38 DR. J. D. HOOKER ON THE GENERA AND SPECIES 



(whicli lie hence considers bracts), rather than bodies forming a verticillus on an inner 

 and diifercut lAane, Griifith overlooks the fact, that their position in no way differs from 

 that of the stamen of other Balanophorece, and that all stamens opposite to and seated at 

 the base of perigonial leaves, are in the same category. On the other hand, his argmnent 

 iigainst the stamens being axillary, because they do not appear to form an inner whorl, 

 may be equally applied against considering the perigonial leaves as being bracts, for the 

 latter decidedly do form an outer whorl, and are all on one plane ; a fact which, as well 

 as that of then- decidedly valvate aestivation, is opposed to then- bracteal origin. 



Another remark of Griffith's is to the effect, that " the analogies oi Balmiophora are in 

 favom- of Eudlicher's generic character ; but that it reqiiires a very exalted idea to be 

 held of the value of parasitism, to conceive any affinity between Sarcophyte and Balano- 

 phora" (p. 3i0). If, however, the homologies in the structure of the flowers are ad- 

 mitted, it cannot be said that systematists have depended on an undue value attached to 

 parasitism, for the supposed affinity ; and in the second place, the argument derived from 

 parasitism, if of any value, does not rest upon the mere fact of parasitism, but on that of 

 the root appearing to send vascular bundles into the rhizome of Sarcophyte as it does 

 into that of other Balanophorew, a kind of parasitism not hitherto detected in any other 

 Natural Order*. 



The male flower of Sarcophyte differs in no essential particulars from that of Balano- 

 pliora ; the pedicel (tube of perianth) and three valvate perigonial leaves being identical, 

 and both having the stamens opposite to the latter. The chief difference is, that in Bala- 

 nophora the stamens are imited by their filaments and connectives, whilst in Sarcophyte 

 they are free. The suspected analogy between the structure of the stamen of Sarcophyte 

 and the sorus of Cyathea and Sphceropteris, suggested by Griffith, is under any view quite 

 untenable. 



Griffith's description of the ovarium and its contents does not accord with my obser- 

 vations ; nor could I suggest any explanation of his " brown central nuclei, containing 

 one, or not unfrequently two, other brown nuclei;" but Weddell points out that Griffith 

 examined an abnormal state of the fruit, which he has frequently observed himself, 

 and in which the embryo is abortive, and the albumen and integuments become con- 

 founded into an ossified mass. I find, in the ovarian cavity of specimens preserved in 

 acid, an immatm-e ovulum, consisting of loose white cells, enclosed in a delicate mem- 

 brane as in Balanophora. This albumen and its crustaceous coat (formed of the peri- 

 carp) are well illustrated by Weddell (Ann. Sc. Nat. I. c), as is the central embryo, 

 discovered by himself. 



Griffith goes too far in stating that the female flowers of Sarcojjhyte are widely different 

 from those of Balanophorece, in their greater general perfection, the union of the ovaria, 

 and the obvious stigmatic surfaces : for, in the structure of the female flower, and of the 

 seed, except in the development of the embryo, they are identical : the more highly organized 

 stigmata attain a greater degree of perfection in Sarcophyte than in those genera with which 



* Except Orobanche, the geiinination of which has been so admirably illustrated by Caspary (Regensburg Flora, 

 1854, p. 577, t. 3). It appears most probable that the germination of Balanophorea will prove very similar to that 

 of Orobanche. 



