104 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



[May 1, 1869. 



the corolla was of five equal nearly orbicular petals, 

 alternate with the sepals, and each with a long claw 

 like the [three lower petals of an ordinary nas- 

 turtium-flower. Stamens eight, which, like the 

 petals, were hypogynous. Pistil unchanged, and 

 having three ovaries. Fig. 75 is a drawing of 

 this very beautiful example of peloria growth. 

 There is no apparent distinction between this 



Fig. 75. Tropteolum majus. 



abnormal form and the genus Limnanthes (pretty 

 yellow and white annuals resembling Nemophila), 

 except in the number of ovaries ; and the inference 

 is that Limnanthes is so very nearly related to- 

 Tropa:olum, that possibly the sub-order Limnan- 

 thacea;, of the order Tropseolaceae, is unnecessary. 

 Lindley, in his " Vegetable Kingdom," says that the 

 chief difficulty in placing Limnanthes with Tropseo- 

 lum is that the former has perigynous, the latter 

 hypogynous stamens. I have, however, carefully 

 examined both, and I must say I can find no 

 difference between them. A double form of 

 nasturtium-flower is sometimes seen, and here also 

 the spur disappears. 



The subject of abnormal development in plants is 



one in which I take so much interest, that I will 

 conclude my paper with a request to my readers, 

 that they will kindly send to me specimens of 

 monstrosities, or of sports, or of any forms of plants 

 that are apparently deviating from the original 

 stock, or descriptions of any such. If they will 

 take the trouble to do this for me when they have 

 opportunities, I need scarcely add that I shall be 

 heartily obliged to them. 



Robert Holland. 



A NAMELESS CRUSTACEAN. 



By Majok Holland, R.M.L.I. 



18 ERE is another ocean-wanderer, a captive of 

 * * the towing-net, a pelagic crustacean of the 

 sessile-eyed section of the order Amphipodc. Can 

 any one tell us anything about the birth and parent- 

 age of this deep-sea stranger ? I have searched 

 the catalogues of Bate & Westwood, Latieille, 

 Milne Edwards, Risso, Herbst, and others, in vain 

 for any trace of his family or relations. I can find 

 nothing that coincides with him. 



It would save a great deal of trouble to put him 

 down as a variety of Phronima, and at first sight 

 one feels tempted to do so, for on a cursory inspec- 

 tion he bears a strong general resemblance to the 

 cradle-carrier, about whom we have lately gossiped ; 

 one is at first inclined to fancy that he may be the 

 male of that species; he is of more warlike and 

 masculine aspect and generally of a stronger build, 

 and is altogether more martial in his demeanour 

 than the merry waltzing flirt we have previously 

 dealt with ; but beyond doubt it would be a down- 

 right blunder to affiliate him to her house and 

 lineage. 



Latreille, who founded the genus Phronima, based 

 it upon certain clearly defined, well-marked charac- 

 teristics, which our " subject " does not possess ; 

 and as we may not do violence to the founder's 

 generic distinctions, this anonymous Amphipod must 

 remain " unattached " for the present, a macrourous 

 "supernumerary" on the books of the Crustacea. 



Can this be a new genus altogether ? I should 

 hardly have ventured even to hint at the possibility, 

 but others far more competent to offer an opinion 

 than myself have declared the creature to be an 

 unknown stranger, nameless and undescribed. 



At p. 75 of the preceding number of Science- 

 Gossip, we have a sketch from life and nature of 

 Phronima sedentaria, bearing the nidamental casket 

 containing her young, with as lengthy a description 

 as space would allow, of the construction of those 

 portions of her economy w r hich present the charac- 

 teristics of the genus of which she may be regarded 

 as the type; it will therefore suffice if in this present 

 instance 1 confine myself to noticing the particulars 

 in which the nameless one differs from her. The 



