Harris — The Germination of Pachira. 207 



Hist. Dich. PI. 1:570. — Decaisne. Fl. des Serres. 23:52) 

 are evidently taken, Decaisne placing it among the inade- 

 quately-known species of Pachira. Terracciano bases his 

 identification of i^. campestris upon an examination of the 

 specimens collected and described by Martins, and it is upon 

 his authority (K. 1st. Bot. Pal. Cont. Biol. Veg. 2 : 168) that 

 my material is referred to this species. 



In his examination of the species of Pachira and Bombax, 

 Decaisne describes as new P. oleagina from material cul- 

 tivated in the Hamma Botanical Gardens of Algeria and 

 refers to this species the Pachira a fleurs blanches of Doumet 

 (Kev. Hort. 1866: 208. Not P. alba, Lodd. or Hook.) . 



In the vegetative characteristics, — the straight stem strongly 

 swollen at the base and provided with several spreading 

 branches at the top, rather smooth and green throughout the 

 most of its length and becoming grayish only near the base, 

 the form and division of the leaflets, — the Missouri Botanical 

 Garden material agrees well with Doumet's description, as it 

 also does for the most part in the time of putting forth new 

 leaves. In both, the flowers open at night and persist for but 

 a very short time. I have not been so fortunate as to see 

 fresh flowers, but those who have seen such tell me that the 

 resemblance to Doumet's colored plate is very close and so 

 far as I can determine from descriptions and the herbarium 

 material available, agreement is quite good though in the 

 androecium there seems to be considerable difference, Doumet 

 stating that the stamens in Pachira a jlturs blanches are 

 united at the base into five bundles, while Trelease (loc. cit.) 

 places his material with those in which the stamen tube is 

 divided into ten clusters. There seem to be other minor dif- 

 ferences, but in the main the resemblance is very close. Fruit 

 and seed in the Garden herbarium agree perfectly with the 

 excellent text figures in M. Doumet's paper, so that I have 

 little doubt of the identity of P. campestris (Mart.) Decsne. 

 and P. oleagina Decsne. In this case P. campestris has 

 priority. 



Polyembryony seems to be common in P. campestris, 

 Doumet gives excellent figures of more than one plantlet 



