460 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JUNE 
adopted GWYNNE-VAUGHAN’S conclusions as to the basis of his 
description of the course of the bundles of Eguisetum, illustrating 
this course by means of a hitherto unpublished diagram con- 
structed by the latter.s Quz#va (14) in his very careful researches 
it {tt 
ie Tae ee 
HH Aut 
Nia Nu: 
Hy» Ls = 
eth aes lag! 251 erst 
re are Fee 
eke, ae Ce Se a 
ee. “eh See ae ee : 
enamel Hip OE IG tm ci 
on ‘ 
x 
- 
Si 4 
See eee 
———— 
ee ae ee at 
+8 
tt a 
. 
we eee eee 
See 
Set tied 
ge uis iekaemer ges 
eee ee we 
eee em ewe mee 
piedghaieee 
we weer eee 
Fic. 7.—Diagram nti distribution of ii of E. giganteum (protoxylem 
indiéated ee broken vertical lines, metaxylem by dotted surface): x.tr, xylem of trace; 
br.x, xylem of branch; pr, snore i.p.x, protoxylem of internode; mx, nodal 
xylem; i.mx, internodal metaxylem 
5 This diagram is in disagreement with the ns fig. 7 of = present paper 
in that in it the lateral internodal strands are made to persist ugh the node. 
As GWYNNE-VAUGHAN’s diagram was constructed po to show Fo course of the 
strands of the internodal bundle at the node, the distribution of the nodal xylem is 
not indicated in it 
