24 DR. J. D. HOOKER ON THE STRUCTURE AND 
only one cell to an ovarium containing one or two pendulous ovules. This tendency to — 
suppression of the ovaria, combined with the constant presence of their styles, and the 
styles of the suppressed ovaries being in all respects similar to that of the developed ovary, - 
and equally perfect, is a very peculiar character, frequent in the Haloragee, though — 
not absolutely confined to them : it is very conspicuous in Gunnera. The greater tendency . 
to imperfection in the female than in the male flowers of Halorageæ, is also a marked . 
feature shared by Balanophoree. | 
3. Between Gunnera and Lophophytum the affinity is so close that the female flowers — 
of these genera might be mistaken for one another; and the male flowers of Lophophytum — 
in their two stamens, linear anthers and basal short filaments, are absolutely identical — 
with those of several species of Gunnera: in the subgenus Misandra especially, the male | 
flower often consists of two small sessile calyx-lobes, with two alternating stamens. 
4. If the female inflorescence of Gunnera and Lophophytum be compared, the affinity 
may be very easily pursued: in each, short conical branches of the flower-head project 
laterally from a stout axis, and are subtended by a large bract, and studded with a dense 
mass of flowers, which consist of an adherent perianth, no trace of rudimentary stamens, 
two styles, and a one-celled ovary, with a pendulous ovule, whose integument, in ripening, 
contracts an adhesion to the inner wall of the cavity. i 
. 5 The tendency to a dimerous or tetramerous arrangement of the parts of the flower, 
so conspicuous in all Halorageæ, and in Gunnera, is common to the Helosideæ and Lopho- 
phyteæ. 
Griffith has suggested an affinity between Mystropetalon and Loranthaceæ, founded on 
the form of the male perianth, and the opposition of the stamens to its lobes; but this i 
not borne out by the female flowers, which must be considered of the highest importance | 
in establishing affinities. Griffith further was ignorant of the true structure of the seed 
of Mystropetalon, and supposed that the genus had no relationship with Balanophoreæ 
After much consideration, however, I have included that genus in this Order, for reasons 
appended to some notes upon its structure; and in which view I am likewise followin 
that taken by Mr. Brown (Linn. Soc. Trans. xix. p- 233, in note). 
I have not dwelt upon the character afforded by the extreme dissimilarity of the sex 
of Balanophoreæ, and which is also conspicuous in Gunnera and Haloragee ; because i 
1s common to many other Orders, and indeed is perhaps a very constant accompaniment of 
reduction in structure, or of a normally imperfect development of the floral whorls. 
Amongst the objections that may be urged against associating Balanophoree with th 
epigynous Calyciflore, the strongest will probably be considered to be derived from the 
habit, and the imperfection of the foliar organs: with regard to the former, it appears 
wholly valueless, as will be proved by a cursory inspection of many Orders; and of these 
none are so conspicuous as Halorageæ, which, for its extent, is one of the most polymor- 
phous in the vegetable kingdom, and further, one consisting for the most part of reduced 
forms of Onagrariee. 
_ The extreme simplicity of the 
importance, 
there is a 
| structure of the seed and ovule is another point of some 
and may be used as an argument against the alliance I have proposed; bu 
manifest tendeney to such imperfection in the epigynous Calyciflore, especially 
