FROM THE USUAL STRUCTURE OE SEEDS. 361 



I am not aware that such an economy has hitherto been 

 described ; I have observed it, however, in several plants 

 belonging to very ditferent families, and of essentially 

 different structures. 



The first of these is Leontice ilialldroides of Linnaeus, 

 Caulopliyllmn thalidroides of Michaux, who has founded his 

 new genus on a difference of fruit, the nature of which he 

 has entirely misunderstood. It is remarkable that its real 

 structure should have escaped so accurate an observer as 

 M. Richard, through whose hands it is generally understood 

 Michaux's work passed pi-evious to its publication ; but the 

 fact may at least serve to show hoAV entirely unexpected 

 such an economy must have been even to that excellent 

 carpologist. 



My observations were made in the summer of 1812, on a 

 plant of Leontice thalictroides, which flowered and ripened 

 fruit in the royal gardens at Kew. An examination of the 

 rraimpregnated ovarium proved it to be in every respect of 

 the same structure with that of the other species of Leontice ; 

 and essentially the same with the whole order of Berherides, 

 to which this genus belongs. A careful inspection of the 

 fruit, in different states, proved also that the " Drupa stipi- 

 tata " of Michaux is in reality a naked seed, that in a very 

 early stage had burst its pericarpium, the withered re- [we 

 mains of ■which were in most cases visible at the base of the 

 ripe seed. The first error of Michaux naturally led to a 

 series of mistakes ; and the naked seed teing considered by 

 him as a drupa, the albumen, which is of a horny texture, 

 is described as a " nux cornea crassissima," and the embryo 

 itself as the seed. 



But although this account of the fruit of Leontice ihalic- 

 Iroides be in no respect similar to that given by Michaux, 

 it may perhaps be considered by some as still differing 

 sufficiently from Leontice to authorise the establishment of 

 a distinct genus; and that, therefore, the name Caulophyllum 

 may be retained, and its character derived from the remark- 

 able circumstance described, namely, the early rupture of 

 its pericarpium. I believe, however, it will be found more 

 expedient to reduce it again to Ljcontice. 



