482 
Holden and Daniels. — Observations on the 
Of these the first alternative has received strong support from 
Sargant (26) as the result of an extensive series of comparative observations 
on the seedling anatomy of the Monocotyledons and of certain Dicotyledons, 
in which an amphisyncotylous condition obtains. This worker considers 
that the type of seedling anatomy characterizing Anemarrhena asphodeloides 
provides the clue to the source of the monocotyledonous condition. In 
this species the major portion of the cotyledon is traversed by two separate 
symmetrically placed strands, each of which, at the level of transition to the 
primary root, branches into three, the marginal portions uniting in pairs 
and constituting two of the root-poles, whilst the median portions also each 
form a root-pole, so that tetrarchy results. The ‘ Anemarrhena ’ condition is 
believed to have given rise in other Monocotyledons to that type of cotyle- 
donary vascular supply in which there is a single median cotyledonary 
bundle (e. g. Allium, Zygadenus) by the intimate fusion of the two originally 
independent strands. The ‘ Anemarrhena 5 condition is further compared with 
the type of vascular symmetry shown by a dicotyledonous species, Eranthis 
hiemalis , in which the seedling is amphisyncotylous. In this species each 
cotyledon is supplied with a median bundle flanked by lateral strands, the 
latter uniting with the midrib at the base of the lamina. Each midrib bifur- 
cates in the hypocotyl so that two pairs of independent collateral bundles 
result. From these what is interpreted by Sargant as a fugitive tetrarch 
condition ultimately results, diarchy following on the loss of the two inter- 
cotyledonary protoxylems. The development of an Anemarrhena-like phase 
in the hypocotyl and root of a geophilous dicotyledon is considered to 
support the view that Monocotyledons have arisen by a method approxi- 
mating to this. De Fraine (10) criticizes this interpretation and points out 
that the occurrence of an Anemarrhena-like phase is not confined to 
geophilous Dicotyledons. (It has been recorded, for example, by Thomas 
(31) in Althaea , by Fee (21) in Incarvillea , and by de Fraine (10) in 
Opuntia spp.) It is noted also that amphisyncotyly does not necessarily 
lead to the type of anatomy characterizing Anemarrhena (e. g. Delphinium 
sp., Anemone coronaria ). A further criticism is put forward by Thomas (31), 
who considers that the xylem elements regarded by Sargant as constituting 
the intercotyledon ary poles in Eranthis hiemalis are probably of secondary 
character, and if this view is correct the species is diarch throughout and the 
resemblance to Anemarrhena is illusory. Much obviously depends upon 
the correct interpretation of the two independent strands which traverse the 
cotyledon in Anemarrhena. If each represents the products of an intimate 
fusion of a median strand with a lateral on either flank, then the resemblance 
to Dicotyledons of the Althaea type is plain. There is, however, a possible 
alternative, namely, that each represents the widely separated half of 
a ‘double’ bundle which has fused with a lateral and a marginal strand on 
the distal flank only. That a condition analogous to this is possible is 
