CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY. 
201 
un demi-cercle, le rencontrent, se soudent avec lui, et le confondent 
en quelque sorte dans leur substance; souvent le cordon, ainsi 
soude, se montre comme une preeminence exterieure, mais sou- 
vent aussi il ne se laisse point apercevoir ; la partie soudee du cor- 
don porte le nom raphe.” In order to impress this action more 
forcibly upon the conviction of his readers, St. -Hilaire compares 
the ovule so developed, to a monopetalous flower in bud, which 
is made to perform half a revolution, by being inverted and 
suddenly bent down close to its base, with its peduncle aggluti- 
nated to the calyx and corolla ; here the calyx and corolla assume 
the position of the tunics of the ovule — its ovary, the nucleus — 
and their common base of union, the chalaza, — the pedicel 
representing the raphe. 
f A very similar explanation of the anatropy of the ovule is 
given in the excellent work of Adr. de Jussieu (Cours £lemen- 
mentaire, p. 343), where his definition is aided by figures. 
Fig-1 is again erroneously said to be the nucleus, first developed ; 
fig. 2 the same, with the primine next appearing ; fig. 3 the same, 
more advanced, with the addition of the second coat (secundine). 
“Le developpement ne marche pas ainsi ^gal de tons les cotes ; sur 
I’un il est tres-prononce, tandis qu’il reste h peu pres stationnaire 
sur le cote oppose. Par la, la pointe de Povule, avec son micro- 
pyle tourne primitivement en haul, se tourne de cote, puis un peu 
plus tard en dehors, puis enfiji tout a fait en has (fig. 4) apres 
avoir fait ainsi un demi-tour de revolution. La chalaze emportee 
de meme avec les tegumens qui s’etendent, et conservant ses 
rapports avec le micropyle, fait une revolution analogue, mais en 
sens inverse, et marche de has en haut, de maniere qu’elle s’eloigne 
de plus en plus du hile, dont le micropyle au conti-aire s’est 
rapproche de plus en plus.” Fig. 5 shows a section of the same 
ovule, where it is explained how “le faisceau vasculaire qui 
aboutissait a la chalaze, la suit dans sa revolution en s’allongeant, 
et ce prolongement forme le raphe.^^ I was led into error of 
argument, as I have mentioned, solely by my faith in the truth 
of this last consideration, a doubt of the correctness of which 
never crossed my mind, taught as it was by such eminent 
authorities. 
The definition of Prof. Lindley (Introd. p. 180) is less expli- 
cit, and therefore less objectionable ; but he evidently entertained 
a similar view, though expressed in different terms. He states 
that in this kind of ovule “one of its sides grows rapidly, while 
the opposite side does not grow at all, so that the point (foramen) 
of the ovule is gradually pushed round to the base, while, corre- 
spondingly, the base of the nucleus is removed from the hilum to 
the opposite extremity ; and when this process is completed, the 
whole of the inside of the ovule is reversed.’^ It is needless to 
VOL. I. 2d 
