KALILi:slA AKNoLhI. 105 



latter being subdivided into distinct lobes, as in many 

 Orchic/eie, a family which Cz/finns also resend)les in the struc- 

 ture of the seed, and probably in tlie mode of impregnation, 

 though so widely different in almost every other respect. 



It would certainly be ditlicult to reduce Rajjle-^hi to \\w. 

 view^ here taken of the formation of the compound ovarium 

 in these tw^o genera; and it may therefore, |)erhaps, be said, 

 that although the structure of Jf//chiora, in one important 

 particular, suggests or confirms the more probable notion 

 of the composition of ovarium in llaj/lesia, as already 

 stated,^ it is in other respects very distinct. 



Another point, which in my former pa[)er I considered ■-vs 

 doubtful, namely the seat or limit of the stigmata, is not 

 even now satisfactorily established ; for the slender processes 

 forming the hispid tips of the supposed styles, which have 

 so much the appearance of the ultimate divisions of stigma, 

 are merely hairs of a very simple structure, and exactly 

 resembling those found in other parts of th':^ column; 



^ My confideuce in this hypothesis iespectiu» Rafjlesia is greatly lebseiied on 

 cousidering the strucl uie of the female flower of a lately discovered species of 

 the genus, namely, Rafjlesia Cuiuiugii or ^laiullana, in which the style-like 

 processes terminating the column are much fewer in number, and so arranged 

 as to form a single circular series of about ten, not very distant from the limb, 

 with only from one to three processes wiihin it, which are placed near the 

 centre, while the irregular cavities in the ovarium are evidently much more 

 numerous, and in arrangement have no apjiarent relation to that of the supposed 

 styles, there being as great conij)lexity in the centre as towards tiie circum- 

 ference. These relations between styles and ovarial cavities seem, according to 

 the ligures of RaJJleaia Paima, to be reversed in that sj)ecies, its styles being 

 appaiently more numerous than the cavities of the ovarium; and as even in 

 Rajjlcsia Anioldl their correspondence is far from obvious, it would seem tliat 

 the number and arrangement of these processes alford no satisfactory evidence 

 of the composition of the ovarium in any known species of the genus. Uut^ if 

 the placentation of Rajflesia Anioldi and Cumin fjii. notwithstanding the objec- 

 tions stated in the text (p. -lOi), be considered parietal, as Blumc has described 

 it in R. Puliiui, and as from liis ligures it seems actually to be in BniaiiutHsia, 

 there would still be no means of (ietermining tlie exact degree of com[)ositimi 

 of ovarium in RalJlfHa ; for in no species of the genus is there the slightest in- 

 dication ailorded by the arrangement of cavities or ramilication of the assumed 

 placenta^, to nuu*k any delinitc number of C()in|)onent parts, ^inniar objections 

 apply with equal force to the adoption of that opinion which regards placenla- 

 tiou as in all cases central or derived from the axis. 



In conclusion, therefore, it may perhaps be said that R>i(flesia, in the 

 structure botli of ovarium and antherie, is not obviously reconcileable to any 

 iiyimthesis hitherto proposed to account either for the origin or for a common 

 type of the sexual organs of I'hjenogamous plants. 



