Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 9 (1871).djvu/339

 SUGGESTIONS ON FRUIT CLASSIFICATION.

��311

��III. Achene. — Dry, iiulehisceiit, not breaking up. [Probably the

names applied to the different forms should be abolished, and the term Achene applied to all.]

��Superior.

��Inferior.

��r 10. Achene (in restricted sense). Pericarp not adherent to seBd, e g. Rnuimculiis, Riimex, UlmuH, Fraxiniis, etc.

1 1 . Caryopah. Pericarp ad- hering to seed, e. g. Graminea.

I 12. Ot/pscla. Pericarp not

much indurated, e. g. ComponUa,

Valerinnacea, etc. ' 13. Glans. Pericarp hard,

e. g. Qnercus, Castauea, Tcujm,

Corijlns, etc.

��IV. Berry. — Seeds imbedded in pulp. As a rule, indehiscent.

��14. Uva. Superior, e. g. Outer portion ofl Vitis, Solanum, etc. pericarp delicate 1 5. Baccu (in restricted sense).

��V. Drupe. — En- docarp distinctly defined, and more or less indurated. Outer portion of pericarp of variable consistence, Heshy, leathery, or fibrous. As a rule, indehis- cent.

��(thin-skinned).

��Outer portion of pericarp firm, leathery, or hard (thick-skinned).

One - stoned. [Probably the two forms included un- der this head should be embraced by a simple terra.]

��Inferior, e.g. Rihes, Faccinium, etc.

16. Jmphisarca. Superior, e.g. Adaii>iunia,Passlflora [^Citrus should be included here].

17. Pepo. Inferior, e.g. Cucitrhita, Cucinnis [F/it/ica should be included here].

18. Dr/ipe{hi restricted sense). Superior, e.g. Prnnits, Cocos, etc,

19. Tn/ma. Inferior, e.g. Jiighois, Viburniivi, etc.

��Two- or more- stoned. [Probablv on /\t + i\ c the two forms in"- . 2«- (Nm^e vvanted). Supc-

cluded under this^'i"^'^^- «^^^^('^' ^'^^^^^^^^^

head should be em- 1 „ ' ay °'f ' cy' ^!^^'' ^\^' 1, , • 1 I Pur us, Uratanns, ouuiOncKS, etc.

braced by a single ^ •/ ' •/ ' >

term.]

��With one pluri-f 22. (Name wanted), e. g. Cor- [ locular stone. {hkh.

As the modifications undergone by the fruit in ripening stand in direct relation to the dispersion of the parts l)y which the |)lant is disseminated, prol)al)ly the most philosophical method of classifying fruits would 1)6 according to the nature of the parts disseminated. 'Vo carry out this principle rigorously, however, would lead to practical diihculties far out- weighing any advantage gained. At the same time it is evirlent that the foregoing classification satisfies, in a general way, the conditions of such a method; thus—in ("apsules and Berries, the needs, a?, a rule, are the

�� �