DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS OF QUERCUS AND CASTANEA. 177 
These distinctive marks will, I believe, be found to include all species 
hitherto detected, with the exception of that under review, which differs 
from Quercus as thus defined by its convolute-plaited cotyledons, and 
from Castanea by the want of aculei to the involucre, and by its irre- 
gular dehiscence ; and for the arrangement of which only three courses 
are open for adoption, which it will be worth while to examine. 
— 1. Zt may be included in Quercus, as was done by its discoverer, and 
where it has been left undisturbed by those writers who have 
occasion to treat of it. Mr. Bentham, for the purpose of retaining it 
there, has in the ‘ Flora Hongkongensis’ distinguished Castanea from 
Quercus solely by the valved capsuliform echinate involucre, leaving the 
cotyledonous structure out of consideration. In this view I am unable 
to concur. To diversities in the appendages of the involucre it seems 
to me impossible to attach much weight, nor can I suppose Mr. Bent- 
ham himself does so, for it is difficult to imagine a stronger dis- 
claimer of such a view than the following words, which I quote from 
his * Synopsis of the genus Clitoria” (Proc. Linn. Soc. ii. 35) :—" The 
external forms acquired by fruits in their development from the ovary 
to maturity, and especially the foliaceous appendages they assume, are 
sometimes irrespective of their organic structure, and appear then of 
little more consequence than the foliaceous wings or appendages on the 
branches, inflorescences, or calyx-tubes. . .. Where the presence or ab- 
sence of these appendages, or any peculiarity in their arrangement, 
appears to be consequent upon a general difference in the plan of the 
fruit or in the habit of the plant, or is accompanied by corresponding 
characters in other organs, it should be carefully attended to. 
where one or more species of a natural genus differ from the rest by 
some such external peculiarity in the development of the fruit alone, 
it seems against all principles laid down for a natural method, to 
take that peculiarity as a generic character merely because it isa carpo- 
im does not represent the cupula as fully enclosing the acorn, the Viennese pro- 
: : ia Q idat xbu 
rt 2, 
in urceolum clausum tandem irregulariter hiantem coalita.” Blume’s of Castaneopsis 
(Mus. Lugd.-Bat. n. 18, p. 288, Oct. 18501): “ Cupula nuculam omnino capsulæ 
instar obvolvens.” Certainly the mention of the murication of the involucre of the 
only species decidedly known to Endlicher is no just ground for the rejection of his 
name. His character is otherwise unexceptionable. 
VOL. I. » : N 
~ 
