272 



PUILOSOPIIICAL NOTES ON 



With reference to the origin of pbaenoganis from cryptogams, 

 I should like to point out that the ovary of the former appears to 

 be a direct descendant, with much modification, from the concep- 

 tacle of seaweeds. It seems absurd to say so, but if the reader 

 would compare the fruit of Lardizahala biternata^ outlined in 

 Fig. 112, he would see that it is nothing but a modification of the 

 head of conceptacles of Cystoseira barhata, Fig. 113, and that 



Fio-. 112. Fruit of Lardizahala biternata (Le Maout and Decaisne, 

 p. 206)": (a) is a transverse section of one of the ovaries, 



each ovary (a) is nothing but a modification of the conceptacle. 

 Lardizabala is a phrenogam, and no botanist is likely to doubt 

 that it is related to other phaenogams with a totally different ovary, 

 such as we find in the pea. Curiously enough, this interesting 

 plant is polygamous, like a polygamous Fucus. 



I would ask in what does the ovary of Lardizabala (a) 

 essentially differ from the conceptacle of Myriodesma shown in 

 Fig. 129 (a). The latter, besides ovules, contains anthers, that is, 

 it is 7non(Ecious^ while the former contains ovules only, that is, it 

 is dicecious. We know, however, that some species of Fucus have 

 monoecious conceptacles, while others have them diaecious. So 

 that even this insignificant difference is swept away. The fruit 

 head of Lardizabala may, without much stretch of the imagina- 

 tion, be considered as resulting from the contraction of the 

 Myriodesma frond, clustering the conceptacles round the midrib. 

 This we already see done in what are called the receptacles of 

 Sargassuvi and other seaweeds. The receptacle in these is only a 

 clustering of conceptacles or ovule cavities on a contracted frond. 



