340 PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES ON 



rather to a suppressed lohorl than to the suppressed hnier 

 surfaces of the carpels. 



But Dr. Master's teratological orange wouhl appear to support 

 hypothesis (b) still more strongly. The inner pulp-cnrpels had 

 no peel at all, and the centre was occupied hy two independent 

 strips of peel with their glandular surfaces reversed, as if they had 

 been twisted abortive carpels. 



There is, however, seemingly an objection to this hypothesis. 

 M. Ph. Van Tieghem, in delineating the structure of the Citrus 

 pistil, does not show any separate vascular bundles for the peel. 

 He ignores it, and so does he the disk, as far as vascular 

 bundles are concerned. This would appear to militate against my 

 hypothesis (b) of the peel being a separate whorl. 



All Van Tieghem shows is that below each pulp-carpel there is 

 a vascular bundle, which splits into three strands, one becoming 

 dorsal and tAvo marginal, which feed the ovules. Then side 

 branches from these three bundles are given ofP, which, 

 inosculating, feed not only this carpel but its enveloping 

 parenchyma. 



" To recapitulate," he says at p. 55, " aU the forms of pistil 

 we have examined up to the present, and which belong to a very 

 large number of natural families, offer us the most complete 

 identity of structure, if we leave out the parenchyma and some 

 accessory modifications in the vascular system. Whether there be 

 one carpel (loge), as in the Leguminosns; three, as in the Liliacene, 



or ten in the Citrics,'^ the vascular system always 



maintains the same essential disposition ; always the axis is 

 extinguished in producing a variable number of appendicidar 

 independent systems, the margiiial bundles of whicli nourish the 

 ovules." 



"The differences in form which the pistil presents depend 

 only on the different and quite original manner in whicli 

 the parenchyma ])inds together tlie vascular systems of the 

 appendages,! now forming round each a distinct sheatli, now 



* Why V. T. fixes ou ton carix'ls, as the normal luinihor in the Cifnis, 

 is not ck-ai'. 



f v. T. seems to nse tlie word (ippendayes fen* i)liyll()iis snlt-(li\ islons of 

 the llower (the (•ar])els) ; Avliile Asa Cliay ai»i)ears to use the term for those 

 parts which he does not consider of a phyllous nature. 



