14 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
have not come from either gymnosperms, pteridosperms, or ferns.’ 
His conclusion is based mainly on the following insufficiently 
substantiated assumptions: that taking the vegetable kingdom 
as a whole, the grandifoliate habit is primitive, the parvifoliate 
derived; that the appearance of two cotyledons in dicotyledons 
is illusive, there really being only one which is deeply bifurcated; 
that in the monocotyledonous seedling there is no room for the 
scattered arrangement of the bundles, so we cannot on account 
of its absence here conclude that the scattered condition has been 
derived from a vascular cylinder. These points cannot be dis- 
cussed here; it suffices to say that the criticism that this view 
assumes entirely too much seems fair. Besides, the evidence from 
fossils is entirely against it, the general conclusion of paleobotanists 
being that from the Bryophyta no higher forms have ever evolved. 
Scott (25), touching this point, says: ‘‘neither among living nor 
fossil plants has any indication of a structure intermediate between 
the plant of a vascular cryptogam and the fruit (sporophyte) of a 
bryophyte ever been discovered.” 
The view that monocotyledons have been derived from dicoty- 
ledons, doubtless at a rather early period in the history of angio- 
sperms, and possibly by branching from several points along the 
dicotyledonous line, has been much strengthened by the researches 
of the last 15 years. Miss SARGANT (24) regards the common 
characters of monocotyledons and dicotyledons as too numerous 
and uniform to have been acquired independently, and emphasizes 
the fact that angiosperms are especially unique with respect to 
their flowers, carpels, and endosperm. The attainment of practical 
identity in the ‘‘germination of the embryo sac and the history of 
the endosperm” by independent evolution among monocotyledons 
and dicotyledons ‘‘would require a series of coincidences,” she 
says, ‘‘so improbable as to be inconceivable.” With respect to the 
flower, Miss SARGANT agrees with the view of ARBER and PARKIN 
given elsewhere. 
Probably Miss SARGANT’sS most tnisioeteas contribution to the 
monophyletic theory is based on anatomical investigations. The 
presence or absence of a cambium seems to account largely for the 
difference in detail between monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous 
mney 
