Jemale Flower in Cycadee and Conifere. ALT 
inner scale of the female amentum is a bilocular ovarium, of 
which the outer scale is the style. But this, according to Sir 
James Smith *, was also Linnzeus’s opinion; and it is the 
view adopted in Mr. Lambert’s splendid monograph of the 
genus published in 1803. 
In the same year in which Mr. Lambert’s work appeared; 
Schkuhr+ describes, and very distinctly figures, the female 
flower of Pinus, exactly as it was understood by ‘Trew, whose 
opinion was probably unknown to him. 
In 1807, a memoir on this subject, by Mr. Salisbury, was 
published ¢, in which an account of structure is given, in no 
important particular different from that of Trew and Schkuhr, 
with whose observations he appears to have been unacquainted. 
M. Mirbel, in 1809 §, held the same opinion both with re- 
spect to Pinus and to the whole natural family. But in 1812, 
in conjunction with M. Schoubert |], he proposed a very dif- 
ferent view of the structure of Cycadeze and Conifer, stating, 
that in their female flowers there is not only a minute cohering 
perianthium present, but an external additional envelope, to 
which he has given the name of cupula. 
In 1814 I adopted this view, as far, at least, as regards the 
manner of impregnation, and stated some facts in.support of 
it§. But on re-considering the subject, in connexion with 
what I had ascertained respecting the vegetable ovulum, I 
soon after altogether abandoned this opinion, without, how- 
ever, venturing explicitly to state that now advanced, and 
which had then suggested itself **. 
It is well known that the late M. Richard had prepared a 
very valuable memoir on these two families of plants; and he 
appears, from some observations lately published by his son, 
M. Achille Richard ++, to have formed an opinion respecting 
their structure somewhat different from that of M. Mirbel, 
whose cupula is, according to him, the perianthium, more or 
less cohering with the included pistillum. He was probably 
led to this view, on ascertaining, which I had also done, that 
the common account of the structure of Ephedra was incor- 
rect ||}, its supposed style being in reality the elongated tu- 
bular apex of a membranous envelope, and the included body 
being evidently analogous to that in other genera of Coniferze. 
* Rees’s Cyclop. art. Pinus. + Botan. Hanb. iii, p. 276. tab. 308. 
Linn. Soc. Transact. viii. p. 308. 
Ann. du Mus. d’ Hist. Nat. tom. xv. p. 473. 
|| Nouv. Bulletin des Sc. tom. iii. pp. 73, 85, & 121. 
{ Flinders’s Voy. ii, 572. 
** Tuckey’s Congo, p. 454. and Linn. Soc. Transact, vol. xiil. p, 213. 
tt Dict. Class. d’ Hist. Nat. tom, iv. p. 395. et tom. v. p. 216. 
|| || Zeid. tom. vi. p. 208. 
Vol. 67. No. 338. June 1826. 3G To 
