158 BOTANICAL GAZETTE (FE 
scales constitute the bulk of the cone, the bracts always remaining 
relatively small and inconspicuous. On the other hand, in the cone 
of a Sequoia, Taxodium, or Cupressus, the whole pak -_ is com 
of the enlarged bracts borne upon the axis. a priori grounds 
there should be no question as to the ie equivalence of the 
seed-bearing cones of pines and cypresses, and yet the added struc- 
ture in the pines—the ovuliferous scale — has brought about +m 
uncomfortable confusion. : 
What is this structure? Is it a second leaf, as Robert Brown 
thought ; a flattened axillary stem, as Schleiden thought; a single leat 
of a short axillary shoot, as von Mohl suggested; or a fusion of 
such leaves, as suggested by Alexander Braun, and accepted by many 
botanists? Is it a ligular growth as Sachs would have us believe ts 
is it a vestigial structure resulting from the modification and 
suppression of the axillary stem, as Celakovsky holds ? This is 
the place for a critical discussion of these views, but I may 
aa that they all fail to homologize the staminate and semini 
tay years’ study of the young cones of the pines has im 
. ie von in the pine cone is a backward extension of the 
a : ovules. The scale according to this view es 
“Mature, é. ¢., it is not a new structure, but merely an enlarge 
modification of a structure already present. The cones in 
and T, raxodieae are normal, #.¢., the megasporangia are 
cts (carpels) which later become enlarged. In the Ara 
ee i mn: prevail, but while there is as 
ae - th, the bract is still so large as to greatly 
co Tithe eeueod the toa act which at first 3 
ais 
