130 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
on the other. In 1835 SCHLEIDEN had expounded the theory that 
the pollen tube entered the embryo sac and there gave rise to the 
embryo, basing his conclusions on observations made on ovules of 
plants belonging to various families (5). In 1855 DEECKE (6) in 
Pedicularis sylvatica claimed to have seen the pollen tube entering 
the sac and developing there into the embryo, and came to the 
conclusion that in this plant he had proved beyond all doubt that 
SCHLEIDEN’S view as to the origin of the embryo was correct. 
SCHACHT (12) confirmed DEECKE’s statement, but HorMEISTER (9) 
proved that what DEECKE had seen and drawn was the proembryo. 
He believed those figures in which DrEcKE depicted the “pollen 
tube”’ wandering outside the micropyle to be due to roughness in 
dissection. 
It is extremely interesting to find that the “pollen tube”’ of 
DEECKE bears a striking resemblance to the proembryo of Siriga 
lutea. That it is a proembryo is obvious, since DEECKE shows it 
imbedded in the endosperm, and he also figures very clearly struc- 
tures which in the light of Scumip’s work on Pedicularis we may 
interpret as two lobes of a micropylar haustorium and a chalazal 
one. Striga lutea possesses a long suspensor which is clearly com- 
parable with DEECKE’s pollen tube. In the majority of his figures 
the end of the “pollen tube” remote from the embryo forms a 
swelling much resembling that shown in the young proembryo of 
Striga (fig. 23). In DrEckKer’s fig. 16 a case is shown of two “pollen 
tubes” entering one ovule. One of these tubes is traced down to 
the embryo, the other advances only a short way down the micro- 
pyle. The explanation of this phenomenon might be that in 
Pedicularis sylvatica, as in Striga, the basal cell of the suspensor 
produces haustoria and the second “pollen tube” is simply a 
haustorium. Of recent years the chief contributions to our 
knowledge of the embryo sac of the Scrophulariaceae have been 
made by Baticka-IwANowskA (1) in 1899 and Scumip (13) in 
1906. 
BaticKA-I[waNowsKA’s work is of a more general character than 
ScHMip’s, dealing with several sympetalous families, while SCHMID 
confines himself to a number of species selected from genera repre- 
senting the three main groups of the Scrophulariaceae: Pseudo- 
