Mr. Brown, on the Pi'oteacea of Jussieu. 17 



was induced to adopt it more from the consideration of the 

 close analogy these plants have with the manifestly pcntandrous 

 Apocinete, than from regarding them as strictly referable to this 

 class ; for, in his natural generic characters of Asclepiasand Pergu- 

 laria, he A^ery clearly describes both these genera as gynandrous. 



Jussieu has entered more fully into the subject, but seems also 

 to have been chiefly guided by this analogy and the observations 

 of others ; as he concludes by expressing his doubts, respecting 

 both the origin and use of the parts. 



Richard, whose description of these organs I find in Persoon's 

 Synopsis, has indeed come nearer to the solution of the question; 

 his account, however, of the origin of the lateral processes here- 

 after mentioned, proves that this description was not altogether 

 formed on actual observation. 



Jacquin, the first botanist that submitted these plants to mi- 

 nute examination, and whose figures well illustrate most points 

 of their structure, has adopted a very different opinion, referring 

 them to Gynandria, in which he is followed by Koelreuter, 

 Rottboell and Cavanilles, all of whom likwise agree with him in 

 considering them as decandrous ; while Dr. Smith, in his late 

 valuable Introduction to Botany, who conceives that " no plants 

 can be more truly gynandrous," regards them as having only five 

 antherae. And lastly Desfontaines supposes the five glands of 

 the stigma to be the true antherae, considering the attached 

 masses of pollen as mere appendages to these. 



All the authors who thus refer them to Gynandria seem quite 

 confident in the justness of their views ; and yet the inspection 

 of a single flower bud overturns, as it appears to me, with irre- 

 sistible evidence, the conclusion they had formed from premises 

 apparently so satisfactory. 



My attention, while in New Holland, having been much en- 

 voL. X. D gaged 



