CHAP. II. 
OVARY. 
209 
not therefore surprise us that the buds or ovules of these 
branches grow only upon their inner side, viz. that side 
directed towards the axis; for the same is observed in the 
inflorescence of many plants, for instance, in ^sculus. 
Lastly, in those plants in which the entire wall of the simple 
ovarium is occupied with ovules, we find the axis expanded 
somewhat in the shape of a basin, as may also be seen in the 
similar modification of the stalk in many Rosaceae and in 
Ficus. 
“ We find moreover in nature, that in parietal placentas 
the edges of the leaves are never laid upon one another 
throughout their entire length, and so adhere to each other ; 
but they become united from below upwards, by the subsequent 
growth of a more or less distinctly intermediate substance. 
This substance is very evident in the Fumariaceae and Cruci- 
ferae, in which it appears much later than the carpellary 
leaves, stands exactly within them, and in the latter family 
forms the spurious partition, by its gradual extension towards 
the middle, and its subsequent adhesion. The placenta shows 
itself to be independent of the carpellary leaves, during its 
growth, most strikingly in the Abietineae. My investigations 
of the earliest conditions have shown me that the organ which, 
since the researches of R. Brown, has been considered as an 
open ovarium, is only a scale-like expanded placenta ; and 
that the organ which R. Brown has named bractea is the 
actual carpellary leaf. This result has been confirmed to me, 
in a most beautiful manner, by a cone of Finns alba, which 
upon the upper half was covered with female, and upon the 
lower with male, flowers. In the Abietineae, the placenta, left 
without the least constraint, developes itself to such an extent, 
that at length the carpellary leaf itself appears as a mere 
supplementary part.” 
Similar views are entertained by Schykofsky, a Russian 
botanist, who has written a memoir upon the subject in the 
Bulletin de la Societe Imp. des Naturalistes de Moscou, 1837, 
No. 5. p. 1. tt. 1. and 2.; but, as it is published in the Russian 
language, I am unable to state the tendency of his arguments. 
I may also remark that Schleiden’s theory is much in accord- 
ance with the ideas of the late Professor Richard. 
p 
