ndistiiict. 2. The order of evolution of these 

 from without inwards or from below upwards, is that of leaves or 

 whorls upon an axis, and of the floral organs in a flower ; while 

 ovular coats, as is well known, form in reverse order, the external 

 one latest. The evidence is fairly convincing, mid other recent 

 investigations point to the same conclusion. 



Some accompanying theoretical deductions drawn by Beccari 

 are not so convincing nor so important. Nor need we share the 

 hesitation with which he uses the name of Gymnospermce. He 

 prefers to continue the term because the ovules, though not 

 destitute of ovary, are destitute of proper ovular coats. But so 

 are not a few angiospermous plants. We should continue it 

 under the original signification, because, admitting the flask- 

 Bhaped envelop to be homologous with pistil, it is not in 

 one; for the pollen reach, s ami acts directly upon the ovule itself, 

 aa 1 not through the intervention of a stigma. Ovules reduced to 

 the nucleus only were not known to Robert Brown, or at least 

 were not considered by him in their present bearing. Being now 

 recognized, the question whether the coat of the seed in Coniferce 

 and i '_'■■/(•> > dacece is of carpellary or ovular origin may remain an 

 open one, or may be decided in favor of the former, without essen- 

 tially derogating from the fitness of the received name for this 

 p of orders. Moreover, in flowers so little differenti- 

 ate'. I as those of Coniferce, the distinction between ovular and 

 carpellary envelopes may be really not cognizable because not 

 yet actual, and so the question maybe one of words; while in 

 Gnetacece an in port; nt a Ivance is made, and the ground of a 

 distin. ion bet we i ovular, e dal envelopes 



begins to appear. 



If this be so, a vexed question i i 

 tical settlement. The cultivators of fossil botany, finding that 

 Gymnosperms wen- far the earii •-. and that 



no angiospermous Dicotyledons have been detected until long 

 after the appearance of Monoeotvicdons, almost universally treat 

 the Gymnosperms as a primary division or class of the Vegetable 

 Kingdom. They are seconded by the histologists 01 

 ists, who naturally make the most of those interesting points of 

 structure which they have brought to view, and which approxi- 

 mate the Gymnosperms to the Vascular Cryptogams. But the 

 question whether Gymnosperms are a part— the earliest and 

 .:■!— of the'great class of Dicotyledons, or whether they 

 an independent class or primary group, must be deter- 

 mined by broad and general considerations of the whole structure. 

 Xowthetmi sition from <i ,,.t,i,-*t to Angiospermous Dicotyledons 

 is obvious and apparently real. If no transitions are extant be- 

 tween the Gymnosperms and Cryptogams, and if — as is clear— the 

 former are ti nous in structure, and 



have greater affinity with the Angiospermous Dicotyledons than 



