CLASSIFICATION OF CALAMARIEAE 81 



and the English school, of which Williamson was the 

 leader. 



If M. Renault's view that a certain part of the 

 Calamarieae bore seeds were tenable, we should have 

 the remarkable case of a transition from Cryptogamic 

 to Phanerogamic plants within the limits of a single 

 family. For this conclusion, though not without 

 analogy, 1 there is, as yet, no satisfactory evidence in 

 this case. 



M. Renault was led, by his belief in the existence 

 of Phanerogamic Calamarieae, to regard some of the 

 fructifications of the Calamostachys type as male cones, 

 others as Cryptogamic strobili, a distinction which the 

 identity of structure renders improbable, in the absence 

 of more positive evidence. He also attributed certain 

 highly developed seeds {e.g. Gnetopsis and Stephano- 

 spermuvi) to the Calamarieae, but this was never more 

 than a conjecture, and on present evidence it appears 

 that the affinities of the seeds in question lay in a 

 totally different direction, i.e. with the Pteridospermeae 

 (see Chapter X.). A specimen, named by M. Renault 

 Arthropityostachys Williamsonis? was interpreted by 

 him, though with some doubt, as a Calamarian cone 

 bearing at the same time both seeds of the Gnetopsis 

 type and pollen -sacs, but this interpretation has not 

 stood the test of further investigation. 3 



There is, in fact, no evidence, in the present state of 

 our knowledge, that the Calamarieae were anything 

 more than a varied and highly organised family of 



1 See below, Chapter VI. p. 193. 



2 Flore fossile a'Autun et cCEpinac, Part ii. p. 137, Plate lxiii. 



s Cf. Zeiller, "Revue des travaux de paleontologie vegetale," 1893- 

 1896, in Revue ginirale de botanique, 1897, p. 371. 



6 



