EN 
512 MR. J. PARKIN ON THE 
Thus the study of flower-branching and arrangement, which at the best 
is perhaps not a particularly attractive subject, remains duller than it other- 
wise might be through this “ cut and dried” manner of treatment. Hence 
an effort is here made to give these “dry bones” of descriptive morphology 
* flesh," or at any rate some semblance of “ flesh.” 
In this paper an attempt is made not only to connect together cymose and 
| 'acemose types of inflorescences, but also to trace all. flower-groupings from 
lone primitive source, viz. :—a leafy shoot bearing a solitary terminal flower. 
(From such a shoot, simple eymose flower-clusters will be shown to arise 
first; and then from these, will be traced the evolution of racemose forms. 
The raceme or spike originating thus, is consequently by no means an early 
form of inflorescence, but one which has had a cymose ancestry. 
Even the solitary axillary flower is shown to be capable of derivation 
indirectly from the terminally borne flower. Thus is attempted the evolu- 
tionary connection of all flower-arrangements found in Angiosperms *. 
In this paper a new term is introduced for that kind of flower-cluster, the 
main axis of which continues to grow vegetatively after emitting the flowers. 
I The name intercalary is proposed for this. And, finally, it is shown that such 
intercalated flower-clusters may give rise to what are here termed pseudo- 
terminal inflorescences, through the arresting of the vegetative continuation 
of the main axis. Such an inflorescence, in regard to the order in which the 
individual flowers composing it bloom, appears identical with a racemose 
cluster which has arisen from a cymose panicle. Hence it is pointed out that 
racemose inflorescences (racemes, spikes, umbels, ete.), may arise in two 
totally different ways, viz.:—from cymose groupings or from intercalary 
inflorescences. Reasons are given for regarding these two kinds of inflores- 
cences as distinct in origin and morphological value. The one, the inter- 
ealary, has merely resulted from the segregation of separate flower-bearing 
shoots ; while the other, the cymose, has arisen by the production of some- 
thing essentially new in the history of the plant, namely, additional flowers 
alongside the originally solitary terminal flower. Most inflorescences 
probably belong to the latter category. The recognition, however, of the 
former type is looked upon as one of the novel features of this paper. 
Most of the evidence for the views thus briefly formulated, has been eulled 
from an examination of fresh plants ; resort has been had to some extent 
to herbarium specimens ; but very little use has been made of systematic 
descriptions or drawings of plants. Descriptive remarks applicable to 
inflorescences or the way the flowers are borne, to be found in systematic and 
* It might be more correct to write here, * Dicotyledons,” as this paper is almost wholly 
restricted to a consideration of the inflorescences of this group. ‘The Monocotyledons in the 
author's opinion are ai early ofshoot from the Dicotyledons, much moditied, and so of less 
use in studying the evolution of flower-grouping.- l 
