16 ‘ DR. M. T. MASTERS ON THE 
middle line; then two at a higher level, one on each side of the 
centre ; then one central, followed by two more lateral ones. 
The germinating embryo shows two linear spreading epigeal 
cotyledons. 
Various fossil species from the Miocene are referred to this 
genus (Renault). 
ACTINOSTROBUS. 
A genus established by Miquel in Lehmann’s ‘ Plante Preiss- 
jane,’ i. p. 644 (1848). The vegetative organs closely resemble 
those of Callitris, the branchlets being articulated, 3-sided, and 
the homomorphie leaves are arranged in alternate, ternary 
whorls. Only the tips of each leaf are separate from the branch. 
The stamens are in whorls of three, and in six vertical ranks ; the 
anther-cells are 2-4. The solitary female cones are borne on 
the ends of short, woody stalks, densely covered with six rows 
of appressed, deltoid or boat-shaped, membranous leaves, the 
uppermost of which are closely pressed against the scales of the 
cone. These latter form a whorl of six woody, oblong-acute scales 
equal in size, valvate at the edges, and surrounding a short 
conical prolongation of the central axis. There is absolutely no 
external indication of the composite nature of the fruit-scale in 
the ripe fruit, but on a microscopic examination of the scale a 
double series of vascular bundles becomes apparent. Of these 
bundles those nearest to the axis have their phloem turned 
towards it, whilst those on the dorsal or outer surface have the 
phloem directed outwards. The ovules are erect and 2-3-winged. 
According to Sir John Lubbock, ‘Seedlings,’ vol. ii. p. 549 
(1892), there are in this genus three linear subulate cotyledons, 
and the primary leaves are of the same form. 
Only two species are known, both natives of Western 
Australia. 
WInDDRINGTONIA*, 
_ In the year 1833 Brongniart proposed the name Pachylepis for 
certain South-African plants allied to Oallitris. This name was 
set aside by Endlicher on the ground that Lessing had previously 
described a genus of Composites under the same name. This 
latter genus is not generally accepted, and hence, on grounds of 
strict priority, Brongniart’s name should be adopted ; but, as it 
* Endlicher, Synopsis Conif. (1847), p. 41. 
