24. FLORA VITIENSIS. 
Orpvo XXXI. URTICACEHEZ. 
Sreorpo I, ULMACEA. 
Represented in tropical Polynesia by Celtis paniculata, Planch. (Solenostigmea paniculatum, End1.), from 
Norfolk Island (Bauer, Forster! whieh has caducous stipules), Ce/tis pacifica, Planch,, trom Nukahiwa 
(Matthews in Herb. Hook.), and Tongan Islands (Capt. Cook !), and the species mentioned below, 
The genus Huptelia was, and by some authors still is referred to this suborder, though it constitutes, 
together with Trochodendron, a new Natural Order, far removed from Urticacea, The whole question has 
been well summed up by Dr. Kichler (Seemann’s ‘ Journal of Botany, vol. lil. p. 150) in these words :— 
“A few weeks after I sent my paper ‘On the Structure of the Wood of Drimys and 7, ‘ochodendron, and 
the Systemutie Position of the latter Genus’ to the editor of the ‘ Flora,’ but before the paper was printed, 
(Sept. 17, 1864,) there appeared in the August number of the second volume of the ‘ Journal of Botany, 
British and Foreign,’ the first part of Dr. B. Seemann’s ‘ Revision of the Natural Order Hederacee.’ In 
this paper that author dwells, amongst other things, on the systematic position of Zrochodendron (p. 237, 
seq.), a genus which Bentham and Hooker fil. had referred. to Araliacee. Dr. Seemann controverts their 
view, places T'rochodendron once more near Winteracee, allies it with Muptelia, Sieb. et Auce., and is in- 
clined to regard both genera as ‘the firat known members’ of a new Natural Order, that of Trochodendrea. 
Dr. Seemann has thus partly anticipated me, as, in the paper alluded to, I had also advocated the propriety 
of ‘leayine Lrochodendron near Winteracee, but separated trom them, until further discoveries should bring 
to light either connecting links or forms which might vindicate the independence of a group of plants of 
equal importance with the last-named (Winteracee)? hat both of us should have arrived, independently, 
at the same conclusions is a source of satisfaction to me, aud may be regarded asa certain proof of their 
correctness. It was impossible for me to know, when writing my paper, that such a discovery, enabling 
Dr. Seemann to advocate the establishment of the Natural Order Zrochodendree, had actually come to light 
in the carpological structure of Huptelia, This genus, established by Zuccarini upon a Japanese species 
discovered by Siebold, (‘Flora Japonica,’ p. 183, t. 72,) was referred by its author to Ulmacee, in accor- 
dance with its then known anthological characters; but, on account of its numerous disconnected carpels, 
it occupied in that Order an isolated position. A second species in ripe fruit was afterwards discovered by 
Griffith in Assam, At first sight this was not identified with Bupfelia, and strangely enough, in the pre- 
liminary arrangement of the specimens, was also referred to Ulinacee, where it remained till recently 
more carefully examined by the celebrated authors of the * Flora Indica,’ Drs, Hooker and Thomson. It 
was found that Zucearini was wrong in placing Huptelia, with its large quantity of albumen and minute 
embryo, in Ulmacea, and that its true relationship had to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Win- 
teracee. Hooker and Thomson's article ‘On the Genus Huptelia’ was published in No, 28 of the ‘ Journal 
of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society,’ which, though appearing early in 1864, did not reach Munich 
till the autumn, so that when writing my paper I could have no knowledge of it.” 
* Ag already mentioned, Dr. Seemann declares Huptelia to be closely allied to Trochodendron, and both 
genera to be the first-knowu members of a new Natural Order. After examining the authentic specimens of 
both genera existing in the Academical Herbarium at Munich, I fully concur in his view; and, as the subject 
has been mooted, I will briefly refer to the Natural Order constituted by the two genera, and the characters 
in which they agree and dilfer. In the first instance, we have in both genera the same habit, an erect 
shrubby or arborescent growth; alternate, simple, penninerved, exstipulate leaves, with a serration, the 
points ‘of which are glandulose (a peculiarity which Zucearini overlooked in Vrochodendron) ; leat and 
flower-buds are covered with protecting scales ; there is an indeterminate (racemose or cymose) inflores- 
cence, and scaly bracts. With regard to the structure of flowers and fruit, both agree in the total absence 
of a perigonium, in the indefinite number of stamens and their structure, and in the indefinite number of 
the carpels, and also in the circumstance that they are arranged around the very short floral axis in a single 
whorl. They have further in common the anatropous ovule, affixed on the ventral suture, with a downwards- 
bent raphe (* ovulum epitropum,” Agardh) ; and, finally, the same relative size of testa, albumen, and embryo. 
On the other hand, their differences are such that we can easily find analogues in allied Natural Orders. 
The polygamous, or rather monoicious nature of Hwptelia, as contrasted with the hermaphrodite one of Tro- 
chodendron, we have in a similar manner in the genus Drimys, the section Tasmania of which agrees in this 
respect with Huptelia, The separation of the carpels in Huptelia, whilst they are connate in the ovary of 
Tirochodendron, is a common occurrence in all allied Orders. The development of the points of the carpels 
in a wing, and the indehiscence of the fruit in Hwptelia, have their analogy in Liriodendron, whilst Trocho- 
dendvon would agree with those species of Zalawna where a.septicidal separation of the different carpels 
is accompanied by a splitting of the ventral suture. The polyspermous condition of Trechodendron agrees 
with Drimys, whilst Huptelia, with one or a few ovules, reminds us of Illiciwm, the nearest ally of Drimys- 

