86 MR. D. OLIVER ON SYCOPSIS, A NEW GENUS OF HAMAMELIDE.E. 



Witli respect to orders, on the other hand, presenting a less degree of complexity in the 

 structure of the flower, a resemblance (to say the least of it) is presented to us between 

 Liquidambar, the catkin-flowered though hermaphrodite Corylopsis, Distylium, and 

 Sycopsis, and the Platanece, Ulmacece, and Betulinece *. 



The number of species at present known which may be referred to the Hamamelidece 

 I reckon at from 26 to 30 (28). These are grouped under 13 genera, hence in the strik- 

 ingly small relative proportion of about 2 or 2"3 species to a genus. Upon the 

 value of those characters which have been considered to possess a generic importance in 

 this order, I may observe that, from the important bearing which it aj)peared to have in 

 connexion with the distribution of its members, I have endeavoured, by the comparison 

 and dissection of various species, to form an opinion, although with a view chiefly 

 to determine the position and afiinities, &c. of Sycopsis. Having in the preceding obser- 

 vations alluded to some of these, it is not needful here to enter upon this point, further 

 than to observe that nearly each genus is characterized by marks of considerable import- 

 ance estimated by the value ordinarily attached to them in other Dicotyledonous orders, 

 and might only from special considerations which I think we are not yet in a position to 

 decide upon be deemed of less than generic import. 



Coupled \vith a regard to these peculiar intergeneric relations and one or two other 

 concomitants, which I shall briefly touch upon, a consideration of the geographical distri- 

 bution of the Hamamelidece acquires considerable interest. The order is tolerably widely 

 dispersed; at least, there occur outlying individuals or small groups far removed from 

 what may be regarded as being at the present period their focus. None of the species, 

 however, and, with one or two exceptions, none of the genera, present in themselves a 

 great extension of area ; on the other hand, not a few of the genera are, so far as 

 our knowledge extends, very unusually restricted in this respect, although from our very 

 imperfect acquaintance with the botany of the interior of Eastern Asia, probably not so 

 remarkably as from our present data it would appear. Dr. E,oyle, in his valuable 

 ' Illustrations of the Botany of the Himalaya f,' caUs attention to the wide extension of 

 the genus Samamelis, of which he states one species to grow in China, a second in Peru, 

 and a third in North America. Some singular mistake, however, must have here 

 occurred, no species of this genus, nor, to my knowledge, of the order, having been as 

 yet discovered in South America, and, indeed, the question as to the propriety of retairdng 

 in Samamelis the Chinese species now assigned to it being quite open to doubt, as noted 

 l)y E-obert Brown in his paper on the plants of Abel's Journey %. 



Dr. Uoyle would appear to have based his statement upon the localities given in the 

 4th vol. of the ' Prodromus,' in which work are enumerated three species of Kamamelis — 

 H. virginica, H. persica (now Farrottia), and S. chinensis. I have little doubt that, 

 through some lapsus, Peru has been substituted for Persia. The distribution of the 

 Hamamelidece is pretty nearly as follows : — 



* Agardli, in 'Theoria Syst. Plant.' p. 155, says, " Altingiacefe sunt Fother(/illeis fere collateiales Ibrmani aliquau- 

 tulum perfectiorem Platanacearum constituentes," and " Hamamelidece sunt evolutioue florum Corneis, Brimiaceis, 

 Araliaceis, Rhizophoreis &c. aualogse." 



t P. 234. , J /. c. p. 375. 



