groups both under one name; but most other Botanists seem to think otherwise, and keep them
distinct. One advantage certainly attends their separation, it gives greater precision to the
characters of both orders, without any resulting inconvenience, so long as they are kept together.
The same rules apply to the disposition of orders in the general system, as to genera in an
order; and as examples are not wanting of hypogynous and epigynous genera meeting in the
same order, so neither should an epigynous group of genera, so intimately related to a
hypogynous order that there is no other line of separation, be denied the same indulgence.
Analogy, therefore, is in favour of Endlicher’s arrangement and, as already remarked, I coincide
with him, in such a case, in attaching but secondary value to the extension of the calyx tube,
and its cohesion to the ovary, and therefore esteem it a matter of no moment, whether we view
these two groups as one order, composed of two sub-orders, or as two adjoining orders, but I
cannot yet approve of their separation on such grounds as those adduced by Dr. Lindley.
Character of the Ohder. Calyx 4-5-cleft, nearly equal, inferior, persistent.^ Corolla
hypogynous, monopetalous, 4—5-cleft, occasionally separable into 4—5 pieces, regular or irregular,
often" withering, with an imbricated aestivation. Stamens definite, equal^ in number to the
segments of the corolla, or twice as many hypogynous, or scarcely inserted into the base of the
corolla; anthers 2-celled, the cells hard and dry, separate either at the apex or base, where they
are furnished with some kind of appendage, and dehiscing by a pore. Ovary surrounded at the
base by a disk, or secreting scales; many-celled, many-seeded; style one, straight; stigma 1 ,
undivided or toothed, or 3-cleft, with an indication of an indusium. Fruit capsular, many-
celled, with central placentae; dehiscence various. Seeds indefinite, minute; testa firmly
adhering to the kernel; embryo cylindrical in the axis of fleshy albumen; radicle much longer
than the cotyledons, and next the hilum.—Shrubs or under-shrubs. Leaves evergreen, rigid,
entire, whorled or opposite, without stipules. Inflorescence variable, the pedicels generally
bracteate. Lindley.
Af f in it ie s . Since the publication of Jussieu’s Genera Plantarum, most of the leading
adherents of the Natural System of Botany have, certainly not without an occasional demur,
adopted his views, in assigning a higher value to the varying forms of the corolla, than to the
point of its insertion. His primary divisions, Acotyledons, Mono, and Di-cotyledons, being based
on physiological distinctions, are universally admitted to be of a higher order than his secondary
ones, Apetalous, Mono, and Polypetalous, which are structural, and therefore liable to variation.
Dr. Lindley, in his “Vegetable Kingdom,” moots the question, Whether these or the tertiary
series, Hypogynous, Perigynous, and Epigynous, ought to have the higher value assigned.
Jussieu, it is evident, from his having given Form the second, and Insertion the third place in his
“Methpd,” attached the higher value to Form. De Candolle and Lindley advocate the opposite
view, giving the preference to Insertion. I do not consider myself competent to decide between
such high authorities, but think much may be said on both sides. Both are structural characters,
and both liable to variation, and inconstancy in the same families, or even among species
of the same genera, while in some, it is hard to say, whether the insertion is Hypogynous or
Perigynous, an example of which is furnished by the order under consideration; Jussieu,
De Candolle and others, viewing it as Perigynous, Lindley as Hypogynous, while the very
nearly allied order, or indeed, according to some, sub-order or section, Vacciniaceceis Epigynous:
a sub-class, by the way, with which De Candolle nominally dispenses as not being sufficiently
distinct from the perigynous, which, however, he divides into two sections, Calyciflore and
Corolliflore, nearly equivalent to the older divisions.
Keeping these facts in view, it seems difficult to determine what advantage is gained by the
change, beyond showing that both foundations are artificial, and that according as we build on the
one or other, we establish a distinct and remote series of affinities, probably both equally convenient
in practice, and both equally wide of the truth. Jussieu, adopting the form of the corolla
as the basis of his arrangement, places Ericaceae in the middle of the group of monopetalous
orders; while Lindley, adopting the point of insertion of the stamens as the basis of his, places
the Erical alliance in the midst of a long series of polypetalous ones. The question now to be
answered is, Which is the best ? Is the Erical alliance more naturally situated when associated
with Ranales, Berberales, Rutales, Gereniales, 8tc., than it would be if associated with Echiales,
Bitmoniales, Campanales, Cinchonales, &c.? This question must be answered by better and
more philosophical Botanists than I presume to consider myself; but, so far as my own opinion
s j own that I prefer the old place, from thinking the Erical alliance more nearly related to
the Cinehonal and Campanal alliances, than to the Rutal and Berberal. But while I thus adhere
to the older arrangement, perhaps more from habit than philosophy, I still think we are greatly
indebted to Dr. Lindley for striking out a new path to aid us in arriving at a correct knowledge
of affinities, as it may prove the means of leading us to the discovery of many interesting
relationships, hitherto overlooked, owing to our having had only one road by which to arrive at
them as, by showing us the same things in different lights and combinations, it may ere long be
the means of indicating other paths, leading more directly to the still distant object in view, an
arrangement of orders built on a natural, not artificial foundation, or in other words, on a
ohvsiological, in place of a structural basis. Should we ever attain that point of perfection, we
mav then expect to see all variations of structure combined in our family groups, by whatever
name designated, cohorts, alliances, classes, or all combined, as so many parts of the general
ulan of arrangement. Cinchonacece may be quoted as a case in point, where a very heterogeneous
combination of structural forms is held together by a single physiological character.
Geographical D istribution. The range of this family is extensive. As a whole, it
mav truly be called Cosmopolite, not so its sections. Ericete, including all the true heaths with
marcescent corollas, are confined to Europe and Africa, especially the Southern promentory of
the latter;' “Cape Heaths” are proverbial. In Europe, though the number of species is small,
the individuals are unlimited, extensive tracts of country being occnpied by them, to the almost
total exclusion of all other plants, except some grasses, rushes, &c. Andromidece, on the other
hand distinguished by their deciduous flowers, are common to Europe, Asia, Africa, North and
South America, and a few in Australia; but I believe in all these countries showing, when
growing within the tropics, an extra-tropical habit, by selecting the more elevated regions as their
place of abode.
In India the Himalayas, and their off-shoots in Assam, Khassya, &c., furnish several species
of Andromida, Gaultherea, and Rhododendron. The Neilgherries furnish one species of each
of the two last named genera, and Ceylon an equal number, perhaps more. Ofthe nearly
allied o rd e r, Epacridese, Malacca furnishes one species, forming a connecting link between the
Floras of the two countries, New Holland being truly the native country of that family, which
there occupies the place the heath does in Africa.
Medical P roperties. This family is much more celebrated for its ornamental, than
economical or medicinal properties, though not altogether deficient in these. In its oriiamental
capacity, it is nearly unrivaled in the Vegetable Kingdom. The true heaths are universal
favourites in the green house, the Andromedas are about equally esteemed in the parterre, and
the rich Rhododendrons, Azalias, and Kaljneas, in the shrubbery. In regard to their economical
applications, little can be said for them. Among the Ericeai, or true heaths, Caluna vulgaris
common Heather, is employed by fullers and dyers, while its tough branches are in universal
demand for brooms, &c., it possesses considerable astnngency and, where abundant, is a favourite
food for bees, of which last property several species of Erica partake. The Andromedece are
endowed with bitter and astringent properties, combined in some with resinous and aromatic
virtues while the Arctostaphitos Uva ursi, has been long celebrated for its efficacy m the relief
of renal diseases and other affections of the urinary passages. Its berries are austere and
mealy, but those of some of the other species are said to be pleasant and edible. Some possess
narcotic virtues in a mild form. The fruit of Gaultherea procmnbem, an American shrub, contains
a pungent volatile oil, used as an anti-spasmodic and diuretic. That of the Neilgherry
species is, on the contrary, the .most mawkish, insipid fruit I almost ever recollect tasting.
Among the Rhodorece, narcotic properties of much intensity exist, which have been
found useful in the treatment of Nervous diseases and Chronic Rheumatism. And the often-
quoted case of poisoning, during the retreat of the 10,000 Greeks, is attributed to eating honey