ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF MONOCOTYLEDONS. 73 
appears to agree with Brongniart’s; but the Orchidee are not included 
in the exalbuminous division, other division is split up into 
five groups, Spadici ciffor al, Glumaceous, Enantioblasteze, Homoblastez, 
and vere, 98 the last three of which are based on the character 
of the em 
Only os those schemes which are important on account of 
& B 
et 
=a 
@ 
Within the last few months Mr. Bentham has laid before the 
innean Society a division of Monocotyledons into four series, Epi- 
x, 
€ propose now to compare these schemes, 80 as to glean from 
re esr an eclectic system, which may suggest a hypothetical 
Allt the authorities do not quite agree with regard to Dr. Hooker’s 
ges Monocotyledonous cohorts, but we may adopt the short name of 
the first, Hydrales, for the family Hydrocharidee. All authorities 
agree to unite the orders Cannacea, tnd in and ie usacee, for 
which the collective name Scitaminee may be well retained. 
Braun separates the Bromeliacee from these che he leaves them near 
at hand, and we may perhaps, in spite of Mr. Bentham’s query, group 
iance of ace 
Vellosice are nearer to the Bromeliacee than to the Narcissal Hamo- 
may be grouped nem. con. with the Butomee, Juncaginea, Potamee, 
and Aponogetee under Sachs’ name Polycarpe. Dr. Hooker terms 
obviousl 
P olycarpa pei Naiadea. Palme, ytelephasiee, and gia are 
commonly considered as merely Tibeonnen: so that we may retain 
either the name Palmacee or Palmales. Braun groups them, as Spadice- 
_flore, with the Aroidee and Pandanacee, which Dr. Hooker places in 
the next cohort (X., Arales), while Mr. "Bentham separates the two 
last orders altogether from them. Sachs admits that Lemnacea, 
placed by Braun among the Helobie, and Typhaced, among the Glumi- 
* See Le Maout and Decaisne (ed. Hooker), p. 167. 
a In Aschero’y “Flora of Branden burg,” Cid Sache “Tobruk,” 
} For an abstract of seo the last volume, p. 381.—(Ed.]. 
