BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 223 



alogous to the sori and iiidusia of Ferns. He cites the indusium of 

 Hymenophylluiii as an instructive analogue, only it is marginal; that 

 of Davalia is somewhat dorsal ; that of Cyathea wholly so and yet 

 cup-shaped. He goes on to say that the gymnospermy of Ahietinex 

 being thus proved, that of the rest of Coniferx follows of course ; that 

 Braun has seen similar prolification in the catkins of Taxodineas, in 

 which the carpel scale in Ahietinex consists of two leaves, the bud 

 may in other cases develope more than two leaves, so that the lobed 

 scale of Crypiomeria may be composed of as many leaves as there are 

 lobes. Moreover, although the ovules in Ahietinese originate from the 

 scale, the greater part of the scale is developed after the formation 

 of the ovules; and in Capressus the scale is developed even as late as 

 the following spring, while the ovules are produced in the autumn. 

 However the case may be disguised, Celakovsky asserts his firm con- 

 viction, 1st, that an ovule can only be developed as depending on a 

 carpel, and, 2d, that its nucleus represents the macrosporangium of 

 vascular Cryptogams. He adds that this is the logical consequence 

 of the theory of descent, and must be true if the doctrine of the ge- 

 netic connection of the vegetable world is true. He considers that 

 Van Tieghem and Strassburger have proved the seeminghr simple 

 scale of Cupressinex and Taxodineee to be composed of bract and 

 carpel-scale united [which indeed is evident in Taxodincpe], and that 

 Braun has confirmed this by the study of proliferous cones. As to 

 the developement of ovules earlier than the carpels they belong to, 

 this is said to have been observed in some Angiospeims also, as in 

 Cuscuta, in which at first four naked ovules appear. The anatomical 

 organogenist may argue from this that ovules and carpels are inde- 

 pendent productions, but Celakovsky insists that he will argue 

 wrongly. 



This brings our author to the consideration of the structure of Tax- 

 inae. This is environed with difficulties, and explanation is only 

 conjectural. Here the disc, arillus, cupula, or whatever it be called, 

 makes its appearance where no trace of carpellary scale is to be seen. 

 Celakovsky inclines to the view that this organ, occurring in what- 

 ever form, is most probably the carpellary scale itself, very tardily 

 developed. In Dacrydium the cupule is homologous with that of 

 Taxus, but oblique. Cepholotaxus has no scale and no cupule, but 

 seems to correspond with Cupressinese, and shows at maturity a small 

 flattened rudiment between the two ovules, which is probably a rudi- 

 mental carpel-scale. Gingko is the most puzzling; yet it seems prob- 

 able that the biovuliferous peduncle represents the abietiuous carpel- 



