CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
123 
must therefore come within the limit of the Rhoeades of End- 
licher, where we find the carpels similarly constituted. Not- 
withstanding this sepai’ation into different classes, it is evident, 
from the extremely close affinity existing between the two fami- 
lies, that they ought to be in juxtaposition in any linear arrange- 
ment; but I will again refer to this subject when I come to 
discuss the affinities of the Winteracea. 
On THE WiNTERACE/E. 
The only two genera belonging to this small group that were 
known in the time of Jussieu, were placed by that celebrated 
botanist, in his ‘ Genera Plantarum,’ among the Magnoliacece , — 
an association which has been confirmed by most botanists since 
that time. DeCandolle, in his Syst. Veg. i. p. 548, first an- 
nounced the opinion of Mr. Robert Broum (in 1818), that Illicium 
and Drimys, together with Tasmannia, should be classed in a 
separate family under the name of Winterece , — a suggestion only 
partially adopted by the former botanist in his ‘ Prodromus ’ 
(1824), when he formed them into a tribe of the Magnoliacece, 
under the designation of the Illiciece, a classification that has 
since been generally adopted. Dr. Bindley, however, in his 
^Nixus’ (1833), and in his ‘Introduction to Botany’ (1836), is 
the only one who appears to have carried out the suggestion of 
Mr. Brown in establishing this as a distinct family under the 
title of the Winteracece ; but he subsequently abandoned this 
arrangement (in 1836), in his ‘Vegetable Kingdom’ (p. 417). 
M. Spach (in 1839), in the ‘ Suites k Bufibn’ (vii. 432), elassed 
the Winterece as a tribe of Magnoliacece, evidently wbth much 
doubt, as he stated distinctly that he considered that group 
more allied to the Dilleniacece than to Magnoliacece {1. c. p. 432). 
Endlicher (in 1838), after the example of Spach, classed the 
Illiciece, in his ‘ Genera Plantarum,’ as a tribe of the Magnoliacece, 
but expressed his opinion that they ought rather to rank as a 
distinct order, between that family and the Dilleniacece (Enchir. 
p. 428). Lastly (in 1855), we have the authority of the authors 
of the ‘ Flora Indica’ (p. 72), who give it as their opinion that the 
Winterece form a very questionable tribe of the Magnoliacece, 
and may with reason be separated from them, as soon as the 
systematic characters of other collateral groups are better esta- 
blished. Having already partially stated my own opinion on 
this subject (p. 122), when treating on the Canellacece, I will 
now proceed to mention the facts on which that conclusion is 
founded. 
Although the Winteracece have unquestionably a considerable 
R 2 
