Dr. B. Seemann on the Bignoniacex. 193 
he says that “in Fridericia the structure of the capsule and 
seeds completely agrees with that of Jacaranda,” he was unaware 
that simply a genuine Jacaranda fruit had been figured with 
Fridericia,—a blunder made by Martius, but long ago rectified 
by Fenzl and DeCandolle. Again, when speaking of the fruit 
of Spathodea campanulata, he calls it, on the authority of a plate 
(t. 28) in Palisot de Beauvois, ‘F1.Owar.,’ 4-celled, and “ having 
numerous orbicular lentiform sceds with a narrow wing.” The 
plate referred to represents a wretchedly drawn fruit, which we 
are told must either belong to Spathodea campanulata or S. levis; 
and, on the strength of this, Fenzl was tempted to remove Spa- 
thodea to Crescentiaceze. But, as we now know the fruits of both 
those species, neither of which bear the slightest resemblance to 
that represented in the plate, we must look elsewhere, and have 
no difficulty in referring it to Kigelia pinnata—a plant very 
common in the whole region inhabited by the two Spathodeas 
named. Indeed, Mr. Miers was very nearly drifting towards the 
same conclusion, when his ready eye detected certain details 
agreeing with the figure of the fruit of Kigelia given in Deles- 
sert’s ‘ Icones.’ 
Caution, and an ardent wish not to increase the existing con- 
fusion, compel me therefore to reject the assumption that the loose 
fruits preserved at the British Museum belong to Tanaecium 
albiflorum. They may belong to Adenocalymna, a genus of which 
nobody but Mr. Miers has seen the fruit. Should, however, at a 
future period, evidence be adduced that the fruits in question 
really belong to Tanaecium albiflorum and its nearest ally, I am 
quite prepared to admit the justice of separating generically my 
two sections of Tanaecium; but the materials at my disposal left 
no choice save that of combining them under one genus. 
The belief that the fruit figured by Palisot de Beauvois be- 
longed to Spathodea, instead of Kigelia, has led Mr. Miers into 
the further error of conjecturing the relationship of Parmentiera 
and Spathodea—two genera which agree in nothing save their 
spathaceous calyx. It is also a matter of regret that Mr. Miers 
assumed that I had copied my character of the genus Parmentiera 
from DeCandolle’s account of the fruit of P. edulis, a description 
framed entirely upon the drawing and descriptions of Mocino 
and Hernandez. Mr. Miers forgets that I was the discoverer of 
the famous Candle-tree (Parmentiera cerifera, Seem.), and does 
not seem to know that I lived for some weeks in forests com- 
posed of it. The singularities of this strange production early 
attracted my notice, and I made numerous notes on the spot, 
which, with the specimens brought home, served as the basis of 
what I have written upon the subject. There is not the slightest 
tendency in the fruit towards becoming dehiscent and “evidently 
