CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
11 
As no other reason is adduced to justify the separation of the 
two families in question, the vahdity of their close affinity still 
remains unimpeached. 
Prof. Agardh has likewise proposed the separation of the Caly- 
ceracece from the Composite, under a still moi’e singular system 
of an’angement, also founded principally upon the mode of de- 
velopment of the ovules in different plants. He places Compo- 
site at the end of an alliance which embraces Cycadacee, all the 
Conifere, Ephedracee, Proteacee, and Bruniacee, and places 
Calyceracee in another alliance of the most heterogeneous kind, 
comprising Plantaginacee, Primulacee, Dipsacee, and Gnnnera- 
cee, the latter family interposing between Calyceracee and Com- 
posite. The principal reason given for this approximation of 
Gunneracee with Calyceracee is the fact of the single o\Tile 
being in both cases suspended from the very apex of the cell, 
while in Dipsacee the point of its suspension is somewhat lateral. 
The view of natural affinities expounded in his work* will not 
stand the test of investigation ; when applied to the case under 
consideration, we see that Gnnnera, with its monochlamydeous, 
often dioecious flowers, which are spicate or racemose and ebrac- 
teated, its two simple stamens, its divided style with plumose 
stigmata, its drupaceous fruit and very minute embryo in copious 
albumen, offer a combination of characters that place it at a gi’eat 
distance from Calyceracee in the system. Very similar reasons 
may be adduced in objection to the alliance of this family with 
the Primulacee and Plantaginacee\. 
Bearing in view the very numerous features of analogous 
structure in the Calyceracee and Composite, notwithstanding 
the difference in position of the ovule and seed, we must con- 
clude that a very close affinity exists between these two families. 
So intimate, indeed, is this relationship, that should any new 
system of arrangement be proposed, whether it be linear or 
circular, which should compel their becoming parted among 
separate groups on account of the different structure of their 
carpels, they will naturally take positions that will still touch 
one another. 
* Theoria Syst. Plant. 
t If anything were wanting to show the little practical value of the affini- 
ties thus suggested, we have before us the results of two systematists who, 
starting upon almost identically the same basis, have arrived at conclusions 
nearly diametrically opposed to eaeh other, and at variance with the esta- 
blished views of relationship imiversally acknowledged by botanists. 
