216 I\Ir. A. Murray on the Homologies of 



into view. Its first appearance and subsequent growth have 

 recently been fully traced by various physiologists ; and I need 

 not recapitulate their observations. I refer the reader to Payer's 

 observations, Baillon's paper in the 'Annales des Sciences/ to 

 Dr. Dickson's translation of a part of it and to his own observa- 

 tions on Dammara and Araucaria in the Transactions of the 

 Botanical Society of Edinburgh, for details on the growth and 

 development of the ovary. 



Figure 18, copied from one of Baillon's figures of the germ in 

 its earliest state, shows its appearance when the wing begins to 

 manifest itself. The bract lies behind the scale, its margin 

 being just visible over the top of it. The position and appear- 

 ance of the germ at this stage is, to my mind, proof that it is 

 equivalent to the pistil. The two ears are the commencement 

 of the pistil. 



Prof. Caspary, in a paper in the 'Natural Hist. Rev.' (1862), 

 expresses his dissent from Baillon's observations. He has made 

 similar investigations on allied species, and not got the same 

 results. He found, in the larch, that what Baillon calls the ovule 

 appeared first "in the shape of a hemispherical boss, around 

 which, some weeks later, the integument is produced, not in the 

 form of two distinct horseshoes, but of a complete ring, uniform 

 in height all round;" and therefore he held that it was the nu- 

 cleus of the seed, and that what becomes the wing was one of the 

 integuments of the ovule. So it is, no doubt ; but it is the outer 

 integument of the ovule — that is, the pistil or pericarp. All the 

 other integuments can be traced within. I rather look upon 

 Caspary's objection as affecting the question whether the wing 

 &c. is a converted dicarpellary leaf or a converted single carpel- 

 lary leaf than whether it is a carpel at all. 



I may, however, say one word in support of Payer and Bail- 

 lon's observations. Founding op his observation on the larch. 

 Prof. Caspary says, "As it is incredible that the integument of 

 Pinus Larix should from the first be a regular ring, M'hile that 

 of the other Conifers examined by M. Baillon presents in its 

 earliest condition the appearance of two horseshoes, the observa- 

 tions of MM. Baillon and Payer appear to me more than doubt- 

 ful." But it is not alone the observations of Payer or of Baillon, 

 nor the confirmation of them by Dr. Dickson, that would require 

 to be set aside; the very same thing was seen and figured by 

 the older writers. Lambert figures it very distinctly, in his 

 genus Pinus, as present in the cedar, and so does Richard in his 

 monograph ' De Coniferis, &c. ;' and as he also figures different 

 modifications of it, we may be allowed to hope that the different 

 appearances are not so irreconcilable as Prof. Caspary supposes. 



I think I find an unintentional and indirect support of the 



