22 DU, M. T. MASTERS OS THE MOIiPHOLOGY OF THE MALYALES. 



sterilihus contigua^ iisdein usqiie ad medium adnata^ Bentliam 

 (Bentb. et Hook. Gen. Plant, p. 224, no. 2G) describes tliem as 

 " Stamina * * * pluriseriatiin connata, 5 intima ananthera (sfa- 

 minodia) angiiste petaloidea acuminata cum fetalis alternantia, an- 

 tlierifera oo, interiora staminodiis hasi adnata^ cetera sub 4i-natim 



* 



cum staminodiis alternantia^^ &c. 



J^eitlier of these descriptions appears to me to be strictly cor- 

 rect J but not having examined living specimens in various stages, 

 I would witsh to express myself with diffidence upon tliis point. 

 It appears to me, from the dissection of dried flower-buds, that 

 in this plant there are five staminodes placed opposite to the 

 sepals (antisepalous as usual), and that on each side of the sta- 

 minode thei^e are three perfect stamens, not adnate to it but 

 really forming part of it. I consider, then, that in this plant 

 there are five compound stamens, the central lobe of each of 

 which is petaloid and traversed "by a central prominent midrib, 

 while the three (sometimes four) lobes on each side of the cen- 

 tral one are filamentous, and surmounted each by a perfect an- 

 ther*. According to the view taken by the authors I have cited, 

 there would be two rows of stamens—an outer wholly fertile, 

 an iimer partly sterile, partly fertile. But so far as I am able 

 to judge, there is but one row of stamens, the apparent existence 

 of two rows being accounted for by the revolution of the 

 margins of the compound stamina! leaf, which thus is somewhat 

 concave, the concavity being turned outwards, so that the anthers 

 are thrust into the concavity of the petals. Even supposing 

 there were two rows of stamens, the law of alternation would stiU 

 be interfered with in this case, as the staminode is unq^uestion- 

 ably antisepalous. 



"Whether in Glossostemon there are two rows of stamens, or, as 

 I believe, only one, is a point that can only be definitely decided when 

 the organogeny of the flower shall have been studied 5 but as- 

 suming the correctness of my interpretation of its structure, the 

 question arises whether or not in some other of the Malvales where 

 there are apparently two or more rows of stamens, that appear- 

 ance is or is not fallacious. In Sidalcea it can hardly be so ; in 



* Mr. Bentham himself seems at one time to have arrived at the same conclu- 

 sions as to the structure of this plant (see Journ. Linn, Soc. Bot. vol. vi. p. 119) ; 

 but in the * Genera Plantarum,' as already stated, the androecium is differently 

 described. In the Tiliaceous genus LejptonycMa a somewhat similar arrange- 

 ment prevails. In this plant on either side of tlie staminodes which are super- 

 posed to the sepals are two stamens— one fertile, the other destitute of an anther. 





