igoS] 



BRIEFER ARTICLES 



339 



h 



lower end of the sac a short time later, with several nuclei in the lower 

 chamber. Of later conditions of the endosperm my slides do not furnish 



examples. 



Again COKER says: "The antipodals never divide, but they are not 

 ephemeral as described by Smith." There may be some difference of 

 opinion as to what degree of persistence my description implies, but after 

 a reexamination of my slides, and even from Coker's own figures, I am 

 still convinced of its correctness. Coker makes the error of regarding the 

 antipodals as a group of nuclei; he cites the persistence of such nuclei after 



the initiation of endosperm formation as a disproof of my statement; but 

 the antipodals are cells, not nuclei. In those embryo sacs m which tne> a 



recoomized 



ganium, and others, they become a conspicuous mass of cells; t^ ey 

 persist as free nuclei. In the case of Eichhornia and Pontedena the> are 



organized cell 



figs. I and 2 herewith, and in fig 



"is^aiuzea ceus ai me stage saowu m /i^^- •« - . . c 



Coker's plate. These cells disorganize immediately after the fu.ion ot 

 the polar nuclei, sometimes even earlier, a behavior which amply juslihe^ y 

 describing them as ephemeral. In later stages of the embrj-o sac only 

 nuclei can be distingviished, and these In a partially d-organizedjo^n^^^^^^^ 

 as in figs. J and 4. Compare also Coker's figs. 13, 15, ^7'/". '' '^ ^^ 



tegration of the antipodal cells and the absorption of their "^^;^^ f" ' 

 clearly traced.-R. Wilson Smith, McMaster Uni.ers^ty, Toronto, Canada. 



