ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANV. 5 



These explanations, which I venture to propose, of rather ohsciire tlescriptions did not 

 occur to myself until after f had formed a new theory of my own, the result of a very careful 

 examination of the ovary in all its stages from the earliest, up to the period of impregnation. At 

 these early stages when the whole flower has not yet attained half an inch in length prohably a 

 fortnight or more before expansion I invariably find two rows of carpels, one inferior, of 4 or 5 

 and one superior of 5-6 or more. In the lower series the placentas are ranged round the axis 

 with their base in the centre and the apex, which is free, towards the circumference. In the 

 upper the attachment, or base of the placentas, is in the circumference and the apex, also at 

 first free, directed towards the centre. Between ihe two rows a diaphragm is always interposed. 

 The apex of the upper placentas is occasionally, afterwards, prolonged and contracts adhe- 

 sions to the axis. 



In the accompanying figures 1 have attempted to represent these views. As the fruit 

 advances in size considerable derangement of this structure progressively occurs which is apt 

 to mask and confuse the appearances now described. 



Having previously ascertained the occasional existence of inversion in the position of 

 carpels, my first idea was that such an inversion took place in the upper row. This view, 

 which, equally with the preceding, accounts for ihe crossing of the placentas I feel inclined 

 to adhere to, though I confess not without some hesitntion, because it implies a complexity of 

 arrangement rarely met with in the inimitably simple and beautiful operations of nature, but 

 I think it as difficult to imagine the nearly equally complex and inconceivable operation of the 

 folding in of one set of carpels over the other, which the explanation of Drs. Lindley and Arnott 

 demand, while my explanation has the advaniage of at the same time accounting for the 

 double chamber which the ovary presents from its earliest stages^ and renders unnecessary the 

 doctrine of an adventitious verticel of carpels which for the present is mere assumption. 



With these explanations I leave the question of structure to consider the one pending on 

 its determination, viz. whether or not Grantene ought to be preserved as a distinct order or be 

 reunited to Mt/rfaceael 



On this point so far as the unvarying evidence derived from cultivated plants is entitled to 

 carry weight on a disputed point— and which I presume it must do until we find that evidence 

 invalidated by the examination of others growing in a truly wild state— we must unquestion- 

 ably, I conceive, adopt the views of those who urge the separation, because, the complex struc* 

 ture, above described, being constant here and unknown among true Myrtaceae, we have 

 no right, in the total absence of direct confirmatory evidence, to assume that a part is adven- 

 titious, merely because it is at variance with our ideas of what should be, especially while we 

 have in addition, differences in habit,, in the formation of the seed (the cotyledons are foliace- 



ous and spirally convolute) and in their pulpy envelope still further to confirm the correctness 

 of these views. 



In coming to this conclusion I do so mainly on the evidence I have myself adduced, at- 

 taching no value to the opinion of Mr. Don, which, being founded, according to his owa 

 showing, on most erroneous views of the structure of the fruit does not merit much con- 

 sideration. 



To the views of DeCandolle more importance must necessarily be attached, as the 

 reasons he assigns are more satisfactory, though I do not think he has awarded sufficient value 

 to the very pecuhar " economy of the fruit" while he has laid too much stress on others of much 

 less note, such as the want of pellucid dots, the absence of the marginal nerve of the leaves and 

 the pulpy covering of the seed ; thereby, throwing into the shade the true essential character 

 of the order, which unquestionably is the double row of carpels, with the upper placentas 

 parietal and crossing the lower axillary ones, wtiich, if I have rightly accounted for, constitute 

 this a truly curious and unique fruit. 



Affinities. According to the explanation now given, the affinities of this order remain 

 to be determined, no known order presenting a similar combination of structure. But adopting 

 the arrangement of Jussieu and DeCandolle, the one followed with some slight modifications in 

 this work, we can scarcely find a more appropriate station for it than the one it now occupies, 

 though but remotely allied to the orders among which it is placed. 



