PROF. HENFREY ON THE MORPHOLOGY ОЕ BALSAMINACER. 159 
Legumen oblongum continuum bivalve plano-compressum oligosper- 
mum. Semina rotunda compressa strophiolata. 
Arbor Australie intertropice inermis ; foliis abrupte bipinnatis bijugis, 
pinnis paucijugis; racemis lateralibus et axillaribus spiciformibus ; 
petalis parvis virentibus. 
Genus Adenanthere proximum maxima cum pietate tributum praeclaro 
Henrico Labouchere, rerum ad colonias spectantium summo ministro, 
sub cujus auspiciis alteram expeditionis Gregoriane partem fauste 
perduximus. 
Laboucheria chlorostachya. 
A plagis boreali-Gccidentalibus Australie usque ad flumen Bordekin | 
tractus orientalis, tam in solo fertiliore quam steriliore planitierum | 
montiumque satis frequenter obvia. 
Illa arbor infelicissimo nostro Leichhardtio ** Leguminous lron-bark / 
tree" nuneupata huc pertinet. 
~ Dabam ex horto botanico Sydneyano, idibus Martii 1857. 
Note on the Morphol of the Balsaminacee. 
By Prof. Henrrey, F.R.S., F.L.S. 
[Read Dec. 2, 1858.] 
Tue different theories which have been proposed to explain the 
irregular character of the flower of Impatiens are briefly enume- 
rated in Lindley's * Vegetable Kingdom’ (p. 490), where the view 
of Kunth is adopted, namely, that the organ standing on the 
opposite side of the flower to the spurred sepal consists of two 
confluent sepals, which, with the spurred sepal and the two small 
lateral sepals, make up a 5-leaved calyx; while in the next circle 
a petal is suppressed which should stand before the line of junc- 
tion of the two confluent sepals. Ап apparently accidental 
confusion exists, however, in the description of the flower of 
Balsaminacee given by Dr Lindley: the spurred sepal is cor- 
rectly stated to stand next the axis of inflorescence (posterior) ; 
nevertheless the supposed “ double вера1” on the opposite side of 
the flower is called “ dorsal” and “ back-piece," notwithstanding 
that it stands in front within the subtending braet. This lapsus 
is rendered more serious by the woodcut of the diagram of the 
flower of Impatiens being reversed, so as to show the spurred 
sepal in front. 
Kunth’s view, supported by Walker-Arnott, and adopted by 
Lindley, was, we think, sufficiently refuted by Raper (Linnea, 
1 
і 
