76 
James Small. 
Eichler considered both these views wrong and regards the pappus 
as a modified calyx. He quotes the cases with a reduced number 
of paleaceous setse as proving the leaf-nature of the pappus (cp. 
below, Sect. B). 
Coulter (12) and Martin (50) consider the pappus as a calyx, 
the liberation of the upper part being retarded in the development 
of the flower. Worsdell takes a new line of argument (69, p. 954), 
“ if the pappus is not the homologue of the calyx, where are we to 
look for the latter in the normal floret ? for it cannot be supposed 
to be entirely absent.” Baillon (3) had previously stated that in the 
case of Xanthium there is nothing in the flower at any age which 
represents a true calyx. Worsdell (70, p. 77) considers that a 
pappus may also arise from supernumerary petals, as in the 
Leontopodium cilpinum ft nivale observed by De Candolle (9), and 
also states (70, p. 66) that “ normal examples of the multiplication 
of sepals are seen in the pappus of the Compositae.” Hutchinson 
(39) follows Worsdell. 
Warming (68) pointed out that the pappus hairs could not be 
sepals because they do not occur in the position of sepals, and 
because they have a function usually attributed to hairs. He 
regarded the pappus hairs as “ epiblastemes ” which differ essentially 
from the more highly organised “epiblastemes” and considered 
that the true calyx of the Compositae is the slightly developed 
annular ridge at the top of the cypsela from which the pappus hairs 
arise. The rudimentary vascular bundles on which Lund laid 
so much stress are considered by Warming to be of little importance. 
A similar view was held by Hanlein (26) and Masters (51). 
The latter answers the teratological arguments of Treub and 
Worsdell, when he points out that “ the occasional development of 
an organ which is usually suppressed does not prove that the parts 
that are generally present, like the pappus, are necessarily modified 
representatives of abortive organs.” Taliew (65) states as an 
accepted fact that the setae have the character of emergences in all 
the types examined by him. McNab(48) in reviewing Lund’s work 
considers that, although in some cases the pappus scales may be 
sepals, “ in the majority the scales or bristles or hairs of the pappus 
are undoubted trichome structures.” 
Such is the controversy in which the two chief British 
teratologists disagree in the most decided way, in which more or 
less detailed observations of a limited number of species are used to 
support the phyllome theory, while the general and well-known facts 
