314 OBSEEVATIONS ON THE NATURAL FAMILY 



137] which pohits to this extremity cannot in strict propriety 

 be described as directed towards the umbihcus. M. Cassini 

 has not noticed the direction of the radicle ; either from 

 supposing it constantly connected with that of the ovulum, 

 or, which is more probable, from not having ascertained it. 



These distinctive characters may be considered as fully 

 sufficient to authorise the separation of Boopideo; from 

 Compositse ; yet the same differences exist between certain 

 genera referred and really belonging to UuhiacecB and the 

 principal part of that order. 



There are, however, three other characters unnoticed by 

 M. Cassini, which distinguish the flowers of BoojndecB from 

 tlie hermaphrodite flowers of the whole of Compositse ; 

 namely, the accretion of the base of the style with the tube 

 of the corolla ; the absence of the epigynous disk or nec- 

 tarium ; and the longitudinal subdivision of each cell of 

 the anthera by a " receptaculum pollinis," as in most other 

 families, and of which, indeed, there seems to be the rudi- 

 ment in the syngenesious genus Petrobium, described in 

 the preceding paper. 



In the partial cohesion of the antherse, in which they re- 

 semble Jasione, they certainly differ from all known Com- 

 positse : bu.t as in certain Compositse the antherae are very 

 slightly connected or entirely distinct ; — this, though a re- 

 markable circumstance, can hardly be employed as a dis- 

 tinguishing character. 



The principal characte'rs in which Boopidece differ from 

 the greater part, though not from the whole of Compositse, 

 are the corolla being continuous, or not jointed, with the 

 ovarium ; the antherse having no membranaceous appendix 

 at top ; and the undivided stigma. 



Boopidece diffei- from Bipsacea in the vascular structure 

 and valvular sestivation of corolla ; in the sestivation, inser- 

 138] tion, and connexion of antherse ; in the absence of the 

 partial involucrum ; and in having alternate leaves. 



In adopting M. Decandolle's description of Dipsacea} 

 they would differ also in the important character of " ova- 



' I'lor. Franc. I^m^ cil. vol. iv. p. 221. 



