204 Mr. Griffith on the Ovulum of Santalum, 



kingdoms, so far as regards composition, growth and nature of the axis, and 

 reproduction, will be found so inconstant, indistinct and uninstructive, as to 

 merit the appellation of being "lame*/' or to be considered as causes of em- 

 barrassment. 



It follows from the consideration of Santalum and Viscum^ and still more so 

 from that of Osyris and Loranthus, that the expression of the law regulating 

 tht' relation of the radicle of the embryo to the parts of the seed, and more 

 especially to the apex of the nucleus, must undergo considerable modification. 

 For in Santalum it is evident that the radicle points from, and not towards 

 the apex of the nucleus ; and this organ is, I think, at any rate not practically 

 appreciable in Viscum. Osyris shows that the expression of the law cannot 



and habits has much in common with the pistilligerous type. In this genus the male influence is first 

 exerted on the surface of the frond, and thence is extended through the upper parenchyma to that part 

 of the substance of the frond from which the reproductive organ is to originate. So far as I know, 

 nothing like a pistillum appears to exist : and though there is a calyptra, it has nothing, except 

 situation, in common with the calyptra of Musci and Hepaticce, being only that portion of the paren- 

 chyma between the surface of the frond and the spot whence the young reproductive organ has origi- 

 nated 1 . 



I take it to be a valuable example, inasmuch as it shows, if my explanation be correct, that the male 

 may not only act successfully without a pistillum or any similar co-existing body, but that it may act 

 mediately. Consequently, Ferns are easily, and I think fairly, explainable, provided the glandular hairs 

 are allowed to be the males. And in what do they differ from the anthers of certain Musci and Hepatic*, 

 or from the anthers of Phamogamous plants, when they are cellular, undivided bodies, containing gru- 

 mous molecular matter ? In regard to points like these, most botanists have, like some zoologists 

 pitched upon one standard of organization, and that at the wrong end of the scale. But those who 

 ook or a jailer degree of complication in low organizations, or for a greater degree of reduction to 

 *e _e emcntary substances, wdl I think, not only admit that the anthers of all the above families, so far 

 a. they have been well observed, have a marked correspondence with, but that they are also anaWous 

 to, very young anthers of Phanerogamous plants I mip-hr ask ™W u *. • <indio ou* 



is the ttrnntm* nt \, g ' at have the y m common with gemma ? 



» the structure of a gemma compatible w:th a cellular sac containing a grumous matter ? is the function 



t:z;: r*rx *„t i a sa : often inciosed in a cavity in ^ *** *- ™- 



escape, and ,n .Inch they are./*** officas , to be found „ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ? 



1 I advance this with some hesitation, as Anthoceros is, I believe -neralW , -a a . ■ 

 trate. My own observations, which were only casual, w re made in As 7 * * ^ 



then I have had no opportunity of revising thL From ZZZ toZ ^ f \ ^ ""S 

 better repay the minutest investigation. ' hink few P lant * would 



* Vide Schleiden's ' Memoir,' op. cit. p. 245, middle parag. 



