1 





































































■ 































. 



■ 



ANATOMY, AND LIFE-HISTORY OF THE C0NIFERJ3. 227 



The extensive literature,and especially the pictorial illustrations, 

 of the order have also been systematically referred to. 



The main object of the investigation has been to gain a general 

 and comparative view of the external morphology of the whole 

 order, to ascertain, so far as possible, the causes and conditions 

 inducing the development of particular forms or modes of growth, 

 and to enquire into the purposes served by the numerous variations 

 and presumed adaptations. 



The comparative histology of root, stem, and leaf is only in- 

 cidentally alluded to, as these subjects are treated of in the 



works of Bertrand, De Bary, and Yan Tieghem, which are fre- 

 quently cited. 



Classification, or the study of the origin, lineage, and relation- 

 ships of species and other groups, has also not been a primary 

 object of investigation, although it has been constantly kept in 

 view and the importance of certain characters as a means of dis- 

 criminating between one species and another is duly noted. It 

 may here be stated that I have followed, for the most part, the 

 arrangement and limitations proposed by Bentham and Hooker 

 and by Parlatore ; but, not being concerned in the present paper 

 with the accurate nomenclature and synonymy of species, I have 

 taken the names as 1 found them in gardens or in books, only 

 correcting obvious errors, but without in all cases verifying (or 

 having the means to verify) the assigned names. 



Various contested points in the morphology of the order, such 

 as the nature of the needles of Sciadopitys and of Pinus, and the 

 constitution of the flowers, male aud female, have been dealt with 

 in more or less detail, but no attempt has been made to enter 

 upon the question of Gymnospemiy, the correctness of which is 

 throughout assumed, nor to investigate the minute structure of 

 the nucellus and its developments in the shape of archegonia and 

 their relationship to similar productions among the higher Cryp- 

 togams. These matters are only incidentally alluded to, not, 

 indeed, from any want of appreciation of their extreme importance 

 in illustration of the lineage and descent of the plants in question, 

 but from a personal lack of the requisite conditions for their 

 efficient study. 



The "characters " presented by Conifers, as by other plants, 

 are partly the outcome of hereditary" transmission and of survival 

 in a comparatively unchanged condition. Partly also they are 

 acquired or assumed in response to some influence from whose 







, 



















■ 















, 





