224 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [NOVEMBER 
leaf scars. From such data, the age of one plant with a trunk 1.45™ 
in height and 26°™ in diameter was estimated at 970 years. A small 
plant only 21°™ in height is known to have been in cultivation more 
than 4o years, and was presumably a fine specimen when brought 
in from the field. In cultivation a crown may persist more than 
two years, for the crown of a plant in the Washington Park (Chicago) 
conservatory has remained vigorous for at least five years. It seems 
probable that MuriILto’s estimate is conservative, and that many 
of the large plants have reached an age of more than a thousand 
years. 
The trunk.—The trunk is always straight and shows no external 
evidence of branching; among the thousands of plants observed, 
one only showing definite branching. The specimen had a Y-shaped 
trunk, each arm of the Y bearing a large crown. A few specimens 
were seen with two, three, or four crowns; and one plant had five 
and another six. The extra crowns do not come from loose buds 
which might become detached, as is so commonly the case in Cycas 
revoluta, but are all interlocked at the top of the stem. Some of 
the extra crowns are probably due to injuries received in the removal 
of cones, while others originate from the germination of seeds which 
had not fallen to the ground but had remained in the nest of the 
crown. Buds like those of Cycas revoluta also occur; occasionally 
they are found near the bases of old trunks, and at the top they are 
quite common. Some of these buds have well-developed crowns and 
would doubtless grow into independent plants if they should become 
detached and gain a suitable foothold. Root tubercles were observed 
but they were infrequent. 
The ovulate cones.—In 1904 fruiting plants were not abundant; 
among plants large enough to bear cones not more than one in ten 
was in fruit, and among these staminate plants were more numer- 
ous than ovulate. In 1906 at least one-third of the larger plants 
bore cones. I was informed that a plant fruits every other year, 
and judging from the proportion of plants bearing cones in 1906 this 
would seem true; but an estimate based upon the proportion. of 
plants bearing cones in 1904 would make the interval very much 
longer. The ovulate cones are large and ovoid (figs. 2, 3)- Cones 
weighing 5** are common; and one large cone weighed 6** after 
