2 MAGNOLIAS, MICHELI2E ET KADSERJF. NAPALENSES. 
t 
doccssor Dr. Ilamiltoii ; and a superficial acquaintance with the plants of this trihe 
is sufficient to convince any one, how very difficult it is to fix on decisive and discri¬ 
minating characters for them, even under every advantage of observing them in their 
w ild and most luxuriant state. 1 have little doubt, however, that the descriptions were 
intended for the very species, with which 1 have identified them. I am further corrobo¬ 
rated in this assertion by a consideration of the habitat , which the learned author, oil 
the authority of the discoverer, has assigned to the trees in question, namely at Nara- 
yoon Huttee, where my two Magnolia? do certainly not grow. That his Michelia 
Bolt ho pa cannot possibly be my Magnolia cxcelsa is likewise obvious from the fact, 
that this tree is limited to one single station in that part of Nipal, which Dr. Hamilton 
and myself were allowed to visit, namely the great valley and its vicinity, and consi¬ 
derably elevated above the latter. 
I have purposely avoided referring* to the venerable Runipluus, because there can¬ 
not be any question of his Sampaccas being distinct from mine, and quoting them as 
doubtful synonymes, would only be adding to the existing difficulties of the genus. I 
may, however, observe, in this place, that 3Jicheha parvijiora De Gand. which has 
been described and figured in the fine leones Selectae of the Caron De Lcssert, the 
munificent patron of Botany in France, vol. 1. p. 22. t. 85, ns the Ternate or small vari¬ 
ety of Conga Sjampacca of Herbar. Amb. 2. p. 200, appears to me as not by any means 
belonging to the genus. 
The genera Kachura and Mayna have hitherto been involved in considerable doubt. 
The first of these was discovered about a century ago in Japan by Engelbert Kaempfer, 
and has been accurately described by him in his Amoenitates exoticae. 1 hunberg af¬ 
terwards gave an account of the plant in his Flora japonica, with the addition of a de¬ 
scription of the flower, omitted by his predecessor, under the Linnean name of 
Tjvaria japonica, which was retained by all succeeding writers, until Jussieu sug¬ 
gested the idea of establishing it as a distinct genus in the family of Aunonaceic 
(Annal. du museum d histoire uaturelle, 16. p. 340; which both Dunal and De Candolle 
have subsequently adopted. Roxburgh, w ho received it lrom Sylhet, calls it L varia ho- 
tcroclita in his manuscript Flora indiea. The other genus, Mayna, was first describ¬ 
ed by Fuse6 Aublet, who found it at Cayenne, hut had no opportunity ot seeing the 
female flowers or the fruit, ft is on this authority alone, and aided by very scanty 
materials indeed, that Jussieu and De Candolle have referred Mayna to the family of 
Magnuliacva , That these tw o illustrious botanists should have ultimately failed in de¬ 
ciding on the proper station of the above-mentioned shrubs, in the natural system, is not 
surprizing, when it is recollected, that their conclusions could only be founded on data, 
w hich were not calculated to afford much insight into natural affinities; on the contrary, 
it will he seen from the following descriptions, how closely their sagacity made them 
approach the mark and how impossible it would have been to proceed a single step 
farther, without being aided by a knowledge of the internal structure of the seed, 
these two genera ought, I think, to be united into one, which has a very strong affinity 
to Sihisajuira of Michaux : so strong, indeed, as to render it extremely doubtful if they 
ought to he separated from each other. In this case the last mentioned name would 
lie far preferable to the barbarous Kadsura or Mayna , and I should accordingly have 
adopted it, if it were not derived from a character, which is inapplicable to the species 
with distinct stamina. They all belong to the family of Menispermcrp, connecting it with 
Magnoliacece and Annonacecr, and perhaps constituting a new intermediate order, as 
lias' already been hinted by Professor De Candolle (Syst. Aat. 1. p. 544.) 
Since this was w ritten, I have been put in possession, through the kindness of my 
most excellent friend Dr. Abel, of all the splendid botanical w orks of Baron Humboldt, 
w hose 11 intern granatensu, Plant, aequinoctial. 1. p- 205. G 58. (Vrymis, nov. gen. 5. p. 
530 bears a strong generic resemblance to our plants. This circumstance leads me to 
suspect that they'" must be referred, together with that genus, to Mr. Brown s new 
