OPENING OF PALM SPATHES WITH AN AUDIBLE REPORT, 71 
ture, with no traces of pollen. The observations of the authors went 
to show that there was rather less heat inside the spathe before it bursts 
than there was in the surrounding atmosphere. They had inserted a 
thermometer by a narrow slit into an unburst spathe, where they al- 
lowed it to remain upwards of twenty minutes, and when taken out it 
stood at 572°, while the surrounding atmosphere was 58°. Taking 
into consideration the structure of the spathe, the authors showed that 
it was incapable of sustaining any great amount of pressure, as it was 
found, when in a fresh state, to tear lengthways with as little resistance 
and with as little noise as a piece of soft blotting-paper." 
To these notes Dr. Seemann replied, in the * Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 
February 8, 1862, and * Bonplandia,” vol. x. p. 49, as follows :— 
* In a paper read before the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, on the 
9th of January and reported in the ‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle’ of the 25th 
of the same month, the correctness of an observation I published in this 
Journal, has been called into question by Messrs. Sadler and Bell. 
The authors endeavour to prove that the two young men who heard 
the report made by the Ptychosperma Cunnighami in the Great Palm- 
house at Kew were so far mistaken that it was not caused by the 
bursting of the spathe, but by a pretty sharp crack which the foot-stalk 
of the old leaf is said to give when dropping on the floor. Casual vi- — 
sitors of the Great Palm-house might be startled by the remnant of a 
huge leaf suddenly falling on the floor, but this could not possibly 
deceive men like Messrs. Gale and Hilary, daily employed amongst 
Palms, and consequently perfectly familiar with such an occurrence. 
The fact that no audible report was heard in Edinburgh does not, in 
my opinion, invalidate the evidence I collected at Kew. I never main- 
tained that all spathes do open with an audible report, but I am con- 
vinced that the one at Kew did so. The slightest slit in the spathe 
would probably be quite sufficient to prevent its opening with any Te- 
t. Of course this must be a matter of mere conjecture until we 
shall know more about the subject, and Messrs. Sadler and Bell will 
have rendered good service if their objections, whether well founded or 
not, induce those who can bring positive facts to bear upon the question 
to communicate them. Dr. George Bennett, at Sydney, author of the 
‘Wanderings in New South Wales, Batavia, etc. and ‘ Gatherings of 
a Naturalist in Australia,’ wrote to me only by last mail that he had 
