u 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
one uniform character of embryo. I think, therefore, it will 
be conceded that my distribution is based on more consistent 
principles; and I perceive no disadvantage whatever in having 
as many as seven well-defined tribes, seeing that this is not an 
uncommon number accorded to other families by the authors of 
the ‘ Genera Plantarum.’ It will be noticed that the same emi- 
nent botanists have changed the names of my tribes, calling them 
after some particular genus which, as before shown in Coccu- 
lecB, may be very inappropriate : by this no advantage is gained ; 
on the contrary, it is far better to name a tribe, wherever it can 
be done, by its principal distinguishing feature, which at once 
recalls to mind the group to which any plant belongs : thus the 
names Heterocliniea, Leptogonece, Platygonece, and Pachygonea, 
speak for themselves more readily than Tinosporece and Cocculea. 
This method has been extensively followed in that great work the 
^Prodromus’ of DeCandolle, from which no inconvenience what- 
ever has yet arisen. 
In their distribution of the Menispermacece, the eminent bota- 
nists before mentioned annul several genera which appear to me 
to stand on valid ground : among these they are decidedly in 
error in excluding my genus Odontocarya, not only from the 
Heterocliniea, but from the order altogether, referring it to 
Euphorbiacece : its carpological features all conform unquestion- 
ably with those of the Heterocliniea, and place it in immediate 
affinity with the genus Aspidocarya of the ‘ Flora Indica.' Ane- 
lasma, though a very good genus, has been discarded by the 
same authorities, who have likewise condemned Batschia. For 
these, and some other genera in like manner suppressed by them, 
the evidence will be given on which they have been maintained. 
After mature reconsideration of all the facts relating to the 
differences in structure in the several genera, I feel bound to 
adhere to my previous distribution of the Menispermacete, formed 
by many years of attentive study and careful analyses. It must 
be remembered that when this investigation was undertaken little 
was known of the extremely varied structures in this family — 
structures resolvable into several well-marked groups ; for it is 
evident that the meagre information previously recorded was 
based upon a large amount of error, as will be seen by reference 
to the ‘ Prodromus ’ of DeCandolle and EndlichePs ‘ Genera 
Plantarum.’ It was not till my “ Remarks ” were published in 
1851, that some light began to gleam on the subject; even 
then a mere outline only was given of the new facts obtained, 
the details of which remain yet unpublished. These will now 
be given in succession, and will be afterwards illustrated by some 
of the numerous drawings made at the time of the examination. 
The question of the affinities of the group was considered in 
my first “ Remarks on Menispermacese ” (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. 
