296 
que cela provienne d'une adaptation tardive intervenant 
probablement au cours d'une réduction considérable de 
l'appareil staminal tout entier” (p. 150). This is still rather 
acceptable according to Lignier, but now he begins to 
hesitate himself: ,, Où les difficultés commencent à devenir 
sérieuses, c'est dans l'interprétation des parties supérieures 
dela fleur «(pr 451). 
Às it is said formerly, Lignier regards the integument 
of the male flower to be a pistil composed of four carpels 
and this he supposed to be homologous with the ,ovary” 
of the female flower: ,il semble bien que l'enveloppe 
interne (ovaire) de la fleur femelle corresponde encore à 
l'enveloppe interne de la fleur mâle et de même pour le 
nucelle” (p. 151). 
In the latter case he compares two organs, which are 
to my opinion homologous indeed, but as he starts from 
a wrong supposition, he is obliged to give a rather forced 
interpretation for the whole. Namely as he has accepted 
that the ,,pistil’” of the male flower consists of four carpels, 
he will demonstrate that the thin membrane around the 
nucellus in the female flower is also built up of four carpels, 
which doubtlessly represents a true integument: ,, En somme, 
nous croyons que dans la fleur femelle, comme dans la fleur 
mâle, il existe un ovaire uniloculaire formé de quatres 
carpelles coalescents”” (p. 155). 
In the preceding part I have already pointed out that 
it is more reasonable to regard the envelopment, surroun- 
ding the nucellus to be an integument both in the male 
and in the female flower. 
There is still one feature worth considering, which, though 
having little value of its own may probably be important 
in the connection in which we have treated the integu- 
ment. Pearson (112) says: ,, The integument next appears 
as an equal ring, eventually becomes slightly and unequally 
lobed in the antero-posterior plane, each lobe being further 
