Notes on Recent Literature. 
212 
botanists, owing to their having failed to notice the subtlety and 
significance of his numerous and often unnamed major divisions, 
divisions we mean of higher than ordinal rank. 
Readers of this Journal, who are familiar with Mr. Wernham’s 
articles on Sympetalae, will naturally wonder how this group is 
treated by Wettstein and Warming. Warming states (p. 346) that 
“ the Sympetalae form the last, highest developed and presumably 
the youngest sub-class of Dicytoledons. On the whole, they seem 
to form quite a natural group ; but they scarcely form a phylo¬ 
genetic line; and the future will undoubtedly unite certain classes 
with polypetalous ones.” Then follows Warming’s arrangement 
into eleven orders beginning with the Bicornes (Engler’s Ericales) 
and ending with the Synandrae (Engler’s Campanulatae), an 
arrangement which differs only in slight respects from Warming’s 
earlier one. The orders are arranged in two major groups (p. 348). 
“ First come those with two whorls of stamens (pentacyclic), pre¬ 
sumably the oldest type. Then follow the Tetracyclicae 
which are sub-divided into hypogynous forms and epigynous 
forms.” Warming (p. 49) holds that “ On the whole, symphylly 
(‘ Sambladethed ’) points to a younger and probably a more 
perfect stage of development in any given circle of affinities [italics 
ours]. Symphyllous organs, e.g., symphyllous corollas or sym- 
phyllous gynoecia are laid down as polyphyllous ones ; ” and here 
fig. 72 (after Payer) is cited, showing that in the development of 
the flower of Borago, the organs which later are coherent, are at 
first free. Warming admits (p. 356) that the present position of the 
Primulales among the other sympetalous orders is not clear, 
chiefly on the ground of the presence of two integuments in the 
ovule of the Primulales, and “ possibly they are connected with 
some choripetalous type.” We ourselves are prepared to state this 
case more strongly, and to argue for a position of the Primulales 
close to that of the Centrospermae. Wettstein agrees in deriving 
the Plumbaginaceae from the Centrospermae; but he strangely 
allies the Primulaceae with the Bicornes, and derives both these 
groups from his Guttiferales (including Dilleniaceae and Hypericum). 
Wettstein boldly admits that the Sympetalae are polyphyletic, 
and derives almost every sympetalous order from different Dialy- 
petalous ancestors. 
Lotsy’s work has not yet reached the Sympetalae; but as the 
case for the polyphyletic origin of the Sympetalae is much stronger 
than for that of the Monocotyledons, we may safely predict some 
interesting suggestions when Lotsy’s final volume appears. 
One other point in Warming’s book deserves notice. The 
orders and families recognised by him are smaller, and in our 
judgment more practicable than those recognised by Engler. For 
example, Warming’s Geraniales are practically the same as Engler’s 
sub-order Geraniineae ; and the immense size of some of Engler’s 
orders, e.g., his Geraniales (which include the Euphorbiaceae and 
even the Callitrichaceae) make them almost if not quite unworkable. 
Again, Warming sub-divides Engler’s family Rosaceae, into four 
really workable families, the Rosaceae (sensu stricto), Amygdalaceae, 
Chrysobalanaceae, and Pomaceae; and it cannot be successfully 
maintained that the family Rosaceae as ordinarily understood is 
botanically comparable with such families as are ordinarily held to 
comprise the Liliiflorae. 
