proof of its correctness must chiefly rest on a resemblance, in every essential point, being established, between the inner body in the supposed female flower in these tribes, and the nucleus of the ovulum in ordinary structures; not only in the early stage, but also in the whole series of changes consequent to fecundation. Now, as far as I have yet examined, there is nearly a complete agreement in all these respects. I am not entirely satisfied, however, with the observations I have hitherto been able to make on a subject naturally difficult, and to which I have not till lately attended with my present view.
The facts most likely to be produced as arguments against this view of the structure of Coniferæ, are the unequal and apparently secreting surface of the apex of the supposed nucleus in most cases; its occasional projection beyond the orifice of the outer coat; its cohesion with that coat by a considerable portion of its surface, and the not unfrequent division of the orifice of the coat. Yet most of these peculiarities of structure might perhaps be adduced in support of the opinion advanced, being apparent adaptations to the supposed economy.
There is one fact that will hardly be brought forward as an objection, and which yet seems to me to present a difficulty, to this opinion; namely, the greater simplicity in Cycadeæ, and in the principal part of Coniferæ, of the supposed ovulum which consists of a nucleus and one coat only, compared with the organ as generally existing when enclosed in an ovarium. The want of uniformity in this respect may even be stated as another difficulty, for in some genera of Coniferæ the ovulum appears to be complete.
In Ephedra, indeed, where the nucleus is provided with two envelopes, the outer may, perhaps, be supposed rather analogous to the calyx, or involucrum of the male flower,
