GENERA FUMARIA AND RUPICAPNOS. 241 
endocarp of the fruit fits, in Rupicapnos the upper part of the seed is simply 
rounded without any hollow. The absence of the strongly marked fold in 
the albumen below the micropyle, as seen in Fumaria, is also noted. 
In a second work fourteen years later (Nouv. Mat. Fl. Atlant. i. p. 240, 
and ii. p. 379) a further account of these plants is given by Pomel, and fifteen 
species are described, seemingly from material collected by himself, except 
in the ease of two species which are adopted from Cosson & Durieu. It is 
clear from this work that Pomel possessed a considerable detailed knowledge 
of the group, and he has left some accurate deseriptions; but unfortunately 
he makes no reference to the various exsiccata that had already been 
distributed by other botanists. 
The later works of Cosson and of other writers have not maintained Pomel's 
separate genus Ztupicapnos despite the distinctive features ascribed to it by 
its author. The demonstrated differences of the fruit and seed, however, 
seem of the first importance, and not only does Rupicapnos lack the depressed 
endocarp and hollowed seed of Fumaria but—what is not so clearly stated by 
Pomel—the clefts in the mesocarp which give rise to the “apical pits." On 
the other hand, the definition of the fruit of Rupicapnos as compressed, in 
contrast with the subglobose fruit of Fumaria, cannot be accepted though 
endorsed both by Pomel and Cosson. Except in the case of some of the 
annual species, the compression of the fruit in Rupicapnos is not appreciably 
greater than what usually obtains in Fumaria. 
In addition to the fruiting differences it may be observed that the flowers 
of Rupicapnos seem to simulate those of Sarcocapnos rather than those of 
Fumaria in that the margins of the two outer petals, which are obsolete or 
nearly so in the bud stage in Fumaria, are considerably developed at that 
period and generally conceal entirely the inner petals. There appears further 
to be an essential difference in the structure of the upper petal, for while in 
Fumaria the margins or wings (often strongly reflexed upwards) of the 
apical gibbosity are truly marginal only for a short distance back from the 
apex of the petal, and further towards the base become extra-marginal and 
are prolonged in a blunt, lateral ridge, in Rupicapnos this prolongation is 
entirely wanting, the whole petal being more dorsally compressed and the 
margins themselves never strongly reflexed over the keel. 
The presence of a gibbosity or rudimentary spur at the base of the lower 
petal renders this group of plants unique in the family Fumariacew in the 
possession of an unequally two-spurred corolla; and it is notable that the 
second spur is apparently never developed in the very small-flowered species 
and not invariably so in those in which it commonly occurs. 
The consideration of these aggregate points of distinction renders it 
impossible to ignore the claims of Rupicapnos for recognition as a separate 
genus ; and as there is a total absence of any connecting links between it and 
the annual species of Fumaria, it has been decided to follow Pomel rather 
