18 THE LORANTHACEAE OP AUSTPaLIA^ 1.^ 



cry were the host distasteful; but the parasites have, it must be remembered, 

 only a small range of selection, if any." 



James Drummond (Hookei-'s Jour. Bot., ii., p. 347 and 360, 1840) also re- 

 fers to the close resemblance between the Loranthus and certain hosts. Miss C. 

 M. Le Plastrier (Australian Naturalist, iv., 1920, 139) also refers to the same 

 phenomenon, and wonders if it is a "case of protective adaptation." By giving 

 .a little thought to this subject I find quite a number of plants with leaves 

 similar to those of Loranthus. For example, the terete leaves or phyllodes of 

 Acacia calamifoUa, A. Havilandi, A. neura (the terete form) and many other 

 terete phyllode species resemble the terete leaves of L. Preissii more closely than 

 those of the Casuarinae. Other plants which are also homoplastic with it or 

 its congeners L. linophyllus and L. No. 15, n.sp., are Haksa lorea, H. Cunning- 

 hami and R. Fraseri. Amongst the Eucalypts corresponding examples are also 

 numerous, both in the lanceolate and the cordate leaves of that genus. In the 

 case of Loranthus euealyptifolius H.B. et K. from Venezuela, which the authors 

 undoubtedly thought resembled Eucalyptus — hence the name, although Eucalyp- 

 tus is not indigenous to Venezuela — it cannot be accused of imitating a host 

 which is not even indigenous to its native country. Many other examples can 

 be cited. In fact, nearly every family of the Vegetable ICingdom, especially 

 among the Cryptogams and Phanerogams, has many counterparts in some other 

 totally different family, and therefore homoplasy is much more common than at 

 first appears, and it is not confined to the jjarasites any more than to other 

 groups of plants. No doubt the parasite habit of Loranthus led to the belief 

 that it imitated the plant from which it derived its nourishment. 



In reference to the suggested "protective adaptation," it is evidentlj', in 

 the ease of L. pendidus and L. vitelliniis and other species with showy flowers, 

 the reverse, and, instead of being "protective," is strikingly "attractive." Whether 

 it is with the object of perpetuating the species, by attracting the birds and 

 insects to assist in the pollination of the flowers (if it be necessary), is an open 

 question. I have seen the "honey-eaters" fly with the greatest precision from ' 

 plant to plant of L. vitellinus when in full blossom in quest of nectar. If these 

 plants had inconspicuous flowers the Ijirds would not be able to detect them 

 so readily; as it is, they are discernible at a great distance, especially L. 

 vitellinus. 



Fertilization of the Loranthus: 



I am of opinion that all the Australian species of Loranthus that have 

 come under my observation are self-pollinated, as the anthers are fully developed 

 and the pollen released from them simultaneously with the opening or bursting 

 of the petals. The close proximity of the stigma to the anthere, and the 

 powdery nature of the pollen facilitate the work of self-pollination. 



It has been suggested by Keeble (Trans. Linn. Soc, 2nd Ser., iv. (3), 1896", 

 p. 94) that nectar-eating birds assist in the fertilization of the flowers, in which 

 I concur, as it is quite possible that some of the flowers occasionally "miss," 

 and these may accidentally be fertilized by visiting birds, as their bill is bound 

 to be saturated with pollen as they forage amongst the flowers in quest of food. 

 It must be admitted tliat the percentage of flowers pollinated by birds in some 

 districts is remarkably small, seeing that there are no examples of hybridism, 

 though the opportunity for such is very often favourable. 



During the flowering season in the Port Jackson district the following 

 species flower about the same time :— P. celastroides, P. eucalyptif alius and 



