60 MEMOIRS OF THE NEW YORK BOTANICAL GARDEN 
erous elements which occur in the wood of 4. alba and other species 
of the living Araucarineae. 
It may be seen from the above description that our ./raucarioxylon 
presents a close resemblance to the structure of wood found in the 
modern genera of the Araucarineae, but differs from the extinct type of 
araucarineous wood which we have described under the name Brachy- 
oxylon, in the invariable flattening or alternation of the radial pits; in 
the presence of resiniferous xylem parenchyma, and in the absence of 
traumatic resin canals. In Brachyoxylon the pits are frequently not 
marked by flattening due to mutual contact but are often round as in 
the Abietineae. Alternation of the pits is generally absent on 
account of the small size of the tracheids. Resiniferous parenchyma 
does not occur. Traumatic resin canals in the latter genus, in con- 
trast to .1raucarioxylon, are present. It is obvious that we have in 
Brachyoxylon a clearly defined type of araucarineous wood, which is 
strikingly different from the ordinary Jraucarioxylon type. Wood 
of this type have apparently not escaped the attention of other ob- 
servers, although their points of difference from the ordinary Arau- 
carioxylon type have not been recognized. Seward, for example, 
has figured an araucarineous wood, which he calls Araucarioxylon 
Lindleii,*® which is characterized by rows of intercellular spaces, 
similar to those seen in our fig. 2, Pl. 14, which he compares with the 
resin canals of the Abietineae, but considers them not to be regular 
enough to merit the name of resin canals. In his fig. 3, pl. 7 (1. c.), 
their appearance is quite as regular as the traumatic resin canals 
found in the abietineous genus T'suga; while Goeppert has figured the 
pits of the wood as seen in actual leafy branches of the ancient arau- 
carineous genus Ullmannia as occuring in a single row апа not flat- 
tened by mutual contact. This is а much more likely description 
of the wood of this ancient Mesozoic conifer than that figured by 
Zittel*® from associated fossil woods, which were not certainly the 
remains of Ullmannia, and may well from the nature of their pitting 
have belonged to Cordaites. The question as to the relative anti- 
quity of the 4raucarioxylon and Brachyoxylon types of araucarineous 
woods has an important bearing on the subject of the phylogeny of 
the Coniferales, as already discussed in connection with certain other 
^ Cat. Mesoz. Plants, Dept. Geol, Brit. Mus. (Jurassic Flora, Pt. II, Liassic and 
о 2. 56. a 6. f. 1-4; pl. 7. 2 2-5. 
“ Monog. Foss. Conif. pl. 20. f. 3. 
^ Handb. Palaeont., Abth. | 275. f. 100. 
