OF BALANOPHOREÆ. 43 
I am indebted to Prof. Liebmann of Copenhagen for the opportunity of deseribing this 
rare plant; he having forwarded to me the original specimens from Vahl’s and Schuma- 
cher’s herbaria, which are deposited in the museum at Copenhagen. In his paper read 
before the Association of Scandinavian Naturalists at Christiania in 1844, M. Liebmann 
discusses the propriety of restoring Vahl’s name of Thonningia to the American Langs- 
dorffiæ of Martius and others, under the impression that they are all congeneric. As his 
information is very curious, and as I am obliged to dissent from his conclusions, I shall 
give the substance of his communication here, the paper being little likely to become 
generally accessible in England. 
Thonningia was brought to Europe by Thonning in 1804, and described, and named 
after its discoverer by Vahl in the same year, in a paper read before the Natural History 
Society of Copenhagen, and accompanied by a plate. Whether the paper was printed 
does not appear; but Vahl died in 1804, and the Society was dissolved immediately 
afterwards. The volume, of which Vahl’s paper formed a part, was not completed till 
. 1810, when a few copies were distributed, and the rest retained by Prof. Viborg, on account 
of an obnoxious preface by M. Ratke, detailing a controversy between Professors Viborg . 
and Vahl, and which was suppressed on the ultimate publication of the volume in 1818. 
During the same year (1818) Von Martius published the Brazilian Langsdorffia in 
Eschwege’s Journal; and the question brought forward by Liebmann is: supposing it 
to be congeneric with Thonningia, which name should be retained? Prof. Liebmann 
advocates Vahl’s, on the ground of priority, and because his plate enables the genus to be 
identified, though he considers his description to be faulty*. As far as priority of 
publication is concerned, the claims of the names are on a par; but it appears to me 
impossible to include the Brazilian plants in the same genus with the African, on account 
of the great differences between their male flowers. 
My description of Thonningia is drawn up from Vahl’s and Schumacher’s specimens 
and drawings. The male flower consists of a very long spindle-shaped synema, curved at 
the base, broadest in the middle, and tapering to a sharp point: a little below the middle 
it bears two or three subulate narrow fleshy scales, which are the rudiments of a perianth 
that is never further developed. The upper half appears from Vahl’s drawing to be 
covered with pollen; and according to his specimens this is perfectly correct, and further 
agrees with Schumacher’s description. In Schumacher’s specimens I find no traces of 
anthers or pollen. In Vahl’s specimens, however, I find four or five vascular bundles, 
and as many very long linear connate anthers, each 4-valved, bursting Jongitndipally, and 
containing globose hyaline pollen-grains with transparent borders. - 
The female flower of Thonningia only « differs from that of Langsdorffia i in a more complete 
tubular 3-5-toothed perianth. The parenchyma of-this organ is much inflated, and is 
formed of very lax cellular tissue, traversed by four to six remarkable nerves. These consist 
* Prof. Liebmann says that Vahl must have been in error in describing both male and female flowers, as from the 
plate accompanying his paper it appears that he had only female specimens : but Vahl is here right, for he certainly 
figures both the male plant and its flowers, t. 6. figs. a, 5, c, d; and though not very intelligible, they are accurate, 
and accord perfectly with the description,of Schumacher and Thonning, whose specimens Vahl examined, and which I 
have also examined and described here. 
62 
