O14 DR. M. T. MASTERS : GENERAL VIEW 
corners, the: pericycle is obscurely differentiated, and the fibro- 
“vascular bundle is unbranched, with the phloem in one concentri¢ 
mass encircling the base of the wedge-shaped mass of xylem. 
In the adult leaf the section is boat-shaped, the hypoderm is well 
developed, especially at the corners of the leaf, the mesophyll 
consists of cells with sinuously folded walls ; the endoderm-cells 
are well marked, about 40 in number; the fibro-vascular bundles 
branched. The resin-canals are numerous just within the 
epidermis. 
The cotyledon is triangular in section, with an epithelial epi- 
dermis, no hypoderm, a mesophyll of spheroidal cells destitute 
of folds, with an imperfectly developed endoderm. The fibro- 
vascular bundle is unbranched, and there are no resin-canals. 
In the Kew Museum is a specimen in which the axis of the 
cone has lengthened out into a leaf-bearing shoot; and for a 
photograph of a similar outgrowth I am indebted to Sir W. T. 
Thiselton-Dyer, who contributed a note on the subject to the 
‘Annals of Botany,’ xvii. t. 40. 
59. Prxus restnosa, Solander; Sargent, Silva, xi. (1897) 
p- 67, tab. 565; Britton § Brown, i. (1898) p. 51, fig. 111. 
This species is so well known that little beyond reference to 
the standard works need be given. 
The section of the leaf is boat-shaped, the dorsum convex 
with numerous rows of stomata. There is one layer of hypoderm 
and the marginal resin-canals are also surrounded by similar cells. 
The endoderm-cells are about 30-36 in number; the meristele 
oblong, and the fibro-vascular bundle divides into two divergent 
branches, protected at the base by a band of stereome-cells (see 
also Trimble, fig. 28). 
The cones are 4—5 cent. long, ovoid-conic, the apophyses trans- 
versely oblong-convex, destitute of mucro. Cotyledons 6-7. 
60. P. stLvEstRis, Linneus (SYLVESTRIS) ; Mouillefert, Traité 
des Arbres et Arbustes (1892), t. ii. p. 1296. 
The well-known Scotch Pine, still existing in a wild state in 
Scotland (see Gard. Chron. July 16, 1881), but formerly much 
more widely distributed in these islands (see Reid, Proc. Linn. 
Soe. March 15, 1894). Bubani, Flora Pyren. p. 33 (1897), refers 
to it as mentioned by Theophrastus as well as by the botanists 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A specimen is 
