ILLUSTRATIONS OF INDIAN BOTANY. 81 



Nevertheless Botanists, in most instances, appear to be against this opinion: 1 confess 

 I cannot conceive upon what grounds. Usually a material dissimilarity in habit, if ac- 

 companied by any clear character, whether of vegetation or fructification, is considered 

 sufficient for the separation of a group of plants into two Orders; in this caPo the weak, 

 angular stems cause a peculiarity of habit that cannot be mistaken, and the total absence 

 of stipules, to say nothing of the didymous fruit, affords a certain mark of recognition. 

 Surely there is some inconsistency in separating, by the absence of stipules, Caprifoils, 

 which are undistinguishable in habit, while the very same character is rejected when ap- 

 plied to an assemblage of genera all distinctly combined by their habit. The only ground 

 upon which this is intelligible, is that taken by DeCandolle and others, who consider the 

 apparent leaves of Stellates_ to be in part true leaves and in part leaf-like stipules. To 

 this verbal, but not real distinction, there is this objection, which I conceive quite fatal 

 to it: If a part of the leaves of each whorl in GaUum was stipules, the latter must 

 bear a certain proportion to the true leaves; suppose the whorl to consist of two leaven, 

 each will have two stipules, and consequently the whole number of parts in the whorl 

 must be six, and in all cases the nuinber must be some power of 3. But of the first 

 forty species of Galium, in DeCandolle's Prodromus, only thirteen conform to this rule; 

 and the frequent tendency in the whorls to vary from 4 to 6, or from 5 to 6, or from 

 6 to 8, seems to me an incontrovertible proof that the apparent leaves of Stellates are 

 true leaves and not a modification of stipules. To this it may be added, that the ad- 

 mitted leaves are so entirely the same as what M. DeCandolle conceives to be stipules, 

 that no difference whatever can in general be found in their form, colour, anatomy, or 

 degree of development. Such reasons have, however, not proved satisfactory to Botanists, 

 who with one accord appear to range themselves upon the side of M. DeCandolle; and 

 recently the question has been more particularly agitated by one of the most distin- 

 guished writers of this country. 



Mr. Bentham, in an article on Crusea rubra, published in the Botanist^ page 82, 

 after entering at some length and with great skill into a discussion of the arguments 

 employed on both sides of the question, has decided in favour of the opinion of DeCan- 

 dolle, that a part of the apparent leaves of Stellate plants are stipules. The grounds 

 upon which he has arrived at this conclusion are essentially the following: 



1. That the follaceous organs in Stellates, if viewed as consisting entirely of leaves, 

 do not bear that relation to the angles of the stem which is usual in Dicotyledons; 

 but that the relation becomes apparent if only two of them are taken as leaves and 

 the rest as stipules. (DeCandolle seems influenced by the consideration that it is only 

 two of the apparent leaves which have buds in their axils; but Mr. Bentham does not 

 advert to this.) 



2. That in a number of cases, especially in Asperula, two opposite leaves are much 

 larger than the others. 



3. That in Spermacoceae and other tribes of Cinchonads, the stipules are connected 

 with the petiole of the leaf into a sheath, and that this sheath exists in Stellates. 



4. That the number of parts in each whorl is not necessarily some power of S, 

 but that, taking two of the parts for leaves, it is immaterial by what number of similar 

 parts those two are separated, because the intermediate processes are analogous to the 

 setae of Spermacoceae, the number of which is variable. 



Perhaps this question is more important in appearance than in reality, for in some 

 respects it is a mere difference about words ; stipules being rudimentary leaves, and leaves 

 developed stipules. It is, however, connected with some points of speculative interest, 

 especially as regards systematic Botany, and therefore I avail myself of the present op- 

 portunity of stating what I conceive to be the objections to Mr. Bentham"'8 line of argu- 

 ment, and why I still retain my original opinion upon the subject. 



1. With regard to the relation borne by the leaves to the angles of the stem, it 

 is to be observed, that if those foliaceous organs only which are opposite the angles are 



said to be leaves in Stellates, and the rest stipules, then we must suppose that Labiate 



