OF BALANOPHOREyE. 43 



I am indebted to Prof. Liebmann of Copenhagen for the opportunity of describing this 

 rare plant ; he having forwarded to me the original specimens from Valil's and Schuma- 

 cher's herbaria, which are deposited in the musemn at Copenhagen. In his paper read 

 before the Association of Scandinavian Natm-alists at Chi-istiania in 1844, M. Liebmann 

 discusses the propriety of restoring Vahl's name of Thonningia to the American Langs- 

 dorfficc of Martins and otliers, under the impression that they are all congeneric. As his 

 ioformation is very cui'ious, and as I am obliged to dissent from his conclusions, I shall 

 give the substance of his communication here, the paper being little likely to become 

 generally accessible in England. 



Thonningia was brought to Europe by Thonning in ] 804, and described, and named 

 after its discoverer by Vahl in the same year, ia a paper read before the Natiu'al History 

 Society of Copenhagen, and accompanied by a plate. Whether the paper was printed 

 does not appear; but Vahl died in 1804, and the Society was dissolved immediately 

 afterAvards. The volume, of which Vahl's paper formed a part, was not completed till 

 1810, when a few copies were distributed, and the rest retained by Prof. Viborg, on account 

 of an obnoxious preface by M. Patke, detailing a controversy between Professors Viborg 

 and Vahl, and which was suppressed on the ultimate publication of the volume in 1818. 



Dm-ing the same year (1818) Von Martins published the Brazilian Langsdorffia in 

 Eschwege's Journal ; and the question brought forward by Liebmann is : supposing it 

 to be congeneric with Thonningia, which name should be retained? Prof. Liebmann 

 advocates Vahl's, on the ground of priority, and because his plate enables the genus to be 

 identified, though he considers his description to be faulty*. As far as priority of 

 publication is concerned, the claims of the names are on a par ; but it appears to me 

 impossible to iaclude the Brazilian plants in the same genus with the African, on account 

 of the great differences between their male iiowers. 



My description of Thonningia is drawn up from Vahl's and Schumacher's specimens 

 and di-awings. The male flower consists of a very long spindle-shaped synema, curved at 

 the base, broadest in the middle, and taperiag to a sharp point : a little below the middle 

 it bears tAvo or three subulate narrow fleshy scales, which are the rudiments of a perianth 

 that is never further developed. The upper half appears from A^ahl's di'awing to be 

 covered with pollen ; and according to his specimens this is perfectly correct, and further 

 agrees with Schumacher's description. In Schimiacher's specimens I find no traces of 

 anthers or pollen. In Vahl's specimens, however, I find four or five vascular brmdles, 

 and as many very long linear connate anthers, each 4-valved, bursting longitudinally, and 

 containing globose hyaline pollen-grains with transparent borders. 



The female flower of Thonningia only differs from that oi Langsdorffia in a more complete 

 tubular 3-5-toothcd perianth. The parenchyma of this organ is much inflated, and is 

 formed of very lax cellular tissue, traversed by four to six remarkable nerves. These consist 



• Prof. Liebmann says that Vahl must have been in error in describing both male and female flowers, as from the 

 plate accompanying his paper it appears that he had only female specimens : but Vahl is here right, for he certainly 

 figures both the male plant and its flowers, t. 6. figs, a, b, c, d; and though not very intelligible, they are accurate, 

 and accord perfectly with the description of Schumacher and Thonning, whose specimens Vahl examined, and which I 

 have also examined and described here. 



G 2 



