520 MR. J. PARKIN ON THE 
But we cannot argue from the above supposed way in which vegetative 
branching has been evolved, that floral branching of the racemose type is the 
more primitive ; because the very fact of a terminal flower arising, leads to the 
main axis ceasing to grow. As long as an axis of a plant continues producing 
successive crops of foliage leaves, then provided that it branches, the branching 
will be racemose, but when reproductive leaves succeed to foliage leaves, 
then, in the case of Angiosperms, a flower will be formed. The axis thus 
ceases to grow further in length. If now the upper—the reproductive—part 
of this main axis branches to produce one or more lateral flowers, then the 
branching will be eymose. In fact a simple form of cymose inflorescence 
will result. 
Thus on a priori grounds cymose branching of the reproductive part of a 
shoot would seem to be the earlier, even though the opposite would appear to 
be the case for the vegetative part. 
If, then, this supposed primitiveness of cymose floral branching can 
be substantiated on a posteriori evidence, then the mode of origin of 
racemose flower branching (racemose inflorescences) becomes a problem for 
investigation. 
The biological significance of the inflorescence calls for a. few remarks. 
Many may consider that flowers have been clustered together to render them 
more conspieuous to insect visitors, on the principle that a number of 
individuals are more easily seen at a distance when grouped together than 
when scattered widely apart. This might hold if the individual flower 
continued the same size, when transferred as it were, from a solitary to a 
clustered position. A comparative study of the species of a genus suggests 
that, as the number of flowers in an inflorescence increases, the size diminishes 
—or, in other words, the complexity of an inflorescence is in an inverse ratio to 
the size of the individual flower. Then, again, * flowering ” trees and shrubs 
bearing inflorescences do not necessarily make a greater display than ones 
with solitarily borne flowers, e. g., Magnolias and Peonies when in bloom are 
quite as showy as Horse-chestnuts and Rhododendrons. The largeness of 
the individual flower in the one case makes up for the cluster of flowers in the 
other. 
Another reason might be advanced for the evolution of the inflorescence. 
Pollination by insect visitors is facilitated by the grouping together of 
flowers into clusters. A bee, for example, could visit at a quicker rate a 
number of flowers clustered together than if they were scattered singly. 
The foregoing may be the reason for the evolution of inflorescences to some 
extent, but the chief advantage accruing to the plant, to my mind, in the 
substitution of inflorescences for solitary flowers, is to be sought for in the 
old adage, * Do not put all your eggs into one basket.” A shoot has at its 
disposal a certain amount of reproductive material. It may expend all this 
