578 
Saxton. — Contributions to the 
has, however, not been taken up (with two or three exceptions) by later 
investigators, although in external features it resembles W iddringtonia far 
more closely than Callitris , and if external characters were alone to be used 
as the criterion, it ought rather to be placed in the former genus than the 
latter. Dr. C. E. Moss informs me that the plant is known to the Forestry 
officials in Algeria as Tetraclinis. 
Several investigators have studied some points in the morphology. 
Strasburger (52) describes and figures immature archegonia as being pre- 
cisely like those of all other Cupressoi'deae, the number of archegonia being 
given as ‘fifteen or more’. Eichler (14) figures the external features of 
strobili and foliage. Goebel (18) gives figures of the young female strobilus 
and of a longitudinal section of the ovule. 
More interesting, though less precise, are the observations recorded by 
Juel (21), who unfortunately, however, gives no figures. He reports that 
the ovules were rather large, and that most of them were empty and 
shrivelled ; others were found to contain a normal endosperm, but no trace 
of archegonia, nor even of any space or disorganized part ; even when 
archegonia were present, they were never normal, but sometimes had the 
typical terminal group as well as a smaller similar group at the side of the 
endosperm. It is not entirely clear what is here meant by ‘normal’ ; if it 
means the typical archegonial complex of the Cupressoi’deae, as would seem 
probable, my own results are in direct conflict with those of Juel, but the 
chief point of interest is that lateral archegonia are stated to occur, either 
with or without the ordinary terminal group. 
Noren (37, p. 31 ), in a footnote, makes a similar observation : ‘ In den 
Praparaten von Callitris quadrivalvis , die ich zu untersuchen Gelegenheit 
hatte, waren oft mehrere Archegoniengruppen vorhanden. Dies ist aber 
wahrscheinlich eine abnorme Erscheinung, vielleicht hervorgerufen durch 
die Kultur im Gewachshause, wo sich der Baum befand, der das Material 
geliefert hat.’ It is doubtful, however, whether the abnormality is wholly 
due to the effect of cultural conditions ; reference will be made to this 
point later. 
The idea was prevalent at one time that this plant was the type species 
of the genus Callitris ; Baker and Smith (3), however, consider that the 
type was one of the Australian plants included in the genus Callitris , though 
they were not able to express any very firm opinion as to which species was 
the first to be so named (probably C. rhomboidea). They follow Masters in 
excluding Tetraclinis (and W iddringtonia) from the genus, and even if it 
should prove that this plant was the original type of Callitris , the inter- 
national rules require that the latter name shall be kept for the greater 
number of species, in the event of the genus being split. By the same code 
of rules it is clear that the correct specific name of the plant would be 
articulata , so that Masters’s name, Tetraclinis articulata , is entirely valid. 
