FaR-hnuh, etc.] FLORA ANTARCTICA. 293 



three obliquely pendulous naked ovules at its apes, these are lodged each in a pouch in the wall of the ovarium at 

 first, but the cell gradually ddates, and leaves the column and ovules free, as represented at fig. 11 of Plate CIV. 

 The ovules are cellular and entirely naked, without any markings on the surface.* In the depression at the apex of 

 the ovarium, bounded by the almost obsolete limb of the calyx, is a very obscure depressed disc, from which projects a 

 short stout style, terminating in three erect oblong stigmata, papillose externally. A transverse section of the young 

 ovarium shews no distinction between the adherent calyx and ovarium ; further than that, as it will afterwards appear, 

 the fissures penetrate the calyx only, the seta they contain lying against the walls of the ovarium itself. 



In its trigonous form, the ovarium of Myzodendron resembles that of one species of a new South American 

 genus of LorantJtacea, allied to Tupeia, which I have seen in fruit only and shall call Lepidoceras\, from the curious, 

 deciduous membranous scale that terminates the leaf. The genus Tupeia itself has also a similar trigonous 

 ovarium, but does not possess the ovuliferous free column, which is very evident in this genus. T. Antarctica 

 has also a highly conspicuous superior four-partite perianth to the female flower, which being deciduous and only 

 visible at a very early period, before the inflorescence quits its protecting scales, has escaped the notice of recent 

 authors. M. Korthals J refers the Viscam, umbellatum and Reinwardtianum of Blume, two Javanese plants, to 

 Tupeia, from which Miquel § suggests their separation. That they do constitute a distinct genus is extremely 

 probable, because of the presence of bracts at the base of the female flower, and (if we may judge from the some- 

 what incomprehensible figure given by M. Korthals) by some other characters of the flower and fruit. Until, 

 however, the true nature of the placentation of the original species of Tupeia || is known, and this is not described 

 by the authors % of the genus or any subsequent writer, its affinities cannot be fully determined. Korthals 

 was the first to describe any plant of the Order Lorantliaeece to have a free central column in the ovarium, and 

 pendulous ovules ; but laying too much stress upon this character he removed the plants in which he observed it, 

 together with the genus to which he referred them (with whose typical species he was unacquainted), to Santalacea. 

 Mr. Brown,** who has long been conversant with the structure of Myzodendron, points out its relation to Santalacea. 

 This affinity between Santalacea and Lorantliaeece is perhaps most obvious in Myzodendron, from the comparative 

 facility with which its ovarium may be dissected, and the column and ovules removed, and it equally shews the relation 



* The position of the future embryo proves that these ovules must be anatropous, though I cannot perceive 

 any sign of raphe, chalaza or foramen. The pollen-tube probably reaches the foramen through the walls of the 

 pouch in which the ovulurn is lodged at an early period. 



t Of this I have seen two species, both imperfect. The genus may be recognised by its small leaves, each 

 terminated by a broad deciduous scaly apex, and its solitary axillary female flowers whose perianth is deciduous. 



1. L. Xint/ii ; ramis ramulisque erectis hirto-pubescentibus, foliis breviter petiolatis elliptieis utrinque acutis, 

 ovariis pedieellatis trigonis. 



Hab. Chiloe, Capt. King. 



2. L.Dombeyi; ramis ramulisque divaricatis horizontaliter patentibus puberulis, foliis sessilibus late obovatis 

 obtusis, ovario fructuque ovato-globosis. 



Hab. Peru, Bombey in Herb. Mm. Paris, et Lindley. 



* Korthals, Over het geslacht Tupeia, &c. (published in Holland with no date). 

 § Miquel in Linnasa, vol. xviii. p. 28. 



|| I am inclined to agree with M. Endlicher in considering Viscum incanum, Hook. (Ic. Plant, t. 73), a species 

 of Tupeia. Though differing in the bracteate female flowers and unilocular anthers, its perianth, and, I believe, 

 the structure of the ovarium, are the same in both. 



% Chamisso et Schlechtendahl, in Linnaea, vol. iii. p. 203. 



** Brown on Eafflesia, fee., vid. Linn. Soc. Trans, vol. ix. p. 232 (in note). 



3 It 



