8
down as the fruit develops and is to be observed as a shrivelled collarette at its base ; at
other times, though this is very unusual, it remains wider than the nutlet and does not
slip down. This last condition probably corresponds to the instance alluded to as abnormal
by B. Clarke and Masters. But, in the case of the flower, the perianth is normally perfectly
free from the ovary.
There are normally no traces visible of fibro-vascular bundles in the perianth. In certain
abnormal conditions, however, alluded to by B. Clarke, 1 and in others to be described be-
low, a fibro-vascular system is developed.
Stamens may occur in abnormal female flowers but they then always either replace,
or are collateral with, a carpel ; so far they have not been found as a complete or even
a partial whorl outside the pistil, though Briosi and Tognini record instances in which they
have observed, within the perianth, outgrowths between it and the pistil that in the text
they hesitatingly, and in the explanation of their figures they more definitely suggest may
be staminodes. They record, however, the occurrence of similar outgrowths outside the
perianth and between it and the involving bract. 2 This fact leads to a suspicion that,
whatever those extra-perigonal excrescences may be, they can hardly be accepted as rudi-
mentary stamens, and to a further suspicion that the intra-perigonal excrescences are really of
the same character as the extra-perigonal ones. If the subsequent evidence from teratologi-
cal phenomena be accepted, the situation of these intra-perigonal protuberances should be the
best proof of their non-staminal character. Even if they had only occurred intra-perigonally,
the theory that they represent the casual development of a partial disk is rather more tenable
than the theory that they represent stamens.
Hayne figures the stigmas as clavate, but this condition is not met with normally. Auten-
rieth figures the styles as they normally appear, so does Nees ; Reichenbach copies both
Hayne and Nees. The styles fall off after fertilisation.
The orientation of the styles is shown in PLATE 2, fig. 6. The two are in the same
plane ; this plane, which ought perhaps organically to be at right angles to the plane of the
stipule, the involving bract, and the ovule (PLATE 3, figs. 1-7), is, owing to the intimate union
of the ovule with the middle line of the posterior (internal) ovarian wall, distorted so that
the ovule comes to be in the same plane with the two styles, and deflected so that the planes
of the two flowers intersect in the floral axis or thereabouts. As development proceeds,
further deflection takes place and the final position appears to be in the same plane as the
involving bract, between the free margins of which the posterior style at length protrudes
and the posterior aspect of the fruit ultimately projects (PLATE 2, fig. 14). But whatever
position the plane in which the styles lie may assume, that plane is the same as the plane
occupied by the body of the ovule and its radicle, and whether the planes of the two flowers
intersect in the floral axis, or be coincident and tangential to the leafy axis, or even, finally
become radial to the leafy axis, the body of the ovule is towards the posterior (inner) aspect
and just under the posterior (larger) style. Schnitzlein, 3 however, shows the plane of the
styles at right angles to the plane of the ovule, making the former coincident with the plane
of the stipule and the involving bract. Besides this deviation from actual conditions, Schnitz-
lein further shows the radicle as occupying the inner, the cotyledons the outer part of the
ovarian chamber. This interpretation, which is quite unreal, has been copied by Cesati,
Passerini and Gibelli.4
1 Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 3, i. 1885, p. 102 ; New Arrangem. Phan. Pl., Introd. p. 4.
2 Intorno all' anatomia della Canapa, i. 53; tt. 5, 16.
3 Iconographia ii., t. 95.
4 Compendio : Milan, 1874; p. 229, t. 33, fig. 1.