AFFINITIES OF BALANOPHOREÆ. 7 
point; that of inducing such a diseased action on the root as gives the appearance of 
the latter forming growths within the rhizome is a secondary one, and varies in amount; 
from Lophophytum, in which it seems to be none, to Rhopalocnemis, in which the bulk of 
the vessels in the rhizome are confluent with those of the root. As a general rule, the 
older the root attacked by the parasite, the fewer are the branches which it appears to 
send into the parasite; and as all my specimens of Lophophytum are on very much older 
and larger roots than are those of any other species, and indeed on wood of many years’ 
growth, it is quite possible that in the case of its attacking younger and feebler roots it 
may develope the same power. 
Under this view, the propriety of considering the rhizome of Balanophora and its con- 
geners to be an intermediate body, as suggested by Unger, seems, as Goeppert has pointed 
out, to be erroneous; indeed, there are stronger objections to it than have hitherto been 
urged, derived from the development of that body. 
I am unable to confirm Gceppert’s observations on one extremely difficult point, namely 
the presence of the two wholly independent and unconnected systems of vascular tissue. 
This author maintains, 1. that no free vascular bundles originate in the rhizome previous 
to the formation of flower-buds, but that the root gives off bundles to the rhizome, within 
which they ascend, prolonging, increasing in diameter, and branching, with the corre- 
sponding development of the cellular system of the rhizome. 2. That on the formation 
of the peduncles (floral organs), free and independent vascular bundles are developed in 
them, which ascend as the peduncles elongate, and also descend into the rhizome, occu- 
. pying a position between the vascular bundles of the latter, with which they do not unite. 
3. That these independent vascular systems present anatomical characters by which they 
may constantly be recognized, at any rate in the individual species. These positions I 
shall examine consecutively, premising that it is with considerable diffidence that I venture 
to dissent from the conclusions of this eminent author, since though I possess the advantage 
of having repeated my observations, both on living and dead plants of several species, I 
cannot regard these as entitled to more consideration than M. Gæppert's known skill 
and accuracy *. ; 
1. With regard to M. Goeppert’s first observation, it must be remembered that he nev 
had the opportunity of examining very young specimens, the importance of which 
desideratum he fully admits. In the section in Plate VI. figs. 7 & 8, which represents the 
independent formation of vascular tissue in a germinated Balanophora involuerata (and 
in other similar cases), I find in the axis of the rhizome pale transparent lines consisting 
of elongated cells, which contain no wax or cytoblasts, surrounding rudimentary vascular 
bundles. I have never examined a very young specimen in which these bundles were 
. found to have descended to the vascular system of the root, but I infer that they do so, 
‘and, becoming incorporated with the vascular bundles of the root, present the appearance 
* The difficulty of investigating these points is further far greater in living than in dead specimens : this is owing 
to the rapid sphacelation of the parts when cut, and the quantity of viscid Balanophorine (the term applied by Gæppert 
to the peculiar waxy secretion of Balanophora) contained in their cellular tissue, which prevents dissection with any 
approach to nicety : impediments so great, that I have no hesitation in saying, that in many cases better results may 
be obtained from specimens preserved in acid or spirits, than from living ones. 
