620 REV. GEORGE HENSLOW ON THE ORIGIN OF 
carefully remembered—for the neglect of this fact lies at the bottom of the common 
misinterpretation—that in reality the direction of each successive pair of bracts. (or a 
common line drawn along their midribs) is in a plane at right angles to that of the pre- 
ceding pair; so that by suppressing all the branches to the right or to the left succes- 
sively, we should not get a flat helix, but an open angular spiral, as shown in the 
projeetion, Pl. LXXXV. fig. 8. 
Fig. 7 (fig. Din Sachs's Text-book, p. 159) would seem to be intended by that author 
to illustrate this, if we suppose the members 2-3, 3—4, 4-5, 5-6, Ee to be in planes at 
right angles to each other successively, and only the members 1-2, 2-8 to bein the plane 
- ofthe paper. 
There is nothing to show that the author did not mean this to be the case. I am, in 
fact, inclined to infer that he did; but even then it will not correspond with the helicoid 
cyme or bostryx of Schimper, which is derived from a system of axes arising from 
alternate and not opposite bracts, as in the inflorescence of Alstreemeria—a true helieoid 
cyme being a sympode with an homodromous development of bracts and floral axes, each 
successive bract being supposed to be at an angular distance of two-fifths of the circum- 
ference from. the preceding ` whereas in Sachs’s description the supposition is that the 
successive axes are in planes at right angles to one another, since he bases the whole on 
the false dichotomous cyme. 
We might, however, include fig. as another and new form of bostrychoid, presumably 
derived from opposite bracts, while the usually described bostrychoid or helicoid is only ` 
obtained from alternate bracts. | 
If, however, we adopt the supposition that fig. D is derived from fig. C, and is identical 
with the scorpioid cyme of descriptive botany, we at once fall into the same error which 
all our text-books have perpetuated. It is true that fig. D can be derived from fig. €; 
but then, as stated above, it does not give rise to the true scorpioid cyme, but to one 
form of spicate cyme, such as of fig. 6, a, 5, c, this being characterized by having a single 
row of flowers only, while the seorpioid eme has a double row. If we regard Silene 
pendula as a sympode, then it would fall under the same kind of inflorescence, or 
* racemose " eme, 
Another theory has been offered by Kaufmann *, and supported by Warming 1, that the 
scorpioid inflorescence of the Boraginee and Solanee is due to a repeated dichotomy 
of the vegetative apex, one of the papille thus produced developing into a flower, the 
other continues the apical growth. As, however, both papille are at first exactly alike, 
the term dichotomy would seem only to introduce a misleading idea, for it is identical in 
every respect with budding. The description of the process given by Kaufmann *, as 
well as his figures for Asperugo, which is a bracteate form, correspond in the order of — 
development exactly with the interpretation given in this paper, as follows:—Left bract— _ 
flower to the right of it; right bract—flower to the left of it; left bract &c. as before ` 
(that is, when the convex side of the scorpioid inflorescence is held before the observer). ` ` 
CH Zem Zeit. 1869, p. 886; also Nouv. Mém: de la Soc. Imp. des Nat. de Moscou, xiii. p. 248, plate xxi 
t “ Recherches sur la ramification des Phan¢rogames,” Vid, Selsk. Skr; 5 R; Afd. Bd, 10, 1 (with French abstract 
