304. Mr. A. Murray on the Homologies of 
Note.—To the description of H. asper (=G. spinicaudus) I 
will add that the number of ribs in this species is thirteen pairs, 
not fourteen, and that the first two pairs of ribs are united to the 
large excavated manubrium sterni. Thisis followed by a smaller 
piece, to which two pairs of ribs are also attached, and which is 
united with the manubrium by a synchondrosis. Then follow two 
small sternal vertebra, to which three pairs of ribs are attached; 
and then comes the processus xiphoideus. Thus there are seyen 
pairs of true, and six pairs of false ribs. 
2 
XL.— Additional Remarks on the Homologies of the Flowers of 
Conifers. By Anprew Murray, F.L.S. 
On looking over my paper on the above subject in last month’s 
‘Annals,’ I see that I have scarcely sufficiently unbosomed my- 
self on one point, which, on reperusal, seems to me to deserve 
more remark than I gave it. 
The point is, whether the bract is the equivalent of the petal 
or of the calyx. That it is part of the floral envelope I have no 
doubt; and all that I said regarding it in that capacity (which 
was the most important point of view in my inquiry) would 
apply equally to it as either. 
The main purpose to which I put it was to prove that the 
scale was equivalent to the disk, as lymg between the pericarp 
and the petal or floral envelope; and on that point I do not 
think more need be said. But the question remains,—What 
particular part of the floral envelope is represented by the 
bract ? 
In my last paper I pointed out that the appearance of the 
scale of the female flower of Wellingtonia gigantea might lead 
to the belief that it was the equivalent of the male scale, and 
consequently must be the female petal; and I warned the reader 
against adopting that view, because I considered that the more 
petaloid character of the bract (a claret-coloured crust in Wel- 
fingtonia) rendered it improbable that it should be the calyx, 
and the green scale the petal. Having arrived at this conclu- 
sion, I omitted to give, or, rather, I deleted from my paper, 
an explanation which had occurred to me of the mode in which 
the scale combined the functions of disk and petal. 
On reconsideration, that explanation appears still to have so 
much to recommend it that I now briefly submit it to the 
reader as an alternative view of the homology of the bract. 
We have seen that the petal of the male flower is merely a 
continuation of the leaf-scales growing on the twig which bears 
the flower. That the scale of the female flower seems to be in 
