204 BUDS AND STIPULES 



the base of the leaf a small cylindrical process, generally 

 turned backward, which was regarded by Cauvet (30), 

 and I think with justice, as a stipule. Colomb ques- 

 tions this, on the ground that these processes receive 

 no nerves. As already mentioned, however, this does 

 not seem to me a sufficient reason for excluding them 

 from the category of stipules. 



Norman also regards the axillary glands of Cruciferce 

 and LytJvrariea as rudimentary stipules. 



Another question which has been much debated is 

 whether stipules are to be regarded as (1) dependent 

 on leaves, as (2) autonomous and independent organs, 

 or (3) as an integral part of the leaf. 



As a supporter of the view that stipules are a de- 

 pendence of the leaf I may quote Van Tieghem (31), who 

 considered stipules to be leaf-lobes. He regarded every 

 leaf with stipules as a compound leaf. Baillon (32) also 

 quotes Viburnum as l une bonne demonstration de ce 

 fait que les stipules sont des lobes de feuille.' Richard 

 also was of the same opinion. Schleiden appears to 

 have doubted whether stipules had any claim to special 

 significance. Asa Gray (33) describes stipules as { ap- 

 pendages or adjuncts of a leaf,' and Bentham (34) as 

 * appendages at the base of the leaf-stalk.' 



As a matter of fact, leaflets have, no doubt, often 

 been taken for stipules. 



However difficult the discrimination between leaflets 

 and stipules may sometimes be, the real difference is 



