206 
EEYIEWS. 
on the apex of the latter. In all these respects, except in the long styliform pro¬ 
cess, it accords with the inner ovular integument of phsenogamic plants, which, 
indeed, have not unfrequently tubular orifices prolonged through the nucleus, 
though not so far as that of Gnetacece. 
“ To these considerations must be added that of the exterior integument of 
Gnetum , which is as clearly an appendage of the ovule as the interior, but which 
must be considered to be either staminal or a production of the disc, if the inner 
coat is considered as carpellary. 
“ Lastly, ovular integuments are singularly uniform in their structural anatomy, 
which seldom deviates from one common type ; and, in the normal condition of the 
ovule, it is devoid of appendages, or of other external or internal characters whereby 
those of allied species, or even genera or orders can be distinguished from one another. 
I am not aware that a single natural family or genus of Angiosperms presents any 
structural peculiarity of the outer or inner coats of its ovule : on the other hand 
the carpel is of all the floral whorls one of the most various ; and, as often happens 
with other organs, the more reduced it is, and the more it deviates from the foliar 
type, the more liable it is to vary : whence it is all but inconceivable that the 
ovular integument of Gymnosperms should be carpellary, and yet constant in 
structure.” (p. 30). 
Again :—“ The ovule of the hermaphrodite Welwitschia, with its tortuous styli¬ 
form process and stigma-like apex, is the same in structure and appearance with the 
ovule of Ephedra, differing only in wanting the embryo-sac and in the stigma-like 
disc of the latter being narrow-oblong and not papillose.” (p. 23). 
We do not find, therefore, that the special evidence of Welwitschia 
serves as the basis of any argument in the case deserving to be main¬ 
tained independently, i. e., apart from other arguments derived from 
the rest of the ‘ Gymnospermous’ group. 
Any enquiry into the relations of the ovular integuments involves, 
to a certain extent, the consideration of the organ supporting or sub¬ 
tending these ovules. For it is quite conceivable that a carpellary 
leaf may occur as an open organ and not, as in Angiosperms, abso¬ 
lutely enclosing the ovule. And this seems the more likely since all 
are agreed that in Gymnosperms impregnation takes place by the 
application of the pollen directly upon the nucleus of the ovule, and not 
as in Angiosperms through the intervention of the stigma and con¬ 
ducting tissue of a carpel or carpels. In Angiosperms, moreover, 
cases do occur of the carpels opening so as to expose the young seeds, 
though never, so far as is known, are the ovules exposed prior to 
impregnation. 
Such being the case, it is not a question of whether or no the term 
Gymnosperms should be maintained. It is, as we have stated, 
simply a question as to the equivalent of the ovular integument in the 
two groups of Dicotyledons respectively, or, to heighten the contrast, 
—the equivalent of the ovular integument of Gymnosperms in all 
other flowering plants. 
With regard, then, to the organ, subtended by the bract-scale, which 
supports the ovules. If we take the very young female cone of a pine or 
larch, we shall find no difficulty in satisfying ourselves that the scale¬ 
like leaves of the stalk supporting the cone are serially continuous up¬ 
ward along the axis of the latter, where they subtend the organs from 
which the ovules arise. There can, therefore, be no hesitation in 
regarding these subtending leaves as bracts, in every way equivalent 
