Page:Miscellaneousbot01brow.djvu/124

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
106
BOTANY OF CONGO.

Smeathman's specimens, by Cavanilles[1] who has added the fruit of a very different plant to his figure, and quotes the herbarium of M. de Jussieu as authority for this species being likewise a native of America, which is, I believe, equally a mistake.

The two remaining plants of Malpighiaceæ, in the collection, with some additional species from different parts of the coast, form a new genus, having the fruit of Banisteria, but with sufficient distinguishing characters in the parts of the flower, and remarkable in having alternate leaves. From this disposition of leaves, in which the genus here noticed differs from all others decidedly belonging to the order, an additional argument is afforded, for referring Vitmannia to Malpighiaceæ, as proposed by M. du Petit Thouars;[2] and the approximation, though perhaps not the absolute union of Erythroxylon to the same family is confirmed.

It may not be improper here to notice a very remarkable deviation from the usual structure of leaves in Malpighiaceæ, which is supposed to occur in a plant of equinoctial Africa, namely Flabellaria pinnata of Cavanilles (the Hirœa pinnata of Willdenow). It is certain, however, that the figure given by Cavanilles of this species is made up from two very different genera; the pinnated leaf belonging to an unpublished Pterocarpus; the fructification to a species of Hireea, having simple opposite leaves. The evidence respecting this blunder, which was detected by Mr. Dryander, is to be found in the herbarium of Sir Joseph Banks.

In Malpighiaceæ the insertion of the ovulum is towards its apex, or considerably above its middle; and the radicle of the embryo is uniformly superior. In these points Banisteria presents no exception to the general structure, though Gærtner has described its radicle as inferior, and M. de Jussieu does not appear to have satisfied himself respecting the fact.[3] It appears, however, that M. Richard

  1. Dissert. 424, t. 247.
  2. In Nov. gen. Madagasc. n. 46 (Biporeia).
  3. Annal. du Mus. d'Hist. Nat. 18, p. 4S0.