216 Mr. A. Murray on the Homologies of 
into view. Its first appearance and subsequent growth have 
recently been fully traced by various physiologists; and I need 
not recapitulate their observations. I refer the reader to Payer’s 
observations, Baillon’s paper in the ‘Annales des Sciences,’ to 
Dr. Dickson’s translation of a part of it and to his own observa- 
tions on Dammara and Araucaria in the Transactions of the 
Botanical Society of Edinburgh, for details on the growth and 
development of the ovary. 
Figure 18, copied from one of Baillon’s figures of the germ in 
its earliest state, shows its appearance when the wing begins to 
manifest itself. The bract les behind the scale, its margin 
being just visible over the top of it. The position and appear- 
ance of the germ at this stage is, to my mind, proof that it is 
equivalent to the pistil. The two ears are the commencement 
of the pistil. 
Prof. Caspary, in a paper in the ‘ Natural Hist. Rev.’ (1862), 
expresses his dissent from Baillon’s observations. He has made 
similar investigations on allied species, and not got the same 
results. He found, in the larch, that what Baillon calls the ovule 
appeared first ‘in the shape of a hemispherical boss, around 
which, some weeks later, the integument is produced, not in the 
form of two distinct horseshoes, but of a complete ring, uniform 
in height all round;” and therefore he held that it was the nu- 
cleus of the seed, and that what becomes the wing was one of the 
integuments of the ovule. So it 2s, no doubt ; but it is the outer 
integument of the ovule—that is, the pistil or pericarp. All the 
other integuments can be traced within. I rather look upon 
Caspary’s objection as affecting the question whether the wing 
&c. is a converted dicerpellary leaf or a converted single carpel- 
lary leaf than whether it is a carpel at all. 
I may, however, say one word in support of Payer and Bail- 
lon’s observations. Founding on his observation on the larch, 
Prof. Caspary says, ‘ As it is incredible that the integument of 
Pinus Larix should from the first be a regular ring, while that 
of the other Conifers examined by M. Baillon presents in its 
earliest condition the appearance of two horseshoes, the observa- 
tions of MM. Baillon and Payer appear to me more than doubt- 
ful.” But it is not alone the observations of Payer or of Baillon, 
nor the confirmation of them by Dr. Dickson, that would require 
to be set aside; the very same thing was seen and figured by 
the older writers. Lambert figures it very distinctly, in his 
genus Pinus, as present in the cedar, and so does Richard in his 
monograph ‘ De Coniferis, &c. ;? and as he also figures different 
modifications of it, we may be allowed to hope that the different 
appearances are not so irreconcilable as Prof. Caspary supposes. 
I think I find an unintentional and indirect support of the 
