172 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
E. altissima revealed along series of intermediate forms. This suggests that 
the solitary ovule of Ephedra and of Welwitschia represents a fusion of “the 
many ovules and interseminal scales of such a flower as Cycadeoidea.”’ 
Saad eo enons. In this first paper the genus Ephedra is considered, 
eatures being described in detail. The idea that Ephedra may 
be connected with the Bennettitales or the Cycadales receives no support from 
iate | 
parenchyma, and endarch leaf bundles). It is ‘ite evident that the group 
could not have arisen from any of the modern conifers, but rather “from or 
close to the base of the coniferous line.” An angiospermous affinity is indicated 
clearly “by the possession of true vessels, broad rays, formation of broad rays 
by fusion, and separation of the leaf traces.” These general conclusions are 
abundantly confirmed by the morphological evidence. 
Miss BERRinGE® has discovered that a ring of complex groups of vascular 
strands arises from the bundles in the base of the ovulate “flower” of Gnetum 
and suggests that this may indicate that the ovule was “primitively 
eutiouindad by a whorl of male flowers.”’ This would mean that the ovulate 
strobilus of Gnetum was originally bisporangiate—J. M. C 
Evolution of araucarians.—Probably the most discussed question in 
connection with the phylogeny of conifers is the relationship of the araucarians 
to the Abietineae. So far as the historical evidence goes, the two tribes are 
rivals in age, and the araucarians seem to have been the dominant coniferous 
vegetation during the Mesozoic. The complete separation of araucarians from 
Abietineae, by suggesting either their direct origin from the Cordaitales or 
even from club-mosses, is an idea that has entered into the discussion. 
JeFrrey has been a staunch defender of the primitive character of the 
Abietineae, and of the derivation of the araucarian type from this stock. Ina 
paper just published,® he attacks the problem of the evolution of the arau- 
carian type on the basis of a study of abundant material of the existing forms, 
which is compared critically with the mesozoic material. So far as the evidence 
of history and anatomy goes, the whole series, from the abietineous stock to 
7THompson, W. P., The anatomy and relationships of the Gnetales. I. The 
genus Ephedra. Ann. Botany 26: 1077-1104. ae 2. pls. OF 97 1912. 
§ BERRIDGE, Emity M., The structure of the female st is in Gnetum Gnemon. 
Ann. Botany 26:987-092. Sn. 4. I9t2. 
9 Jerrrey, E. C., The history, comparative anatomy, and evolution of the 
Araucarioxylon type. Proc. Amer. Acad. 48:531-571. pls. 7. 1912. 
