458 ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEMALE FLOWER 



objection does not apply, but the second acquires such 

 additional weight, as to render those opinions much less 

 probable, it seems to me, than that which I have endeavoured 

 to support. 



In supposing the correctness of this opinion to be 

 admitted, a question connected with it, and of some 

 importance, would still remain, namely, whether in Cycadese 

 and Coniferae the ovula are produced on an ovarium of 

 reduced functions and altered appearance, or on a rachis or 

 receptacle. In other words, in employing the language of 

 an hypothesis, which, with some alterations, I have else- 

 where attempted to explain and defend, respecting the for- 

 mation of the sexual organs in Phsenogauious plants,^ 

 whether the ovula in these two families originate in a 

 modified leaf, or proceed directly from the stem. 

 561] Were I to adopt the former supposition, or that best 

 agreeing with the hypothesis in question, I should certainly 

 apply it, in the first place, to Cycas, in which the female 

 spadix bears so striking a resemblance to a partially altered 

 frond or leaf, producing marginal ovula in one part, and in 

 another being divided into segments, in some cases nearly 

 resembling those of the ordinary frond. 



But the analogy of the female spadix of Cycas to that of 

 Zamia is sufficiently obvious ; and from the spadix of Zamia 

 to the fruit-bearing squama of Coniferse, strictly so called, 

 namely, of Agathis or Dammara, Cunninghamia, Pinus, 

 and even Araucaria, the transition is not difficult. This 

 view is applicable, though less manifestly, also to Cupres- 

 sinse ; and might even be extended to Podocarpus and 

 Dacrydium. But the structure of these two genera admits 

 likewise of another explanation, to which I have already 

 adverted. 



If, however, the ovula in Cycadeae and Coniferse be 

 really produced on the surface of an ovarium, it might, 

 perhaps, though not necessarily, be expected that their male 

 flowers should differ from those of all other phccnogamous 

 plants, and in this difference exhibit some analogy to the 



' Linn. Soc Transact, vol. xiii, p. 211 {ante, p. 378). 



