THE ORIGIN OF ANGIOSPERMS. 61 
In 1903, Lignier * criticised Wieland’s views with regard to the possible 
relationship of the amphisporangiate strobilus of Bennettites to the 
Angiosperms, and rejected this theory on the ground that the fructification 
could not be correctly interpreted as a simple cone. 
Of more importance are the opinions expressed by Wieland t in presenting 
the full evidence with regard to the fructification of Bennettites, recently 
published. He concludes that “it would be most extraordinary if at the 
present day the angiosperm line of descent could be laid down, except on the 
broadest lines. It would be most extraordinary, we say, if a mere half-dozen 
well-understood great plant types scattered over vast periods of time, and 
representing but a few of a vast array of unknown evolutionary steps, should 
be exactly the ones enabling us to say, for instance, that certain lines 
(Cycadofilices) led into the Cycadales and Ginkgoales, and sent off a branch 
which yielded Cycadeoidean stock jirst, then the Cordaitales, or vice versa, 
and that from these latter the angiosperms sprang." This author f also 
expresses his conviction that primitive seed- ferns gave rise “ to such types as 
the Mesozoic Cycadeoide, and, as І believe, at much the same time or a little. 
later than these the early angiosperms.” 
He defends § the analogy which he previously suggested between the 
Cycadeoidean flower and that of Liriodendron. He says: * Also, in the case 
of the sole remote type of which we have now gained a fortuitous knowledge, 
striking analogies to living angiosperms are suggested, no difference whether, 
laying “histological structure somewhat aside, we fasten our attention upon 
one set of characters and Liriodendron be called to mind, or upon another 
with the result that the male and female catkins of Amentace: first suggest 
themselves, or upon a third set that call to mind some other hint of characters 
that must have been present in the countless members of a great proangio- 
sperm complex, just as the monocotyl Pandanus thus suggested itself to 
Saporta. We should not ask too much of isolated evidence, nor yet be 
content with a scant interpretation of highly suggestive facts.” 
Further he adds ||: “For the purposes of broader generalization, fern-like 
fronds upon which were doubtless borne the pollen of Lyginodendron, the 
staminate fronds of Cycadeoidea of true Marattiacean type, the mega- and 
microsporophylls of Cycas, the stamens of Cordaites and Ginkgo, and finally 
of Ricinus and Liriodendron, all belong to а series.” The same author also 
points out other analogies between the Bey iettiteee (Cycadeoidez) and the 
Angiosperms. | 
It will be seen from this short résumé li previous opinion that, so far аз 
the full structure of the cone of the Веппеййе» has been disclosed, there 
* Lignier (1903') p. 45. T Wieland (1906) pp. 243-44. 
і Wieland (1906) p. 245. $ Wieland (1906) p. 245. 
| Wieland (1906) zd. * Wieland (1906) pp. 66, 79, 128, 143. 
