Evolution of the Angio sperms. 
493 
would also have kept them apart, like De Jussieu; for Bartling 1 in 1830 
still adheres to this separation. He places Gnetnm in his order, Chlo- 
rantheae, which directly follows the Piperaceae, while Ephedra appears in 
the Taxineae, one of the four groups into which he divides the Coniferae. 
About this time Robert Brown published a paper ‘ On the Structure of 
the Female Flower in Cycadeae and Coniferae ’, 2 which marked an epoch 
in the progress of the study of floral morphology and taxonomy. . The rise 
of the Gymnospermae as a separate group dates from this period, though 
the full significance of Brown’s discovery of the naked megasporangia of the 
Cycads and Conifers, in contrast to the enclosed ovules of Angiosperms, 
was only gradually grasped later. In fact the complete separation of 
Gymnosperms from Angiosperms, as a whole, is comparatively modern. 
Brown 3 extended his standpoint of the lack of an investing carpel to Ephedra 
and Gnetum . He shows reason for regarding the style-like projection in 
the female flower of Ephedra as being ovular, rather than carpellary, in 
origin. 4 In our opinion he interpreted the morphological value of these 
envelopes more correctly than many of his successors, and his attitude 
towards the whole problem was thus considerably in advance of his time. 
Robert Brown’s views regarding the peculiarities of the gymno- 
spermous ovule soon began to influence the position of Ephedra and 
Gnetum in classification. The merit of bringing these two genera together 
belongs to Blume. In a paper 5 published by him in 1834, he established 
a new order, the Gneteae, for Ephedra and Gnetum , characterized by 
possessing neither style nor stigma. He considered the group to be con- 
nected through Ephedra on the one hand with the Conifers, and on the 
other hand to Casuarina. Lindley apparently seized upon this conception 
of Blume’s, changing the name of the order to Gnetaceae. In 1835° he 
placed Gnetum alone in it, but the year following 7 he included Ephedra 
also. 
The system of Endlicher 8 now claims a passing notice. His Gymno- 
spermae, ranking as a group equivalent to the Apetalae or Gamopetalae, 
consist of one class, the Coniferae, which is subdivided into four 
orders — Cupressineae, Abietineae, Taxineae, and Gnetaceae. Here we 
observe that the Gnetaceae are regarded as a comparatively subordinate 
group of Gymnosperms, nearly related to the Taxineae. 
Brongniart, 9 though the first systematist to raise the Gymnosperms 
to a rank equivalent to that of the Dicotyledons, still kept the Gnetaceae 
in the same relatively subordinate position as Endlicher. 
1 Bartling (’80), pp. 86 and 96. 
3 Ibid., p. 453. 
5 Blume (’34), p. 10 1. 
7 Lindley (’36), p. 31 1. 
9 Brongniart (’43), p. xxxii. 
2 Brown (’27). 
4 Ibid., p. 457. 
6 Lindley (’35), PI. 1686. 
8 Endlicher (’36), p. xi. 
L 1 2 
