102 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [AUGUST 
entirely inapplicable to the podocarps and Abies (26), which has 
recently been shown to form regularly a considerable proportion 
of pollen grains with 3 or 4 prothallial cells. Either these widely 
separated cases are to be explained as a heritage from more or less 
remote ancestors, or as remarkable examples of the revival of 
abandoned structures, or as the still more remarkable origination 
of apparently useless structures. In JEFFREY’s paper on the 
Araucarioxylon type (42) he speaks of the pollen grain and male 
gametophyte as clearly aberrant in its germination, prothallial 
cells, and absence of a stalk cell. Whether it is aberrant or not is 
doubtless somewhat a matter of opinion. That a stalk cell is not 
formed is an error so far as the statement concerns Araucaria 
brasiliensis. I have figured in a previous paper the division 
which results in stalk and body cells (5). Araucaria resembles 
Podocarpus (4) exactly in respect to the manner of this division. 
The axis of the spindle is transverse in both cases and the resulting 
cells lie side by side above the prothallial cells. Because this 
division occurs late in the development of the male gametophyte, 
the cell wall and cell identity of the stalk cell are soon lost in both 
genera. At the time of shedding, only the body cell retains its 
cell identity, the other nuclei being free in the common cytoplasm 
and often indistinguishable from one another. 
The reference of some of the mesozoic fossils to Araucarineae 
has met with rather severe criticism. JEFFREY’s reference (40) of 
Vezonia and Cryptomeriopsis (62) to Brachyphyllum and Geinitzia 
respectively has met with opposition from their authors (63). 
Dr. Stopes, notwithstanding the dissimilarity of the cones, is 
inclined to agree that there is a considerable structural resemblance 
between Brachyphyllum and Vezonia. She dissents entirely from 
the opinion that Cryptomeriopsis is an araucarian. She has not 
stated an opinion as to whether it is or is not identical with Geinitzia 
as described by JEFFREY (41). She is emphatic, however, in think- 
ing that it differs very little from the modern Cryptomeria. 
STILES (61) has also criticized the reference of Geinitzia (41) and 
Paracedroxylon (57) to the Araucarineae. He is particularly severe 
on the use of the bars of Sanio as a final criterion of relationship. 
The soundness of this criticism has since been emphasized by 
