HUNTINGDONSHIRE PLANTS AND ‘ TOPOGRAPHICAL BOTANY.’ 105 
_ Thave now offered evidence in support of all the propositions 
with which I started at the outset, and it remains to be seen wha 
inferences may be legitimately drawn em. ong 
most important facts elicited is the circumstance that identity of 
i ot, in all cases, to be taken as evidence 
fascicle of leaves of that plant; on the other hand, it does present 
considerable accord with the ‘ needle” of Sciadopitys, differing 
chiefly in the greater number of the vascular bundles. 
Lastly, as far as it goes, the evidence now brought forward seems 
to support the view of Hichler as to the nature of the seed-scale 
in Abietinee, Fichler’s views have the merit of simplicity, and do 
not involve so many assumptions and unproven statements as those 
of other morphologists do. What those views are is fully set forth 
in memoirs to which I have referred, but for the sake of conciseness 
I may here be allowed to quote from a letter received from the 
eminent morphologist and dated February 17, 1882:—‘‘ The 
g the n 3 
appearance of these buds brings about various changes In thé 
seed-scale, such as folds, lacinie, and similar irregularities, which 
and the abnormal production. 
a 
HUNTINGDON PLANTS & ‘TOPOGRAPHICAL BOTANY.’ 
By Atrrep Fryer. 
In the following list of Huntingdonshire plants (which is 
supplementary to that given for the county ee Topographical 
Botany ’), two or three “introduced” plants ar included ; 
these are only such as already are, or are kely to become, 
Prominent members of the Huntingdon flora; or such as may 
