Ni/mpho'acere.] flora indica. 338 



fructum multilocularem coalita ; stigmaUbus sessilibus, linearibus, ra- 

 diantibus, appeiidiculatis v.inappendiculatis. Ovula pauca v. plurima, 

 anatropa, per totam cavitatem sparsa, rarius 2-3 sutura dorsali inserta. 

 Carpella pauca, libera, v. plurima in baccam multilocularem polysper- 

 mam putredine clehiscentem mediante toro coalita, carpellis rarius dorso 

 obscure dehiscentibus. Semina libera v. in pericarpii pulpa immersa, 

 arillata v. exarillata ; testa coriacea Crustacea v. subossea, scabra v. 

 ItEvi ; tegmine membranaceo ; albumen farinaceum v. subcarnosum, axi 

 plerumque canale percursum. Embryo orthotropus, sacculo nuclei in- 

 clusus, albuminis cavitate prope hilum semi-immersus ; cotyledonibus 

 crassis, plerumque intus cavis, plumulam foventibus ; radicula brevi. — 

 Herbse aquatica, rbizomate crasso prostrato folia et scapos rarius ramos 

 foliiferos et jioriferos gerente, foliis natanitbus peltalis Jiastatis corda- 

 tisve rarius demersis seciisque, petiolo stipulate v. exstipulato, pedunculis 

 cxtra-aaillaribus, floribus natantibiia nuptiis peraciis plerumque demersis. 



The true position of this Order we believe to he between BerlericUa and Fajia- 

 veracea, as iar us this can be shown in a linear series. Before proceeding to discuss 

 its affinities, it is necessary to enter into the conflicting statements and opinions of 

 some able botanists who have studied its organization and relationship. 



Brown long ago announced it as his opinion (' Flinders' Voyage,' ii. 598, and lat- 

 terly. Plant. Jav. Rar. 108), that the Cahomhea ai'e only a section of Nymjphtsaceeey 

 a conclusion in which he has been followed by none, though Asa Gray (Gen. Plants 

 United States, i. 91) has, under the former Order, recorded his adhesion to this opi- 

 nion, and we know it to be Bentham's also ; and, after a very careful examination of 

 the structure of all the genera, we have no hesitation in adopting it too. 



The Orders Nymjihceacece, Cabombeai, and Nelumbiaceee have long been considered 

 as forming one group or alliance ; which has been called Nymjyhcea* by Salisbury 

 (Ann. Bot. ii. 70), Hijdro^eltidece by Bartling, Vitelligerts by Martins, Nymphcsinets 

 by Brongniart, Nywphales by Lindley, Chlamydoblastece by Adrieu de Jussieu, Ne- 

 imniia by Endlicher, and 'Nywphaoidece by Meisuer (including in the last two cases 

 the Sarraceniacece). 



It is useful to quote these terms, for they show how uniformly all systematic bo- 

 tanists have regarded the alliance as natui'al. Much difference of opinion has, how- 

 ever, e.\isted, as to whether its members should be referred to Monocotyledons or to 

 Dicotyledons, and very recently an eminent botanist and accomplished anatomist has 

 endeavoured to prove that it should be divided, Neliimbiacece being retained in Dico- 

 tyledons, and Nym'phijeacece perhaps referred to Endogens. 



It is not necessary to do more than allude to the opinions of some of the earliei 

 botanists, of whom Caesalpinius, Magnolius, and Bernard de Jussieu referred Nymphcea 

 to Papaveracea ; or of their followers, who, being ignorant of the Btructure and de- 

 velopment of the embryo and young plant, were led away by analogies, and classed 

 Nymphaa with llydroclmridea and other Monocotyledons ; such were Ga:rtner, A. 

 L. Jussieu, Claude Kichard, and J. St. Hilaire : their views have been discussed at 

 length by De CandoUe and others. Of the modern systematic authors who have stu- 

 died the subject we believe that the following consider the place of Nymphc^a to be 

 where we retain it— Arnott, Brown, Brongniart, Bartling, Bentham, De Candolle, 

 Endlicher, Asa Gray, A. de Jussieu, Meisuer, Salisbury, Spach, Wight ; those who 

 incline to consider it Monocotyledonous are Lindley, and perhaps Planchon ; Trecul, 

 who discusses the question in an anatomical and physiological point of view only, 



* Eor the dates and relative merits of these names see Plancliou's excellent ' Etudes 

 sur les Nympheacees' (Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 3. \a. 17), which contains by very far the 

 best systematic account of the Order that has hitherto appeared. 



2 H 



