ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 143 
therefore hope our error should it prove one will be speedily corrected, and at the same time 
the other to which [ have alluded. That the circumstances which induced us to constitute this 
genus the type of a distinct order may be fairly stated, I shall reprint here, from Jameson’s 
pee ehies! Journal, our introductory observations, and also Lindley’s remarks explanatory of 
is views. 
« The simple generic character of Millingtonia given by Roxburgh, in his Flora Ind. vol. 
i. p. 102., although sufficiently exact for the Linnean classification, in which those parts only are 
accounted stamens that have pollen, conveys little information as to the real structure of parts. 
The nectarial bodies opposite the petals, are of a very singular shape. The apex (which Rox- 
burgh erroneously represents free) is incurved, and attached in front, similar to the petals of 
some umbelliferous plants, leaving two large hollows, one on each side, as if for the reception of 
the cells of an anther. Indeed, their whole appearance is that of abortive stamens, in which 
light we feei disposed to view them. The bifid scales, at the back of the fertile stamens, are 
of a very different texture, and these, we believe, are abortive petals. ‘Thus, we have both sta- 
mens and petals heteromorphous; the imperfect forms of the one set of organs opposite to the 
perfect ones of the other. The calyx we have always found to consist of two interior sepals, and 
three exterior, one of which, and sometimes, but rarely all, are similar in size to the interior, and 
alternating with them: there are in some species in addition, small close-pressed bracteole. 
The mode in which the calyx is placed is well figured by De Candolle (Organ. Veg. t. 37. f. 12. p.) 
We have, then, a calyx, a corolla, and andrcecium, each of five parts, placed apparently in a 
double series; the one dissimilar to the other, and alternate with it; thus analogically shewing, 
that the hypogynous disk must be viewed as an outer series of the gymnecium, the bidentate 
angles alternating with the two cells of the ovary. At first, also, it would appear that the two 
outer parts of each organ alternate with the inner of the next, but this is only in appearance; 
for, if that were the case, the angles of the hypogynous scaie would be opposite to the three 
larger petals, whereas they alternate with them. ‘I'he real disposition of parts, therefore, will 
be better understood, if we suppose each organ to be of only one series, and of five parts; the 
petals alternating with the calyx, the stamens opposite to the petals, and the pistilla alternating 
with both stamens and petals. hat this is the true explanation, is confirmed by the fact, that, 
in no known plant, where any organ consists of a double series of parts, do the component parts 
of one series differ in number from those of the other. The estivation will thus be imbricate 
and quincuncial ; and in such, two or three (as may happen) parts of the same organ are interior. 
It is, however, remarkable to find them of so very different a structure as occurs in this genus. 
The Affinities of Millingtonia have not, so far as we know, been pointed out. ‘The habit is 
much that of Semecarpus, Mangifera, and Buchanania, and, like the Terebinthaceae, the 
embryo is campulitropal. The genus Sabia, also, has the stamens opposite the petals, the 
ovarium bilocular, two ovules in each cell, the one placed above the other; but the petals are 
likewise opposite to the sepals, and the habit is different: moreover, it is by no means certain 
that Sabia ought to be referred to the Terebinthaceae; and the characters of all the other 
genera of the order present little in common with Millingtonia. Our friend Dr. Hooker has 
suggested an affinity with Sapindaceae ; and with different genera of that order, it has several 
points in common,—as the fleshy disk, the two superposed ovutes in each cell, the indehiscent 
fruit, with part of it abortive; the absence of albumen, and the curved embryo; but that order 
has usually stamens twice as numerous as the petals, and, in addition, scales or tufts of hair at 
the base of the petals; so that if, as in Millingtonia, these scales were to be viewed as abortive 
stamens, the whole number of stamens would much exceed that of the petals. In Sapindaceae, 
too, the hypogynous disk is fleshy, and is, we believe, the torus: here it is quite free from the 
receptacle, except at the point of attachment, and appears to be formed by the union of an outer 
series of styles. Although, therefore, we cannot agree to place it among the true Sapindaceae, 
we can see but little objection to its forming the type of a new order next them.” _ 
‘The following remarks on the Affinities of this order are extracted from Dr. Lindley’s Na- 
tural System of Botany. “ The plants belonging to this assemblage are looked upon by Wight and 
Arnott as forming a family distinct from, but closely related to, Sapindaceae. The principal differ- 
ences pointed out by those authors are. that in the latter the stamens are usually twice as nu- 
merous as the petals, which have scales or tufts of hair at their base ; and the hypogynous disk 
is fleshy. Other points are, indeed, adverted to, but they are either unimportant. or not clearly 
explained. These authors do not take the same view of the structure of the genus as Roxburgh, 
