from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- adj. Having sepals, petals, and stamens around the edge of a cuplike receptacle containing the ovary, as in flowers of the rose or cherry.
- adj. Of or being perigynous flower parts: perigynous stamens.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Having the stamens, petals or sepals situated around the ovary (especially, on the rim of the receptacle of a superior ovary).
- adj. Having a hypanthium.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Having the ovary free, but the petals and stamens borne on the calyx; -- said of flower such as that of the cherry or peach.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- In botany, surrounding the pistil: specifically applied to a flower in which there is a tubular ring or sheath surrounding the pistil and upon which the various parts of the flower are inserted.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
Series 3, Calyciflorae, has petals and stamens perigynous, or sometimes superior.
Its chief difference from Polygaleae, is habit, foliation, and the perigynous insertion of corolla and stamina, and consequent union of the sepals.
In _Umbelliferæ_ the epigynous condition is changed for the perigynous, &c.
Of more interest is the alteration in the position of these organs which sometimes necessarily accrues from the elongation of the axis and the disjunction of the calyx; thus, in proliferous roses the stamens become strictly hypogynous, instead of remaining perigynous.
Hypogynous flowers become perigynous by adhesion, or by lack of separation; perigynous ones become hypogynous by an early detachment from the receptacle that bears them, or by the arrested development of an ordinarily cup-like receptacle.
Stamens perigynous, 10 in number, 3 upper ones very small and frequently sterile, 3 lower very large.
A theory of variation should deal alike with the origin of specific distinctions and with those vaster differences which characterise the larger groups, and he thinks it should answer such questions as -- How an axis comes to be arrested to form a flower? how the various forms of inflorescence were evolved? how did perigynous or epigynous flowers arise from hypogynous flowers? and many others equally fundamental.
In the next stage there is a further shortening of the central axis, leaving the outer portion as a ring on which the petals are inserted, producing the arrangement termed perigynous.
Again, if the shortening of the central axis in the successive stages of hypogynous, perigynous, and epigynous flowers were an indication of preponderant reproduction and diminished vegetation, we should find everywhere some clear indications of this fact.
The answer would be, as it seems to me, that important morphological characters, such as the position of the ovules and the relative position of the stamens to the ovarium (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.) are sometimes variable in the same species, as I incidentally mention when treating of the ray-florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae; and I do not see how Nageli could maintain that differences in such characters prove an inherent tendency towards perfection.