![Thumbnail: [Volume 43, 1910 page 53]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_43/thumbnails/rsnz_43_02_0782_0053_ac_02.gif)
6. The Morphology of the Podocarpineae.
Before the year 1902 very little was known regarding the morphology of the Podocarpinaceae, but since that date a number of investigators, using in large part material from New Zealand, have found out a good deal about the group, the only genus yet untouched being Pherosphaera, with its two species. Of special interest is the question of relationships of the Podocarpineae, particularly with regard to the Araucarineae.
The paper deals first with the gametophytes of Phyllocladus, the authoress having examined a considerable amount of material of Phyllocladus alpinus, which had been collected by the reviewer at fairly regular intervals from the 16th October to the 28th January. A full account is given of the male and female gametophytes, and of the process of fertilization, and the process of fertilization, and there is something as to the development of the embryo. The conclusion come to by the authoress regarding the affinities of Phyllocladus is that it is a relatively primitive member of the Podocarpineae, which branched off from them a comparatively short time after their separation from the Taxineae. This conclusion is based on the following: (1) Phyllocladus has primitive characters of the Taxineae which are being eliminated in the Podocarpineae; (2) it has primitive characters of the Podocarpineae which have been entirely eliminated in the Taxineae; (3) it has some advanceed characters of Podocarpineae; (4) the taxad resemblances are more superficial and variable, and the podocarp features more fundamental.
![Thumbnail: [Volume 43, 1910 page 54]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_43/thumbnails/rsnz_43_02_0783_0054_ac_02.gif)
The remainder of the paper deals with the relationship between the Podocarpineae and the Araucarineae. The authoress brings together the available facts from the different publications bearing on the subject. She comes to the conclusion that the Podocarpineae and Araucarineae are very primitive, and that they are probably related; but the question is by no means settled. There are various gaps in our knowledge, especially regarding the Araucarineae, the female gametophyte of which is little known, while of the embryo we know virtually nothing. In the Podocarpineae, too, adequate knowledge is wanted of the female gametophyte, embryo, and the development of ovulate structures. Wanting the above knowledge, “we should be hardly justified in coming to a definite decision in regard to relationships, and at present it seems best to hold Taxineae, Podocarpineae, and Araucarineae apart as separate tribes, leaving open the question of larger grouping amongst conifers.”
L. C.