VOLUME L NUMBER 2 
BOTANICAL GAZETTE 
AUGUST rgiro 
THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE PODOCARPINEAE 
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE HULL BOTANICAL LABORATORY 138 
Mary S. Younc 
(WITH PLATES IV-—VI) 
Previous to r902 the morphology of the Podocarpineae was an 
unknown field, but recently, through the contributions of COKER (5), 
Jerrrey and CHRYSLER (7), BURLINGAME (2), BRooxs and STILES 
(1), and Youne (25) on Podocarpus and Dacrydium, and Nor&n (11), 
STILES (1§), THoMPson (16, 17,18), and Tison (22) on Saxego- 
thaea and Microcachrys, the group as a whole has become fairly 
well known. Pherosphaera, with two species, is the the only genus as 
yet untouched, and therefore will not be considered in the following 
discussion. 
One of the chief interests of the family is the question of relation- 
ships. The division of the Coniferales into the two families Taxa- 
ceae and Pinaceae was made originally on the basis of external 
characters, but with increasing knowledge of the Podocarpineae 
certain resemblances to the Araucarineae have been more and more 
emphasized, until it has even been suggested that these two tribes 
should form a group by themselves. 
< Three papers on Phyllocladus by Miss RoBERTSON (13) and Miss 
KILpARL (8, 9) are of particular interest because of the difference 
of opinion in regard to the affinities of that genus. Phyllocladus was 
classed with the Podocarpineae by STRASBURGER, removed to the 
Taxineae by ENGLER and Prantt, and finally made a sub-family 
by itself by Pncer (12) in 1906; and now, as its life history is studied, 
s place is again called in question. Muss ROBERTSON’s work was 
81 
