MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. lull 



The flowers are unisexual. The male flowers are in pairs, while the female 

 flowei-s are solitary. Each female flower is situated between and below every 

 pair of male flowers. 



The sepals are three, white, membranous, sub-ovbicular and obtuse. The 

 aestivation is imbricate (fig. III.) Thp sepals of female flowers are longer than 

 those of the male (figs. IV, VIII). 



Beccari^ mentions that it is not seldom to find a second whorl of petals, in 

 male flowers, alternating with the outer whorl of petals. I examined many 

 flowers, but did not notice the presence of this second whorl. The petals are 

 three, white, linear, oblong, obtuse, concave and longitudinally striated. The 

 aestivation is valvate (fig. II.) The petals of the male flowers are longer than 

 those of the female (figs. IV, VIII). 



The male flowers when closed are longer than broad (fig. IV). The anthere 

 are pinkish, sagittate and versatile (fig. VI). The stamens are f)-9, nine 

 predominating. The filaments are flattened at the base. A subglobose 

 pistilode, as big as a poppy seed, is situated in the centre of the flower, sur- 

 rounded by the whorl of stamens (fig.V-a). The pistilode is trilocular. The 

 pollen grains are more or less oval. 



Bentham and Hooker" mention that the ovary is bilocular. I examined 

 many flowers and found the ovary to be trilocular. In some, false dissepi- 

 ments were also observed (fig. IX). There are six stamiuodes surrounding 

 the ovary and so to say forming a cupule (fig. Vll-a). I did not notice any 

 more details in the female flowers, as they had not opened when I examined 



them. 



J. P. MULLAN.M.A. 



Bombay, 30th July, 1909. 



No. XXXIII.— ENVIRONMENT VERSUS NATURAL SELECTION 

 AS THE CAUSE OF COLOURATION IN ANIMALS. 



In the course of his very interesting paper " Some Nature Notes, " which 

 appeared on pp. 399 et aeq. of Vol. XIX, No. 2, of the Journal, Col. Burton 

 contributed some remarks bearing on the subject of protective colouration. 



The author of that paper looks with suspicion upon the view generally held 

 by naturalists and considers them "rather far fetched". He quotes Mr. 

 Selous. the South African authority, in support of the theory he opposes to 

 that of protective colouration, viz., the effect of environment. 



This is a matter of great interest which, I believe, has not hitherto been 

 discussed in our Journal, and I hope, therefore, that I may be allowed to 

 trespass in a small measure on its pages. 



The views of practical observers like Col. Burton and Mr. Selous are deserving 

 of the highest consideration and they are fully entitled to an opinion, but, 



1 Bercaii 1. c. 



Bentham and Hooker 1. c. 



