THE HOMOLOGIES OF FRUITS 



59 



berries we are likely to begin with a misconception. The dry, Misconcep- 

 husky, symmetrical fruit oi Barringtonia speciosa^ such as the ftom^he"^ 

 currents disperse over the coral islands of the Pacific, is a dried comparison 



1 J 1 • 1 1 1 • , °f ixmts that 



berry, and as such is only to be compared with the shrivelled are not in the 



fruit of the Gooseberry. This lack of adjustment is frequently ^*'"^^^*S^- 



met with in comparing the stages of fruits. Take, for 



instance, the distinction which the systematist usually draws 



between a berry, as fleshy and indehiscent, and a capsule, as 



dry and dehiscent. Here we are contrasting the air-dried 



capsule with the moist berry, two quite different stages in the 



history of these fruits. Naturally, the true correlative of the 



dry dehiscent capsule would be the shrivelled berry, whilst the 



ripe berry would find its homologue in the full-grown moist 



capsule as we find it living on the plant. This relation 



between the berry and the capsule has been already dealt with 



in Chapter XI. The necessities of the systematist are partly 



responsible for the incongruities in the comparison of fruits, 



since he gives a place to the dry fruit that retains its shape, 



but refuses to recognise as on the same footing the dried-up 



berry or the shrivelled drupe. But part of the blame must 



lie with one's natural repugnance to the shrivelling process, 



seemingly so significant of inutility and death. Let but the 



form be preserved, even though the life of the fruit has gone, 



and we become apt to attach importance to a distinction which 



is purely accidental and in no sense ordinal in character. 



These remarks do not at all exaggerate the lack of true 



adjustment which prevails in the general classifications of 



fruits. It is far from easy to see how this can be avoided in 



practical systematic botany, but the inconsistency remains. 



There lies beside me The Handbook of the British Flora, by 



Bentham and Hooker (5th edit., 1887), and there I read 



(p. -T^G) that fruits are generally divided into "succulent" and Thedistinc- 



" dry," the first being usually indehiscent, whilst the second 5y"h/*^" 



are often dehiscent and open at maturity. The succulent systematist 



. . J^ ^ between 



fruits are there typified by the berry and the drupe, and succulent 

 the dry fruits by the capsule, legume, achene, etc. Of fruits.'^^ 



