57 
Female ‘ Flower\ in Coniferae. 
did the male form a middle zone with female above and 
below. Some of the bracts bore pollen-sacs. He also pos¬ 
sessed at this time a proliferated cone of Picea alba. The 
buds in the axils of the bracts bore, besides the two semi¬ 
niferous scales fused by their posterior and gaping at their 
anterior margins, a posterior and an anterior scale, and one 
or two inner scales. In some cases the seminiferous scale 
was so completely fused with the anterior bud-scale as to 
form a single flat scale as seen from the front, but in reality 
its posterior margins were represented by two low ridges, 
visible from the inside, which did not, as in other cases, extend 
as far as the posterior bud-scale. As regards the character¬ 
istic projection or 4 Dorn 3 on the seminiferous scale of Pinus, 
which Strasburger thinks is an axis, it may represent either 
the place of fusion of the posterior margins of the seminiferous 
scale, or the posterior bud-scale. 
The same kind of sports as those in Picea occur also in 
Tsuga Brunoniana , Carr., a fact which, he says, lends weight 
to the above explanations. In the latter plant, the posterior 
bud-scale is often as well developed as the anterior one, so 
that the parts of the bud all come to be united laterally 
into a woody structure. The axis of the bud is often more 
elongated into a leafy shoot. The fact that the seminiferous 
scale is shown to consist of two leaves, is antagonistic to the 
idea that the ovule is an ovary. The fact that the ovular 
envelope arises at first as two distinct outgrowths which 
afterwards become fused, does not prove that they are part 
of an ovary ; and, moreover, there is no stigma present. 
Willkomm (86) observed in a proliferated cone of the Spruce 
great numbers of buds in the axils of the bracts of the upper 
portion, which differ from those in Stenzel’s case in being 
extremely symmetrical and regular, and therefore hardly to 
be called c monstrosities,’ such as those of Stenzel; this is 
a very important factor in determining their morphological 
value. His conclusions as to the morphology of the semi¬ 
niferous scale are precisely the same as those of Stenzel. 
The monstrous tubular or funnel-shaped anterior scale of 
