— 236 — 



but the degree of fusion of the styles is very inconstant in „Tfiea" as 

 well as in „Caniellia'\ 



It was about this tiine that the notorious discussion took place about 

 the question whether the Assam tea plant were a Camellia or a Thea, in 

 which controversy Wallich at first held ihe former idea. On having 

 examined the fruit, however, he felt obliged to déclare ') that it was a 

 Thea after ail (Fig. 4). Apparently, in doing so, he followed the view 

 enunciated by De Candolle. But Griffith excellently criticized this 

 représentation '^). He showed the fruit structure to be idenlical in Camellia 

 and Thea; in both groups the sepla are formed by the curling inward 

 and fusing of the carpel niargins, and in both the septa remain united 

 when the fruit is bursting, while the carpel splits in the middle (loculicidal 

 dehiscence). However, the outward appearance is certainly very différent 

 in both cases, but the cause is that a Camellia-iru'n is trigonal and a 

 r/zea-capsule three-lobed ; and this différence, says he, is of a spécifie, 

 not of a generic degree. (This is so true that even within the limits of 

 the species Camellia theifera the shape of the fruit varies very much, and 

 that the fruits in some races are m^arly trigonal. Griffith does not, however, 

 mention the central tissues in both groups as referred to by Wallich.) 

 He is, therefore, of the opinion that Camellia and Thea shouid be united. 



Choisy (1858) is not sure how to judge the question 3). He rightly 

 réfutes Booth's argument that the degree of division of the style shouid 

 separate both groups. Further he observes that a Camellia fruit is ligna- 

 ceous, opens but halfway, and that thereby the septa separate from the 

 axile tissue, whereas a tea fruit has a comparatively thin pericarp, opens 

 completely, and has septa permanently united with the central column. 

 For the rest he will not „adopter une sentence rigoureuse que le public 

 „serait peu disposé à sanctionner". He formulâtes his conclusion thus 

 (p. 147): 



CAMELLIA. THEA. 



Calyce à estivation imbricative, Calyce simple à un seul rang, 



sépales sur plusieurs rangs se re- Capsule déhiscente dans toute sa 



couvrant comme des tuiles. Capsule hauteur. Cloisons non séparées du 



sémi-déhiscente; cloisons séparées placenta central, 

 en haut du placenta central. 



Seemann (1859) is another ardent advocate of séparation. It is true 

 that he contests '') the truth of Choisy's notion as to the dehiscence being 

 différent in both: „the fact is, that in T/z^a the septa do at one time separate 

 „from the central placenta, and at another they do not". But he approves 

 of Booth's characteristic, the stalked flowers in Thea, and he adds a new 

 point of différence to the existing ones; within the outer whirls of united 



') N. Wallich 1835, p, 47. 



'^) W. Griffith 1838, p. 15G. 



^) J.-D. CiioiSY 1858, p. 146. 



") B. Seemann 1859, p. 339. 



