344 Mr. Griffith on the Rout-Parasites re/erred to Rhiznnthece, 



Obs. II.' — The venation of the perianth appears to nie worthy of notice. 

 The tube is supplied by simple vascular fascicles, double in number to the 

 laciniaj : of these, those alternating with the laciniee terminate at or near the 

 sinuses by passing off on either side into the laciniae themselves, with the 

 central fascicles of which they sooner or later combine. The fascicles corre- 

 sponding to the axes of the component parts of the perianth are simple 

 throughout, with the exception of a branch that passes off into each filament: 

 those of the shorter laciniae terminate manifestly within the apex. 



Obs. III. — After the opening of the fruit, which takes place by the sepa- 

 ration of the free apex of the pericarpium, the fruit does not undergo much 

 change: in some of my specimens it at last appears to be deliquescent or 

 niarcescent, the rim first disappearing. From the general appearance shortly 

 after the escape of the seeds, and particularly from the resemblance of the then 

 free placentae to some forms of abortive stamina, I had at first taken them to be 

 neuter flowers, and indeed had described them as such. 



Obs. IV. — In the number and situation of the parts of the flower, the pla- 

 centation, the direction of the stamina (which appears to present great obsta- 

 cles to independent impregnation), and in some measure their structure, this 

 genus may I think be well compared with Tacca. And it was this obvious 

 affinity, together with the remarkable agreement it presents with Burmannia* 

 in the structure of its seeds, that induced me long since to refer it to the 

 Monocotyledonous division of T^egetabilia. This view is I think borne out by 

 the general structure of the plants, especially, perhaps, by the apparently 

 uniseriate opposition of the stamina to the laciniae of the perianthium, which 

 appears to me quite that of those Monocotyledones in which the stamina are 

 equal in number to the two series of the perianthium. The only objection 

 indeed, as it appears to me, consists in the occasional quinary variation by 

 suppression in number of parts, which, however, as it would appear to affect 

 the inner series of the perianthium, is not perhaps of a very important nature. 



There are however other speculative reasons connected with the system of 



* Neither is the remarkable form of anther nor the venation of the perianth incompatible with the 

 structure oi Burmannia. The resemblance, again, of the dilated points of the styles, and the direction 

 and form of the stigmatic openings of this last genus with those of Tacca, in which the stigmata are 

 very incorrectly described, appear to me worthy of notice. 



