CRETACEOUS CONIFERALES 71 
pis), the Cupressineae (J/'iddringtonites, Thuites, Raritania, Dac- 
tylolepis), and the Podocarpineae (Androvettia), all of which are 
in reality not related to the tribes which they simulate but to the 
Araucarineae. While it might be possible to doubt the evidence for 
araucarineous affinities on the basis of the structure of either the 
leafy twigs or the cone scales alone, it appears quite impossible to 
question the independent and consonant evidence afforded by a study 
of the anatomy of both. 
If 1t be admitted that these remarkable genera represent an arau- 
carineous flora the question arises as to their affinities. Attention 
has been repeatedly called in the earlier part of this Memoir to the 
common Brachyoxylon type of wood possessed by this group of 
conifers, which differs, as we have defined it, from Araucarioxylon 
Kraus by the fact that the pitting is not strictly and uniformly 
araucarineous, but presents a transition towards the condition 
found in the Abietineae and other conifers. It also presents the 
further peculiar feature of having a characteristic type of wound 
reaction found in the Abietineae but not in the existing genera of 
the Araucarineae, which feature apparently indicates a transitional 
type of wood. Another type of araucarineous wood is also found 
in the Kreischerville deposits, which possesses all of the arau- 
carineous features found in Brachyoxylom, but shows an even 
closer affinity than the latter to the Abietineae, by the possession of the 
abietineous type of the medullary ray. То this type Araucariopitys 
belongs. Here not only the lateral walls of the ray cells are pitted but 
also the horizontal and terminal walls, as is the characteristic condition 
of the rays іп the Abietineae. Since іп Brachyoxylon and Araucari- 
opitys we have Mesozoic types of araucarineous wood, which both 
by their structure and wound reactions connect the existing type of 
araucarian wood (as well as 4raucarioxylon Kraus) with that which 
is characteristic of the Abietineae, the question naturally arises, 
whether the Araucarioxylon or Pityoxylon (abietineous) type is the 
more primitive. It is practically universally assumed at present, 
from the resemblance of the pitting found in araucarian woods to 
that found in the Cordaitales and other ancient types of gymno- 
sperms, that the Araucarineae represent the oldest conifers. With- 
out considering the argument for the primitive character of the 
Araucarineae, based on the supposed presence, in the case of the 
female cone of Araucaria of a ligular structure, comparable to that 
