312 CLEISTOGAMIC FLOWERS. CHAP. VII L 



They behave in this manner, apparently as a protec- 

 tion to their pollen, and produce open flowers when 

 exposed to the air; so that these cases seem rather 

 different from those of true cleistogamic flowers, and 

 have not been included in the list. Again, the flowers 

 of some plants which are produced very early or very 

 late in the season do not properly expand ; and these 

 might perhaps be considered as incipiently cleisto- 

 gamic ; but as they do not present any of the remark- 

 able peculiarities proper to the class, and as I have 

 not found any full record of such cases, they are not 

 entered in the list. When, however, it is believed on 

 fairly good evidence that the flowers on a plant in its 

 native country do not open at any hour of the day or 

 night, and yet set seeds capable of germination, these 

 may fairly be considered as cleistogamic, notwith- 

 standing that they present no peculiarities of struc- 

 ture. I will now give as complete a list of the genera 

 containing cleistogamic species as I have been able 

 to collect. 



TABLE 38. 

 List of Genera including Cleistogamic Species (Chiefly after Kuhn).* 



DICOTYLEDONS. 



Eritrichium (Boraginea). 

 Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae). 

 Scrophularia (Scrophularineae). 

 Linaria ,, 



Vandellia 



Cryphiacanthus (Acanthaceae). 

 Eranthemum 



DICOTYLEDONS. 



Dsedalacanthus (Acanthaceae). 



Dipteracanthus 



jEchmanthera 



Rnellia 



Lamium (Labiatse). 



Salvia 



Oxybaphus (Nyctagine*e). 



* I have omitted Trifulium and Brazil, and could never find such 



Arachis from the list, because Von flowers. Plantago has been omitted 



Mohl says (' Bot. Zeitung,' 1863, because as fur as I can discover it 



p. 312) that the flower-steins produces hermaphrodite and fe- 



morely draw the flowers beneath male flower-heads, but not cleis- 



tlie ground, and that these do not togamic flowers. Krascheninikowirt 



appear to be properly cleistogamic. (vel Stellaria) has been omitted 



Correa de Mello (' Journal Linn. because it seems very doubtful 



Boc. Bot.' vol. xi. 1870, p. 254) from Maximowicz' description 



observed plants of Arachis in whether tlie lower flowers which 



