as a distinct Natural Order from Myrtaceae. 91 



Having previously ascertained the occasional existence of 

 inversion in the position of carpels, my first idea was, that 

 such an inversion took place in the upper row. This view, 

 which, equally with the preceding, accounts for the crossing 

 of the placentas, I feel inclined to adhere to, though I confess 

 not without some hesitation, because it implies a complexity 

 of arrangement rarely met with in the inimitably simple and 

 beautiful operations of nature ; but I think it as difficult to 

 imagine the nearly equally complex and inconceivable opera- 

 tion of the folding-in of one set of carpels over the other, 

 which Drs. Lindley and Arnott^s explanation demands : while 

 my explanation has the advantage of at the same time ac- 

 counting for the double chamber which the ovary presents 

 from its earliest stages, and renders unnecessary the doctrine 

 of an adventitious verticel of carpels, which for the present is 

 mere assumption. 



With these explanations, I leave the question of structure 

 to consider the one pending on its determination, viz. whether 

 or not Granatece ought to be preserved as a distinct order, or 

 be re-united to MyrtacecB. 



On this point, so far as the unvarying evidence derived from 

 cultivated plants is entitled to carry weight on a disputed point 

 — and which I presume it must do imtil we find that evidence 

 invalidated by the examination of others growing in a truly 

 wild state — we must unquestionably, I conceive, adopt the 

 views of those who urge the separation, because the complex 

 structure above described, being constant here and unknown 

 among the true Myrtaceae, we have no right, in the total abs- 

 ence of direct confirmatory evidence, to assume that a part 

 is adventitious merely because it is at variance with our ideas 

 of what should be, especially while we have, in addition, dif- 

 ference of habit in the formation of the seed and their pulpy 

 envelope, in further confirmation of the correctness of these 

 views. 



To the views of DeCandolle more importance must neces- 

 sarily be attached, as the reasons he assigns are more satis- 

 factory, though I do not think he has attached sufficient va- 

 lue to the very peculiar ^^ oeconomy of the fruit,^^ while he has 

 given too much to others of much less note, such as the want 

 of pellucid dots, the absence of the marginal nerve of the 

 leaves, and the pulpy covering of the seed ; thereby throwing 

 into the shade the true essential character of the order, which 

 unquestionably lies in the double row of carpels, with the 

 upper placentas parietal and crossing the lower axillary ones, 

 which, if I have rightly accounted for, constitute this a truly 

 curious and unique fruit; and which, whether or not my 



