ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 157 
sepals, making a total of 5 sepals: while the two interior lobed petals he considers four petals 
united two and two, the fifth or odd petal, required to make up the normal number of 5 he 
Supposes aborts, but ought to be placed on the upper part of the flower, opposite the large leaf 
which he supposes is formed by the union of the two upper sepals. Roper commences his 
examination with the young bud and finds the spur on the Superior aspect next the axis, this 
therefore he considers the upper or odd sepal, the two green leaves the lower or exterior sepals, 
while between them and the lower leaf of the expanded flower, he finds two small scale like sepaloid 
bodies, which however often abort, these he considers the inner pair of sepals. Kunth’s upper 
united pair of sepals, which at this period are on the lower part of the flower opposite the spur 
he considers the odd or anterior petal, and the lateral lobed ones as double petals, thus making, 
up the number 5, the regular number of the genus. To trace the different stages of this theory 
which as being most consonant with the analogy of the rest of the vegetable kingdom, and 
especially with the Orchideae, appears to be the true one, it is only necessary to invert a flower 
of a balsam so as to place the spur uppermost as it is in the bud when the whole becomes evi« 
dent. e then see the odd sepal above and the odd or anterior petal below, with one pair of 
the lateral sepals, (the other pair sometimes present, very small, but oftener absent from abor- 
tion) and the two pair of the lateral petals, but usually united below into a single 2-lobed 
etal. 
; In support of Kunth’s view it may be urged that the interior petal of Roper is more ana- 
logous in texture to asepal than a petal. This however is not an argument of much weight. 
In a practical point of view the difference is not of muc consequence, since in describing the 
organ in question, for the purpose of deducing specific characters, it seems not to matter much, 
whether we call it a superior sepal or an inferior petal, so long as the part meant is clearly un- 
derstood. : . 
Arrinitigs. I mentioned above that this order is considered by some Botanists nearly 
allied to the two preceding and to Oxalideae, but that others separate Zineae from the group 
on account of its wanting the gynobasi. This structure, the essential character of which is 
“‘ Carpels seldom or never exceeding 5, always in a single whorl diverging at the base, and 
Separated by the interposition of a conical gynobase, which throws them into an oblique posi- 
tion” (Lind.) is not so evident in the Balsamineae as in Geraniaceae, but still when sought 
for in the ovary, can be made out especially in the genus Hydrocera, where it is very distinct. 
Notwithstanding this mark of relationship Bartling does not see any affinity between these 
orders, and remarks that unless somewhat allied to Fumareaceae it is far removed from all 
other orders, and therefore places it at the end of this work along with some others, the place of 
which :n the series he is uncertain about. 
The Tropeoleae, or Nasturtium tribe, on the other hand, which other Botanists consider 
only a sub-order or section of Balsamineae, Bartling places in his class Matpighinae near 
Sapindaceae, while Mr. Don thinks them allied to Capparideae. Bartling’s view is, I think, 
nearer the truth than Don’s, as there is certainly many points of similarity between the orders 
though but little affinity. 
Geocrarmicat Distrisutioy. As affording the most complete view of this part of the 
subject, so far as I know, yet published, { shall here introduce some remarks which I formerly 
published in the Madras Journal of Science, merely adding, that since they were written [ 
found several species, not noticed in these introductory remarks, on the higher ranges of the 
Pulney mountains, and have by me drawings of seven species collected on the Neilgherries by 
Mr. G. Gough, several of which are new. | 
“* Of this genus, now embracing nearly one hundred species, Linnzeus only knew seven or 
eight ; and most of these from indifferent figures. In 1805 when Persoon published his Synopsis, 
en only were known; to these only six had been added in 1819, when Roemer and Schultes 
published the fourth volume of their Sys'ena Vegetabilium, and one of the six ‘* sine defi- 
nitione.” In 1424, Professor DeCandolle published the first volume of his Prodromus, and 
extended the catalogue from sixteen to thirty-one, excluding the undefined one, thus doubling 
the former number: of these, twenty-four are Indian, nearly all the new ones being derived 
from Dr. Wallich’s Nepaul Collections. In 1830-31, Dr. Wallich named in his list no fewer 
than forty-seven Indian species, Since that time Mr. Royle informs us, (J//ustr ations page 151) 
- 
