(*Footnote. Botan. Handb. 3 page 276 table 308.)

In 1807, a memoir on this subject, by Mr. Salisbury, was published,* in
which an account of structure is given, in no important particular
different from that of Trew and Schkuhr, with whose observations he
appears to have been unacquainted.

(*Footnote. Linnean Society Transactions 8 page 308.)

M. Mirbel, in 1809,* held the same opinion, both with respect to Pinus
and to the whole natural family. But in 1812, in conjunction with M.
Schoubert,** he proposed a very different view of the structure of
Cycadeae and Coniferae, stating, that in their female flowers there is
not only a minute cohering perianthium present, but an external
additional envelope, to which he has given the name of cupula.

(*Footnote. Ann. du Mus. d'Hist. Nat. tome 15 page 473.)

(**Footnote. Nouv. Bulletin des Sc. tome 3 pages 73, 85 et 121.)

In 1814 I adopted this view, as far, at least, as regards the manner of
impregnation, and stated some facts in support of it.* But on
reconsidering the subject, in connexion with what I had ascertained
respecting the vegetable ovulum, I soon after altogether abandoned this
opinion, without, however, venturing explicitly to state that now
advanced, and which had then suggested itself.**

(*Footnote. Flinders Voyage 2 572.)

(**Footnote. Tuckey Congo page 454 et Linnean Society Transactions volume
13 page 213.)

It is well known that the late M. Richard had prepared a very valuable
memoir on these two families of plants; and he appears, from some
observations lately published by his son, M. Achille Richard,* to have
formed an opinion respecting their structure somewhat different from that
of M. Mirbel, whose cupula is, according to him, the perianthium, more or
less cohering with the included pistillum. He was probably led to this
view, on ascertaining, which I had also done, that the common account of
the structure of Ephedra was incorrect,** its supposed style being in
reality the elongated tubular apex of a membranous envelope, and the
included body being evidently analogous to that in other genera of
Coniferae.

(*Footnote. Dict. Class. d' Hist. Nat. tome 4 page 395 et tome 5 page
216.)

(**Footnote. Dict. Class. d'Hist. Nat. tome 6 page 208.)

To the earliest of the opinions here quoted, that which considers the
female flower of Coniferae and Cycadeae as a naked pistillum, there are
two principal objections. The first of these arises from t