THE PRINCIPLES OF BOTANY. 
165 
only by their parasitical habit, but also by their stamens being 
opposite valvate lobes of a tubular calyx. Don has expressed 
an opinion that a connection is established between this order 
and Araliads, by means of Aucuba (Jameson’s Journal, Jan., 
1830, p. 163). Bronn (“'Blinders/ p. 543) suggests a relation 
to proteads. Endlicher decides in favour of the relation to 
caprifoils, witch hazels, and cornels. Adrien de Jussieu takes 
a similar view (Cour’s ‘ Element/ p. 567). D* Wight suggests 
a relation to alanqiads. Adolphe Brongniart combines them 
along with chloranths, sandalworts, and olecads, into a class which 
he calls Santalierees. These discordant opinions are caused by 
the different interpretations put by botanists upon the nature of 
the floral envelopes. 
It is customary to call the floral envelopes of the genera of 
Loranths by the name of sepals in Yiscum, and of petals in 
Loranthus, because in the latter genus we find extended to them 
a cup-like expansion, which is regarded as a calyx. It, however, 
seems impossible to doubt that the parts of the perianth are 
really of the same nature in both instances, as is proved, more¬ 
over, by the stamens which are applied to their face in both 
cases. Schleiden, indeed, calls the £ flower of Yiscum naked, 
and supposes it to consist of nothing but anthers; but M. 
Decaisne has more correctly shown the $ flowers of that genus 
to consist of four anthers grown to the inner face of four caly- 
cine sepals. The rim exterior to the calyx, which has given rise 
to the idea that the coloured part of a Loranth is corolla, is 
present in Yiscum also in the form of a slight annular swelling; 
and is in all probability analogous to the raised line terminating 
the cup from the rim which the sepals spring, Chryseis Esch- 
sclioltzia. In fact, we must in theory regard the flower of a 
Loranth to consist of a fleshy cup-like expansion of the end of a 
branch, from the upper edge of which expansion the sepals rise. 
This point being settled, we then have no difficulty in admitting the 
near alliance of loranths and sandalworts, a fact not lost sight of 
by D’Bronn in his Proclromus. He also, in speaking of his 
Myrodendrece, or feathered loranths, again adverts to the resem¬ 
blance between their three ovules suspended from the apex of a 
central placenta, and the same part in sandalworts (Linn. Trans., 
xix, 232). Decaisne, too, recognises their apetalous condition, 
and refers them to the neighbourhood of sandalworts. They 
may also be looked upon as having considerable analogy with pro¬ 
teads, which must be considered to occupy a place in the 
perigynous sub-class, parallel with that of loranths in the 
epigynous. The occasional separation of the $ and $ in 
different flowers points strongly to a relation to some declinous 
order, which relation seems to be found in helwingiads. 
