06 REVIEWS. 



idea that their appearance is meteoric and their growth rapid ; 

 — a theory advanced by Endlicher, who says of the horizontal 

 rhizome of Helosis and Langsdorffia, 'mycelio Fungorum 

 quam maxime analogum.' 4. The resemblance between the 

 articulated filaments on the capitula of the Helosidem and the 

 l)araphyses of JIuscl ; and between the pistils of Balano- 

 phorecc and the pistillidia of Mosses ; strongly advocated by 

 Griffith and Lindley. 5. The resemblance of the cellular and 

 vascular tissues in some of their characters to some of those 

 of Ferns, as indicated by Unger and Goeppert. 6. A very 

 peculiar view of the nature and relations of the parts of the 

 female flower entertained by Weddell ; who hence considers 

 Balanophorece (together wdth Rafflesiacete) to approach 

 nearer to Gymnosperms than to any other group of i^lants." 

 Instead of discussing at length opinions which "had the 

 authors who advocate them been sufficiently furnished with 

 specimens and facts they would never have entertained," Dr. 

 Hooker merely recalls attention to the essential facts that 

 these plants exhibit true flowers with stamens and pistils, gen- 

 uine ovules, and even embryo, and so accord in no one par- 

 ticular with Cryptogams. He shows moreover that the embryo 

 is dicotyledonous in the few cases where it is sufflciently de- 

 veloped to manifest the character, and that the stem is con- 

 structed upon the exogenous plan. Even with these facts 

 before him, Lindley has retained his Rhizogens, as " logically 

 a class " ; as an intermediate form of organization between 

 Endogens and Thallogens, and characterized by vegetation 

 rather than fructification. But there is little or nothing really 

 peculiar in their vegetation ; and, as Lindley himself reduces 

 the differences to questions of degree, it suffices to say that 

 the classes are not founded upon degradation of type, but 

 upon change of type. 



Viewing Balanophorea?^ then, as degraded members of the 

 Dicotyledonous class. Dr. Hooker follows Brown and Griffith 

 in regarding Rafflesiacecc. as near to Ari stolochiacea', and in 

 denying all affinity between these and Balanophorecp. In 

 searching for the affinities of the latter. Dr. Hooker is guided 

 by the sound rule of disregarding " the negative characters, 



