CONIFERALES (TAXACEAE) 35^ 



gothaea, the ovulate cones of Microcachrys and Saxegothaea, the 

 sohtary ovule, and above aU the peculiar male prothallial tissue 

 of all the genera suggest that the Podocarpineae are allied to the 

 Araucarineae, a suggestion that the common and peculiar geographical 

 distribution of the two tribes reinforces. This may mean only a 

 common immediate ancestry; but the well-known age and wide 

 mesozoic distribution of the araucarians, when taken in connection 

 with the lack of evidence of podocarps before the Cretaceous, makes 

 the conclusion reasonable that the Podocarpineae of today are a 

 southern offshoot from the mesozoic Araucarineae; and they do not 

 contradict any more ancient connection that the araucarians may 

 have had with the Abietineae. 



A recent conclusion as to relationships, suggested by TisoN (165), 

 deserves mention. It is based upon a study of the vascular anatomy 

 of Saxegothaea conspicua, especially that of the ovulate strobilus. 

 From the behavior and distribution of the two systems of bundles 

 found in the megasporophyll, one serving the sporophyll and the other 

 the ovule, it is concluded that Saxegothaea is more nearly related to 

 the araucarians than to the podocarps, but that through Microcachrys 

 it is connected with the latter so definitely that the araucarians, 

 Saxegothaea, and the podocarps should constitute a single group 

 comprising the three members indicated as subgroups. This con- 

 chision depends upon the view that the structure of the ovulate cone, 

 especially its vascular structure, is the paramount feature in deter- 

 mining relationship. 



A recent study by Miss Gerry (168) has thrown doubt upon the 

 association of the podocarps with the araucarians. She has discov- 

 ered that the "bars of Sanio" (p. 235), apparently a serviceable charac- 

 ter in the determination of coniferous woods, are present in all the 

 Coniferales except the araucarians. This character dissociates the 

 podocarps from the araucarians, and alHes them more nearly with 

 the Abietineae. Just how much this should outweigh the other 

 characters which suggest an araucarian alliance is a matter of 

 individual judgment, but it is clear that it must be taken into 

 consideration. 



The Taxineae present greater difficulties, for their resemblances 

 are not so definite, and their combination of so-called primitive and 



