784 Thiselton-Dyer . — Morphological Notes. 
(Vegetable Kingdom, 3rd ed. 22 7). And this view seemed to 
him conclusively supported by a monstrous cone of Picea excelsa 
figured by Richard (Memoire sur les Coniferes et Cycadees, 
1. 12, f. 3). Unfortunately this was not a cone at all, but a ‘ false 
cone’ or gall. Schleiden, whose boisterous criticisms may 
still be studied with advantage, insisted that the seminiferous 
scale was the equivalent of an axillary bud : — ‘ l’ecaille, con- 
sideree par R. Brown comme un ovaire ouvert, n’est autre 
chose que le bourgeon axillaire de la feuille carpellaire, place 
sous l’ecaille, et, par cette raison seule, ne saurait etre un organe 
foliaire, parce que folium in axilla folii est chose sans exemple 
dans tout le monde vegetal (Ann. d. sc. nat., 2 e sdr., xii. 374). 
Schleiden’s theory was developed by Braun, Caspary, and 
at first Eichler : they regarded the seminiferous scale as 
a short axis which has coalesced with its two carpels ; Von 
Mohl as ‘a coherent structure formed of the leaves of an 
undeveloped branch.’ 
The latter view derives some support from the ingenious 
argument which Masters has founded on a proliferous cone of 
Sciadopitys, first figured in Veitch’s Manual of Coniferae 
(Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1 . c.). According to a note by Van 
Volxem in the same volume (p. 155) this is ‘the most 
common form in the neighbourhood of Yokohama.’ 
Masters finds that in this case the bract-scale remains un- 
changed, while the seminiferous scale is replaced by a normal 
‘ leaf.’ He remarks that ‘ whatever be the nature of the 
so-called ‘leaf’ of Sciadopitys it must be essentially the same 
as that of the seed-scale of the Abietineae .’ The argument is, 
however, doubtful. Sciadopitys does not belong to the 
Abietineae proper, and its ‘leaf’ has itself been regarded as 
a shoot formed by the coalescence of a pair of leaves such as 
occur in Abietineae. 
Van Tieghem has adopted a view of which I have given an 
account in a note to Sachs’ Textbook (1st ed. pp. 453-4). 
He regards the seminiferous scale ‘ as the first and only leaf 
of an axis which undergoes no further development.’ This 
reconciles the views of Schleiden and Lindley. 
