Miss de Fraine gives an excellent summary of our knowledge of the genus and discusses, in the light of the additional facts furnished by the second stem, the position of _Sutcliffia_ in a phylogenetic series. The new form strengthens the comparison instituted by Scott between _Sutcliffia_ and _Medullosa_ and gives support to a close connexion between the Medulloseae and the Cycadaceae. Scott lays stress on the fact that the Medulloseae, except _Sutcliffia_, are polystelic, while the Cycads, at least the adult stems, are monostelic. The views of Worsdell and other botanists who believe that the Medulloseae and the Cycads are intimately related are discussed on another page: in reference to these views Miss de Fraine adds a caveat as to the danger of attaching excessive importance to evidence based on seedling anatomy when we are concerned with broad phylogenetic questions. The stele of a cycadean stem may be derived from a protostelic type such as that of _Sutcliffia_ by the gradual disappearance of the internal tracheids: in _Sutcliffia_, as in some Cycads and species of _Medullosa_, extrafascicular strands and cylinders are a characteristic feature and these may well have arisen independently of the central stele in response to physiological requirements. From such a type as _Sutcliffia_ evolution may have proceeded along two lines; in one direction new types were produced in which increasing complexity, as represented by a multiplication of steles, was an outstanding feature. These forms, illustrated by _Medullosa anglica_ and other more elaborate species, proved inefficient and were unproductive. Along another line the protostelic condition was maintained though in some cases extrafascicular strands or cylinders and cortical steles were superadded: it was this line that led to the recent Cycads. _General considerations suggested by the anatomical features of_ Medullosa.