146 The “ Origin of Gymnosperms ” 
the Cycadean and Cordaitean affinities of Ginkgo clear. There 
remained the Taxaceze. The seed of Torreya shewed clear indications 
of Cycadean affinity, and he would he inclined to take all the 
Taxaceze as allied to Ginkgo and descended from a Filicinean stock. 
As to the Araucarieze and the Abietineze, there was much to be said 
for separating them, and also for keeping them together! The 
Araucarieze were undoubtedly a very ancient group. Dr. Thomson’s 
researches had strengthened his belief in their Cycadean affinities. 
The inflorescence and seeds pointed in the direction of Filicinean 
descent and so did the microsporangia and the embryo. He had, 
however, some undcscribed fossil fragments which combined the 
characters of Coniferous and Lepidodendrean wood. According to 
Renault Sigillariopsis had pitted tracheids; but bordered pits must 
have descended from scalariform within the Filicinean phylum and 
there was no reason why they should not have done so on the other 
line also. They now had a much wider field than formerly from 
which to derive the Conifers. Nearly every group of carboniferous 
Cycadofilices turned out to be seed-bearing, and that made their 
task much more practicable. As to the Abietineze he must say he 
was in favour of considering them allied to the Araucarieze, though, 
perhaps, not so closely as used to be thought. It would indeed be 
extraordinary if we were to derive all the other groups of Conifcrzc 
from Cycadofilices and the Araucarieze alone from Lepidodendreze, 
from which they differed so much in certain respects. 
Dr. A. B. Rendle (London, British Museum), speaking from 
experience of the recent forms, said that the Abietineze, Cupressineze 
and Araucarieze naturally held together, while they formed a 
9.45 strikingly distinct group from the Taxaceze. He should not 
be sorry to have an additional reason for emphasising this 
distinction. Both Mr. Seward and Dr. Scott had, in his opinion, 
made out very good cases for their respective views. 
Mr. W. C. Worsdell (Kew) said that Mr. Seward was one of 
those with whom he periodically disagreed, and that radically. To 
deal first with the question of the relation of the Araucarieze to the 
other Conifers. He had himself worked a good deal at the 
Araucarieze, but it had never occurred to him that there was any 
great difficulty about them. Araucaria might be a puzzle to the 
monkeys, but he declined to be faced with a fresh difficulty in the 
matter himself. What they had always to consider in these cases 
was the tout ensemble of the characters of the reproductive and 
vegetative organs, and this undoubtedly shewed a likeness to the 
Abietineze. The reason why Sachs, Eichler, Potonie and Seward 
had considered the Araucarieze as allied to the Lycopods was 
because they had taken a detail here and a detail there and 
laboured these, instead of taking a broad view. They had entirely 
failed to make use of any insight they might or might not have 
possessed. It was easy enough to find relationships if you merely 
attended to details; that was the way it was done; but such 
relationships were quite valueless. Unfortunately, no teratological 
phenomena, on which he always laid great stress, were known in 
the Araucarieze, but they were in the Abietineze and shewed that 
the single ovule was a modification of an axillary shoot bearing 
sporangia. Having got that conclusion, we could trace a relation 
to the Taxaceze, thence to Ginkgo, and thus to the Fern phylum. 
He would tell them the grain of truth underlying Mr. Seward’s 
view, for there was a grain of truth underlying even that. AU 
