176 Arber— Remarks on the Organization of the 
were thus certainly not attached below the interseminal scales. It follows 
therefore that they were borne either at the apex (corona) of the female 
conical axes, or on the urn-shaped axis distinguished above. My own view 
is that the latter possibility is almost certainly correct. If the urn-shaped 
axes did not bear the microsporophylls, what did they bear ? They must 
have borne some organ beyond doubt. They certainly did not bear inter- 
seminal scales, unless in some other more distal region, now missing, and 
even in that case one would have to admit that the cones of W illiamsonia 
were dimorphic. 
My view is that Williamson’s Plate 52, Fig. 1, was seated on the apex 
of the axes seen in Figs. 4 and 5 of the same plate, and that his Fig. 2 is 
Fig. 3. Restoration of male cone of W illiamsonia gigas (half natural size). Fig. 4. The same 
in section, st. whorl of microsporophylls ; per. — bracts ; and. = androphore. 
simply the lower surface of the cup of united microsporophylls. I 
therefore restore provisionally the male cone of W illiamsonia as shown in 
Figs. 3 and 4. 
If this is correct the male strobilus in this species had a distinct 
gonophore, or more strictly speaking androphore (and. in Figs. 3 and 4), 
whereas the female cone had none. That is to say, there was a considerable 
elongation of the internode or internodes between the perianth bearing 
nodes at the base of the cone, and the node bearing the whorl of micro- 
sporophylls. Such a gonophore occurs in the case of several Angio- 
spermous amphisporangiate flowers, though somewhat rarely. The genus 
Gynandropsis (family Capparidaceae), of South America and elsewhere, 
furnishes a well-known example. In W illiamsonia, the object of the 
gonophore no doubt was to elevate the microsporophylls when mature out 
