546 Dutt . — Pityostrobus macrocephalus , L. and H. 
their development and would appear to be incapable of further stretching/ 
It is just possible that something of the same sort may have occurred in 
these cones. 
Oliver and Scott (10 < 2 ) also speak of * the weli-preserved tissues of the 
nucellar base ’. In our ovule the nucellus is reduced to a thin layer, while 
the endosperm seems more developed than in Lagenostoma. If then the 
absence of an embryo is striking in the latter instance, it should be quite as 
much or more so in the case of P. niacrocephahls. 
Coming finally to the consideration of the affinities of the present 
specimen, it will hardly be necessary after what has been said to enumerate 
the features which make it more closely allied to the modern Pinas than to 
any other genus of the Abietineae. The general shape and size of the cone, 
the two sorts of scales and their relative importance, the two reversed ovules 
on each scale, the winged seed, all make it certain that the cone is in every 
essential character identical with the living genus. Special peculiarities 
there are, but we have already seen that none of these can be considered to 
be of generic value. 
It is not at all so easy to make sure of its relations within the genus 
Pinas itself. Carruthers instituted a comparison of the internal structure 
with that of Pinas Pinaster , while from the apophyses he concluded that 
the affinities were with Pinas pinea . Of the latter feature he says, ‘ (The 
apophyses) scarcely differ from those of Pinas pinea. . . . Indeed in the 
form, size and arrangement of the apophyses, this recent pine remarkably 
resembles the fossil cone/ But, as Carruthers admits, the form of the cone 
and the internal structure are Very different, and it seems to me that there 
can be no comparison between the ttvo cones. Nor has our cone much in 
common with Pinas Pinaster. There is some general resemblance in the 
form of the scales, but the pyramidal shape of the cone, the very stout axis, 
and the small pointed apophyses make the recent species a quite different 
type. It is unfortunate that information is lacking as to the crucial feature 
of the position of the umbo on the apophysis. Carruthers would have us 
believe that the apophysis was a large flat surface with possibly a small 
central umbo. At any rate, all his suggestions of affinity refer to the 
Pinaster section of the genus. But, as already pointed out, one cannot 
place a great deal of reliance on his restorations, and it seems more probable 
that the umbo was terminal on the apophysis, as in the section Strobas. 
The general features of the cone, such as the very slender axis, are in 
accordance with this view of its affinities. It is interesting to note also that 
there appear to be many resemblances between this cone and that of 
Pinostrobus sussexiensis , Mantel!.-, from the Lower Greensand, which is 
generally agreed to be closely related to Pinas Strobas , L. The 
pitting of the medullary ray field agrees with that in the recent 
Strobas section, and denticulate ray tracheides are, at least apparently, 
