ON SOME DOUBTFUL SPECIES IX THE. CHESHIRE FLOEA. 16-3 



nevertheless, Tulasne found in a flower of D. Noronhiana which he 

 examined an 8-parted perianth, 6 stamens and 3 stigmas. In Du 

 Petit Thouars' original fig are of D. data (Hist. Veg. Afr. 6I,t. 20, 

 1805) the perianth is 5-6 parted, with 5 stamens, 3 styles, and a 4- 

 valved fruit (?). 



It seems clear from this that the number of parts of the flower is 

 variable (perhaps according to the position of the flower in the cyme), 

 and that, therefore, those authors who refer Thompsonia to Ldidamia 

 are correct in so doing, for if the distinction afforded by the number 

 of parts fail, none other is left — at least so far as we kuow, for the 

 fruits are only known in one or two species. In any case the auiso- 

 mery is a remarkable and interesting feature. 



By reason of its technical character Beidamia is well placed in the 

 tribe FassiJlorecB, but were it not for its hermaphrodite flowers, its 

 structure would suggest a nearer approximation to J/bc?£!C(?(?(«. In fact, 

 with Basananthe and Tryphostemma, the genus forms a group linking the 

 Passion-flowers to the Modeccas. In its pinnate foliage it is distiact 

 from all its allies, though soaae of the Modeccas have very deeply 

 divided loaves, e.g., M. trisecta, Mast. Its densely-reticulated veaa- 

 tion is unlike that of any other genus of the same order. 



Description of Tab. 163. 

 1. Branoh of i)gio?'i?ttia Thompsoniana, DC, from a specimen collected by 

 Thompson in Madagascar. 2. Vertical section through a flower, showing tho 

 position of the stamens and corona. 3. The same, wihh the parts of the 

 perianth, the pistil, and all the anthers but one removed to show the corona, &c. 

 4. Part of the fringe of the corona. 5. Back, and 6. Front of a stamen. 7. Pistil. 

 8. Transverse section of tha ovary. 9. Transverse section of another ovary, 

 showing four placentaj. 



0:N" some doubtful species in the CHESHIRE 



FLORA. 

 Bt the Hon. J. L. Warrex. 



Some ''Notes on a projected Cheshire Flora" were issued iu 

 June, 1873. These the present paper in some measure continues, 

 with one marked difference. We here solely discuss the occurrence 

 of a species in Cheshire ; there its distribution through Cheshire was 

 also dealt with. This restriction of subject-matter indicates some 

 progress in the county botany during the last two years. Since the 

 *' Notes " appeared a good percentage of their queries has been an- 

 swered. The comital distribution of a large portion of our occurrent 

 species has been ascertained. We have, in short, reached a stage in 

 our enquiry when this part of our subject may be left to take care of 

 itself; and it is now proposed to concentrate the attention of those in- 

 terested in the subject of Cheshire botany upon a residuum of about 

 32 species, whose actual occurrence as natives within county limits 

 remains, from several causes, open to doubt. The more prominent 



M 2 



