ON CHORISIS. 383 



the cases, and supported by some good analogies. In respect to trans- 

 verse chorisis, it appears to me inconsistent with what is known of 

 Tegetable structure and, as Dr. Gray concedes, unsupported by any 

 analogy. But let us inquire what explanation Dr. Gray himself offers 

 and then we can try his hypothesis by the facts. I regret that the 

 Journal of Botany not being within my reach at Toronto, I cannot 

 now recur to the paper to which he refers, but the substance of his 

 own view is that the analogue of the floral parts referred to transverse 

 chorisis is found in the ligule of grasses and the stipules of other plants, 

 he does not think the supposition of axillary organs in the place of 

 buds necessary, although he holds that an axillary bud might be 

 restricted to the development of a single phyton, and thus produce 

 organs in the situation expressed by transverse chorisis. Nothing 

 impossible or antecedently very improbable can be alleged against 

 these suppositions. Some recorded monstrosities even encourage our 

 resort to them, but I cannot perceive either of them to be at all needed 

 in some of the examples appealed to, and it is manifest that neither 

 would afford the smallest assistance in explaining cases of many oppo- 

 site organs occurring one within another ; yet in replying to Dr. 

 Lindley's arguments against chorisis, referring to his forcible appeal 

 to the case of certain varieties of Camellias in which the organs of suc« 

 cessive circles become opposite, Dr. Gray says, " Now, when in the 

 very same species, two such different modes of arrangement occur, is 

 it not a priori more probable that the two arrangements result from 

 different causes and are governed by essentially different laws V* I 

 think not. The same organs are present in both cases, and either a 

 dimunition or a small increase in the spiral tendency of growth would 

 change the usual alternation into the occasional oppositeness without 

 any thing occurring at all inconsistent with known facts ; but if Tk^ 

 Gray would receive the opposite petals of these Camellias as an exam- 

 ple of transverse chorisis, it is at least one which his own mode of 

 explanation could not possibly reach, and which on any principle vet 

 proposed, must appear most extraordinary. Let us now consider a 

 few examples of transverse chorisis by which we may judge whether 

 there is any need for the name or for any new principle applicable to 

 these cases. " A common case," seys Dr. Gray (Bot. Text Book, 4th 

 ed. p. 253) "is that of the crown or small and mostly two-lobed ap- 

 pendage on the inside of the blade of the petals of Silene and of many 



