Fan. 4, 1883 | 
NATURE 
231 
FEMALE FLOWERS IN CONIFER&.—Quite recently Cela- 
kovsky has published a very elaborate criticism (on the 
structure of the female flowers in Conifer, as detailed in 
Eichler’s well-known treatise). To this (‘‘ Zur Kritik der An- 
sichten von der Fruchtschuppe der Abietineen,” &c. Prag, 
1882), Eichler jhas replied in a paper read before the Gesell- 
schaft der Nat. Freunde zu Berlin, in which he re-states the chief 
points of his proof and answers seviati the objections brought 
against it, Dr. Peters sums these up as follows :—tr. In all the 
vegetative buds of the pine, the two front leaves (Vorblatter) 
converge forwards towards the bract; it is hence improbable 
that in the fruit scale they should be turned backwards. Cela- 
koysky, from the fact that in weak buds the former arrangement 
is somewhat modified, concludes that on the complete falling 
away of the bud from between the front leaves, these latter are 
enabled to push themselves backwards and cohere: an opinion 
not proved. 2. While in the vegetative bud, the leaf immediately 
following the front leaf falls backwards in abnormal fruit-scales, 
the portion interpreted as the next leaf falls forwards. To the re- 
presentation of Celakovsky’s, that owing to the fact that the front 
side being, in the course of development, preferentially assisted, the 
leaf of the assisted front side first reaches its development, Eichler 
opposes the statement that in the ordinary buds there is not a 
trace of such a preferential furtherance. 3. The part that is re- 
garded as the third leaf of the bud cannot be a leaf, because it 
has its xylem on the dorsal, and its phloém on its ventral 
surface. Celakovsky takes a twist of 180° for granted. This 
Eichler denounces as an evasion which would bring all serious 
scientific discussion to an end. 4. If the fruit-scale were formed 
by the growing together of two front leaves upon the hinder end 
of their axis, the latter if it developed further, would come to 
stand on the front side of the fruit-scale, but de facto it under such 
conditions stands behind. As Celakovsky however thinks that 
the middle piece of the front scale is half turned round, and is a 
leaf on the front side of the bud, to which both front leaves on 
the front side of the bud have adhered, by which means the axis 
comes to be posterior : therefore this opinion stands irreconcilably 
contradicted by his own supposition of the simultaneous pushing 
back of the front leaves. 5. The simplest explanation of the 
bud-arrangement, and of the bud itself, is got by supposing that 
the bract and the fruit-scale form together a single leaf which 
has produced an axillary bud. Here Eichler considers himself 
compelled to deny the charge of havinz set out with pre-formed 
notions. The change in his former opinions was brought about 
by a more intimate knowledge of the facts. 6. By pressure and 
excitation (Reiz) the axillary bud cau-es further changes in the 
fruit-scale, the formation of the keel and wings, while the 
central piece which is bounded by them, can separate it-elf from 
the side portions and assume the appearance of a special leaf. 
To Celakoysky’s objection, that through the pressure of the bud- 
axis, only a circumscribed depression, and not a long furrow 
would be formed, there is this reply, that such a furrow must 
be produced by the growth of the scale past the early developed 
bud, and that this furrow can become wider as the scale becomes 
broader. 7, These keels (midribs) of the fruit-scale press past 
the bud on both sides, and hinder the development of the first 
lateral bud-leaves, so that the first bud-leaf now arises upon the 
hinder side. This explanation, characterised by Celakovsky as 
a forced hypothesis, is supported by the fact that the leaves 
could not become formed in a place where there is no room, and 
because on the other hand the two lateral bud-leaves show them- 
selves if the mid-ribs are wanting or remain feebly developed 
(Botan. Zeitung, December 8). 
THE TRACHE& IN LAMPYRID®.—Heinrich Ritter v. Wielo- 
wiejski publishes in the November number of the Zeitschrift fiir 
wissenschaftliche Zoologie a very detailed account of the light- 
producing organs in Lampyris splendidula and L. noctiluca, 
His invesiigations were carried on at Jena, in Prof. Oscar Hert- 
wiy’s laboratory. He sums up the most importaat results as 
follows :—1. The tracheal-terminal-cells of M. Schultze, which 
become black under osmic acid, are by no means—as their name 
would imply—the terminations of the respicatory tubes; for 
these branch out further on into brush-like mas-es of much finer 
capillaries, which are without the chitine spiral; they are very 
attenuated, and, making their way in the peritoneal liyer (peri- 
tonealhaut), are numerously distributed to phosphorescent tissue. 
2. The tracheal capillaries very rarely end abruptly (blind) in 
the phosphorescent crgans, but most frequently anastomose with 
one another, forming an irregular meshwork. 3. The capil- 
laries do not seem to enter into the structure of the parenchyma- 
tous cells, but rather course along their surface, often irregularly 
winding around and enveloping these. 4. The tracheal-terminal- 
cells are nothing more than the outer elements of the peritoneal 
layer at the base of the tracheal capillaries, which radiate in a 
brush-like fashion from a chitine-spiral-trachea. Their periph- 
eral processes represent the extension of the latter upon the 
capillaries, and this relationship is homologous with certain 
embryonic stages of the tracheal system. 5. The tracheal- 
terminal-cells are not the seat or point of departure of the light- 
development. If this appears first in their vicinity, it is only a 
consequence of the fact that these structures have, owing to 
their affinity for oxygen, stored up in themselves a supply of this 
gas, and give it off in greater quantity to the neighbouring tissues. 
6. The light-producing function is peculiar to the parenchyma- 
cells of the light-producing organs. It results from a slow 
oxidation of a substance formed by them under the control of 
the nervous system. 7. The ventral light-organ was found to 
consist of two layers, the parenchyma-cells of which are quite 
similar to one another in their morphological characters, but 
they differ from one another in the chemical nature of their 
contents. 8. The parenchyma-cells (is this the case with all ?) 
seem connected with fine nerve-endings. 9. The light-organs 
are the morphological equivalents of the fatty-bodies. 
THE STONES OF SAREPTA (ASIATIC RusstIA).—The remark- 
able masses of stone found in the white sand of the Ergent 
Mounraias at Sarepta have often caused people to inquire how 
they were formed. Some of them ‘are found of the size of a 
hazel or walnut, and even larger; others are cylindrical, of the 
thickness of a half to one werschok (16 werschok = 28 inches), 
and a quarter to a half arschin (28 inches) long; others again 
target-shaped are more than a half arschin long, and one to 
four werschok thick. All the cylindrical ones, which are often 
also forked and root-shaped, exhibit, when they are broken 
across, a brown kernel with a white spot in its centre. Their 
surface is rough, and resembles a number of drops heaped one 
upon and beside another. When Alexander vy. Humboldt visited 
Sarepta, the then director, Zwick, showed him these stone forma- 
tions, Humboldt, while declaring that they were worthless recent 
things, was unable to say how they arose. Zwick, on the other 
hand, regarded them as very old and very problematical. Gobel 
also, who was afterwards shown these stones by Zwick, was 
unable to explain how they were formed. When Auerbach, the 
secretary of the Moscow Natural History Society, paid Alex Becker 
a visit twenty-eight years azo, he was brought to the place where 
these stone deposits were. He looked for an explanation of the 
formation of these stones and the reason of each stone containing 
a brown kernel. He was told that the stones were formed by 
roots. Auerbach said that these would form hydrochloric acid 
by decomposition. Becker now believes that he can with 
certainty a-sert that these formations arise round the roots of 
several plants that contain mz/ky juice. Tragopon ruthenicus, 
Scorzonera ensifolia, and Euphorbia gerardiana grow plentifully 
in the white sand. ‘Their long roots are inhabited and seamed 
by insects, and when their surface is once lacerated, their milky 
juice keeps perpetually flowing, and as it is sticky, the chalk- 
containing sand (the sand’s colour is due only to the presence of 
chalk) settles firmly around the root. The rcot gradually dies, 
disappears, and there remains in its place a white, often hollow, 
kernel, together with the brown colour of the root-cortex. As 
the root is white under its cortex, the kernel also appears white, 
surrounded with the brown layer of the root-cortex. The round 
and target-shaped ones may originate from the milky juice 
running away into the sand, and therefore hardly any of them 
exhibit a brown kernel. Their guttiform surface can be ex- 
plained by the drops of the milky juice. The cylindrical. forked, 
and root-shaped stones show clearly the form of the roots. 
Euphorbia gerardiana, to which these stone formations are 
chiefly ascribed, has very long roots, root-branches and root-fibres 
(Alec Becker, Bull. de la Soc. Imp. des Natur. de Moscou, 1882, 
No. i. p. 48). 
AMERICAN RESEARCHES ON 
WATER ANALYSIS? 
"THE chemical results as to animal in contrast with vegetable 
organic matter in water, support, in general, the conclu- 
sions that have been usually drawn as to the source of organic 
matter, bised on the more hiyhly nitrogenous character of that 
from animal than that from vegetable dérzs. Still the necessity 
T Concluded from p. 213. 
