their real affinities, it becomes a carious and interesting1, though by no means easy enquiry, to
trace the various attempts that have been made by different authors, to construct a natural
arrangement of these plants while excluding this their only truly natural and constant bond of
union. Some of these arrangements I shall endeavour to exhibit, partly in support of the assertion
advanced, that no two Botanists are agreed on these affinities, but principally to prove that,
so long as we take the different degrees of development of the flower as the basis of our natural
system of Botany, we build on a bad and unstable foundation.
Lindley has employed this character, in the construction of his Alliance Silenales, the perfection
of which, however, through his not perceiving the full value of his character, t{ embryo
rolled round mealy albumen,” he has marred, by the introduction of Tamariscineae (an order in
which it is wanting and but remotely if at all allied) on the one side and the exclusion of Ficoi-
deae on the other.. This last he has in my opinion most injudiciously placed in his alliance
Cucurbitales, for no reason that I can perceive, its fruit being neither epigyuous nor its placentas
parietal. 1 ; .
The following are the polypetalous orders which participate in the character and ought^ to
have been associated in that alliance. I use Lindley’s names. Portulaceae,,Silenaceae, Alcina-
ceae, lllecebraceae, Ficoidaceae, and perhaps Surianaceae. The remaining orders agreeing in this
character 7 in number are arranged by Lindley in his group Curvembryosae (sub-class incomplete)
they are, Amarantaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Phytolaccaceae, Polygoneae, Petiveraceae, Sclei'an-
thaceae and JVyctaginaceae. Menispermaceae, placed in this group on account of its curved embryo,
I exclude, as having no other affinity, its albumen not being mealy nor the embryo on one
side curved round it. This it will be perceived is considerably different from DeCandolle’s arrangement
who places Caryophylleae in his first class, Thalami-florae—Portulaceae, Paronychiaceae,
and Ficoideae in his second—Calyciflorae—and the remaining order in his fourth class
Monochlamydeae.
Von Martins adopts a different arrangement but^being of a mixed character cannot be so
easily explained, but the following list of the orders, numbered as they stand in his Conspectus,
will show how widely the group is scattered over his system—90 Chenopodiaceae—91 Riviniaceae
—92 Petiveraceae—93 Nyctagineae—94 Sclerantheae—95 Phytolacceae—96 Polygoneae—
235 Amarantaceae—236 Paronychieae—(a) Illecebi eae - ( b ) Polycarpeae—(c) Minuartieae
-—261 Portulaceae—262 Caryophyllaceae—(a.) Sileneae—(b) Alsineae f 263— Flat in eae. The
absence of albumen in the last seems to exclude it from the group. In Endlicher’s Genera Planter
Chenopodeae ranks No. 101— Amarantaceae 102— Polygoneae 103—Nyctagineae 104—
Mesembryanthemeae or Ficoideae 205 — Portulaceae 206—Caryophylleae .207. (The subsequent
parts of the work have not yet reached me)—The first four of these orders form his class
Oleraceae—the last three form part of his class Caryophyllince which includes all the genera in
our Prodromus referred to Caryophylleae, Portulaceae, Ficoideae and Paronychiaceae. Under
the name of Tetragoniaceae Lindley refers Sesuvivm and Aizoon to Endlicher’s Oleraceae
placing them between Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae on the one side and Phytolacceae
and Polygoneae on the other.
Could we ask for more conclusive evidence of the intimate relationship existing among all
the orders and genera having that very peculiar structure of the seed, than the facts here stated
supply ? No sooner do we find one Botanist, eminent for his knowledge of affinities of plants,
distribute the orders so marked, in the way he thinks most consonant with their natural affinities,
than we find another equally celebrated proposing a different arrangement. DeCandolle
placed so many of these genera (those of his order Caryophylleae), in his class Thalamifloreae;
so many more ( the orders above named) in Calycijlorae; and the remainder, those referable to
Chenopodiaceae, Amarantaceae, &c., in his Monochlamydeae ; thus distributing them all over
his system. Lindley, in the first edition of his natural system of Botany, arranges no fewer than
165 orders in a single series, under the heading et Polypetalous Apetalous and Achlamydeous
Plants,” altogether untramelled by system or arbitrary divisions of any sort, and here, it is remarkable,
that of 11 orders possessing this structure—mealy albumen with the embryo on one
side—9 are, with two exceptions, placed in immediate succession, Aitrariaceae standing between
Ficoideae and Illecebreae, and Begoniaceae, between Polygaleae, and Nyctagineae. The remaining
two Caryophylleae, and Portulaceae, are near.
This circumstance shows that their general affinities are such, that the whole might, by
that single character, be separated from the rest of the system and grouped in one very natural
H of sufficient magnitude too, to admit of its being farther distributed either circularly or
Otherwise according to the taste or abilities of the expounder. Unfortunately the author,
? indTey) not seeing the true value of this bond of union has, m his second edition, changed the
Lrannement much for the worse. Von Martius places Chenopodiaceae, Nyctagineae, &c. &c.,
l j ? „roup_Amarantaceae, and Paronycheae,\n a second and Caryophylleae, and Pot tulaceae,
• ! third—Lindley in his second Edition has Ficoideae in one group—Portulaceae, Silenaceae,
Lnd Alsinaceae, (Caryophylleae, of other authors) and Illecebreae, in a second—and at a great
distance Amarantaceae, Chenopodiaceae, and several genera referred by all other authors to Porudncpae
or Ficoideae, in a third. , , . . , . .. , . . . .
These examples are I presume sufficient to establish the intimate relationship existing
amonu all the plants possessing this structure, and the impossibility of ever devising a satisfac-
tnrv distribution of the genera into natural orders that does not set out from that point.
^ The three orders above named, being united by this structure and being the only ones ap-
nertaining to the class Calycijlorae, I have, in conformity with these views thought it ‘he most
S c io u s course to group them together as a sub-class or large order and hen redistribute he
Indian genera into sub orders ; leaving for future consideration the final determination of all the
orders into which the group ought tube divided, and the station which it ought to occupy in
the svstem of plants. To attempt more than this would be inconsistent with the plan of this
work which does not profess to offer a new arrangement but merely to illustrate that m use,
indicating from time to time, as opportunities offer, those points which appear to me defective
and how they may be amended.
Portulaceae.
This as now understood by both Meisner and Endlicher is a large and apparently polymorphous
order, including several tribes the affinities of which seem rather remote. Both
these authors place here, not only the plants referred by us to Ficoideae, but also the genus
Mollugo. This seems a questionable association, though for the present I adopt it, as the true
Portulaceae, have a central basilar placenta (the seed attached to the bottom of the solitary cell
of the capsule): but in Mollugo and Glinus (excluding G. tnanthimoides) the capsule has
several cells with numerous seed, attached the whole length of the axis ; haying besides, a five
not two sepal ed calyx and being destitute of proper petals. This case supplies another example
of the necessity of viewing the whole of those genera, having the peculiar curvembryose
seed of this tribe, as belonging to one great natural family or class and re-distributing them,
without reference to what has been already done, according as they can be most naturally grouped
into sub-classes or alliances, duly bearing in mind, that the order or class is as it comes from
nature’s hand a truly natural group and that the object m view is merely to distribute its contents
in the most easy and convenient order. Until this course is adopted, it seems most improbable
we shall ever have them disposed in such a series as will give general satisfaction But
before this can lie done, the whole must be carefully re-exammed. In the mean while as I can
see no sufficient reason for altogether rejecting the views of these authors though 1 confess 1
cannot fully agree with either, I shall modify the arrangement of our Prodromus by bringing
Sesuvium from Ficoideae, where it does not associate well with Mesembryanthemum, to Portulaceae;
and Glinus, our only other genus of Ficoideae, being much less entitled to a place there
than even Sesuvium I also remove and place with Mollugo in a distinct section, which may then
he given to Paronychiaceae as better agreeing with it,both inhabit and in characters, than with
Portulaceae. In this way, the order Ficoideae is removed from the Indian Flora, and justly so
far as these two genera are concerned, as it is clear that Sesuvium cannot be separated from 1 n-
anthema as an order, and neither it nor Glinus can very well keep Mesembryanthemum company.
Let us attempt to distribute the Indian genera according to these views.
The Indian curvembryate genera referable to DeCandolle’s class Calycijlorae, are nine in
number and may be thus distributed.
P ortclaceae. - Calyx 2 parted. Corolla 4-5 petaled exceeding the calyx, conspicuous.
Capsule one-celled, circumscissile, or opening by valves : placenta central m the baseot the cell,
seed attached by distinct podosperms.—Succulent herbaceous plants. Fortulaca, Jalmurn.