The Female Flowers of Coniferæ
o14 BOTANICAL GAZETTE. River near Chicago." Dodecatheon Meadia, L., var. Fren(ctii, Vasey, grows there at the base of overhanging cliffs. It is smaller than the usual form, has fewer flowers and thin ovate-cordate leaves on margined petioles, constituting a well-marked variety.-A. B. SEY-MOUR. Tle felmale Flowers of Conifera.-Professor Eichler's paper on this subject, reviewed in the May number of this Journal, has induced Professor CELAKOVSKY to re-investigate this subject, morphologically so
... morphologically so important, and to which he had already devoted much attention. In the Abhandl. d. K. Boehm. Ges. d. Wiss. he has recently published his present views, in an extensive article, illustrated by a plate. After reviewing the different theories and explanations enunciated since Robert Brown's time, he dwells emphatically on the great importance of the study of the anamnorphoses (as he calls those monstrosities which are the result ot retrograde metamorphosis, in contra-distinction to mere pathological alterations) and of the teachings they convey. He comes to the conclusion that these are a much safer guide than the microscopic study of the genesis of the organs, which has often misled those who too implicitly relied on its teachings. Investigating the anamorphoses of the Norway spruce, he finds the two lateral carpellary leaves distinctly indicated and more or less separated and developed. In more involved cases an anterior and then a posterior bract make their appearance; these, Professor Eichler had taken for a third and fourth lobe of his ligula. It must be stated here that normally the posterior bract is the third and the anterior the fourth in order. Celakovsky comes to the conclusion that, at least in Abietinece, Eichler's theory (that the carpellary scale is a mere emergence or ligule of the bract) is quite wrong, and that Mohl's view (1871)*-that the carpellary scale of these plants consists of the two connate lowest leaves of an axillary, otherwise undeveloped, bud connate at their upper edge and producing the ovules on their back,-is amply vindicated by all known morphological facts and is antagonistic to none of them. He further concedes that the same explanation may possibly be the true one for all conifers, and that all inorphologists who have treated this question thus far, have, whatever their views, assumed a conformity in this respect in all the tribes of conifers, and a complete homology of their female organs. But he thinks * It appears now that A. Braun has expressed the same view as early as 1842 in the French Congres scientifique at Strasburg, in the report of whose proceedings it is published. He often threw out such hints from the rich treasures of his investigations, but with characteristic modesty he gavethem to science without urging them or claiming scientific property or priori ty in them.