order : if different, that is, if the placenta are, in the usual acceptation of the term, truly parietal,
then it ought undoubtedly to be removed and placed near if not atcually united with Pas-
sifloreae. But in either case, the points of difference, between Nhandirobeae and Cucurbiteae,
seem quite sufficient to distinguish them as separate orders, should that be deemed a judicious
arrangement, which is not improbable, were it only for the purpose of simplifying the ordinal
character. .
Its claims to rank as a sub-order of Cucurbitaceae may be at once admitted, supposing the
carpellary structure the same, on account of the differences in the flowers and anthers which
are very distinct in the two tribes and by Nhandirobeae having axillary not lateral tendrils.
Two genera only are assigned to this tribe or order—Zanonia, (Plate 103), and Fevellea.
The first of these, so far as yet known are altogether of Asiatic origin and extends from Malabar
eastwards as far as Java, where Blume found 2 species. The other, which until lately, were only
known as natives of America, have recently been found in Assam, whence I have, through the
kindness of Captain Jenkins, received two species, but unfortunately the male flowers only.
The 35 genera of Cucurbitaceae, Meisner in his table, distributes according to the stamens
in t o two leading sections—A—stamens free—B—stamens variously united among themselves.
To the first of these sections he refers only two Indian genera Luffia and Citrullus, others
have since been added. To the other, ten are assigned. They are further distributed accord-
in» to the number and mode of union of the stamens—the petals free or united, the anthers
whether connate or distinct, the cells regular or bent and anfractuose, &c.
Since the publication of this tabular arrangement of the genera, Schrader, a German Botanist,
has published a revised distribution of them, founded on a minute examination of a
large proportion of the order, establishing his arrangement of the genera according to characters
taken principally from the male flowers. The original memoir, published in a German periodical
(Linneea vol. 12), I have not yet seen, but Dr. Arnott obligingly prepared for my use
a conspectus of all the genera of that memoir, adding several new ones of his own. This he
has permitted me to publish should T-think it desirable. ~
Having satisfied myself, by the examination of several of the sections and genera, of the
correctness generally of the characters and the facility of applying them in practice, as well as
of the greater precision which their adoption confers on our generic characters, I can have no
hesitation in subjoining this Conspectus and recommending, to careful examination, the principles
on which it proposes to construct the genera of this very obscure and difficult order, as, I
think, with some slight modifications it will be found to merit general adoption. Until, however,
I have had more extended opportunities of doing so with recent specimens I refrain from,
saying more in its favour.
The characters of the tribes were not given, which is of little consequence as the tribe
Cucurbiteae is, with a single exception, the only one found in India and the whole of the genera
of this tribe are given, whether Indian or not, to enable those who may give their attention
to this investigation, to determine genera not hitherto introduced into the Indian Catalogue.
I t may be necessary here to observe, that the fruit, in those genera said to have it baccate, is not
truly a bacca, but only a slight modification of the peponida, the placenta being only apparently,
not truly parietal, as in the true bacca.
The following explanatory extracts from the letter which accompanied the Conspectus, may
not inappropriately be introduced.
§ I h ave lately been revising our East Indian Cucurbitaceae, in consequence of Schrader’s
paper in the Linnsea, vol. 12. At first I was inclined to consider it worse than useless
to subdivide old genera, especially Bryonia, as he has done : but when I came to consider his
sectional characters, and that the form and position of the stamens and anthers and stigma and
fruit are, really, the only characters hitherto employed for genera by other Botanists ; and that
all Schrader has done, is to keep only those species in their old genera that agree with the
character and turning out, and making new genera of those that do not, then I felt inclined to
go great lengths towards adopting his views. I intend here to give you a Conspectus, or
abridged generic characters, which I have drawn up, not only for the Indian, but also for those
f the whole world, which I shall not object to your publishing as abridged characters of the
° ora of the tribe Cucurbiteae of Schrader.”
g At the conclusion of the conspectus he continues,—“ These seem to be all the genera
that truly belong to Cucurbiteae, they have all unisexual flowers. Gronovia has them
known, but is otherwise very closely allied. Allacia cannot be of this order, unless we
W ’the description quite erroneous ; and if so, Loureiro may have had before him, in part
Sf 1 st the Telfairia pedata ; Myrianthus cannot belong to Cucurbitaceae. Thladianthus
Pirntre is imperfectly described as to the stamens, but may perhaps form a 7th tribe
« I have laboured under great difficulty in making out these characters, partly because
nublished descriptions were very imperfect, partly because I had not several of the genera,
nd Dartlv from the extreme difficulty of examining the anthers after being dried and pressed.
T ould therefore suggest to you and other Indian botanists, to re-examine all the Indian ones
oiTliving plants, and have drawings made, paying particular attention to the representation of
the first you may, as I did, confuse section 7 with section 9, but if you will compare the
flower of Citrullus, Momordica or Lagenarea with Cucurbitci or Coccinia, you will readily see
the difference In section 7, the connectivum is lobed, and the anther cells are placed along
the edge of the lobes-in sections 8 and 9 the connectivum is not itself lobed, but the anther
II kent » fit winds upwards and downwards along the back of the connectivum).
Warned by the concluding paragraph of the difficulty attending the description of these
nlants from dried specimens, I took occasion, as opportunity offered, to compare some of the
sectional characters with recent specimens, and feel disposed to think the sections too numerous
and not sufficiently distinguished. I have not yet succeeded m comparing the whole, but
would suggest the following alterations, which 1 think would improve the arrangement.
Section 6 might with advantage be suppressed, and its only genus referred to section 5. Sections 7 and9 would be better united, the anthers being the same in both; transferring,
however Cucurbita to section 8, on account of the anthers,which are similar to those of Tnchos-
anlhes, making the insertion of the filaments a matter of secondary consideration, a generic not
a sectional distinction. - . . . , , . . , ,
The difference between sections 7 and 8 would then be—not that m the former the anther
is lobed and in the other entire, but that in section 7 the back is traversed by an elevated gyrose
ridge on the top of which the long gyrose ant her cell is placed, while in section 8 there is no such
elevation, the anther cell being sunk into the substance of the connectivum, not elevated on a
ridge with a deep furrow bet ween each bend. To this may be added that the connectiva in
section 8 is elongated; hence, from the union of the three, a cylinder results, while m the other
their union produces a sort of capitulum. r ,, , _
Bryonia Garcini, doubtfully referred to Bryonia, is a new species of Pylogyne : Bryonia
I find from the examination of dried specimens, is a second species of Mukia, with
which it agrees well in habit. . . . ,, ,, ,
Notwithstanding these differences of opinion, it is not my intention to alter the conspectus,
but print it simply as it reached me, the few additions I have to make, being included within
brackets—thus [ ] Before proceeding further it may be well to explain what is meant by
the term tri-adelphous, as applied to this family, which is of such frequent occurrence m the
following characters. The normal structure of Cucurbitaceae is to have five stamens, in place
of which we usually find only three ; but when these are carefully examined it appears that
two of them are twice the size of the third, and are actually made up of two united : each set is
then called an adelphi or brotherhood, and the three together tri-adelphous. This structure is
readily seen in the Pekunkie ( Cucurnis acutangulus, Ainslie) where the anthers do not cohere.
In those where they do cohere it is not so clearly seen, as they then require to be separated
artificially before it can be made out.
In some genera the anthers are described as being one or two-celled ; these characters
require to be used with caution, as being generally of very difficult application m practice.
Theoretically every anther is two-celled, and here in examining a number of instances with
particular care, under a high magnifier, I have found most of them actually two-celled, though
; on less careful examination they appeared only one celled. If such is the case when examined
with fresh specimens, how much more liable to error must we be when working with dried ones.