RHIZOPHORACE^. 



609 



broadly triangular, minutely pubescent at the very tip, otherwise 

 glabrous, valoate in aestivation. Petals 4, involute in aestivation, obovate, 

 or somewhat cuueate, scarcely if at all unguiculate, retuse at the apex, 

 thickish in texture, entire, carinate, and externally pubescent on the 

 keel, not longer than the lobes of the calyx, and inserted in their 

 sinuses under the thin edge of the perigynous disk, deciduous. 

 Stamens 16 to 20, shorter than the petals, uniserial, inserted on the 

 thin and slightly free margin of the perigynous dish that lines the tube 

 of the calyx, so as to appear somewhat monadelphous : filaments very 

 short, subulate, inflexed in aestivation; the alternate ones a little 

 shorter than the others : anthers oval, somewhat didymous, fixed near 

 their base, inlrorse, two-celled, the cells longitudinally dehiscent. Style 

 short, as long as the stamens, somewhat four-grooved, four-cleft or 

 rarely five-cleft at the apex; the lobes linear, flattish, obtuse, cruciately 

 spreading in anthesis, stigmatose and a little thickened at the apex. 

 Ovary depressed, its free summit pubescent, four-rayed, entirely desti- 

 tute of any epigynous disk or ring, the lower part adnate to the flat- 

 tened base of the calyx (when fructified probably becoming wholly 

 or nearly superior), one-celled, apparently without even a trace of 

 rudimentary partitions. Ovules 8, or rarely 10, anatropous, radiately 

 attached in pairs to a central columella which reaches to the base 

 of the style; their rhaphes opposite, at length becoming pendulous. 

 Fruit not seen. 



This plant, of which the fruit is still a desideratum, is manifestly 

 related to Gynotroches and Cassipourea, and still more to Carallia, one 

 species of which has a half free ovary, and two have merely crenu- 

 late petals. The tetramerous flowers, with short stamens, of more 

 than twice the number of the perfectly entire and fleshy petals, along 

 with the difference in the inflorescence, may, with our present know- 

 ledge, be held to constitute a sufficient generic distinction. The name 

 which I have chosen, in reference to its entire petals, indicates an 

 obvious difference between it and all its allies. 



A memorandum attached to the specimens had apprised me that 

 Mr. Eich, the Botanist of the Expedition, regarding this as a new 

 genus, had assigned to it the name of Agatea, in compliment to the 

 late Mr. Agate, the Botanical draughtsman of the Expedition. A 

 former but too hasty examination having led me to refer this plant 

 to an old genus of ^Legnotideos (which must be my apology for the 



153 



