297 
incised’’ (p. 284). Lignier (89) has controled this but has 
not seen a clear lobing in this plane, though present in 
the tangential one: ,une fois, dans une fleur âgée le tube 
stylaire !) semblait se terminer par quatres lobes, deux 
moins courts dans le plan tangentiel et deux à peine in- 
diqués dans le plan radial” (p. 130). 
How far this lobing stands in connection with eventual 
sutures, as up-to-now we have observed in nearly all 
gymnospermous seeds is not mentioned and Ï have not 
been able myself to examine this, through lach of material 
of the required age. Therefore we may not attach much 
value to it, though the presence of lobes may be noticed yet. 
There is still the question as to the value of the outer 
envelopment of the female flower. To homologize this 
organ with the androecium of the male flower as Lignier 
does, seems to me rather far-fetched and is not proved 
by any argument. His only intention is to explain both 
strobili according to one fundamental plane, but the diffi- 
culties we meet with here are too great to accept this 
without more. Hooker (72) and many others after him 
call it ,,perianth”, a whorl of sterile bracts, surrounding 
the fertile ones. Miss Sykes (152) regards it to be an 
outer integument and has been induced to this, on account 
of the place of the embryosac. In Welwitschia this lies 
on the same level with the outer envelopment as the 
embryosac in Lagenostoma with regards to the cupule 
and in the other gymnospermous seeds with regards to 
the integument. It seems to me that this is not a very 
strong argumentation, but in the next chapter I will explain 
my view on this subject. 
1) Here the integument of the female flower. 
