192 . Dr. B. Seemann on the Bignoniacee. 
XX.—Remarks on the Natural Order Bignoniacee. 
By Bertyorp Srrmann, Ph.D., F.LS. 
Mr. Miers, in concluding his ‘ Observations on the Bigno- 
niacex” in this Journal (ser. 3. vol. viii. p. 120), stated that 
having learnt my intention of continuing inquiries in that family, 
and wishing to avoid contravention, he had been induced to cede 
to me the priority, reserving, however, to himself the right of re- 
suming the subject at a future time. I am fully sensible of the 
courtesy shown, but feel rather sorry, and I am sure the public will 
share my feeling, that Mr. Miers should, even for a time, have sus- 
pended his investigations of a natural order so much in need 
of a thorough revision, after having already thrown so much 
light upon it by a series of valuable observations and descrip- 
tions. The Bignoniacez have hitherto been handled so super- 
ficially by many authors, that even the labours of Don, Martius, 
DeCandolle, and Fenzl, important as they are, can scarcely be 
regarded as more than landmarks to guide us through a region 
of bewilderment and chaos, where there is room for more than 
one pair of eyes to observe, and more than one mind to draw 
conclusions. 
It is not my intention to open my series of papers on the 
Bignoniaceze by an elaborate criticism of Mr. Miers’s ‘‘ Observa- 
tions on the Bignoniacez ;” but as the result of his inquiries 
would seem to invalidate the characters upon which I and others 
maintained Crescentiaceze and Bignoniacez as distinct orders, or, 
at all events, tribes, 1am compelled to say a few words respecting 
them. The principal character dividing Crescentiacee from 
Bignoniaceze proper is that the former have an indehiscent, the 
latter a dehiscent fruit. The genus Tanaecium I placed amongst 
Crescentiacese, because it is everywhere described as having an 
indehiscent fruit; and I had seen only flowering specimens of 
T. albiflorum and T. crucigerum, which form my first section; 
whilst of 7. dilacinum and T. parasiticum, belonging to my second 
section (Schlegelia), I had seen, and in one instance eaten, the 
ripe fruit. Now, there are at the British Museum some loose 
fruit without any other remark save that they had come 
from Jamaica; and, though “these fruits are not accompanied 
by any dried specimen of the plant from which they were ga- 
' thered,” Mr. Miers referred them to Tanaecium albiflorum. I 
cannot admit the justice of this proceeding, and beg to recall to 
mind that byfar the greater part of the confusion now existing in 
Bignoniacez has been caused by loose fruits and seeds being re- 
ferred to plants with which they had nothing whatever todo. Mr, 
Miers has been led to form several erroneous conclusions by not 
being aware to what extent this has been done. For instance,when 
