234 flora indica. [Nymphaacea . 



considers the seeds as truly Dicotyledonous, but the rhizome as Endogenous ; lastly, 

 Henfrey, who confines his attention solely to the rhizome, and of Victoria only, con- 

 siders this to be more Endogenous than Exogenous. 



For our own parts, we consider that these Orders are truly Dicotyledonous, and 

 that the rhizome, though not strictly speaking Exogenous, is by no means Endoge- 

 nous, that there are no Monocotyledonous Orders to which they have any affinity, 

 and that the arguments hitherto adduced to the contrary are based upon what ap- 

 pear to us to be very feeble analogies. 



In stating our reasons for these opinions, we need hardly say that we do so with 

 the utmost deference to the great authorities from whom we differ, especially our 

 friend Dr. Lindley (to whose profound knowledge of structure and affinities we are in 

 the habit of resorting in cases of difficulty), and M. Trecul, whose admirable essays 

 on the anatomy of Nuphar, Victoria, and Nelumhium (Annales des Sciences Na- 

 turclles, ser. 3. iv. 286 ; ser. 4. i. 145, 291) are no less elaborate than lucid and 

 exhaustive of the subject. Wherever it has been possible, we have followed the ob- 

 servations of the last-named author on the living plants ; but whilst bearing willing 

 testimony to his accuracy and skill as a phytotomist, we must also record our dissent 

 from the conclusions he draws from the facts observed. In removing Nymph&acea 

 to a distance from Net ibiacece, he has overlooked structural and morphological 

 considerations, and attached undue importance to anatomical and physiological de- 

 tails ; and whilst we admit that in an abstract point of view the value of such details 

 cannot be over-estimated, in a systematic one we believe that they will be found ca- 

 pable of a very different interpretation. In illustration of our meaning, we have only 

 to refer to what has been demonstrated under Menispermacece, where closely allied 

 genera and species have wood of so totally different an anatomical structure, that in a 

 physiological point of view they could never be supposed to be allied. Similar in- 

 stances, indeed, abound in the vegetable kingdom : witness the structure of the em- 

 bryo, the germination and anatomy of Cuscuta, a genus which totally differs in all 

 these respects from other Convolvulacece, but which is an undoubted member of that 

 Order; the wide departure from the normal structure and mode of growth of Scro- 

 lihularinea displayed by Orobanche, Lathraa, and Melampyrum ; the structural, 

 anatomical, and functional differences between terrestrial and epiphytical Orchidece; 

 between Ambrosinia and other Aroidece (see Griffith in Linn. Soc. Trans, xx. 263) ; 

 and lastly, between the species of Corydalis belonging to the sections Capnites and 

 Bulbocapnos, the germination of one of which is apparently Monocotyledonous, and 

 of the other Dicotyledonous. In these and all similar cases we cannot but conclude 

 that the value of the physiological differences implied by the extreme diversity of 

 anatomical details is to be explained by morphological and structural laws, and is not 

 real but apparent. If such remarkable differences occur in closely allied genera and 

 species, it follows that we may expect as great resemblances to occur in plants be- 

 longing to the most widely different natural families ; and we believe the similarity 

 of the rhizome of Nymplueacea to that of Endogens, and the partial resemblance of 

 the habit and foliage of this Order to that of Hydrocharidea>, are instances ; and of 

 such as these every large Natural Order presents us with examples. 



We shall now examine — 1, embrvo ; 2. germination ; and 3, rhizome of Nuwnhce- 



acece. 



1. Embryo. The peculiarities of this organ are detailed in the ordinal character. 

 Its truly Dicotyledonous structure was first shown by De CandoUe, and shortly after- 

 wards by Mirbel and Salisbury, and their conclusions have been assented to by al- 

 most every subsequent observer, except Lindley, who expresses himself doubtfully ; 

 and perhaps Planchon. The latest views of the latter author we only gather from 

 Trecul's jxiper on Victoria, which states (1. c. p. 145) that Planchon has announced 

 the embryo of that plant to be Monocotyledonous, adding, however, that Planchon's 

 plate represents a Dicotyledonous embryo, u le mieux conforme que l'on peut ima- 

 giner." And we may add that in M. Planchon's "Etudes des Nympheacees' (Ann. 

 Soc. Nat. ser. 3, xix. 3, 31), he describes the embryos of both NympJuea and Vic- 

 toria as truly Dicotyledonous. Lindley (Veg. Kingd. 409) discusses the subject fully 



