Erythrococca and Micrococca. 589 
number so far observed. More Important, however, is the account of the 
receptacular glands. Mueller describes those that constitute an extra- 
staminal ring as produced radially Inwards between the filaments, and as 
confluent with the interstaminal glands so as to form the ‘double disc’ 
mentioned by Baillon, within which the stamens are enclosed. What 
Mueller describes is precisely what' is seen when a carefully soaked flower 
is examined under a simple microscope. But when such a flower is kept 
under observation while it is parting with its extraneous moisture, the 
glands of the two series are seen to separate spontaneously, and to be in 
reality quite free. The confluence proves to be no more than an adhesion 
of these viscid bodies while they are wet; there is no organic union between 
the glands of the outer and the inner series. In Erythrococca aculeata , 
Benth., the receptacular glands are unusually large, about as long as the 
stamens ; in Claoxylon ( Adenoclaoxylon ) Kirkii they are relatively small, 
shorter than the filaments. But in these two plants the receptacular glands 
do not otherwise differ ; they are identical in character and are arranged in 
the same manner. Mueller does not remark that the buds of Erythrococca 
are perulate or that the ovary is adpressed strigose. He says nothing with 
regard to the seed, and his account of the fruit is taken from Bentham. 
He appears to accept as a fact what with Bentham was little more than 
a suggestion, and indicates (DC. Prodr., xv. 2, 791) his belief that it is only 
because its fruit is indehiscent that Erythrococca may be distinguished from 
Claoxylon . 
In the revised definition of Erythrococca , published in 1880 by Bentham 
(Gen. Plant., iii. 308), the spines are described as infra-stipular. The number 
of stamens is now admitted to vary, but the filaments are still said to be 
conflate in a ring. The presence of hypogynous scales in the female 
flower is accepted, but the existence of receptacular glands in the male 
flower, though in this species these glands are so large as almost to conceal 
the stamens, is not mentioned. The fruit is now said, without any reserva¬ 
tion, to be indehiscent, with a thin fleshy exocarp and a crustaceous endo- 
carp, but It is suggested that it may not always be monococcous. The 
spines are, however, as Bentham had stated in 1849, the stipules themselves. 
Under other circumstances the question as to whether the filaments be free 
as Mueller implies, or connate below as Bentham and Baillon suppose, 
might have been open to doubt. Had there been no interstaminal glands 
in the male flower, the structure which the attachment of these glands 
proves to be a receptacle might, without serious objection, have been inter¬ 
preted as a short staminal ‘ column \ But even if this alternative explana¬ 
tion had been permissible, there is nothing in the appearance or the anatomy 
of this receptacle to suggest that it is ‘ annular \ 
In 1890 Pax (Nat. Pflanzenf., iii. 5, 48) accepted the limitation of 
Bentham and Mueller. His brief diagnosis corrects the misapprehension 
