Mr. J. Miers on Ephedra. 423 
* Endlicher (in 1837)* arranged the Gnetacee in his class 
Conifere, after Taxinea, and, although preferring this position, 
he admitted their approach to Casuarina through Ephedra, on the 
one hand, on account of its aphyllous habit and the structure of 
its female flowers, and to Chloranthacee, on the other, through 
Gnetum, because of its fully-developed leaves. 
Meyer (in 1846)+ published a monograph of Ephedra, which 
he prefaced by an inquiry into the nature of the flowering parts 
and seminal integuments in Gnetacee: he there confirmed 
Brown’s later view of the origin of the tubillus, which he showed 
to be a mere elongation of the micropyle of the inner integument ; 
but he adopted the view of Richard in calling the pericarpial 
covering of the fruit an “ involucellum,” although he considered 
it rather in the nature of a perigonium: he there called the 
entire fruit a ‘ pseudo-nucula.” 
Dr. Lindley (in 1846) } followed his previous view of the posi- 
tion of the Gnetacee among Gymnosperms ; but he adopted the 
notion of Griffiths in respect to the pericarpial covering of the 
seed, which he regarded as one of its proper seminal integu- 
ments, adding, “there can be no doubt that in reality Gnetum 
is as truly naked-seeded as conifers themselves.” 
_ A very interesting posthumous memoir of the late Mr. Griffiths 
on the structure and development of the ovule of Gnetum was 
read before the Linnean Society in 1859 §, although a portion 
of the same appeared (in 1846) in the first edition of Lindley’s 
‘ Vegetable Kingdom’ (the original memoir bearing the date of 
August 1835)||. This memoir endeavoured to prove that the 
ovule of Gnetum is naked, that is to say, not contained in a 
cearpel, but enveloped in three or four distinct proper integu- 
ments, which, being open at the summit, allow the direct action 
of the pollen upon the nucleus. ‘That ingenious botanist con- 
cluded, from the facts he adduced, that the Gnetacee are truly 
gymnospermous, and more nearly allied to Cycadacee than to 
Conifere. 
Lastly, Agardh (in 1858)4], following the opinion of Richard, 
that the ovule is quite naked, that the inner integument with _ 
its tubillus is the true pistillum with ifs exserted style, and that 
the outer seminal integument and the pericarp are its persistent 
floral envelopes, inferred that its naked ovule is a mere em- 
bryo-sac, analogous to that of the Santalacee, and that the 
Gnetacee are closely allied to the Viscacee and the Loranthacea, 
* Gen. Plant. p. 262. 
+ Mem. Acad. St. Petersb. v. pp. 35-108. 8 tab. 
{ Veg. Kingdom, p. 232. 
§ Linn. Trans. xxi. p. 299. ‘|| Veg. Kingd. p. 233. 
“| Theor. Syst. p. 113. 
30* 
