58 WorsdelL—The Structure of the 
Stenzel’s buds never occurs, this scale being always quite 
regular in shape. The posterior bud-scale is always quite 
rudimentary. The explanation lay probably in the fact that 
Stenzel’s cones were, as a whole, more monstrous, while his 
own possessed exceptional symmetry and regularity. He 
believes that the seminiferous scale proceeds from an axillary 
shoot with two opposite leaves and bearing a terminal bud 
(Fig. 3). ‘ It is therefore a metamorphosed brachyblast , con¬ 
sisting of a median axis and two leaves fused therewith on 
its anterior stir face , whose original separation in P. excelsa 
is shown by the indentation of the apex of the seminiferous 
scale! He regards the seminiferous scale as consisting of 
‘ two open carpels, and the ovules or seeds occurring on their 
dorsal side are naked.’ 
Although Celakovsky produced at this time, and a few 
years later, some literature on the subject, I prefer to treat 
his views as a whole later on, for it was not until 1897 that his 
maturest ideas on the whole problem were issued to the world. 
Arcangeli’s (90) views, published in 1880, are perhaps 
worth mention on account of their extraordinary nature. He 
considers, from the fact that the two sets of bundle-systems 
arise as one from the axis 1 , that the bract and seminiferous 
scale in Pinus , Cupressus , Thuja , Cryptomeria , and Sequoia 
are really a single organ, of axial nature, the bract being 
a leaf of this branch, and the latter arising in the place 
of a leaf. In Cunninghamia ‘ the scale is developed chiefly 
with the characters of a leaf, since there is only the small 
upper bundle to indicate its rameal character.’ In Araucaria 
the scales are true bracts showing no sign of a transformation 
into shoots, for the reason that the bundles show no sign of 
arranging themselves in a vascular ring, the two laterally- 
placed bundles which Van Tieghem considered as belonging 
to the upper scale being only branches passing off from the 
bract-bundles to the ovules. ‘One must admit that the 
1 But this is, however, by no means always the case. See my former paper: 
‘Observations on the Vascular System of the Female “Flowers” of Coniferae.’ 
Ann. Bot. Vol. xiii, 1899. 
