1 74 A rber .— Remarks on the Organization of the 
sum lip the difficulties which remain in order to see how the position stands 
at present. This I propose to do briefly here. 
The chief uncertainties are as follows : 
(1) Were the cones monosporangiate (unisexual) or amphisporangiate 
(bisexual) ? 
(2) Where were the male sporophylls attached ? 
(3) What structure, if any, was borne on the axis of the cone above the 
female organs (interseminal scales and seeds) ? 
(4) Was there an infundibular expansion, somewhat similar in form to 
the united whorl of male sporophylls, but of a sterile nature, and where was 
it attached ? 
Were the Cones monosporangiate or amphisporangiate? 
On the question as to whether the cones were monosporangiate or 
amphisporangiate there will always be differences of opinion until the perfect 
male cone has been discovered. It is, at present, a case merely of the 
balance of probability. On the amphisporangiate side, the older view, we 
find ranged the opinions of Lignier, 1 Wieland, 2 and quite recently Seward, 3 
who says (1917) ‘ they may have been bisporangiate — a view that seems to 
me the more probable — but this has not been demonstrated \ 
That the cone of Williamsonia was monosporangiate, and that there 
were separate male and female cones, was first advocated by Nathorst, 4 and 
more recently has been supported by Thomas. 5 The present writer 
supports the Monosporangiate theory on the following grounds. 
He believes that all the parts of the two cones, male and female, were 
figured by Williamson 6 as far back as 1870, and that it is merely a matter 
of piecing the parts together correctly. The illustrations in question are 
Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Williamson’s PL 52, and Figs. 6-8 of the same author’s 
Plate 53. The latter set of specimens are now known to represent the apex 
of the axis still bearing interseminal scales, probably sterile. More com- 
plete specimens of the lower parts of the same cones were figured by 
Saporta 7 from British specimens in 1891. The only doubt then as regards 
the female cone is whether any organ was borne at the tip of the axis of 
that cone at the region of the terminal mamilla, termed by Williamson the 
corona, a point to be further discussed presently. 
As particularly pertinent to this inquiry, emphasis may be laid on 
a fact, which appears to have been overlooked in recent years. The cones 
of Williamsonia had two quite different axes, exactly as Williamson first 
figured them, and despite Lignier’s 8 opinion that the staminal whorl 
1 Lignier (1907). 2 Wieland (1911), p. 462. 
3 Seward (1917), vol. iii, pp. 423-4. 4 Nathorst, (1909) p. 30, (1911) p. 26. 
5 Thomas (1915), p. 137. 6 Williamson (1870). 
7 Saporta (1891), vol. iv, PI. iS, Fig. 2 : PI. 19, Fig. 2 ; PL 20, Fig. 2. 
8 Lignier (1907). 
