498 
Stiles.— The Podocarpeae. 
unlike that occurring in undoubted Araucarieae. Nevertheless Professor 
Jeffrey finds ‘bars of Sanio ’ absent, and so concludes that the plant is 
one of the Araucarieae, and further that it furnishes ‘evidence for the 
derivation of the Araucarian stock from an ancestry essentially resem- 
bling the existing Abietineae \ Sinnott’s Paracedroxylon 1 is regarded as 
‘a new type of Araucarian wood’ for the same reason. Indeed, this 
reference to an Araucarian affinity seems even more unsatisfactory than 
that of Geinitzia . 
But even if it be allowed that Araucarian wood is characterized by an 
absence of ‘bars of Sanio’, it would seem to be an utterly insufficient reason 
to assert, therefore, the nearer connexion of the Podocarpeae with the 
Abietineae than with the Araucarieae. In the first place, Miss Gerry’s 
observations go to show that while ‘ bars of Sanio ’ are absent in Araucarieae 
they are not so abundant in the Podocarpeae as in the Abietineae . 2 Again, 
it would be quite likely that ‘ bars of Sanio ’ should cease to be developed 
along the Araucarian line of descent and yet remain in the Podocarpean. 
In fact, when the striking resemblance of the reproductive organs of Saxe- 
gothaea and the Araucarieae in more than one respect is considered, 
together with the less-marked resemblances in the vegetative organs, it 
must be admitted by every impartial critic acquainted with the facts of the 
case as they are at present known, that this resemblance far outweighs in 
phylogenetic value the dissimilarity in the case of the ‘ bars of Sanio ’. 
A more difficult question is that regarding the relationship of the 
Podocarpeae and the Taxeae. A relationship between the two orders has 
for long been assumed by the retention of both in the one family Taxaceae. 
Mr. Brooks and the writer in a previous paper 3 expressed the opinion that 
evidence of relationship between the two orders was at present not very 
clear, though Phyllocladus might be a connecting link. M. Tison 4 has 
stated that he has evidence^. that the Taxeae are derived from the Cupres- 
sineae, but as far as the writer is aware this evidence has not yet been 
published. Miss Young’s recent work on Phyllocladus shows conclusively, 
as Mr. Brooks and the writer suggested might be the case, that this genus 
is one of the Podocarpeae rather than intermediate between that order and 
the Taxeae . 5 In the latter the structure of the wood of the stem, the 
character of the microsporophyll, the position of the ovules in Taxus and 
Torreya and the number appertaining to one megasporophyll in Cephalotaxus , 
the absence of prothallial tissue in the male gametophyte, and the absence 
or poor development of the megaspore membrane 6 are all characters in 
marked contrast to the equivalent ones in the Podocarpeae. Our knowledge 
here is at present inadequate to enable a definite statement to be made ; it 
1 Sinnott (’ 09 ), p. 170. 
3 Brooks and Stiles (' 10 ), p. 316. 
6 Young (’ 10 ) ; see also Stiles (’ll). 
2 Gerry (MO), p. 12 1. 
4 Tison (’ 09 ), p. 156. 
6 Thomson (’ 05 1 ), p. 43. 
