Origin and Development of the Composites . 165 
B. Phylogeny. 
Beyond vague ideas of a common aneestry for some of the 
genera obviously very much alike, the pre-Cassinian writers on the 
Compositae had apparently no thoughts of the evolution of one 
group from another within the family. It is, of course, well known 
that many of them were vehemently opposed to all evolutionary 
doctrines. As this question of creation or evolution is a general one 
and as Cassini was the first to distinguish the tribes sufficiently 
clearly to form any correct idea of their relationships the present 
account will be given in chronological order from Batsch and Cassini 
onwards. Another reason for the chronological order is that it 
emphasises the penetration of Cassini and the subsequent neglect 
of his valuable work by succeeding writers to the great detriment 
of synantherology. 
Batsch, 1802. 
In his Tabula afpnitatum (5) Batsch discusses the affinities of 
each of his three groups of Composites. He considers the Lepid- 
ocephalae (Cichorieae) to be connected with the Cinarocephalae 
(Cynareae and Mutisieae) through Scolymus carduiformus and 
Barnadesia, with the Campanulaceaeby the aggregation of the flowers 
and by the latex and with the Cucurbitaceae by the bitter juice and 
disagreeable odour. The Cinarocephalae he considers to be connected 
with the Valerianaceae and Proteaceae by the exalbuminous seed and 
aggregation of the flowers; similarly the Corymbiferae are said to have 
affinities with the Campanulaceae. 
Cassini, 1826. 
The form chosen by Cassini for the expression of his views on 
the affinities of the tribes of the Composite is one seldom used but 
very useful. In Plate I of the Opuscides (18) he places the nineteen 
tribes each in a circle and the circles in an ellipse. Fig. 1 is from 
Cassini’s diagram in the Opuscules , which he describes as a “tableau 
exprimant les affinitds des tribus naturelles de la famille des 
Synanthdrdes.” The Boopidees are the Calyceraceae of modern 
systems. The interesting points in relation to the present study of 
the Composite are the affinities indicated between the Senecioneae 
and the Eupatorieae, the Senecioneae and Astereae, the Senecioneae 
and Anthemideae, the Senecioneae and Mutisieae, and between the 
Inuleae and Cynareae. 
Lessing, 1832. 
On page 435 of the Synopsis (55) Lessing gives a table of the 
tribes and sub-tribes of which he remarks “ Analogiam subtribum 
singularum videre licet e tabula sequente.” An examination of this 
arrangement (Table II) shows that Lessing followed Cassini in his 
