CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
157 
Mus. iii. 439) repeated his former views of the affinity of Styrax 
and Foveolaria with that family. 
Kunth (in 1818) entirely adopted the conelusions of Richard 
in his description of the order Styraceae (Nov. Gen. et Sp. iii. 
256). 
The elder DeCandolle (in 1824), in his celebrated ‘ Prodromus’ 
(i. 621), adopted the views of Jussieu only as regards Strigilia, 
which he arranged in Meliacece. 
D. Don (in 1825), following the indication of Jussieu, sepa- 
rated the Symphcacea as a distinct family, and afterwards (in 
1828) withdrew from the Styracece the genus Halesia, making it 
the type of a new order Halesiacem (Jameson’s Journ. Dec. 1828), 
— a view sanctioned by the adhesion of Link in the following 
year (Handb. i. 667). 
Adr. Jussieu (in 1830), after much attention to the study of 
the Meliaceos, of which order he contributed his excellent Mono- 
graph, came to a conclusion somewhat different from that of his 
father, before mentioned ; he showed (Mem. Mus. xix. 184) that 
Styrax and Foveolaria (Strigilia) could not be separated from / 
one another, and that both ought to be excluded from the Me- 
liacece, although still allied to it : he thus acceded to the opinion 
generally entertained of the close affinity of these two genera, 
without bestowing further attention on them. 
Lindley (in 1836), in his ‘ Introduction to Botany,’ p. 228, fol- 
lowing the example of Richard, united Styrax, Foveolaria, and 
Halesia, together with Symplocos and Hopea in the Styracece, 
as a suborder of the Ebenacece. 
G. Don (in 1837), adopting his brother’s example, made three 
distinct families of the Styracece of former authors ; viz. Symplo- 
cinecB (Diet. iv. p. 1) for the single genus Symplocos, Styracece 
{ib. p. 3) for Styrax alone, and Halesiacece {ib. p. 6) for Halesia 
only. 
Endlicher (in 1838), on the other hand, considered Symplocece, 
Styracece, and Halesiacece merely as distinct suborders of the 
Ebenacece. 
Bentham (in 1838), in a memoir published in the 18th vol. of 
the ‘Linn. Soc. Trans.,’ discussed the characters and affinities of 
Symplocos, Alstonia, and Hopea, and considered that these genera, 
together with Styrax, Foveolaria, and Halesia, constitute the 
distinct order Styracece, which perhaps might be held to be only 
a tribe of the Ebenacece ; his valuable remarks were, however, con- 
fined merely to observations upon the differences existing in the 
calyx, corolla, and stamens, seemingly without having directed his 
attention to the great dissimilarity in the relative structures of 
the ovary and seed in these genera. He considered the affinity 
of the Styracece to be immediately with Ebenacece among Mono- 
