[168] Carriere, 'Revue Horticole.' 1868, p. 184. [169] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1858, p. 556. [170] 1863, p. 556, &c. [171] 'Ann. Nat. Hist.,' 1845, vol. xvi, p. 355. [172] See also Lindley, 'Veg. Kingd.,' p. 109 et 116_a_, where the views of Raspail, R. Brown, Mohl, Henslow, and others, are discussed. [173] It has been observed that if a plant is supplied with copious nourishment the flowering-period is delayed; but that moderate or even scanty nourishment accelerates it. Goethe, 'Metam.,' Sec. 30. See also Wolff, 'Theoria Generationis,' 1759; Linn. 'Prolepsis,' Secs. 3 and 10. [174] Moquin-Tandon, p. 384; also Lindl., 'Elements of Botany,' p. 65, fig. 130; "Theory of Horticulture," p. 86. 'Gard. Chron.,' 1851, p. 723; Irmish, 'Flora,' 1858, p. 38, &c. [175] Caspary, 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' vol. vi, 1859, p. 235; also Payer, ibid., vol. i, 1854. p. 283. [176] Trecul, 'Ann. Sc. Nat.,' 2nd ser., vol. xx, p. 339. [177] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' vol. vii, 1858, p. 331. [178] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' vol. i. p. 306, vol. v, p. 115. 'Illustr. Hortic.,' xii, 1865, Misc. 79. 'Rev. Horticole,' 1860 p. 204, et 1867 p. 43. [179] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' 1858, p. 685. [180] The structure of this flower is discussed at some length in a paper by the author on axillary prolification. 'Trans. Linn. Soc.,' vol. xxiii, p. 486, t. liv. fig. 3. See also 'Clos. Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' vol. v, 1855, p. 672. Seringe et Heyland, 'Bull. Bot.,' i, p. 8. 'Pallas Enum. Plant. Hort. Demidoff,' append, c, ic. [181] 'Adansonia,' i, 181. [182] 'Adansonia.' vol. iii, p. 351, tab. xii. [183] 'Elem. Terat. Veget.,' p, 218. [184] Masters, 'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' vol. ix, 1866, p. 334. [185] 'Trans. Linn. Soc.,' vol. xxiv, p. 143. tab. xxiv. [186] 'Brit. Assoc. Report,' Dundee, 1867; and Seemann's 'Journal of Botany,' 1867, p. 319, tab. lxxii, figs. B 1-9. [187] Duval Jouve, 'Hist. Equiset. France.' 1864, p. 154. [188] 'Flora,' t. xxiv, 1841, p. 340. [189] Moore, 'Nature-Printed British Ferns,' 8vo edition, vol. ii. p. 135. tab. lxxxv, B, &c. CHAPTER IV. HETEROGAMY. This term is here intended to apply to all those cases in which the arrangement of the sexual organs is different from what it is habitually. It is evident that in many instances there is no malformation, no monstrosity, but rather a restoration of organs habitually suppressed, a tendency towards structural completeness rather than the reverse. It must be also understood that the following remarks apply to structural points only, and are not intended to include the question of function. The occurrence of heteromorphic unions renders it necessary to keep in mind that plants hermaphrodite as to structure are by no means necessarily so as to function. The simplest case of this alteration in the relative position of the sexes is that which occurs in monoecious plants, where the male and female flowers have a definite position, but which in exceptional instances is altered.