N. Bancroft. 
306 
63. Schmid, B. “ Beitrage zur Embryo-Entwickelung einiger Dicotylen.” 
Bot. Zeit., Vol. 60, 1902, p. 207. 
64. Scott, D. H. “ Studies in Fossil Botany.” 2nd Ed., London, 1909. 
65. Seward, A. C. “ Notes on the Geological History of Monocotyledons.” 
Ann. of Bot., Vol. 10, 1896, p. 205. 
66. Sterckx, R. 11 Recherches anatomiques sur 1’ embryon et les plantules 
dans la famille des Renonculacees.” Mem. de la 
Soc. Roy. d. Sci. de Liege, Ser. 3, t. 2, 1899. 
67. Stopes, M. C., and Fujii, K. “ Studies on the Structure and Affinities of 
Cretaceous Plants.” (Abstract from the Proceedings 
of the Royal Society, 1909). Ann. of Bot., Vol. 24, 
1910, p. 231. 
68. Stopes, M. C. “ Further Observations on the Fossil Flower, Crctovarium." 
Ann. of Bot., Vol. 24, 1910, p. 679. 
69. Strasburger, E. “ Die Coniferen und die Gnetaceen.” Jena, 1872. 
70. Stuchlik, J. 11 Serologie v. Botanice.” Biologickelisty, roc. 2, 1913. 
71. Tansley, A. G. “ ‘ Reduction ’ in Descent.” New Phytologist, Vol. 1, 
1902, p. 131. 
72. ,, and Thomas, E. N. “ The Phylogenetic Value of the 
Vascular Structure of Spermophytic Hypocotyls.” 
Report of Brit. Assoc., Sect. K, 1906, p. 761. 
73. Thomas, E. N. ‘‘A Theory of the Double Leaf-Trace Founded on 
Seedling-Structure.” New Phytologist., Vol. 6, 
1907, p. 77. 
74. Warming, E. “ Froplanterne (Spermatofyter).” Copenhagen and 
Christiania, 1912. 
75. Wettstein, R. R. von. ‘‘Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik.” 
Leipzig and Vienna, 1911. 
APPENDIX. 
Since the above review was written three important papers 
dealing with the origin of Monocotyledons have appeared. 
The first of these is concerned with the point of contact between 
the Monocotyledons and the Dicotyledons. Nitzschke (3) maintains 
that, owing to its position, the embryo-sac is less likely to become 
affected by external (ecological and physiological) conditions than 
other plant organs. He accordingly has investigated and compared 
the developmental history of the embryo-sacs of the apocarpous 
nymphseacese —Cabomba and Drasenia —and those of certain forms 
of the Helobieae, particularly of Butomaceae and Alismatacea 2 . He 
finds that of all Ranalean types investigated by him or by other 
authors, the apocarpous nymphaeaceae show the greatest similarity, 
so far as embryo-sacdevelopmentis concerned, to the Helobieae. His 
conclusion is, therefore, that they may have been derived from a 
common ancestor. 
