CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
113 
to be tbe produce of a species of Wintera [W. alba, L.). Murray, 
in his edition of Linnaeus’s ‘ Syst. Veg.,’ appears to have first 
distinguished it generically from the Magellanic species, calling 
it Canella alba, a name by which it has since been universally 
known. The earliest details of its general eharacters were fur- 
nished in 1788 by Swartz, in a memoir published in the first 
volume of the Linnaean Transactions; and in the same year, 
Oaertner described the structure of its seed and embryo. Swartz, 
however, was correct in stating its berry to be unilocular, and 
from 2- to 4-seeded ; but Gaertner, generally so accurate in his 
observations, erred by adopting the character of Linnaeus, who 
characterized it as being 3-celled, — an error which has been 
perpetuated by most botanists to this day, notwithstanding that 
its true structure was subsequently indicated by Cambassedes. 
Jussieu, in his ‘ Genera Plantarum’ (in 1789), referred Canella, 
together with Symphonia, to the simple-leaved section of the 
Meliaceee-, but subsequently*, in his observations upon this 
family (1817), he excluded it altogether from the Order, on 
account of its seminal structure and the character of its leaves. 
Choisy (in 1823) referred the genus to the family of the Gut- 
tiferce, beeause of its monadelphous stamens, which appeared to 
him sufficient to establish a relationship with Symphonia [Moro- 
nobea), an idea first indicated, but soon abandoned by Jussieu ; 
and in the following year (1824) the same position was again 
assigned to it by Choisy in DeCandolle’s Prodromus (i. 563). 
By Nees and Martins (1825) it was still referred io Meliacece, 
together with a new species from Brazil t, to which they gave 
the name of Canella axillaris, which plant was afterwards made 
the type of a new genus, Cinnamodendron, by Endlicher J. 
Cambassedes (in 1828) exposed the fallacy of the ground upon 
which Canella had been placed by Choisy among Guttiferce, and 
first pointed out the real structure of the ovary in this genus § ; 
but his observations have been neglected by succeeding botanists. 
Adrien de Jussieu (1830), in his monograph of the Meliacece, 
offered valid reasons || for its exelusion from that family, as well 
as from the Guttiferce, without assigning, however, any positive 
locality for this genus. 
Prof, von IMai’tius (1829), in his ‘ Gen. et Spec.’ iii. 163, de- 
scribed at some length and figured a new genus, Platonia, 
founded on another Brazilian tree having much the habit of the 
Guttifei'ce. This genus he proposed to associate with Canella in 
a new family, the Canellacece, which he placed next to Guttiferce, 
* Mem. Mus. iii. 347. t Nova Act. Acad. Cics. xii. p. 18. tab. 3. 
I Gen. Plant, p. 1029. § Mem. Mus. xvi. 395. 
II Mem. Mus. xix. 185. 
VOL. I. 
Q 
