144 Mr. J. Miers on the Styracese, 



position is retained until they ripen into perfect seeds. I have 

 here spoken only of Aristotelia, where the ovules are uniserial, 

 on which account, and on a mistaken notion of a different dis- 

 position of the stamens, Prof. Agardh makes this genus the type 

 of a group distinct from ElceocarpecE ; but in Tricuspidaria, one 

 of his EUeocarpecs, where the ovules are pluriserial as well as 

 collateral, I find that they are all respectively lieterotropal, — that 

 is to say, with the raphes, in the one longitudinal row facing those 

 of the other row, all diverging horizontally from the axis. There 

 is no analogy here, in either case, with Styraceoi. Moreover, 

 the unguiculate petals in Elceocarpece, always more or less incised 

 at their summit, the long basifixed anthers opening by bilabiate 

 pores at their apex, the more numerous stamens inserted within 

 a hollow hypogynous disk, upon the outside of which the petals 

 are attached, the dissimilar development of the raphe in the seeds, 

 and very different nature of the seminal tunics, offer other cha- 

 racters completely at variance with Styracinea* I will at some 

 future period publish my analysis of the structures of Aristotelia, 

 Tricuspidaria, Dasynema, and some other genera of the Elceocar- 

 pece, and will here only observe, respecting their seeds, that their 

 seminal tunics are analogous in their nature to those I have 

 described in the Clusiacece and Magnoliacem^ -, their outer fleshy 

 coating, bearing a simple raphe, is such as I have termed an aril- 

 line, resulting from the growth of the priminef, and quite free and 



* Linn. Trans, xxii. 81. 



t I was at first led into error in regard to the origin of this outer coat- 

 ing, in opposition to the opinion of Dr. Asa Gray, who, I frankly admit, is 

 perfectly correct in assigning it to the growth of the primine. I then 

 considered it as originating from an expansion of the placentary sheath, 

 which, indeed, it really is ', but I confounded this development, from not 

 having myself watched the actual mode of growth of the ovule, as explained 

 in a subsequent article {huj. op. 3 ser. vol. i. p. 358) : my reasoning then 

 would have been correct if the prevailing theory of the inversion of the 

 nucleus upon its centre, owing to the one-sided growth of the coats of an 

 anatropous ovule, as taught in all our elementary books, had not been 

 quite fallacious, as I am since convinced it is. I cannot, however, agree with 

 the distinguished American Professor in considering that the outer fleshy 

 tunic and the hard nut which it covers, in the seed of Magnolia, are both 

 derived from one common origin (see ante, note, p. 132). Admitting the 

 correctness of the facts, as detailed by that learned botanist, relative to the 

 progress of growth of the ovule oi Magnolia (Linn. Proe. i. 106), especially 

 in regard to the period of the deposition of sclerogen in the tunic of the 

 ovule, in the manner he relates, it appears to me far more reasonable to 

 conclude that the tunic there described is composed of two integuments 

 (primine and secundine) agglutinated together — the latter becoming solidi- 

 fied subsequently, as he shows — than that we should infer, as he does, that 

 sclerogen is thus copiously deposited upon one half of the cellular tissues 

 of the fleshy mesoderm, to constitute the nut, while the other half of the 

 same tissue retains its lax cellularity— thus forming two seminal coatings 

 of very different nature out of a simple ovular integument (see the former 



