140 Sargcmt . — The Reconstruction of a Race of 
should so much stress be laid on the position of female above male sporo- 
phylls, and on the presence of sterile members at the base of the cone ? 
There is, I believe, no exception to the rule that in every hermaphrodite 
flower the carpels stand above the stamens. Because the arrangement 
is universal we are in danger of supposing it inevitable. But it would 
be difficult to find a physiological cause for this sequence which would apply 
to every case without exception. Indeed, in certain inflorescences which 
for all physiological purposes are equivalent to hermaphrodite flowers, the 
carpels stand below the stamens (Arum } &c.). This shows that such an 
arrangement may under certain circumstances benefit the plant. 
In some heterosporous cones (e.g. Lepidostrobus Hibbertianus , quoted 
by Messrs. Arber and Parkin, 4 , p. 38), the microsporophylls stand above 
the megasporophylls. The Angiospermous sequence is clearly not physio- 
logically inevitable either in flowers or cones. The Bennettitean strobilus 
is said to stand alone among strobili in the sequence of its parts combined 
with the possession of a whorl of sterile members at its base (p. 37). This 
unique combination of characters finds a parallel in the Angiospermous flower. 
The strobiloid theory of the flower seems in the present state of our 
knowledge to stand alone as a working hypothesis. If we reject it, we 
are left without any historical clue to the origin of the floral structure 
of Angiosperms. If we accept it, the Primitive Angiosperm must be 
credited with a flower resembling that of Magnolia or Liriodendron in 
general plan. 
The Primitive Angiosperms have now been invested with certain charac- 
ters which are common to Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons. Nobody who 
admits the existence of a single group of Primitive Angiosperms will 
question their right to these. The vexed question of their floral structure 
has been summed up in favour of the Ranal type on the grounds given 
by Messrs. Arber and Parkin. The characters in which Monocotyledons 
differ from Dicotyledons have not yet been discussed. 
The two characters which separate Monocotyledons from Dicotyledons 
most completely are (1) the anatomy of the mature stem, and (2) the 
number of cotyledons. Less constant points of difference are found in 
the leaf and root structure, and in the floral symmetry. 
The question before us is whether the Primitive Angiosperms re- 
sembled one class or the other in these respects, or were completely 
different from either. This third suggestion is unlikely ; in all probability 
the Primitive Angiosperms resembled one branch of their descendants 
or the other in each of the characters in which those classes differ, but 
it is quite possible that they possessed some characters which we now call 
Monocotyledonous together with others which are proper to Dicotyledons. 
The evidence concerning each character must be considered on its own merits. 
