140 
Mr. Brown’s Observations on the 
This irregular expansion in Boopis , which renders even the ge¬ 
neric name improper, and at present the want of satisfactory cha¬ 
racters to distinguish it from Calycera, are objections to the name 
M. Cassini has chosen for this family; while thatof Calycerece , which 
I have proposed, derived from the genus first described, and appli¬ 
cable to all the genera of the order, appears to me unexception¬ 
able: especially as there seems no reason to doubt that the part 
which I have considered as calyx in Boopidece is really such; its 
divisions being generally in equal number, and alternating with 
those of the corolla. It may be observed that a like alternation 
of the divisions of the pappus with the segments of the corolla 
obtains in those genera of Compositae where both parts are in 
equal number. But in some cases, where the division of pappus 
is still further reduced, the same alternation does not exist, espe¬ 
cially in those genera having vertically compressed pericarpia and 
two aristae, as Spilantlius and Salmea. 
The absence of “ discus epigynus” in Boopidece is a necessary 
consequence of the accretion of the base of the style with the tube 
of the corolla. It seems to me, however, that a modification of the 
same organ may be traced in the five thickened areolae observa¬ 
ble within and near the base of the tube formed by the filaments 
in Acicarpha spathulata ; and much more distinctly in the same 
situation in Boopis balsamitifolia, where they have the appearance 
of five adnate fleshy bodies alternating with the filaments. 
This apparent decomposition of the glandular disk in Boopidece, 
compared with its state in Compositae, as well as its transposition 
and the alternation of its parts with the stamina, seem to give 
some additional support to the conjecture I have formerly ha¬ 
zarded in the paper on Proteacece, published in the Society’s Trans¬ 
actions (vol. x. p. 159); namely, that in several families—for the 
hypothesis 
