126 
James Small. 
Chapter VII. 
THE RECEPTACLE. 
W E have now reached a stage where it is admissible to use 
previous phyletic conclusions in the interpretation of the 
morphology and phyletic value of the remaining structures of the 
capitulum. As the structure and irritability of the styles and 
stamens, the structure and colour of the corolla, the structure of the 
pappus and involucre have all been shown to indicate the same 
evolutionary lines, the structure of the receptacle should be explained 
in the light of these facts. This is done in Section B and the usual 
sections on the history, the distribution of forms within the family 
and the phyletic value are included in the present chapter. 
A. History. 
Like the involucre, the receptacular paleae are among the more 
obvious features of the capitulum and as such were used at an early 
date in the sub-division of the family. Vaillantus (II, 70) 
distinguished various sub-groups of the Corymbiferae and the 
Cichoriaceae on the basis of the naked, paleaceous or pilose nature 
of the “ placenta.” Pontedera (1,71) distinguished naked, squamate, 
pappose, and villous types of “ thalamus.” Gaertner (I, 32) also 
used the receptacle for his sub divisions, distinguishing the alveolate 
form in addition to previously recognised types. Berkhey (1,9) has 
a chapter on the receptacle, distinguishing four types of surface and 
giving numerous figures in Tab. VII. 
Cassini (I, 18, Tome I, p. 252) gives a very precise and detailed 
account of the variation in the receptacle or “ clinanthe,” distin¬ 
guishing five parts and eight kinds of appendages, and differentiating 
between the paleae with florets in their axils and paleae which are 
more numerous than the florets and surround them. Bentham 
(I, 7, p. 368) gives another account of the variation in the receptacle 
and points out that the receptacular paleae are homologous with the 
involucral bracts; Blake (2) also notes this homology. It applies, 
however, only to the members of the periclinal part of the involucre 
(cp. Chap. VI, B). Bentham apparently confused the two kinds of 
receptacular paleae in the Buphthalminae (I, 7, p. 369) but after¬ 
wards (I, 8, p. 337) noted the setiferous character in a number of 
genera in that sub-tribe. He also ( loc. cit .) criticises Don’s use of 
the receptacle (I, 25) in the classification of the Cichorieae. 
Abnormalities. Cramer (IV, 21) refers to cases of the 
abnormal development of receptacular paleae in Hieracium and 
Pyrethrum, in which there are normally no paleae. Goebel (V, 21, 
p. 397) mentions gradual transitions from involucral bracts to 
setiform paleae in Xeranthemum macrophyllnm, but, as above- 
