4 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [yoLy 
In 1905 SEWARD and Forp (54) surveyed the work upon arau- 
carians up to that time, added a considerable body of observations 
of their own, and discussed thoroughly the bearing of all the avail- 
able facts. They came to the conclusion that the Araucariae 
occupy a place so remote from other conifers that they should be 
set off as a separate order under the name of the Araucariales. 
It is difficult to summarize so extensive a paper, in itself more or 
less a review, within the limits necessarily set on such a paper as 
this. However, we may summarize briefly their conclusions and 
indicate more or less inadequately the nature of the evidence on 
which they are based. So far as their discussion of affinities is 
concerned, the argument may be divided into three parts: (1) 
Araucarineae are primitive plants; (2) there are numerous grave 
objections to the assumption that they have originated from the 
Cordaitales; (3) there are significant resemblances to various 
living and extinct lycopods. 
1. The Araucarineae are primitive plants—This thesis these 
authors attempt to prove in two ways. They show from a review 
of the fossils that have been assigned to this family that it is 
extremely probable that fossil stems are known as far back as the 
Permian, and possibly the Carboniferous, both as impressions and 
as petrifactions, that find their closest resemblances and affinities 
with the present-day araucarians. Cone scales resembling those 
of the Euracta section of the genus Araucaria are known far back 
in the Jurassic, farther back in fact than those of the Abietineae. 
Historically, then, they argue the Araucarineae are primitive 
plants. To the support of their argument from the geological 
record they bring the testimony of comparative anatomy and 
morphology. They think the primitive character of the group is 
indicated by the gradual transition of foliage leaves to cone scales 
or sporophylls, by the resemblance of the two cones in some species, 
by the simplicity (as they attempt to prove) of the ovulate cone, 
by the persistent leaf traces, by the anatomical character of the 
leaves, by the homogeneous character of the wood without resin 
canals or wood parenchyma, by the multicellular male gameto- 
phyte, by the lateral distribution of the numerous archegonia, 
and by the similarity of the embryo cap to a root cap. 
