NOTE ON VAYiEA AND RHYTIDANDRA. 
335 
The only observed discrepancies are the valvular sestivation of the corolla in Rhyti- 
dandrci , and its bifid style ; — neither of which characters is likely in the present case 
to indicate more than a generic distinction. For the flattened divisions of the style, 
themselves more or less bifid at their summit, would by a further union produce nearly 
such a four-lobed stigma as that of Marlea and of Alangium. And if the narrow 
petals are really convolute in aestivation in the former as well as the latter genus, their 
margins can but slightly overlap, # while the strictly valvate mode would be no un- 
expected character in a new genus of a small group, which — following Mr. Brown’s 
suggestion made thirty-six years ago — it is now conceded must be merged in the 
Cornacece. f 
In its unilocular ovary, Rhytidandra accords with Alangium , as also with an occa- 
sional state of Marlea ; f while the stamens correspond with those of Marlea in 
number and position, and have even shorter filaments. The anthers are distinct, not 
connate into a tube, as those of Marlea are said to be by Bindley and by Endlicher 
(but not by De Candolle) ; nor are the stamens united by pairs, as those of Marlea are 
characterized and represented by Lindley; unless, indeed, what I had taken for a 
quadrilocellate anther should consist, as it possibly may, of a pair of closely coalescent 
anthers. Their dehiscence, if known, would determine this point. In respect to it I 
can only say that, if the anthers of Rhytidandra really open longitudinally at all, they 
must do so by the lateral grooves, one on each side, which correspond with an inter- 
nal partition, longitudinally dividing each half of the organ into two locelli ; and in 
that case the whole must constitute a single stamen, as I had supposed it to do ; and 
I suspect this is the case in Marlea also. 
However this prove to be, Rhytidandra is sufficiently distinguished from Marlea by its 
moniliform and chambered anther-cells, its one-celled ovary, and its bifid style with 
elongated and slender but flattened lobes. 
This peculiarity of the style is of considerable interest ; for the lobes may be justly 
compared with the style of Nyssa ; the affinity of which to the Alangiece was happily 
suggested (though with doubt) by Brongniart,§ while its relationship to the Cornece was 
practically recognized by Blume, who referred his genus Mastiocia first (and justly) 
# Wight and Arnott’s authority (Prodr. FI. Ind. Or. 1. p. 325) should settle the point, at least for Alangium. 
But the figure of Marlea begonicefolia in Bot. Beg. 24, t. 61, appears as if the petals were valvate. 
t Bennett, Plantse Javanicee Bariores, p. 194. In collating Marlea with the Cornece , no difference in 
aestivation is here mentioned ; from which it may be inferred that the petals of the former genus are valvate. 
f Lindley, Bot. Beg. 1. c. Clarke, in Kew Jour. Bot. 2. p. 129. 
§ Enum. PI. Hort. Mus. Par. p. xxx. note. 
