ON THE CUTICLES OF SOME INDIAN CONIFERS 
RutH HoLpen 
(WITH PLATE XI) 
In no branch of science has the improved technic of the last 
few decades brought about a greater increase of knowledge than 
in paleobotany. The old purely systematic work based on impres- 
sions alone has been supplanted, or at least supplemented, by a 
microscopic examination of structurally preserved material. The 
results have been valuable along both geological and botanical lines; 
the former by insuring the reliability of stratigraphical correlations 
through more accurate diagnoses, and the latter by indicating the 
relationships between living groups of plants through more exten- 
sive information regarding their extinct ancestors. Recently the 
examination of epidermal tissues has opened up a new line of 
attack. This method has been especially fruitful among the 
Cycadales, and our ideas of the affinities of fossil cycads have 
been materially altered. The next group to be attacked is 
obviously the Coniferales. Such genera as include both fertile 
and sterile shoots have, as a rule, certain definite diagnostic 
characters, but where a knowledge of the reproductive parts is 
lacking, chaos reigns supreme. In a few cases structurally pre- 
served material has been examined, and the results have shown 
in a very striking manner the futility of attempting to classify 
according to impressions alone, and the folly of affiliating specimens 
with the living genera which they may simulate in external appear- 
ance. When we consider that Thuyitis cretacea and Wzddring- 
tonitis Reichii, both formerly included in the Cupressineae, have 
been proved to be araucarians (14), the truth of this statement is 
evident. In cases where the state of preservation precludes the 
possibility of a satisfactory investigation of the internal anatomy, 
the next best thing is to examine their cuticles. Such work has 
been undertaken in a few instances, as for example, ZEILLER (31) 
and Berry (3) on Frenelopsis, SCHENK (21) and NATHORsT (19) 
on Palissya, THompson (30) on Frenelopsis, Androvettia, and 
215] [Botanical Gazette, vol. 60 
