OMPHALOCARPUM, AND ASTERANTHOS, 7 
replied, that he had done so, and could not understand upon what ground the convic- 
tion of Sir Wm. Hooker rested, as the latter had evidently forgotten that the plants of 
the two French botanists were examined by them in their growing state, in localities far 
apart, the blue colour of the one and the purple of the other being noted by them on 
the spot (and not in the dried state), specifying the time of year they were thus seen in 
flower. М. Decaisne added that Sir Wm. had failed to notice several facts, such as the 
peeuliar glands in the plants, the difference in the size of the fruits, the great dissimi- 
larity in the seeds, the comparative size of the plants, and other characters; he con- 
cluded that, until he saw proof to the contrary, he should continue to regard Heudelot's | 
plant as a species widely different from Whitfield’s. Не could not speak with equal 
certainty in regard to N. imperialis and N. Heudelotii ; but Jussieu, in comparing these 
two plants, speaks decisively on this point’, stating that their differences are so great that 
it is impossible to mistake one for the other. In the following year(1849) Mr. Bentham 
supported the view of Sir Wm. Hooker, and even went so far as to include N. Vogelii in 
the same category, thus amalgamating the four species into a single one, N. imperialis? ; 
but in 1865 he somewhat modified this opinion by admitting the existence of two species *. 
Prof. Lawson afterwards reduced all the plants of Napoleona to a single species*. 
Sinee that time little fresh evidence has been offered on the subject, except the valuable 
information contributed by Dr. Masters in his excellent analysis of the living flower of 
Whitfield's plant?, when he compared this evidence with the published details of other 
botanists. He pointed out many of the notable differences I have enumerated in the pre- 
ceding pages, not only in regard to the flowers, but dissimilitude in the habit, in the 
leaves, fruit, and seeds; still he drew no inferences from them as applicable to the 
determination of the species; on the contrary, he says, “ si all these plants 
belong to one variable species, or whether there are four, ог. five distinct forms, is a 
question no one can answer at present " 5. Notwithstanding this, as the differences are 
so many, so well marked, and so constant, I have ventured: to employ them in the main- 
tenance of the following species :~- 
1. NAPOLEONA IMPERIALIS, Pal. Beauv. (non Hook.) Fl. Owar. ii. p. 32, tab. 78; DC. 
Prodr. vii. p.530; Lam. Encl. Suppl. iv. p. 57; Dict. Se. Nat. tab. 66; Reich. Exot. 
Bot. tab. 187; Sertum Bot. (Brux. 1828), tab. 4.; Van Houtte, Flor. des Serres, i. 
p. 1, tab. 1; Walp. Bot. Reg. vi. p. 408: arbuscula, ramulis tenuiter teretibus, 
glabris: foliis oblongo-ovatis, apice repente constrictis, et in acumen lineare ob- 
tusulum productis atque hie utroque latere dente obtuso munitis, cæteroquin 
integris, marginibus саг асіпеів, supra viridibus, costa plana, nervis divergentibus 
utrinque 7, subtus fuscioribus, costa nervisque flavidis prominentibus, imo 2-glan- 
dulosis, petiolo limbo 30—-35plo breviore : floribus axillaribus, 2—3, fasciculatis, sessi- 
libus, quorum unico simul expanso cum 2 alabastris imo pluribraeteolatis, bracteolis 
rotundatis; sepalis 5, acutis, apice extus 2-glandulosis ; corolla orbiculata, rotata, 
! Ann. Sc. Nat. 2"* sér, п. 226. * Niger Flora, p. 361. 
* Benth. & Hook. Gen. Pl. i. p. 724. * Oliver's Afr. Flor. p. 489. 
* Proc. Linn. Soc. x. p. 492. * Loc. cit. p. 494. 
