Notice of a Flora of North America. 277 



exert a beneficial influence on the botany of our country. We 

 shall notice, very cursorily, the contents of the recent number, 

 which commences the Monopetalous Exogenous plants, and com- 

 prises the orders CaprifoUacccc, Ruhiacecc, ValerianacecB, Dip- 

 sace(B, and a part of Compositce ; viz. the tribes Vernoniaccce, 

 Eupatoriaccfc, and the first subdivision of the tribe Asteroidece. 

 In Cajmfoliacece, we have two new species of Symphoricarpos, 

 collected at California, by Mr. Nutttall, and described from his 

 MSS., a new species of Lonicera, from Arkansas, and a species 

 of Sambucus from Oregon. The order Rubiaceca, consists of 

 three sub-orders, being, 1. Stellatem, R. Br. ; 2. Cinchonea, (ord. 

 CinchonacecB, Lindl. ;) and 3. Loganiecc, R. Br. 



In the first sub-order, two new species of Galium are descri- 

 bed ; and in the second, a species of Spermacoce, also a species 

 of Borreria, and a new Hedijoiis, (?) from Louisiana, which, on 

 account of the pentamerons flowers, our authors are inclined to 

 consider as the type of a new genus. With reference to the 

 third sub-order, it is remarked, that 



" In thus appending Logania, and its nearest allies, to RuKacece, 

 (which seems inevitable when we compare Ophiorhiza with Mitreola, 

 a poi'tion of Hedyotis with Ccelosti/Us, &c.,) we trust we are following 

 the indications thrown out by the most profound botanists who proposed 

 the order or tribe, {Appendix to Flinders^ 2, p. 564, and Tuckeifs 

 Congo ^ p. 448 ;) although it is still no less true than when Mr. Brown 

 first made the remark, that there are no satisfactory characters known 

 to distinguish Rubiacece from Ajwcynacecey 



Now, if it be difiicult to assign any arbitrary characters by 

 which Rubiacea. may be decidedly distinguished from Apocy- 

 nacecB, it certainly does not seem desirable to keep up a distinct 

 order, intermediate between the two, and, in this view, we think 

 the arrangement of Drs. Torrey and Gray very judicious. It 

 may be said, that, upon this i)rinciple, Spigeliacece must be re- 

 united with Gentianaceoi. and that even the latter are very 

 nearly related to Apocynacece, though possessing sufiiciently ob- 

 vious distinctions. We do not pretend to anticipate what course 

 may be taken by the authors, when these orders are under their 

 consideration ; but we incline to the opinion that there is, upon 

 the whole, less practical inconvenience in regarding all very 

 close alliances, such, at least, as they have merged, in the in- 



