The family Symplocaceae was first recognized by D. Don (Symplocineae, Prodr. Fl. Nepal. 144.1825, excluding Schopfia) but most authors including De Candolle (Prodr. 8: 244.1844), Bentham and Hooker (Gen. Pl. 2: 668.1876), Stewart and Brandis (For. Fl.299.1874) and C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. (Fl. Brit. Ind. 3: 572.1882) included it in family Styracaceae. However, Miquel in Martius (Fl. Brass. 7: 22. 1842), Engler and Prantl (Pflanzenfam 4 (1): 168. 1890) following D. Don, treated it as a separate family. Lawrence (Taxon. Vasc. ...
Read More
The family Symplocaceae was first recognized by D. Don (Symplocineae, Prodr. Fl. Nepal. 144.1825, excluding Schopfia) but most authors including De Candolle (Prodr. 8: 244.1844), Bentham and Hooker (Gen. Pl. 2: 668.1876), Stewart and Brandis (For. Fl.299.1874) and C. B. Clarke in Hook. f. (Fl. Brit. Ind. 3: 572.1882) included it in family Styracaceae. However, Miquel in Martius (Fl. Brass. 7: 22. 1842), Engler and Prantl (Pflanzenfam 4 (1): 168. 1890) following D. Don, treated it as a separate family. Lawrence (Taxon. Vasc. Pl. 665. 1951) and C. G. G. Van Steenis (Fl. Males. 4: 49. 1954) advocate its separate identity from Styracaceae on the basis of its inferior or semi-inferior, completely 2-5 loculed ovary, drupe crowned by persistent calyx lobes, 1-4 seriate or fasciculate (adelphous) stamens with avoid-subglobose anthers and absence of stellate hairs or scales. Hutchison (Gen. Fl. Pl 2: 39.1968; Fam. Fl. Pl. 1: 171.1960) also treats it as a separate unigeneric family.
Read Less
