38 . DR. J. D. HOOKER ON THE GENERA AND SPECIES 
(which he hence considers bracts), rather than bodies forming a verticillus on an inner ] 
and different plane, Griffith overlooks the fact, that their position in no way differs from . 
that of the stamen of other Balanophoree, and that all stamens opposite to and seated at , 
the base of perigonial leaves, are in the same category. On the other hand, his argument | 
against the stamens being axillary, because they do not appear to form an inner whorl, 
may be equally applied against considering the perigonial leaves as being bracts, for the M 
latter decidedly do form an outer whorl, and are all on one plane; a fact which, as well | 
as that of their decidedly valvate æstivation, is opposed to their bracteal origin. E 
Another remark of Griffith's is to the effect, that * the analogies of Balanophora are in M 
favour of Endlicher's generie character; but that it requires a very exalted idea to be 1 
held of the value of parasitism, to conceive any affinity between Sarcophyte and Balano- 3 
phora” (p. 340). If, however, the homologies in the structure of the flowers are ad: - 
mitted, it cannot be said that systematists have depended on an undue value attached to — 
parasitism, for the supposed affinity; and in the second place, the argument derived from 
parasitism, if of any value, does not rest upon the mere fact of parasitism, but on that of — 
the root appearing to send vascular bundles into the rhizome of Sarcophyte as it does 
into that of other Balanophoree, a kind of parasitism not hitherto detected in any other — 
Natural Order*. ; E 
The male flower of Sarcophyte differs in no essential particulars from that of Balano- : 
phora; the pedicel (tube of perianth) and three valvate perigonial leaves being identical, | 
and both having the stamens opposite to the latter. The chief difference is, that in Bala- 3 
à; nophora the stamens are united by their filaments and connectives, whilst in Sarcophyte 4 
they are free. The suspected analogy between the structure of the stamen of Sarcophyte — 
and the sorus of Cyathea and Spheropteris, suggested by Griffith, is under any view quite 3 
untenable. 4 
Griffith’s description of the ovarium and its contents does not accord with my obser- 4 
vations; nor could I suggest any explanation of his “brown central nuclei, containing — 
one, or not unfrequently two, other brown nuclei ;” but Weddell points out that Griffith — 
examined an abnormal state of the fruit, which he has frequently observed himself, 
and in which the embryo is abortive, and the albumen and integuments become con- 
founded into an ossified mass. I find, in the ovarian cavity of specimens preserved in 
acid, an immature ovulum, consisting of loose white cells, enclosed in a delicate mem- 
brane as in Balanophora. This albumen and its erustaceous coat (formed of the peri- 
carp) are well illustrated by Weddell (Ann. Se. Nat. l. c), as is the central embryo, - 
discovered by himself. i : j 
Griffith goes too far in stating that the female flowers of Sarcophyte are widely different 
from those of Balanophoree, in their greater general perfection, the union of the ovaria, 
and the obvious stigmatic surfaces : for, in the structure of the female flower, and of the — 
Seed, except in the development of the embryo, they are identical : the more highly organized 
stigmata attain a greater degree of perfection in Sarcophyte than in those genera with which 
* Except Orobanche, 
1854, p. 577, t. 3). 
of Orobanche, 
the germination of which has been so admirably illustrated by Caspary (Regensburg Flora, 1 
It appears most probable that the germination of Balanophoreæ will prove very similar to that I 
