42 General Notes. [January, 
Birds, their Nests and Eggs, their Habits and Notes. With Illustrations. By H. D. 
Minot. i ug Mass.: Naturalists’ Agency. Boston: Estes and Lauriat. 1877. 
8vo, pp. 
scisielipitincay 
GENERAL NOTES. 
BOTANY.! 
HOMOGONE AND Heterocone (or Homogonous and Heterogonous) 
Fiowers. — That difference in relative length or height of stamens . 
and style, reciprocally, which in Torrey and Gray’s Flora of North 
America was very long ago designated by the term diwco-dimorphism, 
Mr. Darwin, who detected and has made much of the meaning of the 
arrangement, called simply dimorphism. Besides these dimorphic, he 
also brought to view trimorphic flowers. The first name is too long for 
use and carries with it some ambiguity, since it may imply a separation 
as well as a diversification of the sexes. Mr. Darwin’s term has the 
disadvantage of not indicating what parts of the blossom are dimorphic 
(hermaphrodite flowers may be dimorphous in the perigonium), and a 
more generic name is now required on account of trimorphic, etc. This 
has been supplied by Hildebrand in Germany, who has introduced the 
term heterostyled and the counterpart homostyled. These are not partic- 
ularly happy appellations; for the difference is in the stamens as well 
as in the pistil, and in the latter is not always restricted to the style. 
Well-established terms ought not to be superseded on the ground of im- 
provement; but those which have not yet taken root sometimes may be. 
Following the analogy of perigonium or perigone,I propose the more 
exactly expressive term of heterogone (or heterogonous), for these flowers 
such as those of Primula, Houstonia, Lythrum, etc. The counterpart 
homogone (or homogonous) would designate the absence of this kind of 
differentiation. These terms, either in Latin or English form, would 
work well in generic or specific characters, and have the advantage of 
etymological correctness. —Asa GRAY 
A MaproNa SWALLOWS AN Oak !— “ Being yesterday in the coun- 
try in this neighborhood, I saw what seemed to me a curious botanical 
phenomenon, which may be of interest. The phenomenon is this. I 
found in San Rafael, growing side by side, almost from the same root» 
a Californian oak and a madrofia, but on examining the madroña, I found 
that inside of it was the dead body of the oak that ought naturally to 
have proceeded from those roots, and the madrofia was gradually over- 
growing trunk and branches, laying its outside wrapper along like de- 
posits of fat. The trunk was overgrown all but about a foot in some 
places, less in others (the trunk being perhaps seven or eight feet in cir- 
cumference), and the branches were gradually, apparently, covered by the 
madrofia covering, the solid part being madrofia, and the dead limb of 
the oak projecting. Again, close by was another pair, oak and madrofla, _ 
1 Conducted by Pror. G. L. GOODALE. 
