RELATIONSHIPS OF THE INDEFINITE INFLORESCENCES. 167 
Lastly, with regard to some of the weak points in the relation- 
ships alleged in this paper. ‘The affinities of the capitulum are not 
perhaps so clearly marked as some of the other relationships, pe 
the parallelism between the capitulum and the spike, and betw 
the umbel and the raceme, as indicating the same as of Pee 
ment along different lines, is an argument in favour of the position 
assigned here. e evidence of ae oramHeg botany is also strong, 
and several writers have more than hinted at the fact. Thus Asa 
Gray* says: ‘An umbel with pediosl much abbreviated passes 
into a head, such as Hryngium, 
e reasons for regarding the solitary flower as related to both 
the spike and capitulum have been fully dealt with in the theory of 
internodes. It has been shown there that these are the two next 
Aino types, and, gene ed the two lines of development, the 
naturalness of the step is en 
With regard to the se. lines of development, I may add that 
several authors have arrived at prac SCE ieee the same conclusion, 
Pp s 
Solitary axillary—capitulum—simple umbel—cory:inb—raceme— 
panicle. In this sequence it is obvious that the spike, a highly 
important form, has no place. That such a classification is neither 
in accordance with shia observed facts, nor with the principles 
involved, I have endeavoured to maintain in this paper. 
Relationships of the Indefinite Inflorescences. 
SOLITARY AXILLARY. 
SPIKE. CAPITULUM. 
ordi 
RACEME. ae UMBEL, 
wae hace COMPOUND 
RACEME. UMBEL. 
* Asa Gray, Structural wR § 275, p. 147, 
+ Vines, Text Book of Botany 90. 
t Goebel, Outlines of Chacthintien, ée., p. 407. 
