LAURACEZL. 449 
turned to the study of this order for Du Canpouin’s Prodromus,’ 
describing in detail all the species thereof. He admits most of 
Ness’ genera, and adds the four new ones Ampelodaphne, Bihania, 
Sassafridium, and Synandrodaphne. ‘The total of the generic types 
retained by us in the order Lauracee proper then amounted to 
forty-six. To these? we have recently added the genus Potameia 
of Duprtit-THovars,’ hitherto attributed to Proteaceae. 
At the same time two small groups, considered by several authors: 
as distinct groups, namely Gyrocarpee‘ and Iiligeree,* were associated 
by others, especially by R. Brown and Nuzs, with Lauracee. Von 
Martius, in 1837, described® a genus which, though closely allied 
to Gyrocarpus, lacked the wing to the fruit; he named it Sparattan- 
thelium. Hernandia’ had also been made the type of a small order 
apart,* but in 1864 we pointed out’ that it merely represented a 
reduced diclinous type of [/igera; and made it into a distinct series 
of the order Lauracee, which now consists of fifty-one genera, ex- 
cluding those that are unknown, or that are doubtful members of this 
order.” The number of known species, estimated in 1846 at 450 
by Linpuey, and at 700 by Nets, was raised to 1050 in 1864 in 
Maissner’s Monograph. 
Nezzs” had already studied their geographical distribution, dividing 
them into eastern and western, referring his Cinnamomee, Camphoree,, 
1 XV. 1-260; 508-516, Order clxii. Lauraceae. 
2 In Adansonia, ix. (1870) 241. See pp. 400, 
431, 466. 
3 Nov. Gen. Madag. (1806), n. 16. 
*Dumort., Anal. Fam, 14, — Nezs, 
Progr., 20.—Enp1., Gen., 324, Order evii.— 
Mzissy., Prodr., 245 (subord. ii. and tribe v. 
Laurac.). 
5 Bu, Nov. Fam. Expos., 12; in Ann. Se. 
Nat., sér. 2, ii. 96.—Nezxs, Syst., 695, — Illi 
geracee LInDL., Nat. Syst., ed. 2, 202. 
6 Herb, Fl. Bras., 280; in Regensb, Bot, 
Zeit. (1841), 
7 Pium., Gen., 6, t. 40 (1703). 
8 Hernandice Bu. Bijdr., 550; Nov. Fam. 
Expos. (1833) ; in Ann. Se, Nat., sér. 2, ii. 89. 
—Linp1., Nat. Syst., ed. 1,76.—Hernandiacee, 
Doumort., Anal, Fam., 14, 16,— LinD1., op. cit., 
ed. 2, 195. 
9 In Adansonia, v. 188 (1864). 
10 Namely : 1. Adenostemum Prrs., Syn, i. 
467, &c., the Gomortega of Ruiz & Pavon, which 
is a Monimiad (see above, i, 315).—2. Bistania 
Noronz., in Verh, Bat. Gen. van Kunst en 
Wet., v. 64; Hassx,, Relat, Pl. Noronh., 5; 
Merssn., Prodr., 259, n. 21.—8. Chibaca BrRt., 
VOL. II. 
ex Rosentu., Syn. Pl. Diaphor., 238 (an un- 
described South African Laurad).—4. Christ- 
mannia Duyust. (RuEEDE, Hort. Malab., iv. 
t. 50), a Laurad acconding to RosENTH., op, cit., 
1066.—5. Dendrodaphne Brvut., Prim. Fl. 
Portobellens., in Act. Acad. Suec., 145; Mutssw., 
Prodr., 259, n. 17.—6. Icosandra PHILIPP., in 
Linnea, xxix, 39; Metssy., Prodr., 506 (a 
genus with pentandrous flowers and an icosan- 
drous androceum otherwise formed as in Bolda, 
whereof it might perchance be an anomalous 
form (?).—7. Licaria AUBL. (see above, p. 447, 
note 11).—8. Linharia ARRUD., Dissert. (1810), 
ex Koster, Voyag. Brés, Fr. ed., ii. 429, of 
which two species (Z. aromatica and Tinctoria 
ARRUD.) are noted as useful, but are not de- 
scribed,—9. Menestrata VEtuoz., Fl. Flum., v, t. 
2; Muissw., Prodr., 259, n. 20. MW. racemosa 
VELLOz. is referred with doubt by Vow Martius 
to Ocotea (Oreodaphne), and by Mutssnur to 
Persea lavigata or pirifolia.—10. Septina 
Noronu., loc. cit.; Muissn., Prodr., 259 ; 
Hasst., loc. cit., 5. 
1 Op. cit., 683. See also the tables annexed 
to the text of that work, giving in detail the area 
of each of the types then known. 
GG 
