384 MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS ON CONIFER. 
in Flora of September 1, seems definitely to settle the controversy. The results of Stenzel’s examination of numer- 
ous monstrosities of female flowers of the Abies excelsa, obtained at the limit of tree-vegetation on the Sudetic Moun- 
tains, is that Mohl’s view of the structure of the fruit-scale, based on the nature of the double leaf of Sctadopitys, is the 
correct one. The fruit-scale in Abies, and in all Abietinea, in this view consists of two leaves of an undeveloped axis, 
or branchlet originating in the axil of the bract, and the posterior (superior) edges of these leaves being connate later- 
ally and a little backward, as the lowest pair of leaves or bracts in Coniferew always are, the leaves turn their back 
toward the axis of the inflorescence (the cone), and bear on that side one ovule each. In sb agen where the carpel- 
lary scale is peltate, and often bears numerous ovules, the same morphological explanation holds good, and 
even in Podocarpee and Taxinew, which have no fruit-scale, we must come to the same roscoe assuming a [470] 
virtual suppression of the scale. The greatest difficulty seems to arise from the positian of the he 
dorsal side of the open carpel, which is not seen in any angiospermous plants ; however, the idhiainatin which mor- 
phologically correspond to the ovules, are in Conifer also borne on the lower side of the stamen-scale ; and for further 
analogy we have to look to the Cycadee, and, be it boldly announced, to the Ferns. Lycopodiacee, on the other hand, 
bearing the spore-cases on the upper side of the leaf, cannot be regarded as the progenitors of Conifere, as has been 
thought. The relationship of Conifere is with Cycadew and Ferns, while Gnetacee becomes still farther removed 
from them. The writer of this notice has seen monstrous (proliferous) cones of Abies Engelmanni, in Colorado, but 
only at the upper limit of tree-vegetation, under similar conditions to the European monstrosities. He has also noticed 
the foliaceous development of the carpellary scales, in monstrosities of Abies Canadensis, either into a distinct or a more 
or less connate pair of leaves ; but only at the base, not, as in other species, at the top of the cone. — Amer. Journ. 
Sci. and Arts, 3d Series, vol. xii. 
THE GYMNOSPERMY OF CONIFERZ.* 
Celakovsky, who takes a high position as a morphological botanist, mentions that in the year 1874 he pub- [811] 
- lished in Flora an article opposing gymnospermy. He now announces that he has changed his opinion, having 
satisfied himself of the truth of this doctrine. The agent of conversion was a monstrosity of the Norway Spruce cone, 
like that from which Stenzel made out the now accepted morphology of the cone, and the same monstrosity as that 
which Braun studied in the Larch, deducing from it the accepted doctrine many years ago. The essential point in this 
monstrosity is that the bracts of the abnormal catkin develop into leaves, and the carpellary scale before it into a pair 
of leaves transverse to the bract. The abietinous carpel consists of these two leaves united by their posterior edges (i. e., 
those next the axis of jay cone) into a scale, the back of which therefore faces the axis of the cone, and bears the ovules. 
The lower part of these catkins is usually normal, the apex by prolification is se transformed in the manner 
here specified, and ee a leafy branch. Dr. Engelmann, in this Journ: ears ago, gave a confirmatory 
account of an analogous monstrosity in the Hemlock Spruce, but in which the soe tae was at the base of the 
cone, the lower bracts leaf-like and with a pair of leaves in their axil, the following bracts more and more scale-like ; 
the geminate leaves in their axil were partially ripen next forming a scale with a cleft or notched apex, then an 
entire carpellary scale, in the axil of a normal bra 
Celakovsky, having now seen the Spruce santa for himself, adopts the inevitable seers: and applies it 
well to the settling of the question of gymnospermy. He declares that the dorsal origin of the ovule of the Abietinee 
proves that it is no axillary production, and thus the main support of those who take the ovule re a simplified female 
flower falls to the ground. Moreover, the ovules of Coniferw in retrograde metamorphosis never change into shoots, 
but simply disappear. If flowers, they would be expected sometimes to become foliaceous branchlets. So Celakovsky 
it as demonstrated that they are outgrowths from the dorsal face of the leaf, analogous to the sori and indusia 
of Ferns. He cites the indusium of Hymenophyllum as an instructive analogue, only it is marginal ; verb of — 
is somewhat dorsal; that of Cyathea wholly so and yet cup-shaped. He goes on to say that the gymnos 
of Abietinee being thus proved, that of the rest of Conifere follows of course ; that Braun has seen si cali a: [312] 
lification in the catkins of Taxodinew, in which the carpel-scale was fupllaced by a bud; that, although the 
earpel-scale in Abietinee consists of two leaves, the bud may in other cases develop more thai two leaves, so that the 
lobed scale of Cryptomeria may be composed of as many leaves as there are lobes. Moreover, although the ovules in 
Abietinee originate from the scale, the greater part of the scale is developed after the formation of the ovules ; and in 
Cupressus the scale is developed even as late as the following spring, while the ovules are produced in the autumn. 
However the case may be disguised, Celakovsky asserts his firm conviction, Ist, that an ovule can only be developed 
as depending on a carpel, and, 2d, that its nucleus represents the macrosporangium of vascular s. He adds 
that this is the logical consequence of the theory of descent, and must be true if the doctrine of die genetic connection 
of the vegetable world is true. He considers that Van Tieghem and Strasburger have proved the seemingly simple 
scale of Cupressinee and Taxodinem to be composed of bract and carpel-scale united (which indeed is evident in Tax- 
* Review by Engelmann and Gray of a paper by Dr. L. Celakovsky, in Flora for June, 1879, Nos. 17 and 18. 
