138 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
Jussieu (in 1789)* arranged Ephedra in Conifera, where, to- 
gether with Casuarma and Taocus, it entered into his first section 
of that family, while Gnetum was considered to be more allied to 
Urticaceee, near Misodendron, Piper, and some others. 
Poiret (in 1808) f looked upon Ephedra as allied to Casuarina 
and Taxus, but seemed to have had no idea of its relation to 
Gnetum, in regard to the affinity of which genus he offered no 
opinion. 
Richard (in 1810) J placed Ephedra in Coniferte, following 
Salisburia in his tribe Taxinece; but he made no mention of 
Gnetum. 
Mirbel (in the same year) § gave Ephedra a similar position : 
he, too, seemed to ignore the relationship of Gnetum. 
Robert Brown (in 1814) 1|, speaking of Coniferce, and referring 
to the view of Mirbel that the female fructification is a pistillum 
with a perforated style, observed that this argument “ is derived 
from the genus Ephedra, in which both the stigma and a con- 
siderable part of the style project beyond this cupula (peri- 
carpium), without cohering with its aperture ; and in confirma- 
tion of this opinion it may be observed that I have found a pro- 
jection of the stigma, though certainly in a much less obvious 
degree, both in Agathis and Podocarpus.” It is evident that 
this great botanist at that time had a very imperfect knowledge 
of the real structure of Ephedra ; for he then considered the 
pericarp to be a modified disk, and the integuments of the seed 
to be the pistillum. At a later period, however (in 1825)^, in 
his celebrated memoir on Kingia, remarking upon Cycadacea 
and Coniferce, he corrected his former opinion, having noticed 
that its supposed style is in reality the elongated tubular apex 
of the seminal integument. 
Blume(in 1834)**, in establishing the family of the Gnetacece, 
where he first associated Gnetum with Ephedra, gave a novel 
and, to my mind, the truest interpretation of the ordinal struc- 
ture and affinities of this small group : to his opinions I will 
presently refer. It is to be regretted that his views in regard to 
the nature of its several structural parts have not been adopted 
by subsequent botanists, who have greatly mystified the subject 
by employing difierent sorts of nomenclature for the several 
floral and seminal parts, in order to accommodate these expres- 
sions to their notion of the close affinity of the Gnetacece with 
Coniferce and Cycadacece, and to the doctrine of naked seeds, as 
applied to those families. 
* Genera Plantarum, pp. 411 and 406, f Diet. vii. p. 276. 
J Ann. Mns. xvi. p. 297. § Ib. p. 458. 
II Gen. Rem. p. 572. ^ Append. King’s Voy. p. 64. 
** Ann. Sc. Nat. 2 ser. ii. p. 101. 
