SUGGESTIONS ON FRUIT CLASSIFICATION. 



311 



III. Achene. — 

 Dry, iiulehisceiit, 

 not breaking up. 

 [Probably the 



names applied to 

 the different forms 

 should be abolished, 

 and the term Achene 

 applied to all.] 



Superior. 



Inferior. 



r 10. Achene (in restricted 

 sense). Pericarp not adherent 

 to seBd, e g. Rnuimculiis, Riimex, 

 UlmuH, Fraxiniis, etc. 



1 1 . Caryopah. Pericarp ad- 

 hering to seed, e. g. Graminea. 



I 12. Ot/pscla. Pericarp not 



much indurated, e. g. ComponUa, 



Valerinnacea, etc. 

 ' 13. Glans. Pericarp hard, 



e. g. Qnercus, Castauea, Tcujm, 



Corijlns, etc. 



IV. Berry. — 

 Seeds imbedded in 

 pulp. As a rule, 

 indehiscent. 



14. Uva. Superior, e. g. 

 Outer portion ofl Vitis, Solanum, etc. 

 pericarp delicate 1 5 . Baccu (in restricted sense) . 



V. Drupe. — En- 

 docarp distinctly 

 defined, and more 

 or less indurated. 

 Outer portion of 

 pericarp of variable 

 consistence, Heshy, 

 leathery, or fibrous. 

 As a rule, indehis- 

 cent. 



(thin-skinned). 



Outer portion 

 of pericarp firm, 

 leathery, or hard 

 (thick-skinned). 



One - stoned. 

 [Probably the two 

 forms included un- 

 der this head should 

 be embraced by a 

 simple terra.] 



Inferior, e.g. Rihes, Faccinium, 

 etc. 



16. Jmphisarca. Superior, 

 e.g. Adaii>iunia,Passlflora [^Citrus 

 should be included here]. 



17. Pepo. Inferior, e.g. 

 Cucitrhita, Cucinnis [F/it/ica 

 should be included here]. 



18. Dr/ipe{hi restricted sense). 

 Superior, e.g. Prnnits, Cocos, etc, 



19. Tn/ma. Inferior, e.g. 

 Jiighois, Viburniivi, etc. 



Two- or more- 

 stoned. [Probablv on /\t + i\ c 

 the two forms in"- . 2«- (Nm^e vvanted). Supc- 



cluded under this^'i"^'^^- «^^^^(;'^' ^'^^^^^^^^^ 



head should be em- 1 „ ' ay °'f ' cy' ^!^^'' ^\^' 

 1 , , • 1 I Pur us, Uratanns, ouuiOncKS, etc. 



braced by a single ^ •/ ' •/ ' > 



term.] 



With one pluri-f 22. (Name wanted), e. g. Cor- 

 [ locular stone. {hkh. 



As the modifications undergone by the fruit in ripening stand in direct 

 relation to the dispersion of the parts l)y which the |)lant is disseminated, 

 prol)al)ly the most philosophical method of classifying fruits would 1)6 

 according to the nature of the parts disseminated. 'Vo carry out this 

 principle rigorously, however, would lead to practical diihculties far out- 

 weighing any advantage gained. At the same time it is evirlent that the 

 foregoing classification satisfies, in a general way, the conditions of such 

 a method; thus—in ("apsules and Berries, the needs, a?, a rule, are the 



