[1] When fruit and flowers are absent in the field, the physical resemblance is so close that few people without technical training can discern the difference.

[2] Nonetheless, Nickrent comments that "Cassytha is uneqivocally assigned to Lauraceae based on (both) morphological and molecular data.

Some even yield a welcome harvest of fruit, or are valued for their perceived medicinal or aphrodisiac properties, partly because, like many members of the Lauraceae, some are fragrant when bruised.

Practically all the common names for dodder accordingly are widely applied in error to Cassytha as well, but as a matter of convenience in Florida at least, where members of both groups of plants are present as agricultural pests, a publication of the Department of Agriculture adopts the names woe vine for Cassytha and dodder for Cuscuta.

[12] Cassytha species are stem parasites, adhering to their hosts by uniseriate haustoria that generally are small and oblong.

The morphology and ecology of Cassytha are so atypical of the family Lauraceae, they have been the subject of molecular genetic research to confirm their taxonomic relationships.

Instead, the seeds survive on or in the ground till decay weakens the endocarp sufficiently to permit moisture to enter and germination to begin.

Cassytha species are perennials; although they attack practically whatever host plants they encounter, including suitable annuals.

[11] Technically, Cassytha could be regarded as hemiparasitic rather than holoparasitic, but their own autotrophic contributions are plainly limited to what it takes to tide over temporary shortages.

No doubt their lack of a persistent root system dooms any Cassytha plants whose hosts supply insufficient water and mineral nutrients.

[11] Due to its herbaceous and parasitic habit, distinguishing the genus from all other Lauraceae,[24] Cassytha has historically presented a problem for classification.

Most early systems of classification based on morphological characters divided the Lauraceae into two subfamilies: Cassythoideae and Lauroideae;[25][26][27][28] however, more recent molecular data disputes this division.

Based on the trnK intron, a common phylogenetic marker for classifying angiosperms,[29] Rohwer and Rudolph (2005)[30] created a phylogeny of the Lauraceae.

[28] More recently, embryological evidence, specifically the development of the anther tapetum, substantiated the close relationship of the two genera, but nested them within the tribe Cryptocareae.

For example, the fruit of various species are eaten, both by birds and by humans, and C. melantha in particular has been documented as a wild-harvested Australian indigenous food.

[9] Plants in the genus contain low concentrations of several alkaloids that have not yet been shown to be of great value, but do have biochemical properties worthy of investigation.

[35] Though they are not of commercial interest as fibre crops, suitably prepared vines from some Cassytha species are of value in rural communities as a source of cord.