1. There is variation with regard to the number of
bundles supplying each perianth segment, and the
number of gaps formed. There is a tendency to
reduce the number of gaps, and the number of traces entering the base of each, as we pass from the type
with a large base of insertion, as in Trollius,
to a type with a marrow base, as in Cimicifuga.
The marginal bundles frequently branch on their
outward passage, and also, occasionally, the midrib bundle. Apart from this branching in
exceptional cases, the supply, fundamentally , resembles that of a leaf.2. The honey leaves and stamens each receive a single
strand.3. In the carpellary supply, there is variation with
regard to:-
a. the number of bundles entering the base of a carpel.
b. the number of receptacular bundles from which
these traces are derived.
c. the number of carpels each receptacular trace
may supply.4. There is no correlation between the number of
bundles in the receptacle, above the level of
departure of the stamen traces and the number
of carpels developed above this level.5. As a direct result of this, the degree to which
these stelar bundles are divided, and the number
of carpels developed which they supply, must
depend upon the number of receptacular bundles,
and the number of carpels developed. Thus, a comparatively small number of bundles must divide
to a greater extent to supply a given number of
carpels, than if a larger number of bundles were
present, and vice versa.6. The whole of the stelar vascular tissue may or
may not be used up in the formation of the ca:opellary traces, Both conditions may be found to
occur in the one species - e.g. Caltha.7. There may be three or five traces enter the base
of each carpel e.g. in Caltha, Trollius, and.
Eranthis, where the midrib bundle divides in the
pedicel, which is considered as an extension of
the receptacle.8. The secondary vascular supply within the
carpellary wall varies within fairly wide limits
for each species.9. The main supply to the carpellary wall is, in
the majority of species, derived from the marginal
bundles, which give off branches. The terminal
endings distant from the marginal bundle, either
fuse directly with the midrib or end blindly in
the carpellary wall. This is constant within a
species.10. Branches may or may not arise from the midrib
bundle within the carpel itself - e.g. Caltha
and Cimicifuga davurica. Where present there
is a tendency for these bundles to arise towards
the carpel base, and pass out into the wall for
varying distances. Normally they are not well
developed. In Trollius, two branches constantly
are given off, which continue parallel to the
midrib. Again they tend to arise near the base
of the carpel.11. These facts may be taken as support of the view
that the primitive carpel may have been a
palmately veined structure.12. The stylar supply, in the species where the
number of parts in the gynoecium tends to be
constant, is, of itself, constant. In Trollius
and Caltha there is variation , the midrib, or
marginal bundles, or both may supply the style.
This variation also occurs with one gynoeciun.13. The fundamental vascular supply to a carpel is
to that of a leaf. The venation within the carpellary wall, however, does not resemble that found in a true leaf.14. These results do not lend support to the theory
of carpel polymorphism, not do they justify
Thomas' interpretation of the probable origin of
the carpel in such a type as Caltha.15. The present state of our knowledge of ancient
Angiosperms, and of the more primitive types in
our present day flora, only suffìce to show the
tremendous gap in our knowledge of the probable
primitive Angiosperm from which our present day
carpel arose
