CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
47 
Grubbia (Hook. Journ. Bot. iii. 266) ; its alliance however ap- 
pears to me nearer to the Hamamelidacea than the Bruniacece ; 
and the tribe of the Ophirice including Gn-uhbia and Ophiriii 
{Strobilocarpus) may well form a sectional division of that order, 
the limits of which will require some moditication to include this 
and the Diclidantherece as new and distinct tribes. 
The structure observed in Humirium confirms what I urged 
in regard to the nature of a stipitate torus [ante, p. 36), and 
of that of the cupuliform disk so frequently alluded to in former 
j)ages. AVe there perceive an ovarium perfectly free and sup- 
ported on a distinct gynophorus : this is surrounded at its base 
by a conspicuous cupuliform ring, toothed on its margin, but 
perfectly free, on both surfaces, down to the base : the ovarium 
is hairy in all parts, except in the basal portion inclosed within 
that cup, but not the slightest adhesion exists, either with its 
glabrous portion or with the gynophorus. Outside of this 
hypogynous cup is seen another cupshaped ring, serving to 
support the stamens, which in H. fluribundum is entire, smooth, 
and fleshy outside, and supports the many series of filaments 
upon its margin as well as upon the whole of its inner face, 
forming thus an annular ring, free both from the hypogynous 
cup and the petals. Here therefore we perceive the gynophorus, 
cupuliform disk, staminiferous cup, petals, and sepals, each a 
distinct development, and each free to the base, but all springing 
from a fleshy torus which is simply an expansion of the apex of 
the pedicel. The torus, therefore, as an organ well marked in 
many of the Ilia lami flora;, must not be confounded with any of 
the developments which it serves to support*. 
IManyof the inferences drawn from the numerous facts indicated 
in the foregoing “ Observations on the Affinities of the Olacaceai ” 
are so much at variance with long-established opinions, that 
I cannot expect they will at first be favourably entertained. Ex- 
perience has shown, when conclusions upon erroneous grounds 
have once been made by high authority, and these confirmed l>y 
every subsequent author, that nothing short of actual demonstra- 
tion, and that of the most positive character, can establish other 
and more correct inferences. In the “ Observations ” alluded to, 
considerable doubt has been thrown on the deductions of some 
of the most eminent botanists, — men celebrated for the general 
accuracy of their researches, and for the soundness of their 
views regarding botanical affinities : I should therefore incur tin 
charge of temerity in making the several bold statements there 
offered, unless I was prepared to give proof of all I had advanced ; 
* See many excellent remarks, all tending to the same conclusions, in 
two chapters on the Disk and Floral Receptacle, in Aug. St. Hilaire’s ‘ Le- 
mons de Botanique,’ p. 455^6f). 
