25
the developed anterior one, and the thicker rib on the posterior carpellary wall is not
much better explained by supposing it to be axial than it is by supposing it to be placen-
tal. On the whole therefore Payer's attempt to explain, on organogenic grounds, the
structure of the ovary and the nature of the ovule is not more satisfactory than Clarke's
organographic one.
Doell1appears to be the next writer to express a definite opinion on the subject.
He advances the theory, already put forward by B. Clarke, that in Cannabineæ we have
normally a solitary carpel in the ovary. He explains the second style, which B. Clarke
does not deal with at all, as an excrescence on the ventral suture of the carpel. But
though this view was at one time endorsed by Celakowsky, 2 it has only to be stated
in order to realise its insufficiency ; Clarke's reticence on the point is by comparison
almost commendable.
Schnitzlein, 3 whose drawings have been referred to already, makes a quite different
attempt to explain the two styles by showing them at right angles to the axis of the cavity
formed by the single carpel, which is coincident with the long axis of the embryo. If
this had accorded with organographic facts it might have accounted for the existence of
the two styles as belonging to one carpel, though it would still have failed to explain
why one of the styles should be larger than its neighbour. The carpel, according to
Schnitzlein, is internal not external. But the whole drawing is out of accord with actual
fact ; the styles and the long axis of the embryo are in the same, not in intersecting
planes ; moreover, Schnitzlein has shown the radicle where the cotyledons ought to be,
and vice versá.
Celakowsky soon abandoned the view of B. Clarke as modified by Doell, and adopted
that of Payer, for in his magistral works on this subject 4 his views as regards the struc-
ture of the ovary are mainly those of Payer repeated in another form, and are, as he
himself practically admits, based on the results obtained by Payer in the classic Organo-
g é n i e .
'The apex of the floral axis is clothed with foliar tissue belonging primarily to two
separate carpels, of which the inner is practically abortive, being pushed to one side by
the outer which develops more strongly, and ultimately is represented by the portion
of the ovarian wall overlying the chalaza and by the posterior internal style.' Thus put,
all the objections to the original theory stand unanswered ; in particular the view here
expressed is irreconcilable with the fact that the posterior style, which should belong to
an abortive carpel, is nevertheless the stronger of the two.
Celakowsky's view regarding the ovule, though at first sight diametrically opposed to
Payer's, since Payer holds that the origin of the ovule is axial while Celakowsky insists that
it is of foliar origin, is nevertheless merely Payer's view modified to accord with Celakows-
ky's thoughtful hypothesis. 'The growing point of the floral axis is displaced by the
greater development of the anterior carpel to the lateral posterior position it actually
occupies. This growing point, however, includes nothing belonging to the axis ; it is of
foliar nature ; the stele has no true apex, at any rate no bare apex ; this subtends, is
blended with, and is lost in the substance of the apical tissue.' Whatever may be the case
in other plants there is nothing in the structure of Cannabis that affords the slightest
1 Flora des Grosshersogthums Baden ; Carlsruhe, 1857-62.
2Ueber die morphologische Bedeutung der Samenknospen (
Flora1874, p. 274).
3 Iconographia, ii, p. 95 (1870).
4 Ueber Placenten and Hemmungsbildungen der Carpellen. Prag. 1875 : Vergleichende Darstellung
der Placenten in den Fruchtknoten der Phanerogamen. Prag. 1876.