1840.] as a distinct Natural Order from Myrtacece. 



259 



length, probably a fortnight or more before expansion, I invariably find 

 two rows of carpels, one inferior, of 4 or 5, and one superior of 5, 6 or 

 more. In the lower series the placentas are ranged round the axis, with 

 their base in the centre, and the apex, which is free, towards the cir- 

 cumference. In the upper, the attacliment, or base of the placentas, 

 is in the circumference, and the apex, also at first free, directed towards 

 the centre. Between the two rows a diaphragm is always interposed. The 

 apex of the upper placentas is, occasionally, afterwards prolonged and 

 contracts adhesions to the axis. 



In the accompanying figures I have attempted to represent these 

 views. As the fruit advances in size considerable derangement of 

 this structure progressively occurs, which is apt to mask and confuse 

 the appearances now described. 



Having previously ascertained the occasional existence of inversion 

 in the position of carpels, my first idea was, that such an inversion 

 took place in the upper row. This view, which, equally with the 

 preceding, accounts for the crossing of the placentas, I feel inclined to 

 adhere to, though I confess not without some hesitation, because it 

 implies a complexity of arrangement rarely met with in the inimitably 

 simple and beautiful operations of nature ; but I think it as difficult 

 to imagine the nearly equally complex and inconceivable operation of 

 the folding in of one set of carpels over the other, which Drs. Lind- 

 ley and Arnott's explanation demands : while my explanation has the 

 advantage of at the same time accuuntmg for the double chamber which 

 the ovary presents from its earliest stages, and renders unnecessary 

 the doctrine of an adventitious verticel of carpels, which for the present 

 is mere assumption. 



With these explanations, I leave the question of structure to consi- 

 der the one pending on its determination, viz. whether or not Granateae 

 ought to be preserved as a distinct order or be re-united to Myrtacese ? 



On this point, so far as the unvarying evidence derived from cultivated 

 plants is entitled to carry weight on a disputed point— and which I pre- 

 sume it must do until we find that evidence invalidated by the examina- 

 tion of others growing in a truly wild state — we must unquestionably, 

 I conceive, adopt the views of those who urge the separation, because 

 the complex structure, above described, being constant here and unknown 

 among the true Myrtaceae, we have no right, in the total absence of 

 direct confirmatory evidence, to assume, that a part is adventitious, 

 merely because it is at variance with our ideas of what should be, espe- 

 cially whik we have, in addition, difference of habit in the formation of 



