I tv, I 
158 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
petaleae, also tending directly towards Humiriacea, in the next 
instance to Meliaceee, and perhaps with Aurantiacea and Olaca- 
cea, among Polypetalea. 
Professor A. DeCandolle (1844), in his ‘Prodromus’ (viii. 
244), described the Styracea as a family distinct from Ebenacece, 
dividing it into three groups : — 1 . Symplocece, for Symplocos 
only ; 2. Styraceee, for Styrax, Pterostyrax, and Halesia ; 3. 
Pamphiliece, for Pamphilia and Foveolaria. 
Professor Lindley (in 1845) entirely followed the views of 
DeCandolle (Veg. Kingdom, p. 593) ; but in his last edition of 
that work (1853), without expressing any opinion of his own, he 
there annexed the arguments, and by figures illustrated the facts, 
which I had communicated to him, and upon which my sugges- 
tion was based, for the separation of the Symplocacece from the 
Styracea. It was against these arguments, and to maintain the 
opinions of Prof. A. DeCandolle, that Prof. Asa Gray directed 
his remarks in his ‘ Notes on Vavcea,^ to which I have before 
alluded. 
^ Prof. Decaisne considered the Styracece nearly allied to Alan- 
giacete ; hut in this conclusion there can be little doubt that he 
held SymplocacecB in view, that being nearly the position I have 
assigned to the latter family. 
Prof. Miquel (in 1856), in Martins’s ‘ Flora Brasiliensis,’ 
adopted the order SymplocacetE, which he there described as 
distinct from Styracea, according to my suggestion, hut without 
offering any comment on the matter. 
Finally, Prof. Agardh, in a work just published (1858), gives 
quite a novel view of the affinity of the Styracece, which he is 
disposed to consider as a gamopetalous form of the Tiliacea, and 
more especially of the Elmocarpea. He seems to accord in the 
separation I have proposed of the Styracece from the Symploca- 
cecE, and suggests the probability that the latter family may prove 
to be a gamopetalous form of his group Carpodetece, which he 
arranges near Cornacece. 
From this history it will be seen how constantly and how 
widely the conclusions of botanists have varied in regard to the 
affinities of these two small groups of plants ; and this uncer- 
tainty shows a necessity for fixing their characters upon some 
more definite basis than has heretofore been attempted. 
The affinities of the Styracece, and the mutual relationship of 
the several genera there associated, have hitherto been founded 
on the more trivial characters of the relative number of the sta- 
mens, and their cohesion at their base upon the petals, which at 
this point often become pseudo-gamopetalous by mere aggluti- 
nation ; while, on the other hand, no stress has been laid on its 
other far more essential carpological characters. Although it be 
