Doylk — Observations on the Morphology of Larix leptolepis. 325 



available) links Larix, Cedrus, Pseudolarix, and Pinus as distinct from 

 Abies, Pseudotsuga, Picea, and Keteleeria, which are linked. Eichler (6) has 

 Cedrus, Larix, and Pseudolarix together, with Pinus near ; and Picea, A lies, 

 and Tsucja together, the latter genus including Pseudotsuga. Lastly, without 

 exhausting the list, Lotzy (16), who breaks the Abietineae into sub-tribes, 

 includes under one sub-tribe, the Lariceae — called Laricineae on p. 286 — 

 Larix, Pseudolarix, and Cedrus. He makes Picea and Tsuga form the Piceae, 

 while Pseudotsuga is bracketed with Abies and Keteleeria, to form the sub- 

 tribe, Sapineae. We have thus differences of opinion to suit almost any 

 taste, though they all definitely agree in separating Pseudotsuga from Larix. 



The anatomists, however, have had a clearer insight, as appears from the 

 well-known contributions of Jeffrey (11) and Penhallow (18). Jeffrey, basing 

 his results on resin canal distribution, divides the Abietineae into the Pineae, 

 including Pinus, Larix, Pseudotsuga, and Picea ; and the Abieteae, including 

 Abies, Cedrus, Tsuga, and Pseudolarix. Pinus, he considers, is somewhat 

 apart from the rest, while Picea and Pseudotsuga are very close, with Larix 

 not far removed. Penhallow, from data based on almost every other 

 anatomical point as well as resin cells and canals, concludes that Larix, 

 Pseudotsuga, and Picea are very closely allied, with Pinus as a near relative. 

 Here, then Larix is removed from relation with Cedrus or Pseudolarix, and 

 put into relation with Pseudotsuga, in spite of the marked differences in 

 habit. That such is correct appears from these observations on Larix. 



For, in addition to the extreme similarity in wood anatomy, which is 

 evident from these and other papers, and which, indeed, is so close that in the 

 fossil condition no satisfactory differentiation can be made between them, the 

 following extra points of agreement must be emphasized as existing between 

 Larix and Pseudotsuga as demonstrated in this paper : — 



1. Wingless pollen. 



2. Large cavities in the microsporophyll apex in both the mature cone 



and the bud. 



3. Gradual transition in female cone from basal vegetative leaves to 



typical cone bracts. 



4. The peculiar pollen-receiving development of the mieropylar tube. 



5. The very close agreement in the structure of the female gametophyte 



in both genera. 



From which it can be said, in conclusion, that a close natural affinity 

 exists between Larix and Pseudotsuga; but that there is need for that affinity 

 to be recognized in current systematic classifications. 



SCIENT. PROC, R.D.S., VOL. XV., NO. XXVIII. 3 B 



