22 DR. J. D. HOOKER ON THE STRUCTURE AND 



this Order, when siirreyed in a strnctural point of view ; and were value to be attached to 

 the fact of every organ appearing in a most degraded state in one or more of the species, 

 BahmophorecB would rank low in the system of Phaenogamic plants. If however we 

 disregard imperfection, and inqtiire what organs are wantiag in the Order, we shall find 

 that, with the exception of terrestrial roots, aU are present which are necessary to justify 

 then- being placed amongst Phajnogamic plants. 



The argmnents which have been used to exclude Balmiophorece from Phsenogams, aU 

 appear to have origiaated on the one hand in mistaking feeble analogies between the forms 

 of organs that are not homologous, for affinities ; and on the other, in overlooking a mul- 

 titude of positive characters. These arguments may be summed up as being : — 



1. An erroneous view of the natm-e of the seeds, by Endlicher, Martins, Blume, and 

 others, who describe them as a sporuliferous mass ; a term which, even were it applicable, 

 has no meaning. 



2. An erroneous "vdew of their origin being in a diseased state of the plants they grow 

 upon ; adopted by Junghuhn and Trattinick. 



3. A supposed similarity ia appearance to Fungi*, and an erroneous idea that their 

 appearance is meteoric, and their growth rapid; a theory advocated by Endlicher, who 

 (Meletemata, p. 5) says of the horizontal rhizome of Melosis and Langsdorffla, " mycelio 

 Fungorum quam maxime analogum." 



' 4. The resemblance between the articulated filaments on the capitula of the Selosidece, 

 and the paraphyses of Musci ; and between the pistiUa of Balcmophora, and the pistUlidia 

 of Musci ; 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 Filices ; as indicated by Unger and Goeppert. 



6. A very pecuhar view of the nature and relations of the parts of the female flower, 

 entertained by Weddell ; who hence considers BalanophorecR (together with Mctfflesiacece) 

 to approach nearer to Gymnospei'ms than to any other group of plants. 



It would be fruitless to discuss these opinions at length ; for it cannot be doubted 

 that, had the authors who advocate them been sufficiently furnished with specimens and 

 facts, they would never have been entertained. On the other hand, it is not easy to 

 account for the little importance attached by so many good botanists to the positive evi- 

 dence afforded by the presence of sexes, the perfection of the essential organs of the male 

 flower in all the species, the total dissimilarity in structure and function between the 

 female organs of aU the species and those of Cryptogams, and their identity of structure 

 in all essential points with those of other Phsenogams. 



With regard to the vmion of Balanopliorecs with Mctfflesiacece, into one great class of 

 Phcenogams, equivalent to MonocotylecJones or Bicotyleclones, the arguments brought 

 against it by Brown and Griffith are conclusive. Not only have these Orders no cha- 

 racters of systematic value in common, either physiological or structru'al, except para- 

 sitism, but they present jiositive evidence of widely different affinities ; Avhich in the case 

 of Rafflesiacece have long been recognized. Thus, Ltnnseus himself referred Cytinus to 

 Asarum; and Brown, Brongniart, and Griffith have all placed Bcfflesiacece in close 

 * I may mention here that the species 1 have examined never became putrescent. 



