54 
the position of the egg (his figures 93—95 which should illustrate 
this migration do not even give the slightest indication of a 
chalazal origin of the egg!) and that he too absolutely failed 
to see the migration of a synergid-nucleus towards the sac- 
nucleus, might almost be called a proof of the incorrectness ot 
the suppossed development of Gastrodia and Cypripedium. 
Otherwise either Pace or Kusano should have found one or more 
of the lacking stadia. Moreover Kusano’s figures so strongly 
resemble those of Truvs (1911) on Garcinia and so strongly 
suggest an explanation in that direction, that it is hard to 
understand why he did not come to it. 
After the elaborate criticism on Cypripedium I can do with 
marking only a few of the most obvious phenomena in Gas- 
trodia. First of all the fibres between the egg and synergids 
as illustrated in Kusano’s fig. 93 and 94, which seem to represent 
the ordinary behaviour and are noticed by Kusano himself who 
tried to explain them by saying: “Later, the limiting plasmic 
membrane is precipitated between each two nuclei, often pre- 
ceded by the formation of fibres.“ To me it seems more reaso- 
nable to accept a micropylar origin of the egg and to do 
without the far-fetched explanation of the fibres. A second 
phenomenon, which makes a chalazal origin of the egg not 
only improbable but quite impossible is illustrated in fig. 88, 
89, 90 and 91. Though Kusano himself says ‘it is almost cu- 
stomary that they (viz. the chalazal nuclei) lie in close contact 
(fig. 91), he does not hesitate to consider the majority of his 
material as abnormal! According to him the growth and divi- 
sion of the chalazal nucleus should be much disturbed by the 
lesser amount of cytoplasm, and all those sacs shoulds be 
unable to come to full development. I do not think such a 
presumption can be accepted unless every other possibility is 
at least tested and rejected on firm grounds. 
As far as can be gathered from Kusano’s publication the 
development seems to be as follows: The embryosac (one of a 
row of three megaspores) is in its bi-nucleate stage clearly 
polarized (Kusano, fig. 78, 79, 81, 86, etc.). The primary mi- 
cropylar nucleus presents a reduced development, giving rise 
