184 Dr Dickson on some of the Stages of Development 
and incontestable fact, that the so-called sguame fructifere 
in Araucaria are serially continuous with the leaves of the 
shoot which the cone terminates, and that, therefore, these 
“squame” are in the position of the bracts, and not of the 
scales of a larch, or any of our ordinary Abietines. It is a 
fact which cannot be too strongly insisted upon, that in Arau- 
caria the leaves of a cone-bearing shoot pass by gradual tran- 
sitions into the so-called ‘“squame fructifere” of the cone ; 
these leaves and “‘ scales” forming a continuous series of 
homologous parts. 
Regarding Dammara, I could not at that time give any 
special particulars of importance, as the specimens (cones de- 
veloped in the summer of 1859?) which I then obtained were 
about half-grown, and had lost the bud-scales surrounding the 
base of the cone. I could only argue from the close analogy 
between Dammara and Araucaria, that what holds good for 
the one genus may be presumed to do so for the other. Being 
compelled to recognize in the so-called scales of Araucaria 
structures corresponding to the bracts in Abies, Pinus, &c., 
I endeavoured to show that the scale-like “appendage to the 
seed” in Araucaria might be considered as representing the 
free portion of an otherwise adherent true sguama fructifera; 
this view being supported by the somewhat similar structure 
in Cunninghamia, and by the greater or less amount of ad- 
hesion between bract and scale even in our ordinary conifere. 
As to Dammara, I held that the free portion of the true 
squama fructifera, which is much reduced in Araucaria, 
had here entirely disappeared.* 
Since offering this explanation of the structures in question, 
I have fortunately had an opportunity of examining, to a cer- 
* In my paper on the Morphology of Araucaria, &c., (Edin. New Philosophi- 
cal Journal, April 1861, pp. 198-9), I erroneously referred to an absence of 
the sguamula in the “scales” of A. brasiliensis. I have since then, through 
the kindness of Mr Bennett, obtained some of these scales, in which the squa- 
mula is very distinctly developed, even more fully than in A. imbricata. This 
error on my part arose from my having inadvertently misread a passage in 
Richard’s Mémoires, in which he speaks not of the sguamula but of the apex 
(languette) of the scale as being absent in A. brasiliensis. As, however, the 
state of the question under discussion is not materially affected, any evils re- 
ulting from my unfortunate mistake can be but trifling. 
