OF THE MATTO GROSSO EXPEDITION, 1891-92. 301 
dilatatum, et petala libera, et carpella indefinita, certe non congenerica. Hexalobus 
tametsi petala basi connata, itaque flores parvos, receptaculum normale, stigmata 
bipartita, carpella pluriovulata plerumque biseriata prebet. 
Undoubtedly the most noteworthy feature about Stormia is the curious dilated 
receptacle. On turning the flower upside down this appears as a membranous obscurely 
triangular expansior. of the top of the peduncle, the sepals being inserted well within its 
free rim. In this respect Stormia holds to other Anonace the position of Eschscholtzia 
to normal Papaveracez, but the comparison must not be carried too far, as there is not 
the least sign, in the Anonacex, of that perigyny which is so remarkable a feature in 
Eschscholtzia. Curiously enough, authors have completely overlooked this dilatation of 
the receptacle, although it is somewhat obscurely figured by St.-Hilaire and Tulasne. 
The Australian Lupomatia, it may be observed, also has a dilated receptacle; but, inas- 
much as the earpels are immersed in it, no valid comparison of that genus with Stormia 
is possible. I cannot endorse Prof. Baillon's remarks (‘ Adansonia’ viii. p. 306) :— 
“MM. Bentham et Hooker ont trés-sagement rapporté au genre Trigyneia Y Hexalobus 
brasiliensis, A. St.-Hil. et Tul.” Baillon's views are very original, and if they were accepted 
the genera of Anonace: would be greatly reduced in number. ‘Thus, he sinks not only 
Trigyneia, but Melodorum and Cananga also in Unona, a genus which he regards as 
embracing no less than fifteen sections, all founded on genera of former authors. 
Moreover, Baillon, speaking of our plant, says (* Histoire des Plantes,' i. p. 212) :—* Sauf 
l'union de ses pétales, cette espèce est tres-voisine de notre Unona Oliveriana y” and this 
leads one to doubt whether the Paris Professor could have examined the Brazilian type. 
The structure of the curious corrugated anthers of Stormia is alluded to further on. 
It must suffice here to point out their resemblanee to those of that singular genus 
Hornschuchia of Nees von Esenbeck. This genus Nees at first referred to Sapotacew, 
soon removing it to Olacine:, and afterwards to Sapindacesx. Endlicher placed it 
doubtfully at the end of Ebenaceve ; Lindley, also with doubt, among the Sapindacez ; 
Meissner considered it to be a Sapotacea, while Miquel, after thorough examination, 
suggested an entirely new affinity, viz., with Lardizabalese. In the * Genera Plantarum,’ 
on the other hand, Bentham and Hooker express their belief in its being Anonaceous. 
Here is disagreement among the doctors indeed! The description of the flower is briefly 
as follows :—There is a deep cup-shaped outer organ, presumed to be a calyx; the petals 
are 6, biseriate and valvate in sstivation; 6 stamens are inserted on a slightly raised 
torus, and the anther-cells are transversely corrugated, aud divided each into a longitudinal 
series of chambers ; the pollen is compressed. There are three free carpels, each with 4 
or 5 uniseriate anatropous ovules, and each crowned with a small stigma. The fruit is 
a berry, to some extent spuriously septated; the ripe seed, unfortunately, is not known. 
Were the receptacle of Stormia to become deepened, we should get something like the 
calyx of Hornschuchia. But 1 suppose the latter organ must be a true calyx; otherwise, 
on the hypothesis of affinity between Hornschuchia and Stormia, what has become of one 
of the three outer whorls of its floral leaves? The paucity in stamens, when contrasted with 
Stormia’s multiple andreecium, is a striking point of difference between the two genera ; 
this, however, seems over-ridden by the remarkable septation of the anther-cells in both. 
