234 FLORA INDICA, [NymphaacecB. 



considers the seeds as truly Dicotyledonous, but the rhizome as Endogenous ; lastly, 

 Henfi'ey, who confines his attention solely to the rhizome, and of Victoria only, con- 

 siders this to be more Endogenous than Exogenous. 



For our own parts, we consider that these Orders are truly Dicotyledonous, and 

 that the rhizome, though not strictly spealiing Exogenous, is by no means Endoge- 

 nous, that there are no Monocotyledonous Orders to which they have any ailinity, 

 and that the arguments hitherto adduced to the contrary are based upon what ap- 

 pear to us to be very feeble analogies. 



In stating our reasons for these opinions, we need hardly say that we do so wiih 

 the utmost deference to the great authorities from whom we differ, especially our 

 friend Dr. Jindley (to whose profound knowledge of structure and atiinities we are in 

 the habit of resorting in cases of difficulty), and M. Trecul, whose admirable essays 

 on the anatomy of Nufhar, Victoria, and I^elumbium (Annales des Sciences Na- 

 turelles, ser. 3. iv. 286 ; ser. 4. 1. 145, 291) are no less elaborate than lucid and 

 exhaustive of the subject, "Wherever it has been possible, we have followed the ob- 

 servations of the last-named author on the living plants; but whilst bearing wiUing 

 testimony to his accuracy and skill as a phytotomist, we must also record our dissent 

 from the conclusions he draws from the facts observed. In removing Bymphaiacece 

 to a distance from Nelumliacete, he has overlooked structural and morphological 

 considerations, and attached undue importance to anatomical and physiological de- 

 tails ; and whilst we admit that in an abstract point of view the value of such details 

 cannot be over-estimated, in a systematic one we believe that they will be found ca- 

 pable of a very different interpretation. In illustration of our meaning, we have only 

 to refer to what has been demonstrated under Menis^ermacea', where closely allied 

 genera and species have wood of so totally different an anatomical structure, that in a 

 physiolofiicd point of view they could never be supposed to be allied. Similar in- 

 stances, indeed, abound in the vegetable kingdom : witness the structure of the em- 

 bryo, the germination and anatomy of Cuscuta, a genus which totally differs in all 

 these respects from other ConwhulacecB, but which is an undoubted member of that 

 Order ; the wide departure from the normal structure and mode of growth of Scro- 

 jihularinece displayed by Orobanche, Lathrma, and Melampymm; the structural, 

 anatomical, and functional differences between terrestrial and epiphytical Orchidece; 

 between Ambrosinia and other Aroidece (see Griffith in Linn. Soc. Trans, xs. 263) ; 

 and lastly, between the species of Corydalis belonging to the sections Capnites and 

 Bulbocapnos, the germination of one of w hich is apparently Monocotyledonous, and 

 of the other Dicotyledonous. In these and all similar cases we cannot but conclude 

 that the value of the physiological differences implied by the extreme diversity of 

 anatomical details is to be explained by morphological and structural laws, and is not 

 real hut apparent. If such remarkable differences occur in closely allied genera and 

 species, it follows that we may expect as great resemblances to occur in plants he- 

 longing to the most widely different natural families ; and we believe the similarity 

 of the rhizome of Ni/mphceacem to that of Endogens, and the partial resemblance of 

 the habit and foliage of this Order to that of Hydrocharidece, are instances ; and of 

 such as these every large Natural Order presents us with examples. 



We shall now examine — I, embryo ; 2, germination ; and 3, rhizome of Nymphce- 

 ace(S. 



1. Embryo. The peculiarities of this organ are detailed in the ordinal character. 

 Its truly Dicotyledonous structure was first shown by De Candolle, and shortly after- 

 wards by Mirbel and Salisbury, and their conclusions have been assented to by al- 

 most every subsequent observer, except lindley, who expresses himself doubtfully ; 

 and perhaps Planchon. The latest views of the latter author we only gather from 

 Trccul's paper on Victoria, which states (1. c. p. 145) that Planchon has announced 

 the embryo of that plant to be Monocotyledonous, adding, however, that Planchon's 

 plate represents a Dicotyledonous embryo, "le mieux couforme que I'on pent ima- 

 giner." And we may add that in M. Planchon's 'Etudes des Nymphuacees' (Ann. 

 Soc. Nat. ser. 3, xix. 3, 31), he describes the embryos of. both Nymphaa and Vic- 

 toria as truly Dicotyledonous. Lindley (Veg. Kingd. 409) discusses the subject fully 



