252 
W. T. Saxton. 
differently limited in some respects. Tison has upheld the view 
that the Araucarians, Saxegothcza (regarded by him as intermediate 
between Araucarians and Podocarps) and the other Podocarps 
should constitute one series, as against all the other Conifers. 
Seward has advocated separating the Araucarians alone from all 
other Coniferales, as a separate order the Araucariales. Lotsy has 
recently proposed to associate Araucarians (mdudingCunninghamia), 
Podocarps (including Phyllocladus) and Cupresseae (as usually under¬ 
stood) in one family ; Taxads, the old Taxodieae, and Abieteae in 
another. 
The latest classification is that of Vierhapper, but in this case 
it is definitely stated that no account is taken of gametophyte 
structures. He, like all the rest, has two families, “ Taxocupressaceae,” 
including three sub-families, Taxoideae (Taxads and Podocarps), 
Taxodioi'deae, and Cupressoideae ; and “ Abietaceae,” also including 
three sub-families, Araucarioideae ( Agathis and Araucaria) , Cunning- 
hamio'ideae (Cunninghamiaa.ndSciadopitys) and Abietoi'deae (as usual). 
These sub-families are further classified into tribes and sub-tribes, 
the latter often including only a single genus. 
The only exception I have noted to the two-family schemes of 
classification is the arrangement by Wettstein, who has three 
families sub-divided as follows:— 
I. —Taxaceae. 
i. Cephalotaxeae. ( Cephalotaxus ). 
ii. Taxeae. ( Torreya , Taxus). 
iii. Podocarpeae. (As usual, including Phyllocladus). 
II. —C upressaceae. 
A. Taxodioideae. Arthrotaxis, Sequoia, Cryptomeria, Taxodium). 
B. Cupressoideae. (As usually understood). 
III. —Abietaceae. 
i. Araucariese. ( Agathis , Araucaria). 
ii. Cunninghamieae. ( Cunninghamia , $ciadopitys.) 
iii. Abieteae, (As usual). 
Wettstein has been followed by Porsch, though apparently only in 
regard to the three families, and not in all the sub-divisions. The 
separation of Cupressaceae from Abietaceae is undoubtedly justified, 
but apart from this Wettstein’s grouping shows no advance on 
previous arrangements. 
That Cephalotaxus is the most primitive genus of Taxoidece, as 
maintained by Porsch, is in accordance with the views here put 
forward in regard to Taxad phylogeny, but the resemblances to 
