The increased number of stamens in a single whorl may result from a development of organs usually suppressed, and constitute a form of regular peloria as in _Linaria_, wherein a fifth stamen is occasionally met with. Among normally didynamous plants such numerical restitution, so to speak, is not unusual; thus, in _Veronica_ four and five stamens occur. Fresenius has seen five stamens in _Lamium_, _Mentha_, _Chelone_;[402] Bentham in _Melittis_, and other instances are cited under the head of peloria. Chorisis may also serve to account for some of these cases; thus, Eichler[403] figures a flower of _Matthiola annua_ with five long stamens instead of four; one of the long pairs of stamens has here undergone a greater degree of repetition than usual. De Candolle[404] cites and figures a curious form of _Capsella Bursa-pastoris_ sent him by Jacquin, and which was to some extent reproduced by seed. In the flowers of this variety there were no petals, but ten stamens; hence De Candolle inferred that the petals were here replaced by stamens, but Moquin[405] objects, and with justice, to this view, as the ten stamens are all on the same line; he considers the additional stamens to be the result of chorisis. Buchenau[406] mentions the presence of seven stamens in another Crucifer, _Ionopsidium acaule_. Here the supernumerary organ was placed between two of the long stamens. The effect of chorisis in producing an augmentation of parts is well seen in some plants that have some of their flowers provided with staminodes or abortive stamens, and others with clusters or phalanges of perfect stamens. Thus, in the female flowers of _Liquidambar_ there are five small staminodes without anthers, whereas in the male flower the stamens are numerous and grouped together in phalanges, so that the relation of simple to compound stamens is in this case readily seen, as also in many _Malvaceae_, _Sterculiaceae_, _Byttneriaceae_, _Tiliaceae_, and _Myrtaceae_. It is probably the idea of splitting or dilamination involved in the word chorisis that has led many English botanists to hesitate about accepting the notion. Had they looked upon the process as identical with that by which a branched inflorescence replaces an unbranched one, or a compound leaf takes the place of a simple one, the objections would not have been raised with such force. The process consists, in most cases, not so much in actual cleavage of a pre-existing organ as in the development of new-growing points from the old ones.