100 OOPHORIDS OF LYCOPODS. [BOOK i. 



branch has just divided. It is only at a later period that 

 both oophoridium and spike appear to belong to the same 

 axis. K. Muller thinks that there can be so little doubt 

 about our having, in this case, to do with two branches, that, 

 in the absence of other argument, this mode of development 

 alone would justify his opinion. All that is requisite to form 

 a branch occurs in the oophoridmm ; it is covered by two 

 leaves, and they are to be regarded as the two first of what 

 otherwise becomes an oophoridium. He finds, moreover, 

 that near the oophoridium and the spike is often produced 

 the same root which appears in the bifurcation of a main 

 axis ; that in L. denticulatum, &c., only one oophoridium is 

 found on each fruit-bearing axis, which stands in direct con- 

 nection with the scattered fructification of the said axis. 

 The branches of L. denticulatum divide, he thinks, too fre- 

 quently for the branch to produce many oophoridia. It is 

 too thin to form a main axis out of which oophoridia might 

 be developed. It is different with L. selaginoides. " Here 

 the axis of the fruit is very thick, and thus it is suited to 

 form branches which may develope into oophoridia. Another 

 proof is, that in the young condition the oophoridia are all 

 compressed, as the branch of L. denticulatum always is, since 

 the oophoridium is, in fact, only the transformed apex of the 

 branch." The internal direction of the vascular bundle 

 belonging to the oophoridium is a still better evidence, for 

 it runs into its pedicel. In short, Karl Muller regards it as 

 a modification of the growing point, an hypothesis which he 

 thinks is rendered incontrovertible by an anomaly which he 

 once observed where both branches of the fruit-bearing axis 

 had been transformed into oophoridia. " Here, of course, 

 the spikelet was wanting, and two oophoridia were opposed 

 to each other, the most complete proof that the terminal bud 

 of that branch had been transformed into an oophoridium, 

 which properly should have produced a branch." " Conse- 

 quently," he adds, "the view of H. Mohl and Schleiden in 

 reference to the oophoridium, that this sporangium is a pro- 

 duction from the leaf, is certainly incorrect; neither is it 

 formed of carpellary leaves, as Bischoff endeavoured to show." 

 The next question is, the import of the antheridium ? This 



