Until 1871 most of the reports that followed (including important surveys by Trecul and van Tieghem) reported only schizogenous development.
Yet, in the decade that followed, reports of schizogenous development predominated, except for glands of the Rutaceae and Myrtaceae which were often described as lysigenous (Tschirch & Stock, 1933).
Leblois (1887) studied the development of secretory cavities and ducts in species representing 13 families of plants, and like her mentor van Tieghem, found only purely schizogenous development.
All the dry-mounted glands (prior to the addition of the mounting medium) resemble typical schizogenous glands with intact epithelial cells.
Species whose glandular cells are not prone to extensive swelling might be scored as schizogenous regardless of the mounting medium.
Haberlandt claimed that Ruta glands developed through a combination of schizogenous initiation followed by lysigenous expansion of the central cavity.
This idea was based on the assumption that hydrophobic secretions should not be able to pass through cell walls, and yet oil formation should be localized in the glands (Kisser, 1958); and also on Tschirch's observations of mucilaginous walls that border schizogenous storage spaces in many of the taxa (Tschirch & Stock, 1933).
The epithelial cells of even schizogenous glands should have been dead after maturity.
In a 1969 paper, he described schizogenous development for Ruta secretory cavities and lysigenous development for Citrus and Poncirus.
(1976) used electron microscopy to describe schizogenous formation of secretory cavities from leaves of Citrus sinensis L., contradicting reports of lysigeny for glands of Citrus and its relative Poncirus by Heinrich (1966, 1969).