The Genus Azima. 51 



stipularum locum tenero nobis (ex icone) videntur, unde 

 genus vix hujus loci, sed forsan potius Rhamneis adnumer- 

 andun esse credimus. 



The principal reason, it appears to us, why those Botanists 

 who have written on this genus have not been led to refer 

 it to its proper position in the natural system is, that too 

 much importance has been attached to its being polypetalous. 

 Notwithstanding this structure, we believe its affinities lean 

 less towards the polypetalous than the monopetalous division 

 of plants ; and in the latter, we are inclined to place it as a 

 distinct order between Oleacece and Jasminacece. That it 

 is nearly related to these orders, more nearly indeed, than 

 to any others in the system, our analysis clearly shows; but 

 to neither of them can it be referred from the almost equal 

 affinity it bears to each. Thus it corresponds with Oleacece 

 in the structure of the flower, differing principally in having 

 4, not 2 stamens. If we reflect, however, that Oleacece is 

 tetramerous in its floral envelopes, it is to be expected that 

 truly oleaceous genera may yet be discovered having four sta- 

 mens. The dioecious character of Azima is met with in more 

 than one species of Olea ; and free petals exist in Linociera. 

 From Oleacece, Azima is essentially distinguished by its 

 erect, not pendulous ovules, and exalbuminous seed. On 

 the contrary, it agrees with Jasminacece in the nature of its 

 ovary and fruit, but differs considerably in the details of its 

 floral envelopes. From Oleacece it differs in habit, while 

 it agrees with that of the scandent species of Jesminum. 



By those who are inclined to keep up Oleaceae as a sub- 

 order of Jasminacece, (among whom may be mentioned Richard 

 and Arnott,) Azima will perhaps be considered as a proof 

 in favour of their opinion. We on the contrary, believe it to 

 be one of those plants which occasionally turn up to prove 

 the distinctness of orders, which were previously considered 

 as scarcely distinct. This, however, was hardly required as 

 regards the orders in question ; the late Professor DeCandolle 



