204 



ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 



mary ones, or they may be petaloid substitutes for stamens : the 

 facts will bear either interpretation ; but the pistillwn inpistillo is 

 not so easily explained. 



The difficulty arises in great measure from the impossibility, 

 owing to the irregularities of size, adhesions, contortions, and dis- 

 placement of the parts, of seeing precisely the position that these 

 pistillary whorls occupy in reference to each other and to the other 

 parts of the flower. 



The simplest theory would be, that we have here merely a 

 double carpeilary whorl, a multiplication of the carpellary series 

 in fact ; and there is no reason, that I know of, to forbid such an 

 hypothesis. Or it may be thought that the outer of the two 

 capsules (when both are present) is the representative of a row 

 of stamens j and I may here add that in these particular flowers 

 I failed to detect any stamens, though in those blossoms where 

 only a single carpellary series existed there were frequently one 

 or more stamens. 



Again, it may be considered that the innermost pistil is the 

 result of median prolification ; but this hypothesis involves too 

 many assumptions to be readily accepted : thus, taking the cases 

 where the outer of the two capsules was foliaceous, on the proli- 

 fication theory this might represent either the true pistil of the 

 primary flower or the calyx of the secondary one ; and if the latter 

 opinion were correct, we should have to assume the suppression of 

 the corolla and stamens of the secondary flower and the production 

 of the carpellary whorl only. This seems unlikely, the more so as 

 no traces of the supposed suppressed organs exist. 



In those instances, too, where the outer pistil is petaloid, on the 

 prolification theory we should have to assume either that the 

 calyx of the prolified flower was absent or that it was present 

 in a petaloid form ; in either case we should fail to account for 

 the absence of stamens satisfactorily. 



The prolification theory, then, seems objectionable from the 

 number of pure assumptions that must be brought to support it, 

 and also from the fact that there is little or no lengthening of 

 the axis or thalamus of the flower, such as almost always exists to 

 a greater or less extent in flowers subject to median prolification. 

 I am, dear Sir, 



With much respect, 



Faithfully yours, 



Maxwell T. Mastebs. 



