ANGIOSPERMÆ.

See pages 3 and 224. To this Division belong the majority of the

Flowering-plants. They are divided into two parallel classes, the

Monocotyledons and the Dicotyledons, which differ from each other not

only in the number of cotyledons, which, with a few exceptions, is one

in the former, two in the latter, but also in the internal structure

of the stem, the venation of the leaves, the number of the parts of

the flower, etc. ~Assuming that these two classes have sprang from a

common origin, it is amongst the Helobieæ in the first, and amongst the

Polycarpicæ in the second class that we might expect to find closely

allied forms, which might reasonably be supposed to have varied less

from this original type. As for the rest, they seem to stand quite

parallel, without exhibiting any close relationship. It is scarcely

proved that the Monocotyledons are the older class.~

[Our knowledge of the forms included under the Angiosperms has

recently been considerably increased by Treub (_Ann. d. Jar. Bot. d.

Buitenzorg_, 1891), who has shown that the Casuarinas differ in many

important points from the typical Angiosperms. Among other characters

the pollen-tube is found to enter the ovule near the chalaza and

therefore at the opposite end to the micropyle, and Treub therefore

suggests that these plants should be placed in a subdivision termed

Chalazogams.

According to this view the principal divisions of the Angiosperms would

be represented thus:--

=Angiospermæ.=

Sub-division. Sub-division.

CHALAZOGAMES. POROGAMES.

Class. Classes.

Chalazogames. Monocotyledones, Dicotyledones.

More recently Nawaschin (_Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb._, ser.

iii., xxxv.) has shown that _Betula_, and Miss Benson (_Trans. Linn.

Soc._, 1894) that _Alnus_, _Corylus_, and _Carpinus_ also belong to the

Chalazogams.

Our knowledge, however, is still so incomplete that one would hesitate

to accord the full systematic value which Dr. Treub attaches to his

discovery until the limits of the Chalazogamic group are better

defined; and it would hardly be justifiable to include the Casuarinas

and the above-noted genera in one family.]

A handbook of systematic botany · 第 215 / 316 题