66 ME. BENTHAM ON L0GANIACE.E. 



and connected petioles. As a genus it differs from them essentially 

 in the loculicidal dehiscence of the capsule, which only becomes 

 at length septicidal by the splitting of the valves, instead of the 

 two cells separating in the first instance. On this account Polypre- 

 mum was associated by Alph. De Candolle with his Spigeliece, and 

 the aestivation supposed to be valvate. It proves, however, to be 

 as strongly imbricate as in Logania. The habit of the plant is 

 unlike that of any of the allied genera, and reminds rather of a 

 Minuartia, or of some Barony chiece. In this respect it also forms 

 some approach to Gilia among Boletnoniacece ; and the tendency to 

 a loculicidal dehiscence of the capsule, abnormal in Loganiacece, 

 but characteristic in Bolemoniacea, would add the latter to the 

 number of families with which Bolypremum might be associated, 

 were it not for the quincuncially imbricate aestivation of the lobes 

 of the corolla, which are, I believe, without exception contorted 

 in Bolemoniacece. The genus contains but a single species, for 

 the B. Schlechtendafdii of Walpers appears to be merely an acci- 

 dental form of the common one. 



9. Logania, Br. 



I have already shown that the affinities of Logania are rather 

 with the ScrophularinecB than with the Bubiacecd or Apocyneae. 

 From Gomphostigma, hitherto placed in the former family, there 

 is indeed little to distinguish it but the usually pentamerous, not 

 tetramerous flowers, and even this character fails in the Logania 

 micrantha mentioned below. The same circumstance also separates 

 Logania from the other Buddleiece, except that in Buddleia itself 

 some species have often an admixture of pentamerous flowers. In 

 these cases the toothed leaves, indumentum, and general habit are 

 very different from those of Logania. 



The species of Logania are now rather numerous. In addition 

 to the twelve Australian ones, enumerated by De Candolle, four 

 from Swan Biver have been described by Nees, one from South 

 Australia by Schlechtendahl, a very distinct one from subtropical 

 Australia by Hooker, and a doubtful garden one by Kunth and 

 Bouche\ There are also one or two in our herbaria which appear 

 to be undescribed, but, without more numerous specimens in all 

 states of some of the commoner species, it is very difficult as yet 

 to make out a good monograph. Some species are evidently very 

 variable. There appears to be a regular gradation among the 

 Eastern ones, from L.Jloribunda to L. angustifolia, L. revoluta, and 

 L. linifolia ; so also between L. latifolia, L. longifolia, and their 



