344 INCREASED NUMBER. 
English botanists, on the other hand, have been slow 
to admit any such process, because, in most instances, 
no alteration in the law of alternation takes place in 
these double flowers, and in those few cases where the 
law is apparently infringed, the deviation is explained 
by the probable suppression of parts, which were they 
present would restore the natural arrangement of the 
flower ; and, that this is no imaginary or purely theo- 
retical explanation, is shown by some of the Primulacee, 
wherein a second row of stamens is occasionally present 
in the adult condition, and renders the floral symmetry 
perfect. 
The double daffodil, where there are from forty to 
fifty petaloid organs instead of fifteen, and wherein 
each piece exhibits a more or less perfect coronal lobe 
at the junction of the claw and the limb, has been cited 
as an objection to chorisis, though it is difficult to see 
on what grounds. 
In Delphiniwm, as shown by Braun,’ the stamens and 
carpels are members of a continuous spiral series, and 
in the double balsam an extra corolline whorl is pro- 
duced, without the suppression of the stamens, in the 
following manner: the ordinary stamens are replaced 
by petals, the carpels by stamens, while an additional 
whorl of carpels is produced at the summit of the axis. 
In this instance, therefore, the doubling is distinctly 
referrible to an absolute increase in the number of 
whorls, and not to chorisis.’ 
On the other hand, it must be admitted that there 
are many cases which are not to be explained in any 
other way than that suggested by the French botanists 
before alluded to. Probably, the main difficulty in the 
way of accepting the doctrine of chorisis is the unfor- 
tunate selection of the word used. to designate the 
process ; this naturally suggests a sphtting of an organ 
already perfectly formed mto two or more portions, 
either in the same plane as the original organs, 
? Braun, ‘Pringsheim Jahrbuch f. Wiss. Bot.,’ 1858, 1, p. 307, tab. 22, 23. 
° Henfrey, ‘Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot.,’ vol. ii, p. 159 
