streemiacee, then to equally abnormal genera 
of Myrtaceae, the flowers are hermaphrodite and 
