Page:Illustrations of Indian Botany, Vol. 2.djvu/20

2  These as will appear from the preceding remarks are still undetermined; their epigynous flowers and numerous petals and stamens associating them with Myrtaceae, while their few celled ovary with solitary, pendulous ovules and allmmenous seed, seem more justly to refer them to the vicinity of Corneae and Caprifoliaceae (where Meisner has placed them) two nearly allied orders.—Upon the whole, I think we may conclude, that the true relations of this order are s<ill unknown but that it is conveniently, if not correctly, placed in its present situation.

All the species of this small order, 3 in number, yet known, are of Indian origin—two species of Alangium are natives of the Peninsula and both found in the Carnatic. DeCandolle and Lamark have added a third which however does not seem distinct from A. decapetalum. The genus Marlea referred here by DeCandolle has yet only been found on the Himalayas and in China.

Little seems known on this head: the two species of Alangium are said to be cathartic, and the roots aromatic. Dr. Royle remarks "they are said to afford good wood and edible fruit." The first of these, at least in one sense, I am inclined to doubt as 1 have never seen the plant larger than a rather large shrub so that whatever the quality of the wood, it must always, I presume, be small. Roxburgh says it is beautiful. The fruit however are edible but not palatable being mucelagenous and insipid.


 * 1. Alangium hexapetalum, flowering branch—natural size.
 * 2. Dissected flower, showing the calyx ovary, a petal, stamen, style and stigma.
 * 3. A stamen detached.
 * 4. Ovary cut vertically, showing the solitary pendulous
 * 5- Ovary cut transversely, one-celled — all more or less magnified

 

The most eminent Botanists of the present day are divided in opinion as to the propriety of considering this a distinct order, or merely a section of Myrtaceae. Don. DeCandolle, and Martins, view it as a distinct order. Lindley, Arnott and Meisner, take the opposite side of the question. At the time of preparing the accompanying plate and long after, when writing my account of Myrtaceae, I also adopted the latter view—circumstances having occurred to delay the publication of that article I have been enabled to reconsider the subject and review afresh the arguments on both sides, carefully examining the structure of the ovary and fruit as I went along. The result has led to the conviction that this is really a distinct order. I should scarcely I think have come to this conclusion had I not previously ascertained the possibility of carpels having their position reversed in the ovary, because until I did ascertain this, I could not understand or explain, to my own satisfaction, the appearances which sections of this ovary presents and preferred regaining silent to giving an opinion which I felt myself unable to support. Having at length been enabled to make up my own mind on the subject, I. shall here explain my views and contrast them with those of my predecessors who have written on the subject. As the main object of the strictly Botanical portion of this work is to explain the principles of the science, I trust I shall be excused for considering somewhat at large a question on which the sentiments of so many eminent Botanists are divided. I regret being unable to quote professor Endlicher's opinion, not having yet received the part of his genera Plantarum containing this order. The following extracts will place before the reader both sides of the question which wholly rests on the views each author takes of the structure of the fruit. Don, the original proposer of the order, and DeCandolle describe it thus.

"Ovary cohering to the tube of the calyx free at the apex many celled. Berry apple-shaped crowned with the contracted limb of the calyx; rind thick, covered exteriorly with a redish smooth cuticle with shining points, spongy within; the berry when ripe bursting irregularly. Placenta resembling the substance of the rind but more fleshy and succulent, completely 