BENTHAM ON THE GENUS HARPALYCE. 211 



side branch springing almost from the root, the central stem 

 being cut off. The foliage and inflorescence are the same as in 

 the Brazilian species with the exception of the form of the 

 leaflets. The flowers, very rudely represented, are also very 

 similar, the buds are of the same form but rather thicker, the 

 bracteolse^are generally misplaced, and to some buds as many 

 as four are given. In a separate representation of the calyx 

 both divisions are made to terminate in a long sharp point, 

 though the bud is as blunt as in H. Brasiliana. The ovary 

 is represented precisely as in H. Brasiliana, the pod is sessile, 

 narrow and without seeds at the base, broad in the upper 

 part, where five or six seeds are represented as forming pro- 

 tuberances in the pod. This pod is stated to be bilocular, 

 though with some doubt, and it is not mentioned in which 

 direction the cells are placed ; I should suspect it to be 

 transversely plurilocular as in H. Brasiliana. 



The evident affinities of Harpalyce are with Brongniariia, 

 (including Peraltea, now generally, and probably with reason, 

 united to it), which has also the peculiar combination of the 

 habit and flower of Galegeee, with the fruit of a Cassia; and 

 following up the principle I have elsewhere adopted, of giv- 

 ing more importance to the aestivation and relative position 

 of the parts of the flower, than to the characters derived 

 from the pod and the seed, both genera would be included 

 amongst Galegece. Perhaps, however, when the BrongniarticR 

 are better known, as well as some other Mexican and Peru- 

 vian plants which appear to have some relation to it, it is 

 not unlikely that a distinct subtribe may with propriety be 

 formed to receive them. 



Mr Don has established a genus Megastegia, wliich he 

 suggests may be the same as Harpalyce, but his character, if 

 accurately given, is at complete variance with it. There is 

 nothin"- in Harpalyce, at all resembling the large bracts he 

 mentions, unless it be the divisions of the calyx, which cannot 

 have been mistaken for them, as Mr Don distinctly describes 

 a calyx within them ; Megastegia is probably therefore a third 

 ^^tuus belonging to the same group. 



