Page:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10.djvu/75

 {| width="100%"
 * width="80%" align="center" | Mr., on the Proteaceae of Jussieu.
 * width="10%" align="right" | 51
 * }
 * }

Nux v. Samara monosperma, squamis (quandoque cohaerentibus) strobili inclusa. Frutices, raro Arbores, saepe sericeo-tomentosi. Folia integerrima. Capitula terminalia, solitaria; bracteis imbricatis foliisve verticillatis et subcoloratis plerumque cincta. The separation of sexes in the genus Protea of authors, obscurely suspected by Linnaeus himself in his Protea parciflora, and afterwards more expressly by Lamarck in P. pinifolia was first ascertained in Aulax and the present genus (as Mr. Dryander informs me) by our countryman Masson, during his last residence at the Cape of Good Hope, and is beautifully illustrated by that eminent botanical painter Mr. Francis Bauer, in his unpublished drawings preserved in the Banksian collection. Numerous observations on the same subject have also more recently been made by Dr. Roxburgh and Mr. Niven, who have bestowed much pains in ascertaining its limits, of which, as far as regards the African part of the family, Mr. Salisbury has given an accurate account in his Essay already quoted. The Dissertation of Thunberg, who was wholly unacquainted with this separation of sexes in these plants, is necessarily imperfect, and he has, in several cases, described the different sexes as distinct species; and thus also Bergius has founded his genus Aulax on the male of a species, whose female he had previously published as a Leucadendron. On the other hand, Jussieu, deceived by the resemblance in inflorescence, between Brabejum and the spiked species of Protea, has erroneously suspected these to be monoicous, while he has totally over looked the truly dioicous nature of the present genus.