391 



eavh. sido, most frequently 5-6) more niimerous, moro distant near 

 the base and more approximate towards tlie aj^ex, pointiJig straight 

 forward or spreading at a very acute angle. Tlie head of the 

 female scales, that is the portion of tlie scale which alone is 

 visible in the entire cone and forms its surface, is in E. Hilde- 

 hrafulfii rhombic in outline, comi)arable to the apophysis of a 

 cone scale ot PiriuSj sect. PiiieOy with the hexagonal umbo rather 

 lowT'r down than in the conifer, whilst in E. viUosus it is, 

 although also rhombic, quite destitute of an '^ umbo ^' ; to this 

 may be added that in E. Hildchrandtii straight ridges radiate from 

 the points of the umbo, whilst in E. vUlosus a downward curving 

 transverse line divides the apophysis into a convex large upper 

 field, lying in the plain of the surface of the cone and a smaller 

 lower held sharply receding towards the axis; this line is, more- 

 over, produced into a cartilaginous, toothed crest. A few years' 

 later Braun's differentiation was confirmed by Eichler,* who was 

 able to stndj^ the structure of the female cone on living material, 

 one of the specimens received from Hildebraiidt having at last pro- 

 duced flowers. Since then the two species have once more been 

 declared by P, Henningsf'to be identical. Hennings had observed 

 in a nursery near Berlin a flowering female specimen of an Enceph- 

 alartos which had been grown for years as E. viUosus and appeared 

 to be an intermediate between this and E. Hildehrandtu. Accord- 

 ing to Hennings, the intermediate character manifested itself in 

 the pinnae, as well as in the cone scales. To illustrate his view 

 he figures one pinna of typical E. viUosus^ one of tlie intermediate 

 form and a number of pinnae of E. Ilildehrandtii. This, how- 

 ever, seems hardly convincing, when regard is had to the circum- 

 stance that each frond possesses well over 100 pinnae, which not 

 only vary according to the age and the vigour of the plant, but 

 vary also within the same frond, according to their position on the 

 common rliacdjis. This being so, it is not difficult to pick out 

 pinnae, which in shape are intermediate between those described as 

 typical for either species. But taking the fronds as a whole, as 

 they are represented by a number of living plants and of dried 

 samples at Kew, I should say that A. Braim's differentiation is 

 quite correct, except in so far as it relates to the leaves of young 

 plants of E. Hildehrandtii — I have in mind a leaf of a ten-year-old 

 plant raised from seed communicated by Dr. Kirk, which seems to 

 resemble that of E. villosus, particularly in the shape, orientation 

 and arrangement of the teeth. But placing adult plants side by 

 side, there should be no difficulty in distinguishing the two 

 species, even in the absence of female cones. In E. Ilildehrandtii 

 the fronds are borne on a cylindric, often nmch elongated stem, 

 they are very rigid, their wool disappears early or is from the out- 

 set only moderately copious, their pinnae are very firm, those of 

 the middle or just above the middle of the front are about 9-10 

 times as long as wide, the teeth usually are 3-4 in number on each 

 side, are rigid, somewhat spreading Avith the uppermost usually 

 distant from, the apex. In E. viUosus^ on the other hand, the 



* Eichler in Monatsclirift, d. Verem. z. Beford. d. Gartenbaii. xxiii. (18H0), 



pp. 50-54, tab. 1. 



tHennini^s in Gartenflora, xxxix. (1890), pp. 234-238, with Abbild. 55. 



