Page:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10.djvu/56

 {| width="100%" alone, when occurring in several species, would have determined me to separate these plants from Conospermum: but being also accompanied by other remarkable differences, both of structure and appearance, no genus, I apprehend, can be better founded than this.
 * width="10%" align="left" | 34
 * width="80%" align="center" | Mr., on the Proteaceae of Jussieu.
 * width="10%" align="right" |
 * }
 * }

That the opinion of Christian Knaut and Vaillant respecting the non-existence of naked seeds is correct when anatomically considered, there can be no doubt; but the practical utility of deviating in this subject from the common language of botanists may still be questioned: and accordingly Gærtner, who was fully aware of the truth of their position, has nevertheless continued to describe the seeds of many plants as naked. I confess however I am inclined to adopt the opposite decision of the French botanists, at the head of whom is Richard, who has also proposed terms for distinguishing the various species hitherto confounded under the name of naked seeds. The fruit of the monospermous genera of Proteaceæ might probably be with advantage referred to that which he has termed Ahena; but as I am unwilling in the present paper to adopt any term not more generally sanctioned and understood than this, I shall content myself with calling those nuces, which are either not at all or but slightly compressed and not bordered; and apply the term samara to such as are either very much compressed, or with a less remarkable compression are surrounded or terminated by a membranaceous border: that I regard these distinctions however as in some cases of very little importance, may be inferred from this, that my genus Leucadendron includes both these kinds of fruit.

The first observation I have to offer on the fruits of Proteaceæ is, that there is no really bivalvular capsule in the order; a truth which was not perceived by Gærtner in describing his