Morphology of the Citrus. 189 



many Caryophyllaceae, &c * This is explained by 

 torsion of the stem, or non-development of an interme- 

 diate whorl. Is there any good reason, therefore, why 

 this explanation should not apply to the Hesperidium f 

 (c) According to Dr. Masters, in his " Vegetable 

 Teratology " (Science of Monsters and Malformations), 

 next to Antirrhinum majus, Aquilegia Canadensis, 

 Brassica oleracea, Daucus carota, Dianthus, Digitalis 

 purpurea, Fuchsia, Primula sinensis, Rosa, Trifolium 

 repens, and perhaps Vitis, the genus most subject to 

 monstrosities (in other words variations or changes) in 

 its different parts is the citrtis,\ In pages 33, 35, 44, 

 56, 75, 134, 137, 149, 303, 310, 335, 364, 453, and 

 502, Dr. Masters gives examples of variations in the 

 different parts of the citrus plant. However, at p. 75 

 he states that " De Candolle considers the rind of the 

 orange as a production from the receptacle,! and this 

 view is confirmed by the specimens of Duchartre, in 

 which the carpels were quite naked, or had a common 

 envelope truncated, and open above to allow the pas- 

 sage of the styles and stigmas. " 



I should say that not only the rind, but all the parts 

 of the orange fruit and the whole flower, are productions 

 from the receptacle, but admitting, for the sake of 

 argument, that the rind has nothing to do with the 

 pulp carpels, and that it is sometimes totally sup- 

 pressed,! or only partially developed, as might occur 

 with all parts of the citrus flower and fruit, there would 

 remain, in consequence, the admission that the pulp 

 carpels are the carpels. If so, then what has become 



* Asa Gray's "Structural Botany," p. 121, par. 236. 



t Vide Appendix No. 39. 



J If so, how is it that the oil cells of the rind have the same 

 disposition as those of the leaves ? 



Vide PI. 241, fig. a, after Risso. 



|| A whole whorl is sometimes suppressed in certain plants. 



