344 INCHEASED NUMBEK. 



English botanists, o^ the other hand, have been slow 

 to admit any such process, because, in most instances, 

 no alteration in the law of alternation takes place in 

 these double flowers, and in those few cases where the 

 law is apparently infringed, the deviation is explained 

 by the probable suppression of parts, which were they 

 present would restore the natural arrangement of the 

 flower ; and, that this is no imaginary or purely theo- 

 retical explanation, is shown by some of the Frimulacece, 

 wherein a second row of stamens is occasionally present 

 in the adult condition, and renders the floral symmetry 

 perfect. 



The double daffodil, where there are from forty to 

 fifty petaloid organs instead of fifteen, and wherein 

 each piece exhibits a more or less perfect coronal lobe 

 at the junction of the claw and the limb, has been cited 

 as an objection to chorisis, though it is difficult to see 

 on what grounds. 



In Delphinium^ as shown by Braun,^ the stamens and 

 carpels are members of a continuous spiral series, and 

 in the double balsam an extra corolline whorl is pro- 

 duced, without the suppression of the stamens, in the 

 following manner : the ordinary stamens are replaced 

 by petals, the carpels by stamens, while an additional 

 whorl of carpels is produced at the summit of the axis. 

 In this instance, therefore, the doubling is distinctly 

 referrible to an absolute increase in the number of 

 whorls, and not to chorisis.^ 



On the other hand, it must be admitted that there 

 are many cases which are not to bo explained in any 

 other way than that suggested by the French botanists 

 before alluded to. Probably, the main difficulty in the 

 way of accepting the doctrine of chorisis is the unfor- 

 tunate selection of the word used to designate the 

 process ; this naturally suggests a splitting of an organ 

 already perfectly formed into two or more portions, 

 either in the same plane as the original organs, 



' Brann, ' Pringsheim Jjihrbuch f , Wiss. Bot.,' 1868, 1, p. 307, tab. 22, 23. 

 - Henfrey, ' Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot.,' vol. iii, p. 159. 



