168 
James Small. 
placing of the Othonneae in the Cynaroideae and the Tussilag- 
ineae in the Eupatorieae marks the affinity of the Benthamian 
Senecioneae with these two tribes, as the Othonneae and Tussilagineae 
now form sub-tribes of the Senecioneae. His grouping of the Inulese 
and Leyssereae, Tarchonantheae and Gnaphalieae, Buphthalmeae and 
Relhanieae is interesting as all these are sub-tribes of the Inuloideae 
of Bentham. Various other groupings are of minor interest but will 
be obvious to the synantherologist. 
Delpino, 1871. 
The stress laid upon the anemophily in Artemisia by Delpino 
(22) has been shown by Bentham (7) to have led to erroneous 
conclusions. His views on the origin of the family as shown in Table 
III are interesting on account of the recognition of the affinity 
between the Loheliaceae and Compositae. It is necessary to remember 
however that his Senecionideae is that of Lessing and includes the 
Heliantheae, Helenieae and Senecioneae. 
Table III. Ddpino's scheme of the derivation of Absinthium. 
Absinthium 
A 
I 
Senecionideae 
A 
I 
Compositae 
A 
I 
Lobeliaceae 
A 
I 
Campanulaceae. 
Bentham, 1873. 
Bentham followed Cassini very closely in his expression of 
the affinities of his tribes, as will be seen from Fig. 2, which is the 
arrangement given in Plate II. of the Notes (7). This diagram fails 
to indicate the close affinity of the Senecioneae and the Eupatoriaceae 
through the Tussilagineae, recognised by Cassini and certainly not 
obliterated by the removal of that subtribe from the latter to the 
former tribe by Bentham. Similarly it omits the connection between 
the Cynareae and Inuleae noted by Cassini It marks clearly, how¬ 
ever, the affinities of the Senecioneae with six other tribes. 
In addition to the above diagram Bentham gave expression 
to other views on the history of the family in the text of the Notes 
