22 DR. J. D. HOOKER ON THE STRUCTURE AND 
this Order, when surveyed in a structural point of view; and were value to be attached to 
the fact of every organ appearing in a most degraded state in one or more of the species, _ 
Balanophoreæ would rank low in the system of Phænogamic plants. If however we 
disregard imperfection, and inquire what organs are wanting in the Order, we shall find | 
that, with the exception of terrestrial roots, all are present which are necessary to justify | 
their being placed amongst Phaenogamie plants. 3 
The arguments which have been used to exclude Balanophoreæ from Phænogams, all « 
appear to have originated on the one hand in mistaking feeble analogies between the forms 1 
of organs that are not homologous, for affinities; and on the other, in overlooking a mul- « 
titude of positive characters. These arguments may be summed up as being :— | 
1. An erroneous view of the nature of the seeds, by Endlicher, Martius, Blume, and | 
others, who describe them as a sporuliferous mass ; a term which, even were it applicable, - 
has no meaning. ; ; 
2. An erroneous view of their origin being in a diseased state of the plants they grow … 
upon; adopted by Junghuhn and Trattinick. i 
3. A supposed similarity in appearance to Fungi*, and an erroneous idea that their 
appearance is meteoric, and their growth rapid; a theory advocated by Endlicher, who — 
(Meletemata, p. 5) says of the horizontal rhizome of Helosis and Langsdorffia, “ mycelio 
Fungorum quam maxime analogum.” ER : 4 
4. The resemblance between the articulated filaments on the capitula of the Helosideæ, 
and the paraphyses of Musci; and between the pistilla of Balanophora, and the pistillidia 
of Musci; strongly advocated by Griffith and Lindley. 1 
5. The resemblance of the cellular and vascular tissues in some of their characters to — 
some of those of Filices; as indicated by Unger and Gæppert. 1 
6. A very peculiar view of the nature and relations of the parts of the female flower, | 
entertained by Weddell; who hence considers Balanophoreæ (together with Raflesiaceæ) — 
to approach nearer to Gymnosperms than to any other group of plants. 2: 
It would be fruitless to discuss these opinions at length; for it cannot be doubted 
that, had the authors who advocate them been sufficiently furnished with specimens and « 
facts, they would never have been entertained. On the other hand, it is not easy to 
account for the little importance attached by so many good botanists to the positive evi- 
dence afforded by the presence of sexes, the perfection of the essential organs of the male 
flower in all the species, the total dissimilarity in structure and function between the 
female organs of all the species and those of Cryptogams, and their identity of structure | 
in all essential points with those of other Phænogams. 
With regard to the union of Balanophoreæ with Rafflesiaceæ, into one great class of 
Phænogams, equivalent to Monocotyledones or Dicotyledones, the arguments brought | 
against it by Brown and Griffith are conclusive. Not only have these Orders no cha- 
either physiological or structural, except para 
of widely different affinities; which in the case 
» Brongniart, and Griffith have all placed Rafflesiacee in close 
* H : 
I may mention here that the species I have examined never became putrescent, 
