ee ee ee 
41 
In Pl. X, fig. 3 the fruit also shows four valves of dehis- 
cence, but is altogether different from that drawn in fig. 1 on 
account of its deep grooves, crossing each other at the top and 
thence growing more shallow towards the bottom. The contents 
consist also of two seeds cohering in the same way as those 
mentioned before, with this exception however, that there is 
an intermediate layer of mace between the flattened nuts. 
What may be the cause of the two ') monstrosities? Of course, 
a reliable explanation cannot be given, because the way of de- 
velopment has not been studied. It would however seem pro- 
bable that fig. 1 represents an apocarpous fruit with two seeds, 
whereas the other (fig. 3) may have been produced by a 
double ovary. 
According to the best known authorities the flower of Myristica 
shows a single ovary, viz., one carpel, from which of course an 
apocarpous fruit (comparable in some way with the pods of 
Leguminosae) results. In some rare cases, however, according 
to Mique. *), two seeds are produced. The same authority states 
that the open fruit of Myristica may, instead of showing two 
valves, sometimes be found to be quadrivalvous. It is, there- 
fore, quite possible that in the present instance the two de- 
viations occur at the same time. Secondly the flower of My- 
ristica occasionally, though very rarely, presents two carpels 
(carpellum unicum, altero nano rarissime accedente, as MiqueL 
puts it). The grooves on the surface of the fruit seem to in- 
dicate that there are at least two carpels which have coalesced 
and taken the same shape as in the families of the Boragineae 
and Labiatae (though the number of seeds is four in these 
plants). There is, however, one objection against this. hypo- 
thesis: if there were actually two carpels, why should not 
there also be two funicles? Have they perhaps grown enti- 
rely together? It may be so. Rumphius in his Herb. Amb. II, © 
p- 14 does not dwell on the matter, although it was quite 
1) The third is only a double nut without a capsule and quite similar to the 
nut reproduced in fig. 2. 
2) Flora Indiae Batavae. Vol. primi pars altera, p. 54. 
