The author makes a critical examination of present embryological data regarding the Podostemaceae family.1°The oldOenonetype (CHIARUGI 1927) is changed to theApinagiatype.2°Four different forms of theApinagiatype are distinguished:a)Apinagiatype form A (5-nucleate, 4-celled),b)Apinagiatype form B (4-nucleate, 4-celled),c)Apinagiatype form C (5-nucleate, 5-celled),d)Apinagiatype form D (6-nucleate, 4-5-6-celled).3°TheDicraeatype is completely valid.4°ThePodostemumtype (formerlyPodostemon) is considered as not definitely ascertained. An investigation would seem absolutely necessary particularly forPodostemum subulatus(MAGNUS 1913), the first example of this embryological type.5°Some embryological findings regardingTerniola(=Lawia)zeylanicaandGriffithella hookerianaare discussed critically.6°The morphology of the mature embryo sac of the Podostemaceae is interpreted differently to the accepted way. In such embryo sacs, according to the author, the proendospermatic cells, the polar nuclei and the so called double fertilisation are totally lacking, justifying the general and constant lack of endosperm. The author, in other terms, attributes the value of « antipodal cell nucleus » to that nucleus which other authors have always considered as « the polar nucleus ».7°As a result of the data in the above point 6°, the author considers that it is more exact to say that in the Podostemaceae areduced bisporicgametophyte is present rather than areduced Allium typegametophyte.8°The different embryological types of Podostemaceae are described according to the theoretic interpretation the author has previously formulated (Battaglia1951, 1955, 1963).