Ee le a Oe ee eee ee aa

NY
me

 

AS

sl

:

a tees!
Ny

:
me

Hf
anh, 2

x

. v1 \
a

wh

uN

" _
eee aly
oe q iS

i
vi
ie

—
AWN

i

AN
win

UAE t
ne ety
aN a 7
.
t

Y
\
i

a

x mabe
Ra
iy
\

a
x

ai i
STL
ae
att
aah A
ayes
ett

ue

1
it
a ty tt ‘

im
cc

-

x

ean a
|

eye eyes
aio rs
Sinatra ae
Wht WS hon wai To
SRS
ES
Wey he ees
eer
a yt hh

tS Ra ee
ele Papaya
x " aa Wee ie
ue Se abate pean
My a aM

mn
we ny abe ane
SS
ee ihe ms Sat
me i ne
“ SER
" a ae i EE ak
a eats
Se
ae
ei
tee

x
a
at
me :
Se
un
_
a

a

AynSit

raat f ihe c iin
ae

ci
Het
ae i.

‘ oe Ne ant
a)

i Ha ascateete erat
Hauora

 
ENGINEERING LIBRARY

 

 

 

PRESENTED
BY

The Trustees

OF

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cornell Aniversity Library

 

THE GIFT OF

 

 

anaes ; ar) |K46

 

 

 

* ee Ze |
iii
CATALOGUE

OF THE

MESOZOIC PLANTS

IN THE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

PART II.
CATALOGUE

OF THE

MESOZOIC PLANTS

IN THE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY

1

BRITISH MUSEUM

(NATURAL HISTORY).

THE WEALDEN FLORA.

Part II.—GYMNOSPERM &.

PLATES J.-XX.

BY

A. C. SEWARD, M.A, F.G.S.

UNIVERSITY LECTURER IN BOTANY, CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES.
SOLD BY
LONGMANS AND CO., 39, PATERNOSTER ROW.
B. QUARITCH, 15, PICCADILLY. DULAU AND CO., 37, SOHO SQUARE, W.
KEGAN PAUL AND CO., CHARING CROSS ROAD, W.C.
AND AT THE
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY), CROMWELL ROAD, S.W.

1895.
HERTFORD :
PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS.
PREFACE.

<>

Tue first part of this Catalogue of the Wealden Plants
contained figures and descriptions of the Algz, Characea,
Equisetine, and Filicine; the present volume is devoted
to the Cycadexw and the Coniferz.

In the Author’s conclusions he gives a summary
(pp. 233-241) of the Wealden flora comprised in these pages,
from which it appears that the Thallophyta are repre-
sented by 2 sp.; the Charophyta by 1 sp.; the Bryophyta
by 1 sp.; the Equisetine by 3 sp.; the Filicine by 23 sp. ;
the Cycade by 24 sp.; the Coniferze by 17 sp.; uncertain
forms, 5 species: total, 76 species.

Mr. Seward considers that “the general characters of the
vegetation certainly seem to point to a tropical climate,
and there can be little doubt that the temperature was
considerably higher than the Wealden districts enjoy at the
present day” (p. 239). He further adds that, “Looking
at the Wealden plants collectively, we notice a very striking

agreement with the flora of the underlying Jurassic strata,
vi PREFACE.

and it would be difficult to point to any well-marked
or essential difference between the plant-life of the two
periods. The evidence of paleobotany certainly favours
the inclusion of the Wealden rocks in the Jurassic series.”
Mr. Arthur Smith Woodward informs me that the fishes of
the Wealden beds bear testimony to the same Jurassic alliance.
We are thus led to conclude that whereas the paleonto-
logical evidence, derived from the more purely marine
deposits, would induce us to place the Wealden beds with
the overlying and newer Cretaceous series—the , peculiar
estuary, or lake conditions, of these mostly fresh-water
deposits, full of remains of terrestrial organisms, both
of plants and animals, would, by their close relationship
with the underlying and older Purbecks and Oolites, fix
a Jurassic date to this ancient land surface upon which

the Wealden flora once flourished.

HENRY WOODWARD.

GxoLocicaL DEPARTMENT,
British Museum (Naturau History),
CromweELL Roap, 8.W.

November 16th, 1895.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

In the present volume the same method of treatment has
been followed as in Part I.

My thanks are again due to Mr. George Murray,
Mr. Carruthers, and to the Assistants of the Geo-
logical and Botanical departments generally; also to
Mr. Rufford and Mr. C. Davies Sherborn.

To the Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, I am
indebted for the facilities afforded me of repeatedly
examining the exceptionally large collection of cycadean
plants in the Kew Herbarium.

I wish also to gratefully acknowledge communica-
tions from the late Marquis of Saporta, Sir William
Dawson, Prof. Nathorst, Prof. Lester Ward, and others;

and to express my thanks to Miss Gertrude Woodward
Vill AUTHOL’S PREFACE.

for the great care and artistic skill with which she has
executed the lithographic plates.
I am indebted to Mr. Gepp, of the Botanical Department,

for the negative from which Plate VIII. has been printed.

A. ©. SEWARD.

CAMBRIDGE,
November 16th, 1895.
NOTES.

The names of authors in the footnotes, when followed by
a number in brackets, or without a number, will be found in
the list of works at the end of the present volume (Part II.);
those followed by A. in brackets will be found in the biblio-

graphy of Part I.

The great majority of specimens described in Part II. are
from Ecclesbourne and Fairlight, near Hastings, and form part
of the Rufford Collection.

In addition to these, there are a few fossils from the Beckles
Collection, and from the collections of Mantell, Dawson, and

others.
ERRATA.

P. 65. For Otozamites Klipsteinit var. superba, read Otozamites Klipsteinit
var. superbus.

P. 68. For Otozamites Klipsteinii var. longifolia, read Otozamites Klipsteinit
var. longifolius.

P. 89. For V. 2742, read V. 2748.
Plate II. Figs. land 2. For Saportaia, read Withamia.
hi

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE TEXT.

 

Cycadites Rémert, Schenk

? Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gopp.)
Nilssonia Schawmburgensis (Dunk.) .
Otozamites Géppertianus (Dunk.) .

. *Zamites, sp. .

Anomozamites Lyellianus (Dunk.).

Carpolithes (Cycadacee) .

Cf. Yatesia Morrisit, Carr. .

Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov.

PAGE
Group SPERMAPHYTA (PHANEROGAMITA).

In Engler and Prantl’s invaluable work, Die natirlichen Pflanzen-
Jamilien,' we find certain innovations as regards the classification
of plants: conspicuous among the changes suggested are the terms
Embryophyta xoidiogama and Embryophyta siphonogama, the former
being applied to the Bryophyta and Pteridophyta, and in the latter
are included the Phanerogamia.

The researches of Hofmeister, and the more recent investigations
of Strasburger and others, have brought to light a multitude of
facts, by which we have been led to a more exact knowledge as to
the natural affinities between the several plant groups. Develop-
mental study, and our more accurate perception of the homologies
existing between the different families, have tended to emphasize
the points of contact between the various divisions of the vegetable
kingdom. Any system of classification is to be welcomed which
best enables us to give expression to recognized leading charac-
teristics, and at the same time to bring out in a concise phraseology
the differences and resemblances between class and class. Engler’s
new terms, if not used to supersede the older and widely known
designations, may at least be recognized as marking a definite
advance towards a better understanding of phylogenetic problems.

In dealing with fossil plants we have constantly to face the
difficulties of classification. With some writers there is a tendency
to strain the known points of resemblance between living and
extinct forms, and to include both in one family or sub-class; in
other cases, needless isolation may be given to fossil genera by
separating them from existing types. Undoubtedly the most
natural plan is to endeavour as far as possible to fit together the
representatives’ of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic genera, with
present day plants, in a common scheme of classification. It is
obviously impossible in the vast majority of fossil specimens,
to discover anything of those characters on which a modern

 

1 Teil ii. p. 2.
2 CYCADACER.

classification of plants is based; but we have to discriminate as
best we can between valueless and important taxonomic features,
and to accept within legitimate limits the assistance of evidence
founded on analogy. To exclude fossil plants from a classification
based on living types would be at once thoroughly unscientific and
unnatural. Recent botany and the botany of past ages have too
often been treated from different standpoints, and the great aim of
palezobotanical study has thus been entirely lost sight of. The
more we recognize the fact that plant-life, with its innumerable
problems awaiting solution, is not confined within the limits of one
age in the history of the earth, the sooner ought we to attain to
a natural system of classification.

The more important characters of the Spermaphyta (Limbryophyta
siphonogama) may be thus briefly summarized :—

In the great majority of cases the body of the plant is differ-
entiated into root, stem, and leaves. The embryo is formed as
the result of fertilization, by means of a pollen-grain tube, of an
egg-cell enclosed in a macrospore ; the fertilized egg-cell develops
into an embryo, which more or less completely fills up the
macrospore and macrosporangium. The seed may or may not
be enclosed in an ovary. The gametophyte (sexual or oophore
generation) is considerably reduced, and the sporophyte (asexual
or sporophore generation) has become much more conspicuous than
in the Pteridophyta.

Class GYMNOSPERMAs.

Seeds naked, not enclosed in an ovary. Fertilization of the
egg-cell by means of a pollen-tube. Vegetative structures capable
of secondary growth in thickness.

Order CYCADACEA.

Stem rarely branched, leaves large and generally pinnate. In
the recent genera flowers always dicecious, and without a perianth.
The Order Cycadacee, like the Marattiacee among ferns, affords
an instance of a series of plants of which few survive at the
present day, but which was abundantly represented in the vege-
CYCADACEZ. 3

tation of former periods. The recent cycads are usually divided
into nine genera and two families: the Cycadeg, including one
genus, Cycas; and the Zamiee, with the genera Zamia, Cerato-
samia, Macrosamia, Dioon, Encephalartos, Stangeria, Bowenia, and
Mier ocycas.'

None of the living cycads occur outside tropical or subtropical
regions. In Tertiary times the family does not appear to have
had a wide distribution, nor to have been represented by many
genera; possibly, however, a closer acquaintance with extra-
European Tertiary strata may bring to light a greater number
of cycads from these beds than are at present known. In the
Mesozoic period cycads occupied a prominent position, and had
an extended geographical range. The Jurassic strata afford
abundant evidence that cycadean plants reached their maximum
development in that era; less numerous in the Triassic vegetation,
the Cycadacee dwindle down to a few representatives in the
Permian and Carboniferous floras.

Before giving a summary of the earlier geological history of this
exceedingly interesting section of the Gymnosperma, we may take
note of some of the difficulties which beset any attempt to trace the
geological history of cycadean plants. As in the case of ferns, and
indeed of all fossil plants, so here again we have to deal in nearly
every instance with detached and isolated specimens of stems,
fronds, flowers, and seeds. The fronds are often abundant enough,
and their preservation frequently good; but the characters which
are made use of in generic and specific determinations are such as
preclude any certain conclusions as to precise botanical affinity.
The nature of cycadean flowers, and their manner of occurrence
on the plant, separated as they are from the sterile fronds, present
an obstacle to exact determination. On the other hand, the fronds
alone afford, in many instances, convenient data on which to found
a provisional classification ; their form and general habit of growth
are fairly uniform, and they do not present the same striking
variation in leaf form which constitutes one of the many difficulties
associated with the fronds of fossil ferns. Among recent cycads
we have a phyllopodium exhibiting, in the majority of species,
certain distinct and easily recognized characters; usually a pinnate
structure, with stout and moré or less closely set segments

 

1 Engler and Prantl, Teil ii. p. 6. See also De Candolle.
4 CYCADACER.

traversed either by a single midrib or by a number of equal and
parallel veins. There are, however, certain variations from the
familiar cycadean type, even in some of the living genera. In
the South African genus Stangeria,’ originally described in 1835
as a fern, the pinne possess a fern-like venation, forming a
strongly marked contrast to the usual Zamia or Cycas type.
Writing of this plant in 1854, Smith’ notes that the peculiar
character of the leaf segments renders untenable the criterion of
venation, usually relied upon in discriminating between fossil ferns
and cycads. Among fossil leaves there are various genera which
have been assigned to cycads or ferns according to the preference
of different authors. The well-known genus Wilssonia has been
placed by Schenk and others among the Filicine, but it is usually
referred to as an extinct member of the Cycadacee; the widely
distributed Zentopterts has been assigned to both ferns and cycads,
but it is generally regarded as a genus of fossil ferns. The genus
Dictyozamites* and numerous others might be cited as examples
of doubtful forms which cannot with any certainty be assigned
either to the Pleridophyta or Gymnosperme.

In a recent work on the Coal-Measures of Gard, Grand’Eury *
includes certain leaf forms in the class of gymnosperms, but by
other writers these have usually been described as ferns. To settle
such doubtful cases as these, Bornemann® undertook a minute
comparative examination of the epidermal cells of recent ferns
and cycads, and found what he considered fairly safe guides
in the rectangular or wavy outlines of the epidermal cells of
the leaves of these two sets of plants. Schenk® has followed
Bornemann’s example in making use of this anatomical character
in the case of carbonized epidermal tissues of doubtful fossil
leaves, but the fern-like wavy walls in the epidermal cells of
Stangeria leaves preclude any trustworthy reliance on such a
method of separating ferns and cycads.

 

' Hooker, Bot. Mag. Pl. 5121, vol. xv. [8] 1859. Reference given to
Kunze, etc.

2 Smith, p. 88.

3 Nathorst (1).

4 Grand’Eury (1), p. 301.

5 Bornemann.

® Schenk (A. 1), Flor. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias.
CYCADACER. 5

As a general rule, the fronds of recent cycads are simply
pinnate; but in the Australian genus Bowenia,! with its bipinnate
leaves, we have an exception to this rule; and it is by no means
improbable that this character may have been shared by many
extinct genera. The late Dr. Stur, of Vienna, expressed his
belief that the well-known Coal-Measure fossils Newropteris and
Alethopteris should be included in the list of Paleozoic cycads,
and this opinion was partly founded on the resemblance of the
Carboniferous fronds to the branched leaf of Bowenia. The absence
of any clearly proved fructification in these so-called ferns has
been referred to by Stur and others in favour of a cycadean
relationship. Kidston? has recently recorded the occurrence of
a fertile Meuropteris frond, but the facts he publishes cannot be
regarded as finally settling the position of these genera. He
figures a terminal portion of a specimen ‘‘ending in a number of
dichotomous branchlets, the ultimate divisions being about 8 mm.
long, and bearing the fruit at their summits.” Unfortunately the
very small pinnules associated with this fragment do not furnish
all the evidence one could desire as to the real nature of the
specimens.

Another aberrant form of a recent frond is afforded by the
Australian cycad Macrosamia heteromera, Moore,? in which the
pinnz are in some varieties of the species repeatedly forked,
reminding one to some extent of the Mesozoic species of Baiera.
Specimens of Dacrozamia heteromera, var. Narrabri, and var. glauca,
in the Royal Gardens, Kew, show very clearly this striking and
unusual character in cycadean fronds. (Pl. XIII. Figs. 1 and 2.)

A further variation in the form of cycadean leaves is seen in
such ‘species as Zamia Skinnert, Warscew, Z. picta (=Z. murieata,
Willd.),‘ Z. Wallisit, A. Gr., etc.: the pinne of these forms reach
an unusually large size, and differ in shape from those of most
members of the family. A single pinna of Z. Wallisdi in the Kew
Herbarium measures 37 X 13 cm.; the lamina is traversed by
a few prominent and forked veins, and exhibits another peculiarity
in the possession of a short petiole. If we have to rely on leaves

 

1 Hooker, Bot. Mag. Pl. 5398, vol. xix. [3] 1863.
2? Kidston (1), p. 150, pl. viii. fig. 7.

3 Moore, p. 122.

* De Candolle, p. 541.
6 CYCADACER.

alone we must necessarily expect to fall into error, but it is
important not to bind ourselves too closely to the more common
forms of cycadean fronds in endeavouring to determine the leaves
of extinct species. Seeing that the existing genera of cycads are
obviously but a few remnants of a once vigorous and numerous
family, we should not neglect the less known and more aberrant
forms of fronds in our comparisons of fossil and recent specimens.
We are accustomed to include in the Cycadacee a large number
of Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous fronds which possess some more
or less close external resemblance to those of living species. That
such determinations are correct we have no absolute proof, but
can only trust to the distinctly cycadean form which the leaves
present. It is possible that among such Mesozoic genera there
are included some which should rather come under the head of
Bennettitee, a group of plants nearly allied to the true cycads,
but which possess certain peculiarities of structure of sufficient
importance to exclude them from the Cycadacee as at present
defined. Silicified stems from the Upper Jurassic and Lower
Cretaceous rocks of England, Franee, Italy, America, and other
places, agree in anatomical structure with the stems of recent
cycads, but in organic connection with some of these fossil forms
there has been found a special type of inflorescence, showing a more
highly organized and specialized structure than is afforded by the
flowers of existing Cycadee or Zamiee. Our knowledge of the
vegetative and reproductive structures of Bennettites is mainly
due to the researches of Carruthers,’ Solms-Laubach,? and more
recently Lignier* The Bennettitee inflorescence presents certain
points of contact with the Conifere, and the characters it possesses
in common with and distinct from those of cycadean flowers
suggest that ‘“‘the Bennettitee are posterior to the Cycadacea, at
least as regards the reproductive structures.” As Lignier has said
in his recent paper, we may perhaps regard the Bennettitee as
a family which has been derived with the cycads from common
ancestors. We have still to learn what forms of frond were
possessed by these stems. Carruthers‘ speaks of a ‘‘ remarkable

 

1 Carruthers (1).

2 Solms-Laubach (1 and 2).

3 Lignier. (For abstract of this paper see Nature, October 18, 1894, p. 594.)
4 Loc. cit. p. 697 (footnote).
CYCADACER. 7

cycadean leaf” from the Lower Greensand, which he suggests may
possibly represent a frond of Bennettites; the specimen referred to
is not in organic connection, nor in any close association, with
a stem, and therefore no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn as
to its real nature. As yet we can only reply to the question as to
what was the precise form of Bennettites leaves by mere guesses,
founded on no surer basis than a vague suspicion of probability.
The leaf-scars on the surface of the stems suggest a frond of
eycadean habit; and in all probability many of the Mesozoic leaves
which we are accustomed to connect with true cycadean stems
should be referred to Bennettites. To include all cycad-like fronds
in the Cycadacee as defined for existing species, would almost
certainly result in assigning many fossil leaves to a wrong position.
Possibly the better plan would be to assign such fossil fronds as
may reasonably be referred to cycadean plants, to some more
comprehensive Natural Order than that of the Cycadacee.

This brings us to the question of intermediate forms, and the
association of cycadean structure with several of these synthetic
types lends an increased interest to the past history of cycads, and
at the same time enhances the difficulty of systematic treatment.
The Upper Carboniferous genus Myeloxylon (Stenselia, Goppert,
Myelopteris, Renault), found in England, France, and Germany,
has been assigned by several writers to the Pilicine, and placed
in the Marattiacee or Ophioglossacee; others prefer to include
it with the cycads. The structure of the vascular bundles of
Myeloxylon petioles! is in some respects typical of recent cycads ;
the spiral protoxylem elements being on that side of the xylem
facing the phloem. The bundles are collateral in form, and often
accompanied by mechanical or stereome elements. The fundamental
tissue contains numerous secretory canals, and in some cases strands
of stereome. One of the most readily recognized features’ is the
hypodermal tissue, made up of alternating bands of thick walled
fibres and thin parenchymatous cells. Occasionally the petiolar
axis is found to be branched, and small Pecopéeris-like pinnules
have been observed attached to a slender Myeloxylon midrib. This
discovery by Renault of pinnules in connection with Myeloxylon

 

1 Seward (1). References given to other papers; see also Zeiller (1), p. 290,
pl. xxvii. fig. 1.
8 CYCADACER.

appears to be confirmed by some specimens in the Binney Collection *
of Coal-Measure plants. In one instance this form of petiole has
been found inserted on a stem of Medullosa Leuckarti, Gépp. and
Stenz., a plant with distinctly cycadean characteristics. Probably
we may regard Myelorylon as a synthetic or intermediate form
exhibiting cycadean and fern characters, but more nearly allied to
existing Cycadee than to the Filicine. In the Coal-Measure genus
Lyginodendron,? originally described in detail by Williamson in
1878, we have another important link in the chain of cycadean
phylogeny. A revision of the English specimens of this plant, and
an examination of fresh material by Williamson and Scott, has
brought into greater prominence the clearly defined cycadean
features exhibited by the Zyginodendron stems. It has recently
been shown by these observers that Williamson’s genus Kaloxylon
represents the root of Lyginodendron, and we have previously
learned that Rachiopteris aspera, Will., with its sphenopteroid
pinnules, is a branch of the same plant.’ This is, again, an instance
of cycadean and pteridophytic characters combined in a synthetic
genus. The presence of secondary vascular tissue in Lyginodendron
lends additional interest to this instance of fern-cycad alliance.
In speaking of the occurrence of diploxyloid structure in this
genus, Bertrand and Renault‘ regard the existence of such a type
of vascular bundle in the petioles of recent cycads as a remnant
of an ancestral structure.

The same diploxyloid arrangement occurs on an extended scale
in the Permo-Carboniferous genus Pororylon,® and must be looked
upon as an important aid in any attempt to trace the lines of
development of the Cycadacee. Renault has founded the genus
Cycadoxylon® on a fragment of a silicified branch from Autun,
in which the structure of the wood and fundamental tissue bears
a distinct resemblance to a young cycadean stem. He suggests
that this type may find its true position between cycads and

 

1 Now in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge.

2 Williamson (1, part iv.). The name was proposed by Gourlie in 1843,
(Williamson, p. 393.) See also Solms-Laubach (A.), Fossil Botany, p. 358.

3 Williamson (1, pt. vi.), p. 684; also (1, pt. xiii.), p. 298.

4 (1), p. 237.

5 Bertrand and Renault (2).

6 Renault (1), p. 283.
CYCADACEA. 9

Cordaitee. Unger's genus Cordaites,: with its large parallel
veined leaves and tall woody stem, affords another example of
the occurrence of cycadean structures in association with
anatomical features suggestive of another set of plants; in this
case it is with the Conifere that cycadean characters appear to
be combined. In the Mesozoic floras we have Carruthers’ genus
Bennettites, to which reference has already been made, with its
combination of cycadean and coniferous characters. Another
and less accurately known plant, Willamsonia,? offers a difficult
problem to the paleobotanist; but here, again, we have probably
to deal with a synthetic type closely allied to Bennettites.

Enough has been said to show the promising character of
the study of the geological history of cycads, and we may not
unreasonably entertain the hope, that we are within a measurable
distance of deciphering some of the earlier chapters in the records
of cycadean development.

Before considering the questions of terminology and the details
of generic and specific determination of fossil cycadean fronds, we
may briefly pass in review the recorded facts as to the past history
of the Cycadacee, and especially such as have reference to the
representatives of. this order in Paleozoic times. In 1868
Carruthers? expressed the opinion that ‘‘no satisfactory evidence
exists of the occurrence of Cycadee in any Paleozoic formation.”
It is true that the facts we at present possess do not allow us
to affirm that the Paleozoic strata contain examples of plants
which exhibit typical cycadean structure, and of such a kind as
to warrant their inclusion in the Cycadacee as at present defined.

It has already been shown that certain typical features of cycad
structure are met with in various Permo-Carboniferous genera,
but these are associated with other morphological characters
which are unknown among recent representatives of this class
of gymnosperms. It would, indeed, be a matter of surprise if
we found in Paleozoic strata a perfectly typical cycadean genus.
In the case of Jurassic plants we speak unhesitatingly of cycad
leaves, although we cannot as a rule support such assertions with
facts of anatomical details or floral structure If external resem-

 

1 Renault (1), p. 323.
2 See Bennettites.
3 (1), p. 676.
10 CYCADACER,

blance of leaf form is to be trusted at all, we must admit the
existence in Upper Palaeozoic rocks of a few fossil fronds, which
have as much claim as those from Jurassic strata to be classed
among the Cycadacee. In reviewing the evidence in favour of
Palzozoic cycads, we may for convenience sake consider Permian
and Carboniferous specimens together.

In 1848 Gutbier' figured and described a Rothliegende plant
from Rheinsdorf, near Zwickau, which he designated Pterophyllum
Cotteanum. The figure reminds one to some extent of Cltenis
falcate, L. and H., but the pinne show no trace of any anasto-
mosing venation; the specimen cannot well be excluded from the
provisional cycadean genus Plerophyllum. Hichwald? has figured
a portion of a frond from the Carboniferous rocks of Konznetzk
in the Altai Hills, under the name of Pterophyllum inflecum ; this
also seems to conform to the recognized characters of Pterophyllum.
Carruthers * has referred to some stems described ‘by Eichwald from
Russian Permian rocks, but is of opinion that they cannot be
accepted as satisfactory examples of Paleozoic cycads; the same
author also calls attention to the specimens described by Presl and
Guillard as cycadean stems, and shows that they have no claim to
be placed among fossil cycads. Schmalhausen* has more recently
figured a stem fragment from the Permian of Kargala in Orenburg,
which he refers to Schimper’s species Clathraria strigata, but
regards the specimen as a stem of Cordaites lancifolius, Schmalh.
In 1864 Sandberger® recorded a species of Pterophyllum, P.
blechniodes, from the Upper Coal-Measures of Holzplatze, near
Oppenau; the specimen seems to have been reasonably placed
among cycadean fronds. Géppert,® in 1848, described what he
considered to be the oldest known cycadean frond; this imperfect
fragment from Konigshiitte, in Silesia, he named Péterophyllum
gonorrachis. Two other specimens were recorded by the same
author from Paleozoic strata as Cycadites gyrosus and Cycadites
tarodinus;7’ the former is a small and imperfect specimen which

 

1 (A.) Verstein. Roth. Sachsen, p. 21, pl. viii. fig. 7.
2 Vol. i. p. 215, pl. xv. figs. 5, 6.

3 (1), p. 675.

4 (1), p. 37, pl. v. figs. 4 and 5.

5 (1), p. 34, pl. ii. figs, 1-4.

§ (1), p. 50, pl, i. fig. 6.

7 (2), p. 181, pl. ii. figs. 1-34,
CYCADACER, 11

it is hardly possible to definitely refer to either cycads or ferns;
the latter specimen, from the Culm beds, is more distinct, but still
by no means a satisfactory proof of the existence of a cycadean
species in the Culm flora. Solms-Laubach! considers that Géppert
was probably justified in referring the last-named species to the
Cycadee. An examination of the type specimens in the Breslau
Museum of these two species of Cycadites led me to regard
C. gyrosus as too imperfect for identification, and suggested the
possibility that C. taxodinus might perhaps be regarded as a
fragment of a coniferous branch. If the evidence for Carboniferous
cycads rested simply on Gdppert’s specimens it would be of little
value; but there have been many more perfect examples recorded
from this formation. From the Permo-Carboniferous rocks of
France we have several records of cycadean fronds. ‘he genus
Pterophyllum has been discovered in the Upper Carboniferous beds
of Montchanin (Saéne-et-Loire), and the fragment is figured by
Saporta and Marion as Pterophyllum Grand’ Euryanum, Sap. et
Mar.?; the form of the pinne and their manner of attachment to the
rachis support this determination. Another species is recorded by
Renault, under the name of Sphenosamites Rochei,> from the Permian
of Autun; the figure of this plant, given by Saporta and Marion,‘
suggests a strong likeness to Woeggerathia, and it may be that if,
as some believe, the latter genus must be assigned to the Filvcine,
the same position should be given to Renault’s species. Voeggera-
thia may be left for the present as one of those doubtful forms
which cannot be definitely assigned to any clearly defined position.
From the Commentry coal-field, from which so many interesting
additions have been made by Renault and Zeiller to the Coal-
Measures flora, we have several new species of cycadean leaves.
Zamites carbonarius, Ren. and Zeill.,> is the name given to the
largest of a set of frond fragments from a particular locality in
this coal-field; the type specimen consists of a portion of a stiff
rachis bearing a few alternately placed oval pinne, and the form
of the segments is not unlike that of Moeggerathia. In addition to

 

1 Fossil Botany, p. 86.

2 Saporta and Marion, vol. i. p. 109.

3 Renault (2).

4 Loe. cit. p. 109.

5 Flor. Commentry, p. 614, pl. Ixvii. fig. 7. See also Renault and Zeiller (1).
12 CYCADACER.

this species, the same authors institute five other specific names?
for isolated pinne which do not appear to afford any distinct
indication of specific difference. Potonié? in his recent work on
the Permian flora of Thiiringen, includes all these five species
under Zamites carbonarius, and an examination of the figured
pinne certainly lends support to this view. Zeiller® has defended
Renault’s determination, on the ground that there are certain
differences in the venation and form of the pinne which are
hardly consistent with the suggested inclusion under a single
species; he is, however, willing to admit that possibly Zamites
regularis may be identical with 7. Planchardi. Whatever may be
the specific value of these Commentry specimens, Zeiller regards
them as undoubtedly fragments of the same generic form, and the
discovery of more perfect specimens leads him to found a new
genus, Plagiozamites, as more suitable for their reception than
Zamites. In speaking of the resemblance between Plagtozamites
and Noeggerathia, Zeiller expresses an opinion in favour of
including the latter genus among cycads, using the term cycads*
in a wide sense. This opinion is partly based on the close
similarity between Noeggerathia and Plagiozamites on the one
hand, and on the marked resemblance between the latter genus
and Zamites on the other. The form of the fronds certainly
favours this view, but such reasoning from external resemblance
cannot be accepted as conclusive when we are dealing with cycads
and ferns. In all these cases we must be prepared to find a
combination of pteridophytic and cycadean characters, and if we
were in possession of the facts of anatomical structure, we should
possibly be quite unable to decide definitely for one or other of
these two groups of plants.

The Commentry flora has furnished an exceedingly fine specimen
of the genus Pterophyllum*’—P. Fayoli, Ren. and Zeill. This
example is unusually large and well preserved, and there can be
little or no hesitation in accepting it as a Paleozoic cycadean
frond, having an equally strong claim to be described as such as

 

1 Flor. Commentry, pp. 615-617, pl. lxvii. figs. 8-19.
2 (1), p. 210.

3 (2), p. 177.

4 Ibid. p. 179.

5 Renault and Zeiller (2), p. 619, pl. lxviii. fig. 1.
CYCADACER. 13

the Mesozoic representatives of the same genus. The genus itself
is merely a provisional one, and rests on external characters of
vegetative structures, but the cycadean habit is sufficiently obvious
to lend confidence to the generally accepted botanical position
assigned to this and other cycad-like leaves. Portions of gigantic
leaves are figured by Renault and Zeiller from the Commentry
coal-field under the generic name TZitanophyllum,' and it is
suggested that possibly these may belong to Calpoxylon stems,
which have been referred on anatomical grounds to the Cycadacee,
but these and many other leaf forms must remain in the list of
plante incerte sedis until additional facts are available. Renault
has recently described another species of Permian cycad, Ptero-
phyllum Combrayi,? which shows a fairly close resemblance to
P. Jaegert, Brong. Enough has been said to show that in Permo-
Carboniferous times there existed certain forms of leaf structures,
which must be assigned with the numerous Mesozoic fronds to the
provisional genera of extinct cycads. The large number of seeds
from this geological horizon, with their well-preserved structure
and variety of external form, are naturally a source of difficulty
as regards systematic position. There are distinct indications of
cycadean affinity in many of the silicified gymnospermous seeds ;
some belong, no doubt, to Cordaites, whilst others may be more
correctly placed in the Conifere. The seeds of the recent genus
Ginkgo show some points of contact with those of cycads, and
among the seeds of Paleozoic plants it would not surprise us
to find cycadean and coniferous characteristics represented in the
same species. We cannot well do more than speak of these doubtful
fossils as examples of Palaeozoic gymnospermous seeds, many of
which distinctly resemble the seeds of recent cycads. Grand’Eury®
includes many such fossils in the family Moeggerattiacee, a sub-
section of gymnosperms; the choice of this name is not a very
happy one, seeing that we know so little as to the actual position
of Sternberg’s genus Moeggerathia.

Ascending the geologic series from the Permian to the Upper
Jurassic strata, we find a gradual increase in the number and
variety of cycadean fronds, and in the Wealden vegetation the

 

1 Renault and Zeiller, p. 622, pl. lxix.
2 (8), p. 672.
% (1), p. 301,
14 CYCADACER.

Cycadacee were represented by many large and striking species.
Further reference will be made to the Lower Cretaceous cycads in
the general review of the Wealden flora at the end of this volume.
Throughout the Cretaceous and Tertiary series we have evidence
of a decline in the relative importance and numerical proportion
of the Cycadacee. It has been suggested that possibly the paucity
of species may in some measure be explained by our very imperfect
acquaintance with tropical and subtropical Cretaceous and Tertiary
plant-bearing strata;1 it may be that the rocks of these eras were
deposited under climatal conditions which were not favourable to
a rich development of cycads. Heer? has described various frond
fragments from Tertiary beds which are not particularly satis-
factory as records of cycadean species. The two species Wilssonia
Serotina, Heer, and NV. pygmea, Heer, from the Miocene flora of
Sachalin Island, are both founded on fragments which may possibly
belong to that doubtful genus in which they have been placed.
From the Upper Fresh-water Molasse of Schaffhausen, the same
author describes a structureless stem as Cycadites Escheri, Heer ;°
the appearance of the scale-covered surface lends some support to
this determination, but the specimen is too imperfect to be of any
particular importance. Heer figures a fragment of a frond from
Lausanne under the name Zamites (Dioon?) tertiarius,? founded
on a poor and fragmentary specimen. Three species of Tertiary
cycads are figured by Saporta and Marion in their 2? Evolution
du régne végétal:* one of these is assigned to Zamiostrobus—Z.
Saportanus, Schimp., and may possibly be rightly described as
a cycadean cone, but its precise nature cannot be definitely
ascertained. The other two species, Zamites epibius, Sap., and
Encephalartos Gorceizianus, Sap., are most probably true cycads.
Ettingshausen’s New Zealand specimen, described as Zamites sp.?
cannot be accepted as trustworthy evidence of a Tertiary cycad.®
From Australia the same author records Anomozamites Muelleri,$
Ett., a species based on small fragments of what may be a

 

1 Solms-Laubach, p. 85.

2 Flor. foss. Arct. vol. v. (Flor. Sachalin), pp. 19 and 21, pl. ii. figs. 1-6.
3 (A.) Fl. Tert. Helvet. p. 46, pl. xv. and pl. xvi. fig. 1.

4 Les Phanérogames, vol. i. p. 116.

5 Ettingshausen (1), p. 13, pl. i. fig. 10.

6 (2), p. 9, pl. viii. figs. 19-22.
CYCADACER. 15

cycadean leaf. Another possible Tertiary cycad is described by
Ettingshausen from the Miocene beds of Leoben; to this the
name Ceratozamia Hoffmanni, Ett., has been assigned.’ The single
imperfect pinna which is figured by the author of the species,
does not afford sufficient evidence that it belongs to this particular
recent genus. Granting its cycadean nature, and even this entails
a considerable amount of faith, there is surely no reason why the
fragment should not be referred to some other genus than the one
chosen ; one might suggest ‘‘cycadean pinna?” as a more fitting
term than C. Hoffmanni. Goppert’s Tertiary species of a
Greenland cycad, Zamites arcticus,* is founded on a fairly good
specimen, and certainly appears to be correctly included among
the Cycadacee. These few examples of fragments described by
various writers as cycadean fronds, sufficiently demonstrate the
meagre relics of this order of gymnosperms in Tertiary rocks.

In his Monograph on the Jurassic cycads, Saporta* has given
a useful and critical summary of the history of the literature on
fossil Cycadacea, to which is added a series of definitions of the
chief characters by which the several genera of fronds may be

‘recognized. Certain suggested emendations of some of these
diagnoses will be found under the head of the respective genera
in the descriptive part of this Catalogue.

Without following the gradual additions to our knowledge of
fossil cycadean fronds during the last sixty or seventy years,
or attempting to discuss the numerous classifications proposed by
various writers, it may serve a useful purpose to draw attention
to some of the difficulties and possible sources of error associated
with the investigation of the past history of cycads.

The characters generally made use of in the separation of
distinct genera of fossil cycadean leaves may be enumerated as
follows: (i.) The method of attachment of the pinne to the
rachis, and whether persistent or deciduous. (ii.) The nature of
the base of the pinn, auriculate or gradually.tapered, etc., the
presence or absence of a distinct basal callosity. (iii.) The pinna
apex, whether truncate, acuminate, etc. (iv.) Venation. (v.) The
angle of insertion of the pinne on the rachis; the alternate

 

1 (8), p. 272, pl. iii. fig. 10.
2 Goppert (2), p. 134, pl. ii. figs. 9 and 10.
3 (A. 2), Pal. Frang. [2] vol. ii. 1875, pp. 26-45.
16 CYCADACER.

or opposite arrangement of the pinne. (vi.) The form of the
epidermal cell-walls. (vii.) Presence of spines on the segment
margin. In addition to these more detailed characters, the form
of the frond as a whole, whether simple, pinnate, or bipinnate,
and the shape of the individual pinne, long, narrow, broadly
oval, ete., are important characters to be kept in view.

In Géppert’s valuable paper on fossil cycads,’ the wholesome
warning is given that to define generic characters within such
narrow limits as are often adopted, results in an unnecessary
multiplication of genera, and tends to confusion and to increase
the difficulties of determination. Allusion has already been made
to the numerous leaves, the affinities of which cannot be definitely
settled until further data are forthcoming. As regards the genus
Nilssonia, some writers have argued for its inclusion among ferns,
but others prefer to consider it an unusual form of cycadean
frond. Teniopteris, Neuropteris, Noeggerathia, and a host of other
leaves must for the present be left in a somewhat doubtful
position. The genus Stangerites, instituted by Bornemann,? has
been used by a few authors as a convenient term for certain
Teniopteris-like leaves, but the name seems unnecessary, and
may be ranked among those misleading titles which suggest a
relationship to a living genus which is not supported by facts
of any taxonomic value. Saporta, in speaking of this genus,
remarks that the author of the term Stangerites ‘‘a ajouté a ce
qui s’était fait avant lui une confusion réellement inextricable et
périssé de difficultés la synonymie des principales espéces, decrites
d’aprés leurs feuilles seulement.’ *

Tn the recent species Stangeria paradoxa (Moore), it is worthy
of note that we have pinne with entire margins, and others with
deeply cut lobes extending to the midrib; some of the deeply
divided lamine suggest in a slight measure a WVilssonda form of
leaf. In a small plant of Oycas circinalis, L., in the Royal
Gardens, Kew, I noticed an abnormal form of leaf structure at
the base of a young frond, suggesting another example of an
approach to the Wilssonia type of leaf. Instead of the ordinary
uninerved and separate pinne characteristic of Cycas, this

 

1 (1), p. 116.
2 p. 58, misspelt ‘‘ Strangerites, nov. gen.”?
3 Loe. cit. p. 39,
CYCADACER, 17

particular specimen showed a lamina on either side of the basal
part of the rachis, having the appearance of several pinne fused
together laterally, the position of each segment being indicated
by a strong vein.

In every classification which is based on artificial characters,
and which gives us provisional genera, there must necessarily
be inconsistencies, and in all probability plants possessing no close
relationship will often be included in the same genus. Among
fossil ferns this is especially the case; as regards: cycads, although
not perhaps to an equal extent, there are the same difficulties
to be encountered owing to the isolated and fragmentary nature
of the specimens on which determinations are based. It may,
perhaps, be possible to add to the convenience of classification,
or to minimise the danger of conveying wrong impressions by
ill-chosen names, by adopting some more admittedly provisional
classification than is at present employed. An attempt to modify,
our present system, which is too often inadequate and unsatis-
factory, will be more appropriately undertaken after the Wealden,
and Jurassic genera have been subjected to a detailed treatment.
For the present, attention may be drawn to some of the obstacles
in the way of accurate determination of fossil fronds. :

As regards the manner of attachment of pinne to the rachis : ;
among recent genera there are some in which the pinne are
readily detached from the rachis by a well-marked line of articu-
lation ; ¢.g. in such forms as Zamia furfuracea, Ait., with broad
oval pinne, and other species of the same genus. In species of
Encephalartos, Ceratozamia, Dioon, etc., there are distinct and
sharply defined scars left on the axis of the frond on the fall
of the pinne ; in others, again, the pinne are persistent. Among
fossil forms, the rachis scars and detached pinne with clearly cut
bases evidently point to a deciduous habit; but it is often a matter
of great difficulty to decide definitely as to the existence of such
a character, and it is quite unsafe to trust to a feature of this
kind as an essential character in generic classification. It is by
no means easy in some cases to distinguish the true auriculate
base of a pinna, from a cordate form produced by the crushing
and flattening of a thick and leathery segment. Bornemann has
called attention to this possible source of error, and points to
the absence of any true auriculate base in the pinne of recent
fronds. In examining herbaria specimens of some Encephalartos

c
18 CYCADACER.

fronds, such as EF. Caffer, Mig., and other species with broad
stout pinne, one frequently notices that the basal portions of
the segments have been depressed in such a way as to present
in surface view the appearance of a distinct auriculate base.
In some of the examples of Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.)
var. superba, described in the present volume, this has probably
been the case; but, thanks to the large number of excellent
specimens in the Rufford Collection, it is perfectly clear that
the pinne of this striking plant possessed auriculate bases.
The absence or presence of a callosity is often a question of
considerable uncertainty among fossil leaves, and the existence
of a basal thickening, often none too distinct in the segments of
recent species, can only be satisfactorily made out in exceedingly
well-preserved specimens. In some cases there is a distinct
wrinkling of the coaly surface layer in the position where a
callosity would naturally occur, and this may no doubt have
sometimes resulted from a callosity in the living pinna, but in
others the same appearance may be due to mere bending of the
frond segments in the process of fossilization.

It has been shown by more than one writer how easily the
manner of attachment of the pinne to the rachis may be obscured
by the frond being seen from its under side. In the case of Dioon
a view of the upper face of the leaf would lead one to refer it
to such a genus as Dioonites; but if the lower surface were
exposed to view Pterophyllum would be the most appropriate
genus. In a species like Macrozamia Denison’, Moor and Meull.,
in which the pinne are attached along a median line on the
upper face of the rachis, the same pinne seen from below are
apparently inserted laterally on the axis, and show no signs of
decurrent bases. Braun’s figures of Zamites (= Otosamites) brevi-
folius, Braun,' as seen from above and below, bring out very
clearly the striking contrast between the two views; the same
kind of difference is well shown in Feistmantel’s figures of
Ptilophyllum acutifolium var. maximum, from the Rajmahal Hills
of India.”

The comparative breadth of the pinna base is a character which
varies considerably according to the position of the segment on

 

1 Pl. xiii. figs. 13-16.
2 Feistmantel, Pal. Ind. pt. ii. pl. xl.
CYCADACER, , 19
the rachis, whether towards the tip or the lower part of the leaf,
or according to the age of the frond. The terminal pinne are
often strongly decurrent at the base, whilst the lower segments
have a uniform width; a young frond of Cycas media, Br.,
shows pinne with no indication of tapering towards the rachis,
but the older and broader segments are distinctly narrowed.

Stress is often laid on the form of the pinna apex, whether
truncate, acute, etc. In the typical form of Pterophyllum the
pinne have truncated apices, but specimens are occasionally
referred to this common provisional genus in which the apices of
the segments are clearly not truncate. Bornemann defines the
genus as possessing pinne which may be either straight at the tip
or obliquely truncate, and this wider definition is probably the
most satisfactory. In such a specimen as that of Otozamites
Géppertianus (Dunk.), figured in Pl. I. Fig. 2, some of the
pinne are more or less truncate at the tip, and others regularly
acuminate. In the examples of Zamites Buchianus (Ett.) in the
British Museum Collection, the variation in the apical terminations
of the pinne has proved a difficulty, some specimens having
gradually tapering segments, and others showing obtusely ter-
minated apices, but the occurrence of some intermediate forms
throws doubt on the value of such a feature as a leading specific
characteristic.1 In dried fronds of Cycas revoluta, Thunb., it is not
uncommonly found that in many of the pinne the pointed spiny
apex has been replaced by a rounded termination, with a slight
median depression at the end of the single vein. As a rule,
however, the pinne of recent fronds maintain a fairly uniform
mode of termination in the same species. The venation is not
always readily made out even in fairly good specimens; the thick
coriaceous pinne of some recent species, with their indistinct veins,
prepare us for a similar difficulty in dealing with fossil leaves.
It is well known that the lower surface of a pinna often shows
very distinct venation, while the veins on the upper surface are
quite obscure. In Cycas we have a convenient venation character,
which is taken as the essential feature of the fossil genus Cycadites;
but in this case, as we shall see later in describing the genus,
frequent mistakes have been made in the determination of speci-
mens, which apparently rest on such a readily recognized character

 

1 Pl. II.
20 CYCADACER. +

as the presence or absence of a midrib. Schenk has pointed out
Dunker’s error with regard to the supposed Wealden species of
Cycadites, C. Morrisianus, Dunk., and a careful examination of the
English material confirms Schenk’s correction. In some recent
species of Cycas the midrib is by no means obvious on the upper
surface of the pinne; e.g. in a dried specimen of Cycas Cairnsiana
(Muell.), the upper convex surface of a pinna presents an appear-
ance suggestive of a few parallel veins, no doubt due to wrinkling,
rather than of a single midrib. In C. Beddomei, Dyer,’ the
margins of the pinne are strongly revolute, and a cast of the
lower surface of a pinna would show too longitudinal ridges
separated by a distinct groove, the latter being formed by the
projecting central vein. On the other hand, the tendency to
a revolute margin in the long, narrow, linear pinne of other
‘genera than Cycas, often leads to an appearance which might
easily be mistaken for a stout midrib in fossil specimens of such
a leaf. The under surface of the pinne of Encephalartos
Ghellinckit, Lem. (Pl. XIII. Fig. 3), Zamia angustifolia, Jacq., etc.,
shows a narrow median groove separating the revolute edges of the
narrow segments, and this same folding might readily give rise to
a midrib-like character in the segments of fossil fronds. In afew
exceptional cases there is an anastomosis of the veins in cycadean
leaves; among fossil fronds Lindley and Hutton established the
genus Ctenis, for ‘‘all leaves having the general character of
Cycadee, but with veins connected by forks or transverse bars.’ ?
As regards living genera, some authors refer to Bowenta and
Stangerta as having anastomosing veins, but the occurrence of
anastomosis in the segments of the former genus is denied by
Engler * and others. The proximity and number of the veins in
a pinna are characters of no little value in the separation of specific
forms, but the difficulty of eliminating the effects of fossilization
and the different appearances presented by the upper and lower
faces, render it difficult to arrive at any very trustworthy con-
clusion as to venation characters. In speaking of cycadean venation,
Bornemann* suggests that the characteristic veins of Zamia have

 

1 Dyer (1).

2 (A.) Foss. Flor. vol. ii. p. 103.
3 Engler and Prantl, p. 9.

£ Loe. cit. p. 39.
CYCADACER. 21

usually been overlooked .as a means of identification. The in-
clination of pinne to the rachis, and their alternate or opposite
disposition are characters which have been used as the basis of
specific determination, but such features as these are likely to prove
misleading unless used with great caution. In one part of a frond
the pinne may be distinctly opposite, and in another alternate.
The same kind of variation in the angle of insertion of a segment
to the rachis, is readily seen in the large fronds of such recent
species as Ceratozamia mexicana, Brong., Macrozamia Macleayi, Miq.,
and many others; also among fossils in the larger specimens of
Zamites Buchianus (Ett.), etc. A comparison of the young and
old fronds of many cycads reveals the same striking difference as
regards the inclination of the pinne. The open or closely set
arrangement of pinne is another misleading character; e.g. in an
old frond of Encephalartos longifolius, Lehm., the pinne are for
the most part in contact with one another, but the young frond
presents a distinctly open habit, with the pions much more
openly arranged. In Otozamites Gédppertianus (Dunk.) there is
the same difference in this respect between the upper and lower
portions of the same specimen, e.g. Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2.

' The form of the epidermal cells is a character of doubtful
value, and at the same time one which can only be made use of
under favourable conditions of fossilization. The custom of asso-
ciating spiny margins with the pinne of Encephalartos has led an
American writer to adopt this feature as the leading characteristic
of his genus Hncephalartopsis.: Fontaine has founded this new
genus on some very fragmentary and imperfect pinne with spinous
margins and anastomosing veins. None of the figured fragments
afford any clue as to the nature of the pinna base, or as to the
manner of insertion on the rachis. The material is hopelessly
inadequate for the institution of a new genus. The fact of the
fragments possessing anastomosing veins deters Fontaine from
including them in the recent genus Encephalartos; as it is, he
prefers to institute a new term, and to consider the species as
probably a “prototype” of the recent genus. It is true one is
accustomed to associate spiny pinnz with species of Encephalartos,
but there are several forms of that genus in which no indication
of such a character is found; and on the other hand, spiny pinne

 

1 Fontaine (A. 2), Potomac Flora, p. 174.
22 CYCADACER.

are met with in Dioon edule, Lind., and to a certain extent in
Zamia Lindeni, etc. Newberry} has doubtfully referred a small
portion of a frond from the Rhetic beds of Honduras to the genus
Encephalartos, but expresses his hesitation as to the true position
of the specimen by adding a query to the generic name. It is
suggested by Newberry that the Miocene cycad named by Saporta
Encephalartos Goreeixianus, does not correspond so closely with any
living member of the genus as does the Honduras specimen; he
adds: <‘‘This correspondence in the form of the pinnules is so
close that I felt warranted in placing our fossil provisionally in the
genus Encephalartos. The fructification will of course be necessary
for a demonstration of generic identity, and has: not yet been
obtained.’ In Lesquereux’ posthumous monograph on the Dakota
flora, there is a fragment figured and described as a new species,
under the name Encephalartos cretaceus, Lesq.?; but this is another
example of what we may regard as the utterly unwarrantable use
of a recent generic name, and the institution of a new species on
absolutely insufficient data. It does not seem to have been generally
recognized that the living species of Encephalartos present a great
variety of leaf form, from the long and narrow pinne of such
species as &. Ghellinckii, Lem. (Pl. XIII. Fig. 3), and £.
cycadifolius, Lehm, (Pl. XIII. Fig. 6), through £. Lehmanni,
Lehm., etc., to #. Caffer, Miyg., and #. horridus, Lehm. There
‘is a very striking difference between the young and old fronds
of Z. cycadifolius: in the former the pinne are much more oblique
to the rachis, and have not assumed the stiff and straight character
which is so pronounced in the latter. Many of the Mesozoic
eycadean fronds present a striking similarity to Encephalartos
leaves, but it would be exceedingly rash to apply the name of
the recent genus to even the best of these fronds, and still more
unwise to make use of it for the merest fragments of isolated
pinne.

It will be most convenient to consider the Wealden specimens
referred to the Cycadace@ under the headings Frondes and Trunet;
and algo to describe such seeds and reproductive structures as may
possibly be included among cycadean fossils. Unfortunately the
isolated mode of occurrence of leaves, stems, and seeds does not

 

1 (1), p. 346, fig. 5.
% Lesquereux (A. 3), p. 29, pl. i. fig. 12.
CYCADITES. 23

allow, in the great majority of cases, of any certain conclusions
as to the relation of the detached members one to another.

FRONDES.

Cycadites Rémeri, Schenk.

Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov.

Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gépp.).

Dioonites Brongniarti (Mant.).

Niissonia Schaumburgensis (Dunk.).

Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.).

Otozamites Klipsteinit (Dunk.), var. superba mihi.
Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.), var. longifolia mihi.
Otozamites sp., cf. O. Klipsteinit (Dunk.).
Otozamites sp., cf. O. Reibeiroanus, Heer.
Otozamites Goppertianus (Dunk.).

Zamites Buchianus (Ett.).

Zamites Carruthersi, sp. nov.

Specimens of doubtful position.

Anomozamites Lyellianus (Dunk.).

Genus CYCADITES, Sternberg.

[Flor. Vorwelt, iv. p. xxxii, 1825.]

Sternberg proposed this name in 1825 for three fossil plants
from the Lower Cretaceous of Hor in Scania, and one from Radnitz
in Bohemia. He defined the genus as follows: ‘Folia pinnati-
fida seu pinnata, nervis validis simplicibus e rhachi horizontaliter
exeuntibus.”

Sternberg’s species Cycadites Nilssont had been previously
figured by Nilsson in 1820,' but he left the plant unnamed;
this species is now included in the genus Wilssonta. Another
of Sternberg’s species, C. dinearis, is no doubt, as Presl first
suggested,’ a fragment of some fossil stem. Cycadites palmatus,
Sternb., from Radnitz, is probably a fragment of Cordaites, and
C. samiefolius suggests a coniferous twig. In 1824 Nilsson *
figured a portion of a leaf from the Quadersandstein of Hor, with

 

* Nilsson (1), pl. iv. fig. 3.
2 Sternberg (A.), Flor. Vorwelt, fase. vii. p. 194.
3 (2), p. 148, pl. ii. dis. figs. 4 and 6.
24 CYCADITES.

uninerved ‘and apparently palmately-arranged segments; this he
described as probably a Filicite. Brongniart! afterwards referred
Nilsson’s plant to Cycadites, on account of the resemblance of
the leaf segments to the pinne of the recent genus Cycas. As
Schenk? has pointed out, Nilsson’s figure in all probability
represents an Aralia leaf, and the fossil is certainly not a species
of Cycadites. In Brongniart’s Prodrome* we have ‘the following
definition of the genus Cycadites :—

‘“‘Feuilles pinnées, 4 pinnules linéaires, entiéres adhérentes
par toute leur base, traversées par une seule nervure moyenne,
épaisse ; point de nervures secondaires.”

He regards the single-veined linear pinne as the important
feature, and in spite of the fact that the first specimen to be
included under this generic name was incorrectly determined,
this definition of Cycadites has been generally adhered to.

Schimper, Saporta, and other authors have, in the main,
adopted Brongniart’s diagnosis. We may perhaps most con-
veniently define Cycadites as follows :—

Frond pinnate, pinne alternate or opposite, linear, lanceolate,
entire, with a single median vein; attached to the rachis by
the entire base, the lower margin of which may be slightly
decurrent on the frond axis, or slightly narrowed towards the
point of attachment.

It is better to confine our definition to the frond characters,
and thus frame it in such a manner that it practically includes
those fossil fronds which have a cycadean habit, and resemble
‘the recent Cycas in the possession of uninerved segments. In
several cases Cycadites fronds have been found in close associa-
‘tion with characteristic Cycas-like carpellary leaves; but in the
‘majority of specimens we have only sterile fronds, and it is
better, therefore, to have some definition which enables us to
-give such leaves a place in a convenient genus, which does not
depend upon special characters of fertile leaves.

The genus Cycadites, as detined by most writers since the
‘days of Brongniart,- possesses easily recognized characters,. and
ought not to present any very serious difficulty: in the way of

 

1 (A. 2), p. 93.
2 (A. 1), Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. p. 158.
3 p. 98. =
CYCADITES. 25

generic determination. When we come to examine the various’
plant fragments which have been figured as representatives of
the genus at different geological horizons, it becomes apparent:
that the mere acceptance of a list of Cycadites species as an index
of the past history of the genus would undoubtedly lead us into
error. In any case it would be rash to maintain that a record
of even the most perfectly preserved specimens of the Cycadites
type of frond, affords an epitome of the geological history of the
genus Cycas. The occurrence of fossil carpellary leaves very
similar to, or practically identical with, those of Cycas, lends
confirmation to the position assigned to many of the Cycadites
fronds; but as regards other species we can only express the
opinion that they are parts of a plant which closely resembles
in habit, and probably in structure, the living genus. It has
already been pointed out that the pinne of Cycas circinalis, L.,
may occasionally be united laterally and assume a form suggestive,
in some degree, of Milssonia or Pterophyllum. No great weight
can be attached to this single instance of such lateral fusion, but
it is worth noting as having a possible connection with some
of the fossil leaf forms which present little resemblance to
recent fronds. Saporta has called attention to the similarity
between some Cycadites species and JVilssonia, and one of Heer’s
species, C. Dicksoni1 from the Cretaceous of Greenland, seems
to possess pinne which are either in contact with one another,
or actually united by the margins.

Berger figured a fragment as Cycadites alatus, Berg.,? and
compared it with Milssonia brevis, Brong., the same plant being
afterwards renamed by Goppert MWilssonia Bergert.* As regards
the first record of Cycadites in Paleozoic rocks, it cannot be said
that there is any very decided evidence of the occurrence of this
genus, but Goppert’s C. tarodinus is by no means such a doubtful
representative of the genus as several of the species described
from newer beds. Gdppert’s C. gyrosus may perhaps be a portion
of a young frond with its pinne cirecinately rolled, but it is not
enough to establish the existence of Cycadites in Carboniferous
times. Sterzel has recently figured an imperfectly preserved

 

1 Heer (A. 3.), Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 99, pls. xxvii. and xxviii.
2 Berger, p. 22, pl. iii. figs. 56 and 6. :
3 (1), p. 141.
26 CYCADITES.

impression from the Middle Rothliegende of Possendorf, Saxony,"
which he speaks of as “ Cycadites? or Walchia sp.,” but does
not consider it sufficiently distinct to allow of accurate identi-
fication. The figure entirely justifies Sterzel’s doubtful attitude.
In the Mesozoic beds Cycadites fronds become more abundant;
a list of most of the species has been given by Solms-Laubach.?

A few of the so-called Cycadites species call for special mention.
The Jurassic specimens described by Leckenby, from Cloughton,
as Cycadites zamigides* are probably, as Nathorst suggests,
fragments of a conifer. The type specimen of Leckenby’s
species in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge, bears a label
on which Nathorst has written, ‘‘A conifer of the genus
Palissya”’; and Richards,* who examined the specimens a few
years ago, adopts this view. In the case of some small indistinct
impressions, it is often very difficult to decide between a twig of
a conifer with its spirally arranged leaves extended in one
plane, and a small cycadean frond with its uninerved pinne
inserted on the two sides of a rachis. A branch of Cephalotarus
Fortunei, Hook, might very easily be mistaken for Cycadites if
found in a fossil state with the details of structure imperfectly
preserved. Heer has described several species of Cycadites from
Arctic localities, but the figures do not inspire confidence in his
determinations. Cycadites Dicksont® may very probably be a true
Oycadites; C. sibirieus, Heer,® and C. gramineus, Heer,’ from
the Jurassic rocks of Siberia, are both founded on the merest
fragments of single pinnew, and cannot be taken as trustworthy
records, The institution of species on such minute fragments
as the figures represent, is to be greatly deplored; the result
can only be either to mislead those who are willing to accept
all fossil species described by well-known authors, or to deter
the more sceptical from attaching any importance to fossil plant

 

1 Sterzel, p. 140, pl. xii. fig. 12.

2 (A.), Fossil Botany, p. 86.

* Leckenby (A.), Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. 1864, p. 77, pl. viii. fig. 1.

* (1), p. 8.

5 Heer, Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 97, pls. xxvii. and xxviii.; and
vol. vi. pl. xiv. fig. 10.

8 Tbid. vol. v. pt. ii. p. 16, pl. iv. fig. 1.

1 Ibid. fig. 2, ete.
CYCADITES. 27

determinations which do not rest on other characters than those
of external form. Another species from the same beds, C. ?
planicosta, Heer,’ is founded on imperfect pinne, but in this
case Heer definitely admits the doubtful value of the name.
The specimen described by the same authority from the Tertiary
beds of Schaffhausen as Cycadites Escheri? is very likely a
cycadean stem, but the genus Cycadites has been restricted to
fossil fronds, and Heer’s stem fragment should be referred to
some other genus, in order to avoid the confusion likely to arise
from using the name in a more comprehensive sense. Dawson
has described some fronds from the Middle Cretaceous of the
Rocky Mountains, which he names Cycadites Unjuga,? and
compares with Heer’s Cycadites Dicksoni. The two figures of
the Canadian specimens do not appear to agree as regards the
Cycadites form of pinna: in Fig. 2 each pinna appears to have
several parallel veins, and the general habit seems different
from that in Fig. 25; if Fig. 2 be an accurate representation
of the specimen, and the vein-like lines are not the draughts-
man’s shading, it could hardly be accepted as a true Cycadites.
Feistmantel figures a fragment under the name of Cycadites
constrictus, Feist.,4 and speaks of a midrib in the basally con-
stricted pinne ; the figure does not show any distinct midrib,
and leaves one in doubt as to the wisdom of choosing the genus
Cycadites.

1.—Cycadites Romeri, Schenk.
(Fig. 1.]

1871. Cycadites Romeri, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 229, pl. xxxii.
figs. 1, la.
1874. Cycadites Rémeri, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 552.

Type. Portion of a frond. Berlin Museum.
The following definition is given by Schenk for this species :—‘*

 

1 Heer, Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iv. pt. ii. pl. iv. fig. 16.

2 Heer (A. 1), Fl. Tert. Helvet. p. 46, pl. xv.

3 Dawson (1), p. 20, pl. i. fig. 2.

4 Feistmantel, Gond. Flor. vol. i. pt. iv. p. 25, pl. vii. fig. 10.
5 Schenk (A. 2), Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 229,
28 CYCADITES.

' “Folia petiolata pinnata, petiolus validus, segmenta linearia
patentia integra alterna basi dilatata.breviter decurrente sessilia,
83 cent. longa, 2 mm. lata, uninervia, nervus medianus validus.”
- He refers to the recent species Cycas Scamensis, Miq., as most
nearly allied to the fossil frond. This is the only example of
Cycadites recognized by Schenk among the North German
Wealden plants; the specimens referred by Dunker to that
genus being without the characteristic single vein in the pinne.
The English specimens, for which the name Cycadites Saporte,
sp. nov., is proposed, differ from the present species in their
narrower and more approximately disposed pinne, inclined
almost at right angles to the rachis. The scanty material in
the Rufford Collection referred to Cycadites Rémeri enables us,
however, to add one or two points to the original diagnosis by
Schenk :—

Frond pinnate, rachis strong, pinne linear and narrow,
obliquely and laterally attracted to the rachis, entire, alternate,
with slightly broadened and somewhat decurrent base, single
median vein, apices acuminate and terminating in a sharp point.

Fre. 1.—Cycadites Rimeri, Schenk (V. 2738). Slightly enlarged.

V. 2738. Fig. 1.

An imperfect specimen, showing several partially preserved
pinne, the largest of which has a length of 8}cm., as in
Schenk’s specimen, and a breadth of 8mm.

In the type specimen of C. Rémert the pinne are broken at
the apices, but in the English example the sharply acuminate,
tips are clearly preserved, and correspond closely with those
in C. Saporte, Cycas revoluta, Thunb., ete. Each pinna is
traversed by a median groove, which must probably be regarded
as the midrib seen from the under side, but it should be noticed
that there are in some of the pinne slight variations in the
breadth of the groove, and it occasionally departs somewhat
CYCADITES. 29

from a‘strictly median course. The appearance, indeed, is such
as to suggest a folding over of the pinne margins. It has
already been pointed out in the introductory remarks on fossil
cycadean fronds, how the pinne of such recent species as
Lincephalartos Ghellinckit, Lem., may become folded over until
a narrow median groove is left in the middle of the lower
surface of the segment, representing the line of separation of
the recurved edges (Pl. XIII. Fig. 3). On the other hand, we
may have a similar curling over in the pinne of a true Cycas;
but in the present specimen the narrow line is for the most part
perfectly median and of uniform breadth, and cannot well be
attributed to any other cause than the presence of a central vein.
At one corner of the specimen there are three pinne, which
clearly demonstrate a folding over of the margins, but this is
in itself no proof of the absence of a single vein. These pinna
fragments are in oblique contact with what appears to be a
portion of the rachis, and if we may regard the two as
organically connected, the segments exhibit the same characters
as regards the form and attachment of the base as Schenk has
described in the German examples. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

2.—_Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov.
[Pl. III. Fig. 7; Pl. VI. Fig. 5; Pl. VII. Fig. 2.]

Type. Large and well-preserved fronds. British Museum.

The difficulty of recognizing the essential character of Cycadites
in the pinne of fossil fronds has made itself felt in no small
degree in dealing with the present series of specimens. The
figures and descriptions given by Romer and Dunker of the
Cycadites-like leaves have to be viewed in the light of Schenk’s
more recent statements,! based on an examination of Dunker’s
type specimens. If we leave out of consideration those portions
of cycadean fronds which are figured by Dunker as Cycadites

 

¥ Schenk (A. 2), Palzontographica, vol. xix. p. 238.
30 CYCADITES,

Morrisianus, Dunk.,! and which present a close agreement in habit
with the English specimens, we have only C. Rémeri, Schenk,
among Wealden fronds with which to compare C. Saporte. The
differences between C. Romeri and the present species are, I
believe, too well marked to admit of a single specific designation.

In view of the exceptionally large size of the Ecclesbourne
fronds, and the satisfactory manner of preservation, it is better to
adopt a new specific term, and I have ventured to identify the
name of the Marquis of Saporta with this new form of Lower
Cretaceous cycad.

Since the above was written the Marquis of Saporta’s promised
Monograph on the Flore fossile du Portugal has been published.
A review of this valuable contribution to Mesozoic paleobotany
is given in the latter part of the present volume. Among the
very few remains of cycadean fronds described by Saporta, one
form of Cycadites appears under the name of C. tenudsectus,* Sap.,
and the figures of the frond fragments show a very distinct resem-
blance to the English specimens which I have referred to the new
species, C. Saporte. Possibly the Portuguese and British plants
should be placed in one species, but for the present at least,
there are certain differences to be noticed which hardly justify
this adoption of Saporta’s specific name. In the English fronds
the pinne are somewhat stouter, the tips more sharply acuminate,
and the general habit of the leaf appears to be rather stiffer than
in C. tenuisectus.

Frond pinnate, linear, of uniform breadth; rachis broad and
flattened, marked with obliquely placed lines, terminating proxi-
mally in a broadened and swollen base. Pinne of uniform breadth,
alternate or subopposite, attached to the upper surface of the
rachis, and inserted at right angles or slightly oblique to
the frond axis, the bases of the two rows of the pinne almost
in contact; average length of the pinne 6-7cm., and 1-15 mm.
in breadth; bases slightly broadened and contiguous, apices of
the long linear pinne terminating in a sharp point; single median
vein in each segment.

In 1839 Romer instituted the species Cycadites Brongniarti

 

1 Dunker (A. 2), Wealdenbildung, p. 16, pl. vii. fig. 1.
2 (1), p. 171, pl. xxxii. figs. 1-4 and 6.
CYCADITES. 31

for a specimen from the North German Wealden beds, and thus
defined it’: ‘C. foliis pinnatis sublinearibus, pinnis numerosis
linearibus approximatis apice obtusiusculis medio costatis basi sub
dilatatis.”

He speaks of the pinne as possessing a strong midrib, and his
figure shows this character very clearly. Dunker has refigured
Romer’s original specimen, and here again the pinne appear
to have a distinct median vein; he points out that Mantell’s
Cycadites Brongniarti® should be placed in the genus Wilssonia, as
it does not conform to the accepted definition of Cycadites. This
Tilgate fossil? is now referred to as Dioonites Brongniarti (Mant.).

In 1852 Ettingshausen‘ obtained a portion of a cycadean
frond from near Teschen, in Silesia, and referred it to Romer’s
species, but at the same time expressing the opinion that it
represented a form intermediate between C. Brongniartd, Rom.,
and C. Morrisianus, Dunk. This is certainly not the same species
as Romer’s type, and should, as Schenk’ suggests, be placed in
another species; he speaks of it as C. Heertd, Schenk, and
expresses the opinion that possibly C. Brongniarti, Rom., may
be simply a partially developed frond of C. Morrisianus.® Sub-
sequently the same author includes both C. Brongniarti and
C. Morrisianus as synonyms of Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gopp.).
He states that the type specimen of C. Morrisianus, Dunk., shows
no indication of a midrib, and must therefore be referred to Ptero-
phyllum or Dioonites instead of to Cycadites. There is the same
absence of a median vein, according to Schenk, in the segments
of C. Brongniarti, Rém., and this must, therefore, be also excluded
from the genus Cycadites. It is not quite clear if Schenk is here
speaking of Rémer’s original specimen; if he refers to the figured
specimen as it appears in the illustrations of Romer and Dunker,
the figures are certainly at variance with Schenk’s description.
There is the same apparent contradiction between figure and

 

" Romer, F, A. (A.), Verstein. Ool. Geb. p. 9, pl. xvii. fig. 1.

2 Dunker, Joc. cit. p. 16, pl. ii. fig. 4.

8 Mantell (A. 4), Geol. S.E. England, p. 238.

4 (A. 4), Abb. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, 1852, p. 20,
pl. i. fig. 9.

5 (A. 3), Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 7,

6 (A, 2), p. 233.
32 CYCADITES.

diagnosis in Dioonites abietinus' (Gépp.), as represented im.
pl. xxxvii. fig. 1 of Schenk’s monograph. Schimper retains
Romer’s species, and unites with it Pterophyllum Dunkerianum,
Gopp., as figured by Dunker,? but in this case the figure shows
very clearly that the venation is not of the Cycadites type. In
the face of Schenk’s statements, we cannot, then, accept any of
Dunker’s figures of what he describes as species of Cycadites
as really examples of that genus; and, as Saporta’* points out, the
only representatives of Cycadites so far known for beds of approxi-
mately Wealden age are C. Romeri, Schenk, and C. Heertt,
Schenk. In the English specimens referred to the new species
C. Saporte the preservation is fortunately good, and leaves no
doubt as to the existence of a true midrib in the pinne.
C. Rémeri agrees to some extent with this species, but differs
in its broader pinne and their disposition on the frond axis. The
specimens of C. Saporte are unusually large, and hence enable
us to obtain a good idea as to the general habit of the frond;
if it were not for this fact one might be inclined to include them
under, Schenk’s species. The plant described by Braun from the
Jurassic sandstones of Steinstedt as C. rectangularis* differs in
its shorter and broader pinne, and in the fact that they are more
distinctly at right angles to the rachis. Some of Saporta’s figures
of what he regards as C. rectangularis, are much more like
C. Saporte than the type specimen figured by Braun; cf. especi-
ally pl. xiii. figs. 1 and 3 of the Flore Jurassique. Saporta
includes C. pectinatus, Berg., as a synonym of Braun’s species,
and adopts the term rectangularis in preference to the older name
pectinatus, because of the use of the latter term by Lindley and
Hutton in connection with the genus Zamites;° perhaps hardly
a sufficiently sound argument to overrule the priority of Berger’s
term.

Berger’s small fragment as figured in his pl. ili. fig. 4,

 

1 (A. 2), p. 284. Géppert, and not Miquel, appears to be author of the two
specific names abietinus and Dunkerianus; Schenk refers both these species
to Miquel.

2 Schimper (A.), Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 180.

3 Loe. cit. p. 72.

4 Braun (A.), Paleontographica, vol. ix. p. 56, pl. xiv. fig. 7.

® Saporta, loc. cit. p. 70.
CYCADITES, 33

evidently belongs to a plant of very similar habit to that of
C. Saporte; it differs mainly in the greater breadth of the
pinne, so far at least as it is possible to judge from Berger’s
figure.

Another species which bears a still closer resemblance to
C. Saporte, is C. Rajmahalensis, Old., described by Oldham,
from India! The figures and description of this plant are in
close agreement with the Ecclesbourne Wealden species ; the seg-
ments of the Indian frond seem to be rather more closely arranged
and somewhat shorter than in the English form. It would,
however, be somewhat unwise to refer the Wealden specimens
to Oldham’s species, considering the geological age of the two
plants, and the less perfect preservation of Cycadites Rajmahalensis.
In this, as in many other cases of fossil plants, we have to speak
cautiously as to the relationship of individual members of different
floras, and must trust rather to the comparative study of the floras
as a whole, than to the apparent identity of isolated elements.

Trautschold’s specimen of Cycadites acinaciformis, Traut.,? is
similar to the present species, but probably not identical with it.
Schenk suggests that the Russian species is probably identical with
Pecopteris decipiens, Traut., and must be placed with the ferns.
It is difficult to speak with much confidence as to the nature
of the specimen figured as C. acinaciformis, but it certainly bears
a strong likeness to the cycadean genus.°

V. 2777. Pl. VIII. Fig. 2 (4 natural size).

This exceptionally fine specimen shows one frond 60cm. in
length, and a second 38cm. long, the latter being inclined to
the former in such a way as to suggest but little displacement
from their original position of growth on the parent stem. The
larger frond, as represented on a small scale in the photograph,
shows a striking uniformity in the length and breadth of the
numerous closely set pinne. In several of the segments the
‘sharp apices are clearly preserved. Judging by other specimens,
in which the pinne are longer and more nearly at right angles

 

1 Oldham and Morris (A.), Foss. Fl. Gond. p. 15, pl. viii.

2 Trautschold (A. 3), Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. xiii. 1876, p. 34,
pl. xxi. fig. 1.

3 Schenk (A. 2), Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 261.
34 CYCADITES.

to the rachis, it is probable that this large example ma:
represent a frond not quite fully developed. The stout rachis
about 1:4 cm. in breadth, and especially that of the smalle
frond, shows numerous obliquely running longitudinal lines
The contiguous and slightly broadened bases of the pinne ar
very distinct on portions of the larger frond. In some place
the segments, adhering together by their contiguous bases, hav
been torn en masse from the axis of the leaf.

The stout and distinct median vein is well marked throughout
Near Hastings. Rufford Coli

V. 2797. Pl. VI. Figs 5 and 5a.

Frond 13°5 cm. in length; rachis lem. broad. The long an
contiguous pinne are attached at right angles to one edge o
the flattened axes. Midrib distinctly preserved, as in Fig. 5a
also the sharply acuminate tips of the segments. Longest pinn:
llem. The general appearance of this specimen is indicative

of an older frond than V. 2777. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll

V. 2124¢. Pl. III. Fig. 7.

24 cm. long. At the two extreme ends only one row o:
pinne has been preserved, and the impression of the broad rachis
is shown on the surface of the rock. In other places the twc
rows of pinne are almost in contact, as in the portion repre.
sented in Pl. IV. Fig. 5, and there is very little of the rachis
visible between the bases of the two sets of pinne. The
arrangement and general appearance of the segments bear a
marked resemblance to Déoonites Dunkerianus (Gépp.). Eccles.
bourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 1069. A more terminal portion of a frond. Pinne smaller
and more obliquely inclined to the rachis than in most of the
other specimens. Cf. the terminal portion with the specimen
of Dioonites Dunkerianus (V. 2828) figured in Pl. II. Fig. 3.
Ecclesbourne. Presented by P. Rufford, Hsq., 1885.

V. 2124. Narrow pinnez attached to one side of the flat rachis.

V. 21245. Several portions of fronds. In one there appears
to be the broad and thick basal termination of the petiole fairly
DIOONITES, 35

clearly preserved. The midrib and pointed apex well seen in
several of the pinne. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2924. 25cm. long. A single row of pinne attached to
one margin of the broad flat rachis; midrib distinct. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

Genus DIOONITES, Miquel.

[Tijdsch Wis. Nat. Wet. vol. iv. 1851, p. 205.]

In dealing with such fronds as those figured by Dunker as
Cycadites Morrisianus, Dunk., and C. Brongniarti, Rom., and
afterwards described by Schenk as species of Pterophyllum or
Dioonites, we have to face the difficulty of deciding upon the most
suitable generic term. The fronds in the Rufford Collection show
well-marked characters, and leave no doubt as to the form and
manner of attachment of the pinne; we have long, narrow, linear
and parallel-veined segments, with acutely pointed tips attached
by broad and non-auriculate bases to the upper surface of the
rachis, Must these be included in Pterophyllum or Dioonttes, or
do the generally received definitions of these genera not admit
of the application of either name to the Wealden fronds? Let
us briefly summarize some of the various definitions of these
genera, and note how far they coincide with the characteristic
features of the present series of specimens. Pterophyllum was
defined by Brongniart in 18281 as a genus characterized by—
“‘Feuilles pinnées, 4 pinnules d’une largeur a peu prés égale,
s’insérant sur le pétiole par toute la largeur de leur base, tronquées
au sommet; nervures fines, égales, simple, peu marquées, toutes
paralléles.” He speaks of the truncate apices of the pinne as
an essential character, but does not insist on a lateral or surface
insertion on the frond axis. Pterophyllum Jaegert, Brong., is spoken
of as one of the species of this genus, and in this instance the
attachment of the segments is apparently lateral. In the Zubleau?

 

1 (A. 2), Prodrome, p. 95.
2 (A. 4), p. 63.
36 DIOONITES.

Brongniart points out that subsequent writers have applied his
generic name to plants which do not conform to the original
definition. He considers the essential characters to be (i.) a slight
union of the bases of the pinne; (ii.) the quadrilateral, oblong,
or linear form of the segments; (iii.) éruncately terminated
segments; and (iv.) the presence of fine parallel veins not convergent
at the apex. Morris! speaks of Pterophylium as including plants
with pinnate fronds and sublinear pinne, inserted by the whole
base, with the apices truncate or sometimes acute, etc. Miquel?
keeps closely to Brongniart’s original definition. Gdoppert* adopts
a wider definition, and includes in this genus plants with obtusely
and acutely terminated pinne, etc. Bornemann,‘ in 1856, defined
the genus as follows: ‘Frond pinnate or deeply pinnatisect,
pinne approximate, and with the whole base attached to the
rachis, short, broad, quadrate, or elongate, straight at the tip
or obliquely truncate, horizontal or oblique to the rachis; veins
parallel.”

Leckenby* assigns the name Pierophyllum to the species
P. medianum, Leck., with its Mélssonia-like lamina, which is
apparently not attached to the side of the frond axis. Schenk,
in his Fossile Flora der Grenzschichten® . . . , adopts a very com-
prehensive definition, and defines the pinne of Pterophyllum as
distichous, elongate, or adherent, narrow or broad, apex acute or
truncate; but he says nothing as to the manner of attachment
to the rachis. He includes P. znerustans, Gopp., and P. Braunit,
Gopp., in the same genus. Heer’ prefers the genus Zamites, used
in an unusually wide sense, for such fronds as his Z. borealis,
Heer, Z. acutipennis, Heer, etc., which resemble in general form
the leaves of the Wealden species originally described by Dunker
as Cycadites Morrisianus. Schimper separates the fronds with
irregularly pinnatifid leaves from the true Pterophyllum type, and
institutes for their reception the genus Anomozamites.2 In the

 

1 (1), p. 118.

2 (1), p. 78.

3 (1), p. 129.

4 p. 58.

5 Loe. cit. p. 77, pl. viii. fig. 2.

6 (A. 1), Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, p. 163.
7 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. p. 66, pl. xv.

8 Trait, pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 140.
DIOONITES. 37

genus Pterophyllum he includes fronds with pinne vertically
attached to the side of the rachis, and having truncate apices.
His genus Ctenophyllum,' which includes certain forms often
referred to Pterophyllum, is defined as follows: ‘‘ Folia linealia,
gracilia; foliolis lateri rachis superiori oblique adfixis, sepius
oppositis, linealibus, obtusis, basi retro folium infrapositum de-
fleuntibus, coriaceis, tenuiter et parallele nervosis.”’

Saporta departs somewhat from the definitions given by other
authors,” and restricts Pterophyllum to fronds with pinne attached
to the side of the rachis, and which are distinct one from another,
not fused laterally at the base, and having truncate apices.
Feistmantel,? on the other hand, in speaking of Zamites proximus,
Feist., points to the separate pinne, which are not connected
at the base, as a feature inconsistent with the inclusion of the
plant in the genus Pterophyllum. Nathorst‘ has described
certain plants from Bjuf as possibly species of Pterophyllum;
but to express the absence of perfectly satisfactory evidence, he
prefixes a query to the generic name. More recently, this
author has called attention to the lateral insertion of the pinne
as an essential character of Pterophyllum, and a convenient
distinguishing feature from Nilssonia.® In Zittel’s Handbuch,®
the lateral attachment of the pinne, which may or may not be
distinct at the base, and their rounded or truncate apices are given
as important generic marks. It is suggested that possibly such
a frond as Pterophyllum Dunkerianum, Gopp., ought not to be
included in the genus Pterophyllum, because of the insertion of
the segments on the upper surface of the frond axis. Solms-
Laubach’ refers to P. Jaegert, Brong., as an example of one
form of Pterophyllum frond, and in another place® calls attention
to the Milssonia-like form of some species of the same genus,
which agree with other examples of Pterophylium in the lateral
insertion of the leaf lamina.

 

1 Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 127.

2 Loc. cit. p. 43.

3 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. i. ser. ii. 2, p. 115.

4 (A. 1), pt. ii. pp. 69-72.

5 (A. 3), Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. p. 6.
6 (A.), p. 224.

7 Fossil Botany, p. 88.

& Ibid. p. 139.
38 DIOONITES.

On the whole, then, the characters generally insisted on seem to
be the lateral attachment of the pinne to the rachis, and by
many, but by no means all authors, the truncately terminated
segments. The confusion which has arisen from constant altera-
tions by various writers, and from the not uncommon practice
of including certain fronds in a particular genus, in spite of
obvious discrepancies between the specimens and the generic
diagnosis, is sufficiently obvious if we glance at some of the
better known Pterophyllum species as figured by different authors.
We have such forms as P. inconstans, Gopp., P. Dunkerianum,
Gopp., P. Jaegeri, Brong., P. Braunii, Gopp., etc., included in the

‘same genus. It is true that in examining fossil fronds we are
often unable to decide as to the actual manner of attachment of
the pinne, and are thus driven to leave the specimen as doubtful,
or to decide as best we may in the face of difficulties inseparable
from the determination of isolated leaf fragments. We cannot
always be sure whether we have the frond preserved with its
lower or upper side uppermost. It is, however, clear that we
cannot consistently make use of Brongniart’s genus for such
specimens as those before us.

The genus Dioonites of Miquel has been adopted by some
authors for these narrowly segmented Wealden fronds. This
again is a generic name which has been made to do duty for
forms of leaves, which it is difficult to regard as correctly included
in the same genus, even if the genus be admittedly a provisional
and artificial one. Miquel is responsible for the proposal of this
name, and for the following definition:’ ‘‘Frondes pinnate,
rigide, crasse. Foliola densa patentissima suprema nunc sub-
imbricata, lanceolata, vel lineari-lanceolata, recta vel subfalcata,
acuta vel acutiuscula, basi tota latitudine imserta, inferne
retrorsum subdecurrentia, nervis cum margine parallelis equa-
libus subtus distinctioribus (cum sulculis stomatiferis alter-
nantibus).” He included under this name several species
previously described as examples of Pterophyllum and other
genera. Bornemann adopts Miquel’s genus and. extends its use
to some additional species, but does not make any important
alteration in the original diagnosis. Schimper retains the term

 

1 (2), p. 7.
DIOONITES, 39

Dioonites, and gives the essential characters as follows:! ‘ Folia
pinnata, pinnis pro more angustis, lanceolatis, acutis, obliquis,
tota latitudine insertis, basique leniter pro- et decurrentibus,
nervis parallelis.”’ In Zittel’s Handbuch® the genus is quoted,
and Pterophyllum Buchianum, Ett., and P. Brongniartt, Schenk,
are given as two typical species. The former of these has since
been transferred by Nathorst to a new genus, Zamiophyllum,’ on
the ground that the pinne are slightly narrowed towards the
base. Saporta repeats the character of Dioonites*+ as given by
previous writers, and figures D. Brongniarti as a typical example;
but the species referred to by this writer at the end of his
definition as the typical form of the genus is D. Kurri, Schimp.
In Fontaine’s Potomac Flora we find numerous forms included
under Miquel’s genus, but it must be noted that this author,
while giving what he refers to as Schimper’s definition of the
genus, speaks of the pinne as ‘‘sometimes expanded at base so
as to extend up and down the rachis.”> This is an important
alteration, as Schimper describes the pinne as distinctly
decurrent, and it is this characteristic which is repeated by the
majority of writers as one of the essential generic features. In
his definition of Dioonites Buchianus (Ett.) Fontaine refers to
the pinne as slightly narrowed at the base, but does not regard
this character as opposed to the adoption of Miquel’s genus. The
attachment of the pinne by the whole of a more or less
decurrent base appears to be the chief characteristic generally
insisted on. In several definitions of Déoonites no mention is
made of the place of attachment of the frond segments, whether
on the surface or sides of the rachis; in several of the figured
specimens referred to this genus the pinne are inserted laterally.
Some authors have emphasized the fact that the segments must
be attached to the upper surface of the rachis, as in D. Brongniarte,
This position of the pinne affords one point of difference from
Pierophylium, and in the decurrent and separate leaves we have
other features characteristic of Dioonites. Nathorst, in discussing

 

1 (A.), Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 128.
% p. 228,

3 (A. 8), p. 46.

4 (A. 2), vol. ii. p. 44.

5 p. 181.
40 DIOONITES.

the generic characters of the plant, to which he applies the name
Zamiophyllum Buchianum (Ett.), refers to Miquel’s genus Dioonites
as characterized by the attachment of the pinne to the upper
surface of the rachis, and by the insertion of the segments almost
at right angles to the axis; he says nothing as to the decurrent
bases of the pinne. If we accept this definition, and depart
from the usually accepted feature of a decurrent pinna base, we
may well include the Wealden plants under this genus. It is
certainly not an easy matter to draw a definite line between
pinne attached to the rachis by the entire base, which is not
decurrent, and those which are similarly attached, but with their
bases more or less decurrent. In the English examples of the
species D. Dunkerianus (Gépp), the pinne towards the upper
end of the frond are distinctly decurrent, but those occupying
a lower position cannot be described as possessing decurrent bases.
Of. Pl. Il. Fig. 8, and Pl. III. Fig. 6. There are two other
genera to which reference should be made, which to a certain
extent agree in their definitions with such fronds as D. Dunkeri-
anus, etc., viz. Ctenophyllum and Ptilophyllum. The former
genus was instituted by Schimper’ to include certain forms of
fronds which do not in all essentials comply with the definitions
of Otozamites on the one hand, and Dvzoonites on the other,
Pterophyllum pecten, L. and H., being taken as the type species.
The author of the genus afterwards somewhat modified his original
diagnosis, and pointed out that Pterophyllum Braunianum, Gopp.,
had been erroneously described as a species of Ctenophyllum. The
genus Ptilophyllum, proposed by Morris in 1840? for certain Indian
fronds, can with difficulty be distinguished from Ctenophyllum.
It is thus defined :—

‘Fronds pinnate; pinne linear, closely approximated, more or
less elongate; base variable in form, oblique, round, imbricate,
sometimes auricled in the upper and sometimes in the lower part.
Veins slender, equal, parallel.’ 5

Goppert long ago expressed the opinion that Morris’ term
was a needless addition to the list of cycadean genera.4 It

 

1 Loe. cit. vol. ii. p. 143.
2 Morris (2), p. 21.

3 Morris (1), p. 116.

4 (1), p. 117.
DIOONITES. 41

has been found useful by several writers as a convenient name
to apply to Indian fronds, but as at present used it does not
appear to be wholly satisfactory. The genus Ptiophyllum seems
to have been almost confined to Asiatic fronds, and the locality
of a specimen has probably had too great a share in the
selection of Ptilophyllum in preference to Ctenophyllum as the
most suitable name. Nathorst! figures and describes a leaf
fragment from Japan as Ptilophyllum cf. cutchense, Morr., but
it would seem practically impossible to separate such a form as
this from some English Jurassic fronds usually placed in the
genus Ctenophyllum.

On the whole perhaps the better course is to retain, at least
for the present, the name Dioonites as the most suitable generic
designation for the Wealden species D. Dunkerianus (Gopp.).
We must slightly modify the definition of the genus, and no
longer insist on the decurrent pinna base as an essential charac-
teristic. The implied relationship to the recent Dioon is the
least satisfactory feature of Dvoonites, but possibly we shall be
able, on a future occasion, to suggest some further alteration in
the existing nomenclature of fossil cycadean fronds. We may
define this genus, using the term Dioonites in a wide and
provisional sense, as follows :—

Frond pinnate, pinne at right angles, or more or less obliquely
inclined to the rachis, attached to the upper surface of the frond
axis, bases separate, may or may not be decurrent, not narrowed
towards the point of attachment, apices acuminate, straight or
slightly truncate, veins parallel.

In dealing with Dioonites, as with many other genera, we
may easily fall into the error of excluding or including certain
forms owing to our imperfect knowledge as to the manner of
attachment of the pinne; but it is obviously impossible to
devise a perfectly satisfactory system, so long as we are limited
by the exigencies of fossilization and the imperfection of the
frond fragments.

 

1} Nathorst (A. 3), p. 52, pl. iv. fig. 8.
42 DIOONITES.

Dioonites Dunkerianus (Géppert).
[Pl. II. Fig. 3; Pl. IIT. Fig. 6.]

1843. Nilssonia pecten, Dunker, Progr. p. 7.
Pierophyllum Dunkerianum, Géppert, Foss. Cycad. p. 52.
1846. Pterophyllum Dunkerianum, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 14, pl. ii.
fig. 3, pl. vi. fig. 4.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Dunker, ibid. p. 16, pl. vii. fig. 1.
? Pterophyllum abietinum, Dunker, ibid. p. 15, pl. vii. fig. 2.
1848. Pterophyllum Dunkerianum, Bronn, Index pal. nomencl. p. 1055.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Bronn, ibid. p. 371.
1849. Zamites Dunkerianus, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Brongniart, ibid. p. 107.
1850. Pterophyllum Dunkerianwm, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 290.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Unger, ibid. p. 280.
1851. Dioonites Dunkerianus, Miquel, Rangschik. foss. Cycad. p. 212.
P Dioonites abietinus, Miquel, ibid. p. 205.
1852. Pterophyllum Dunkerianum, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 20.
1856. Dioonites Dunkerianus, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl. p. 56.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Bornemann, bid. p. 51.
1869. Déoonites Dunkerianus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 150.
Cycadites Morrisianus, Schimper, ibid. p. 180.
1871. Dioonites Dunkerianus, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 232,
pl. xxxvi. figs. 1-5.
Oycadites Morrisianus, Schenk, ibid. p. 233.
P Dioonites abietinus, Schenk, ibid. p. 234, pl. xxxvii. fig. 1.
1874. Dioonites Dunkerianus, Schimper, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 550.

Type. Portions of fronds. Berlin Museum.

Géppert! thus defines the species: ‘‘ Pt. fronde pinnata, pinnis
crassiusculis alternis lineari-acicularibus elongatis pectinato-
patentissimis subremotis eque distantibus 4-5 nervis subacutis.”
Dunker originally named this plant Mélssonia pecten, but an
inspection of drawings received from Dunker led Guppert to dissent
from the original designation. Dunker, in his Wealdenbildung,
makes one or two slight alterations in Goppert’s diagnosis; he
speaks of the venation as ‘‘nervis 3-4 instinctis,” and adds ‘‘rhachi
crassa compressa.”’? The specimen represented in Dunker’s pl. v.

 

1 (1), p. 184.
3 (A. 2), p. 14.
DIOONITES. 43

fig. 3 shows the pinne apparently attached rather to the side than
to the middle of the upper surface of the rachis; the bases are
slightly swollen, and the apices pointed. In pl. vi. fig. 4 of the
same author part of the broad rachis is shown, and the approximate
and narrowly linear pinne are inserted at right angles to the frond
axis. The specimen figured by Dunker:and named by Géppert
Piterophyllum abietinum, bears such a strong resemblance to Dioonttes
Dunkerianus as seen from the under side of the frond, that I have
ventured to insert this species as a possible synonym. Schenk has
previously called attention to this resemblance, and suggests that
possibly the similarity may amount to specific identity ; Schenk’s
figure shows a distinct midrib in the pinne, but this must be an
error in the sketch or some deceptive appearance in the fossil.
The specimen referred to Dioonites abietinus, by Hosius and
von Marck, is probably a fragment of Zamites Buchianus (Ett.).!
Schenk adopts Miquel’s generic term Dioondtes, which the latter
author proposed in 1851 for this and other species of Pterophyllum.
In speaking of the genus Cycadttes, reference was made to Schenk’s
substitution of Dioonites or Pterophyllum for Cycadites, in the case
of certain specimens previously assigned by Dunker to the latter
genus; an examination of the type specimens having convinced
Schenk of the absence of a single median vein in the leaf segments,
and therefore of the erroneous adoption of the same Cycadites.
Schenk’s figure 1, pl. xxxvi.? shows a portion of one side of
a frond with closely placed long and narrow pinne, which in their
manner of attachment suggest a spirally twisted frond axis, such
as we have in the recent cycad Macrosamia spiralis, Miq.; but this
may well be an accident of fossilization. Fig. 5 of Schenk shows
the same kind of rachis as in Dunker’s fig. 4, pl. vi. The figures
of the epidermal cells given by this writer show a distinctly
undulating outline in the walls, and the presence of numerous
stomata.

It does not seem quite clear whether Schenk has correctly
included C. Brongniarti, Rom., as a synonym of the present
species; * he speaks of Romer’s species as probably the upper

 

1 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. p. 213, pl. xliv. fig. 199.
2 (A. 2), Paleontographica, vol. xix.
3 Loe, cit. p. 233.
44 DIOONITES.

portion of a frond of Dioonites Dunkerianus. The evidence of the
figures of Romer and Dunker does not, however, sufficiently
support this view to justify our following Schenk’s. example
without having examined the type specimen. In the case of
Cycadites Morrisianus, Dunk., there can be little doubt that the
specimens referred by Dunker to Cycadites must be transferred
to the genus Dioonites.

It should be pointed out that Ettingshausen had previously
suggested the specific identity of Cycadites Morrisianus, Dunk.,
and Pterophyllum Dunkerianum, Gopp.; he considered it possible
that P. Géppertianum ought to be included with these two species.

The specimen figured by Ettingshausen as Cycadites Brongniarts,
Rom.,? has since been placed by Schenk in a new species—
Cycadites Heerit.3

Among the Ecclesbourne specimens there are several good
examples which must be included in Géppert’s species. At first
sight many of them would be referred to Cycadites, and the general
habit of the frond shows a striking resemblance to that of Cycadites
Saporta, sp. nov., but a closer examination demonstrates that no
true midrib can be detected, and that the ridge in some of the
pinne which closely simulates such a central vein, is merely
the strongly marked convexity of the upper surface of the
leaf segments. Among recent cycads the genus Hncephalartos
affords examples of fronds in which the general habit is strikingly
similar to that of Dioonites Dunkerianus: E. Ghellinckii, Lem., as
shown in Pl. XIII. Figs. 3-5, possesses pinne of about the same
size, and with a very similar mode of attachment, at least as
regards their almost horizontal position, but in the lateral insertion
to the rachis the segments of the recent species differ from those
of the fossil frond. In #. Ghellinckit the convex upper surface
of the pinne presents a very similar appearance to that in the
Wealden frond segments, and the sharply acuminate tips of the
pinne is practically identical in the two cases. In Pl. XIII.
Fig. 3 a portion of a frond of this species is represented, natural
size; in Fig. 4 the median groove on the under side of a single

 

1 (A. 4), p. 21.
® Ettingshausen, Joc. cit. p. 20, pl. i. fig. 9.
3 Schenk (A. 3), Palwontographica, vol. xix. p. 7, pl. iii. fig. 4.
DIOONITES, 45

pinna is clearly shown; and in Fig. 5 a section of a pinna
illustrates the strongly revolute form of the margins. Lemaire’s
figure of this species is very poor, and gives an imperfect idea
of the habit of the leaf.’

Another species of this recent genus, H. cycadifolius, Lehm.
(Pl. XIII. Fig. 6), also illustrates a point of contact between
existing and extinct fronds; it differs from H. Ghellinckid in its
somewhat broader pinne. It would, however, tend to a mis-
conception of the true nature of the Wealden fronds, if the
generic term Encephalartos were adopted on the strength of the
striking similarity as regards the character of the fronds; we
unfortunately know nothing as to the flowers and stems of
Dioonites Dunkerianus. We may adopt a slightly emended form
of Schenk’s definition for the present species :—

Frond pinnate, rachis strong, pinne approximate, thick, linear,
entire, alternate or subopposite; 2-3mm. broad at the widest
part, with a length of 11cm. or more, gradually but slightly
narrowed towards the distal ends; the two rows of pinne
attached close together to the upper surface of the rachis; the
lower margin of the basal end of the pinne either slightly
decurrent, especially towards the tip of the frond, or somewhat
broadened and bluntly rounded; towards the apex of the frond
the segments are obliquely inclined, and in the lower portion
almost at right angles, to the axis. Veins usually indistinct,
5-6 parallel equal veins in each pinna,

V. 3218. Pl. III. Fig. 6.

23cm. in length. The upper surface of the pinne strongly
convex; pinne slightly and gradually tapered towards a pointed
apex. The arrangement of the segments and their somewhat
broadened bases are very similar to those in Cycadites Saporta.
Schenk speaks of the pinne as 4-44 cm. long, but his figure
represents some with a length of 8 or 9cm. In the present
specimen the longest pinna has a length of 11cm., and this does
not include the actual apex. In nearly all the segments it is
impossible to make out the venation, but in one or two cases
the parallel veins are visible. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Lemaire, pl. plxvii.
46 DIOONITES.

V. 2823. Pl. IT. Fig. 3.

Cf. V. 1069. Cycadites Saporte. Small specimen, evidently
close to the frond apex. The pinne are much more oblique
and decurrent than in the previous example. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2821. Fig. 2.

Imperfectly preserved piece of rachis with portions of pinne
on one side; some of the pinne have well-marked venation and
acute tips. "The figure shows some of the more perfect apices.
The pinne have a breadth of about 2mm., and each is traversed
by numerous veins, in some of the segments as many as ten may
be counted. A comparison of this specimen with V. 3218 (Pl. II.
Fig. 6) shows some fairly striking differences, and it is not
improbable that we have to deal with two specific forms; in
V. 2821 the veins are more numerous, and the pinne are shorter
and proportionately broader than in the other examples referred
to this species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

sh 4

Fig. 2.—? Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gépp.).
Distal terminations of pinne (V. 2821).

V. 2124¢. Broad and flat rachis very like that of Cycadites
Saporte. On one side the long and narrow pinne are fairly well
preserved, showing occasional signs of venation and a strong
convex upper surface. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2127. Probably a portion of a frond near the apex. The
broad bases of the pinne and their manner of attachment to the
rachis clearly seen. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

V. 2361. Probably a fragment of this species; broad pinne.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.
DIOONITES. 47

V. 2822. Here the pinne are more oblique to the axis of the
frond, and the lower edges of the bases more decurrent, as in the
terminal fragment shown in Pl. II. Fig. 3 (V. 2823). ccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2824. Similar terminal portion to preceding specimen.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2916. Two specimens. Rachis 16cm. long, apparently
twisted, showing in the lower portion two alternate or sub-
opposite pinne attached to its upper surface; in the upper part
the segments are separated by 6 mm. of rachis, suggesting a view
of the under side of the frond. Pinne slightly convex, presenting
the appearance of a broad midrib. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Dioonites Brongniarti (Mant.).

1833. Cycadites Brongniarti, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 238.

1841. Pterophyllum Brongniarti, Morris, Annals, p. 119.

1842. Hisingera Mantellii, Miquel, Mon. Cycad. p. 62.

1844. Nilssonia Brongniarti, Géppert, Foss. Cycad. p. 57.

1848. Cycadites Brongniarti, Bronn, Index pal. nomencl. p. 371.

1849. Zamites Brongniarti, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1850. Nilssonia Brongniarti, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 295.

1851. Nilssonia Brongniarti, Bronn and Rémer, Leth. geog. vol. ii. p. 61,
pl. xxviii. fig. 14.

1852. Nilssonia Brongniarti, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i.
Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 23.

1854. Pterophyllum Brongniarti, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 19.

1856. Nilssonia Brongniarti, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl. p. 59.

1871. Dioonites Brongniarti, Schenk, Palzontographica, vol. xix. p. 286,
pl. xxxii. fig. 2. p

1874. Dioonites Brongniarti, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 551.

1875. Pterophyllum Brongniarti, Topley, Weald. p. 409.

1881. Dioonites Brongniarti, Renault, Cours. bot. foss. vol. i. p. 51, pl. iv.
figs. 13 and 14.

1889. Dioonites Kotoei, Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p. 44,
pl. vii. fig. 1, and pl. xiv. fig. 14.
48 DIOONITES,

Type. Tmperfect fragment of frond.

In 1838 Mantell described a badly preserved frond fragment
from the Tilgate beds of Sussex, which he named Cycadites Brong-
niarti, using the term Cycadites rather as a general designation
indicative of cycadean affinity, and not in accordance with the
narrow sense in which Brongniart defined the genus. Morris sub-
stituted Pterophyllum for Cycadites, and Dunker called attention
to the plant figured by Romer as C. Brongniart:, which should not
be confounded with Mantell’s type described under the same name;
the latter he suggested should be referred to Wilssonia. Goppert
adopts Wilssonia as the generic term, and Miquel, Ettingshausen,
and others follow his example. Schenk, on the other hand,
points out certain discrepancies between the characters of Mantell’s
species, as further illustrated by subsequently described examples
of the same type from the Wealden of North Germany, and the
genus WVilssonta; he substitutes Miquel’s term Dioonites for
Dunker’s Milssonia.! Schenk’s specimen is in a better state of
preservation than the English example, and shows more clearly
the manner of attachment of the pinne. This species differs from
Otozamites Goppertianus (Dunk.), in the absence of an auriculate
base to the segments, in its coarser veins,.and in the segments
being more nearly at right angles to the axis of the frond. We
may adopt Schenk’s definition: ‘‘ Folia pinnata, segmenta e basi
latiore apicem versus attenuata acuminata lineari-lanceolata integra
approximata alterna vel opposita, in petioli latere antico sessilia,
3 mm. usque ad 2°5 cm. longa, 35-5 mm. lata, superiora breviora,
summa, brevissima ovata, superiora oblique patentia, media paten-
tissima, nervi tenues quinque vel sex tenues equales paralleli.”’

The plant figured by Leckenby* as Pterophyllum angustifolium,
Leck., from the Oolite of Gristhorpe, shows a marked similarity
in general appearance to Dioonites Brongniarti.

Yokoyama’s Japanese species, D. otoei,3 may probably be
included as a synonym of Mantell’s plant; the former author
mentions the greater number of veins in the pinne of his plant
as a distinguishing feature from D. Brongniarti, and speaks of the

 

1 Schenk (A. 2), p. 34.
2 (A.), pl. viii. fig. 3.
3 Yokoyama (A. 2), p. 44.
DIOONITES. 49.

latter form as having 5-6 veins in each leaf segment, whereas in
D. Kotoei there are 7-14. In Schenk’s figure of Mantell’s species
there are eight or nine veins shown, and in the solitary specimen
in the Rufford Collection there appear to be at least eight veins.
The greater length of the segments is another point referred to by
Yokoyama as a specific character of his plant; but it is difficult
on comparing the published figures of the two species to detect any
distinct difference in this respect. On the whole, I am unable to
discover any suflicient difference between the two-plants to warrant
the retention of Yokoyama’s specific name. Ptilophyllum oligo-
neurum, Ten.-Woods,' also agrees closely with the English species.
In speaking of Pterophyllum Richthofent, Schenk, from China,
Schenk* suggests that probably some of the fragments so named
may be identical with Dioonites Brongniarti; there is certainly
a close correspondence between the two forms, but perhaps
hardly a sufficiently strong resemblance to justify the inclusion
of the Chinese specimens in the synonomy of Mantell’s species.
The plant figured by Schenk* as Plerophylium equale, Brong., from
Persia, resembles Dioonttes Brongniarti. In Schenk’s specimen
the pinne appear to be inserted on the upper surface of the
rachis, and not laterally as the generic term Pterophyllum implies.

V. 2748. 26cm. long. The alternately disposed pinne are
attached to the middle of the upper face of the frond axis.
Venation clearly marked. The lower margin of the pinne is
curved gradually upwards, cutting off the veins obliquely, and
the upper margin is practically horizontal. The segments are
somewhat less than those in Mantell’s figure, but there can be
little doubt as to the specific identity of the specimens. ccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Jack and Etheridge (A.), pl. xviii. fig. 11.

2 Richthofen (A.), China, vol. iv. p. 247, pl. xlvii. fig. 7, and pl. xlviii.
figs. 5, 6, and 8.

3 Schenk (A. 7), Bibl. bot. vi. pl. v. fig. 23.
50 NILSSONIA.

Genus NILSSONTIA, Brongniart.
[Ann. Sei. Nat. vol. iv. 1825. p. 200.]

In 1820 Nilsson! described and figured certain plant remains
from Hor, a small village north of Lund in Scania, and regarded
them as probably fern fronds, but he made no attempt to define
them specifically. In 1825 Brongniart refigured and described
some of Nilsson’s specimens under the following specific names :
Nilssonia elongata, N. brevis, N. (2) equalis, Pterophyllum majus,
and P. minus. It was on one of Nilsson’s specimens that
Brongniart founded his genus Wilssonia, and also Pterophyllum ;
the two Hor species referred by Brongniart to this latter genus
have since been transferred by Nathorst? to Schimper’s genus
Anomozamites. We have the first complete diagnosis of Nilssonca
in the Prodrome,? where it is thus defined: ‘ Feuilles pinnées ;
pinnules rapprochées, oblongues, plus ou moins alongées,
arrondies au sommet, adhérentes au rachis par toute la largeur
de leur base, & nervures paralléles dont quelques-unes sont
beaucoup plus marquées.”” In his later work,* Brongniart retains
this name and speaks of WVilssonia as closely allied to Pterophyllum.
Miquel ® substituted a new generic term, Hisingera, for some of
the species of Milssonia, and as an example of the new genus he
cites Cycadites Brongniarti, Mant. Goppert*® accepts Brongniart’s
genus in its wide sense, and does not suggest the institution of
any sub-genera. In 1856 Bornemann adopted the following
definition of Wilssonia:7 ‘‘Frondes coriaceew, pinnate, vernatione
circinate, foliola contigua continue tota latitudine inserta, patentia,
abbreviata, basi passim coherentia, apice obtusa vel truncata,
nervis parallelis arcuatis apice confluentibus nonnullis validi-
oribus.”” This writer points out the difficulty of recognizing the

 

1 Nilsson, p. 108.

2 (A. 1), Flor. Bjuf. p. 66.
5p. 95.

4 (A. 4), Tableau, p. 63.

5 (1), p. 61.

6 (1), p. 139.

7 Bornemann, p. 58.
NILSSONTA. 51

two different kinds of veins in the leaf divisions. Schenk, in
his Flora der Grenzschichten! includes Nilssonia among the ferns,
and refers to certain specimens in which the leaves show
numerous round projecting structures between the veins, and
which he regards as sporangia or sori; and it is on the strength
of these appearances, suggestive of fern fructification, that the
genus is excluded from the Cycadacee. Schenk speaks of the
veins as equal and simple, and refers to the epidermal cells as
having the straight walls characteristic of cycads. No great
importance should be attached to any argument based on the
form of the cell walls, as Schenk himself has admitted; but
the fructification is a much more important feature. Saporta*
places Milssonia in the Cycadacee, and considers that Schenk
was probably deceived by certain leaf parasites, which might
well present an appearance closely simulating fern sori. Nathorst *
follows a similar course, and speaks of our ignorance as to
the actual nature of Schenk’s sori, seeing that no traces of
structure have been preserved; he suggests stomata and parasitic
fungi as two possible explanations of these sorus-like appearances.
Solms-Laubach* does not accept the proposed explanation as
satisfactory, and inclines to follow Schenk in classing Milssonia
among the ferns, on the strength of the sorus-like bodies on the
leaf lamina. Nathorst draws special attention to the insertion
of the leaf segments on the upper surface of the rachis as an
essential character of the genus; he speaks of the veins as equal
and simple. Various authors have spoken of two kinds of veins
in the leaves of Welssonia, stouter and finer veins, but Nathorst
remarks that Schenk has recognized his mistake with regard to
the supposed two sets of veins; he mistook folds in the leaf
lamina for well-marked simple veins.’ Schimper,® in the first
volume of the Trait. pal. vég., classes Milssonia with the
Filicing, and accepts Schenk’s interpretation of the apparently

 

1 (A. 1), p. 124,

2 (A. 2), Pal. Frang. vol. ii. p. 41.

3 (A. 2), Foss. Fl. Schwedens, p. 20.
4 Fossil Botany, p. 139.

5 Nathorst (A. 2), p. 18.

6 p, 488.
52 NILSSONTA.

fertile specimens ; but in a later work! by this author we find
Nilssonia placed close to Pterophyllum in the Cycadacee.

Without following in further detail the various descriptions
or definitions of this genus, we may thus sum up the chief
characters by which the species may best be recognized :—

Frond coriaceous, the lamina more or less deeply pinnatifid,
the lines of division generally extending almost to the rachis ;
segments attached to the upper surface of the axis by the
entire base, contiguous, usually broad and truncate, but varying
considerably in size and shape; apices obtuse or truncate. Veins
simple and equal.

In connection with Nélssonta, which may best be considered
as a genus of doubtful affinity, but probably cycadean, there are
three other genera of which some mention must be made,—
Anomozamites, Ptilozamites, and Pterophyllum. As regards the
last, Nathorst has on several occasions emphasized the distinct
difference as regards the manner of attachment of the leaf
segments; in Pterophyllum they are inserted laterally on the
rachis; in Wilssonia, as in Dioontes, they are attached to the
upper face of the leaf axis.2 The genus Anomozamites was
instituted by Schimper® for certain species of Pterophyllum with
irregularly pinnatifid leaves, and this term has been generally
adopted; the veins are described as simple and parallel, and the
segments as laterally attached. Nathorst, however, has instituted
a genus, Ptilosamites,* in which are included pinnate and bipinnate
fronds, which in habit correspond fairly closely with Anomozamites,
but differ in the possession of forked veins which dichotomize
at the base, and occasionally branch a second time before reaching
the margin of the leaf segment. The plant originally described
by Leckenby as Ctenis Leckenbyi,® the specific name having been
suggested by Bean, shows very clearly the characters of the
venation and the branching habit of the frond; this must now
be included in Nathorst’s Ptilozamites® as suggested by the author

 

1 (A.), Zittel, Handbuch, p. 225,

2 Nathorst (2), p. 61, and (A. 8), Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. vol. lvii. p. 45.
3 (A.) Trait pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 140.

4 (A. 1), Flor. Héganas och Helsingborg, p. 21.

5 (A.), Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 78, pl. x. fig. 1.

8 Nathorst (A. 1), Flor. Héganis, p. 21.
NILSSONIA. 53

of the genus himself. An inspection of Nathorst’s figures of
Anomozamites and Ptilozamites species suggests a difficulty in
certain cases in deciding between the two genera. In such a form
as Anomozamites gracilis, Nath.,) we have well-marked branching
in some of the veins, and a close approximation in general
appearance to other species included in Péelosamites, cf. e.g.
P. Heeri, Nath.,? and A. minor 3 (Brong.).

Fontaine* figures a few small fragments of leaves from the
Potomac flora under the name Anomozamites, but there is hardly
enough material to justify even a generic determination, and still
‘less to warrant the institution of two new species.

Nilssonia Schaumburgensis (Dunk.).
[Figs. 3a, 4, and ¢.]

1843. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Dunker, Progr. p. 6.
1844. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Géppert, Foss. Cycad. p. 54.
1846. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 14, pl. i.

: fig. 7; pl. ii. fig. 1; pl. vi. figs. 56-10.

1848. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Bronn, Index pal. nomencl. p. 1056.
1849. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.
1850. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 292.
1851. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Miquel, Rangschik. foss. Cycad. p. 213.
1852. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. i. Abth. iti. No. 2, p. 22.

1856. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl.
p. 58.

1869. Anomozamites Schauwmburgensis, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 141.

1871, Anomozamites Schaumburgensis, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix.
p. 231, pl. xxxiii.

1883. Pterophyllum Schaumburgense, Peyton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol.
xxxix. Proc. p. 3.

1890. Nilssonia cf. Schawmburgensis, Nathorst, Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss.
math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. pp. 45, 49, and 43, pl. i. figs. 6-9.

1894. Nilssonia Schaumburgensis, Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. vii.
pt. iii. p. 227, pl. xx. figs. 12 and 14; pl. xxi. fig. 14; pl. xxii.
figs. 5-7.

 

1 (A. 1), Flor. Bjuf. p. 65, pl. xv. fig. 15.

2 Ibid. p. 60, pl. xii. figs. 1 and 7.

3 Ibid. p. 66, pl. xiv. figs. 5-7, and pl. xviii. fig. 4.
4 (A. 2), Potomac Flora, p. 167, pl. xxx.
54 NILSSONIA,

Type. Several specimens of leaves.

Dunker defined the species as follows :—

‘‘Pterophyllum fronde pinnate vel, rarissime quidem, profunde
pinnatifida, pinnis alternis approximatis sub-obliquis irregularibus,
oblongo-ovatis, vel quadratis vel rotundatis, infimis subdecurrenti-
bus, nervis crebris tenuibus instructris, rhachi (suptereti?)
‘longitudine striata.”

The specimens figured by Dunker from the North German
Wealden beds show a considerable variation in size and form; this
variable character is also well brought out in the later and more
perfect figures in Schenk’s monograph. Such a specimen as that
represented by Dunker in pl. i. fig. 7! must probably be regarded
as a leaf seen from the under side, thus showing a Pterophyllum-
like appearance. Schenk draws attention to the apparent lateral
attachment of the segments in some of the specimens which are
seen from the under surface, but notes that there can be no doubt
as to their actual insertion on the upper surface of the axis.
Schimper includes this variable Wealden species in his genus
Anomozamites, and Schenk accepts this determination. Peyton has
previously recorded the species in the English Wealden beds, but
no detailed descriptions or figures accompany his note. Nathorst
records from Japan specimens of what is most probably the same
species as the English and North German forms; he refers to
a previous paper? in which he pointed out the true Milssonia
character of Dunker’s species, the segments being attached to the
upper face of the rachis, and not laterally as in Plerophyllum or
Anomozamites. A leaf fragment closely resembling the present
species is figured by Schenk® from Persia as Anomozamites minor,
Schimp. In Yokoyama’s recent contribution on Mesozoic plants
from Kézuke, etc., several specimens are referred to this species
on the authority of Nathorst; the figures suggest a lateral attach-
ment of the unequal segments, but possibly the leaves are shown
with the under side uppermost. Nathorst’s figures of this species
from Japan represent typical Wilssonia fronds.

 

1 (A. 2), Wealdenbildung.
2 (2), p. 82.
3 (A. 7), Bibl. bot. vi. pl. v. fig. 21.
NILSSONIA, 55

V. 2171.** Figs. 3a and 6. The two figured specimens are
examples of the narrower form of the species: in @ the almost
entire lamina resembles a small example of Zeniopteris; in 6
the truncate segments are well shown; and in both cases the
venation is distinct. Both specimens are represented twice the
natural size. Rufford Coll.

V.2171a. Fig. 8c. Broader specimen, 1-1 cm. in breadth. The
median groove on the upper surface and the veins are very
distinct. This example serves as a connecting link between the
larger forms of the plant as described by Schenk, and the smaller
English specimens.

   

Nilssonia Schaumburgensis (Dunk.).
Fie. 3a and 6 (V. 2171**).
Fie. 3¢ (V. 21712).

V. 2171. Several specimens. The variation in the size and
division of the lamina is well illustrated in these examples.
Generally speaking, Schenk’s figures represent leaves with more
regular lobes than are found in the English specimens. In some
cases the segments are numerous and very narrow, in others the
lamina is almost entire.

\ twice nat. size.)

V. 21714. A specimen with the lamina entire for a length of
4:2 em.

V. 2171c. This specimen of one of the narrower forms of the
species shows a depression at the distal end of the lamina, and
presents a very similar appearance to that of Teniopteris Beyrichit
(Schenk) as figured by Schenk. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.
56 OTOZAMITES.

V. 2172. This specimen was erroneously included under Tenio-
pteris Beyrichit in Vol. I. (p. 126).

V. 22842. 5mm. broad. In a length of 42cm. there are
about 23 divisions in the lamina; in the same length of V. 21714,
the lamina shows no divisions. At one end the segments gradually
decrease in size until they almost disappear. cclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

Other specimens: V. 716. Hastings. Dawson Coll. VW. 1436.
Ecclesbourne. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1886. V. 2284.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Genus OTOZAMITES, Braun.
[Miinster, Beitrag. Petrefact. Heft vi. 1843, p. 36.]

The name Otozamites, instituted by Braun in 1843, was defined
by him as follows: Leaves pinnate, pinne alternate and ap-
proximate, auriculate, and attached by a portion of the base;
veins radiating from the point of attachment to the margins of
the segments.

This author includes Zamites. faleatus (Sternb.), 2. Bucklandi
(Brong.), and Z. brevifolius (Braun, etc.) as species of his new
genus; Z. fulcatus was first figured by Sternberg! as Odontopteris
falcata, and O. Bucklandi was described by Brongniart in 1825 as
_Filicites Bucklandi var. Britannica?; both of these species were
assigned by Morris * to his genus Ptilophyllum. Brongniart adopts
Braun’s generic name, and points out that Otopteris, Lindley and
Hutton, corresponds to Otozamites of Braun. This genus affords
another example of confusion in nomenclature arising from a
difference of opinion as to the botanical relationship of the fossil

 

1 (A.), Flor. Vorwelt, pl. xxiii. fig. 1, fase. 5 and 6, p. 78.
2 Brongniart (4), p. 422.
3 (1), p. 117.
OTOZAMITES. 57

fronds. Brongniart! says that Otozamites Bucklandi, Brong., was
figured by De la Beche* as a fern from the Lias of Axminster,
and by Lindley and Hutton as Otopteris obtusa,* the typical
species of the genus. The same writer suggests the advisability
of distinguishing certain leaf forms under another genus, Spheno-
gamites, of which the chief characteristic is the absence of an
auriculate base in the pinne; this genus has come into general
use, and serves a useful purpose as a convenient provisional
term. Bornemann‘ has suggested that probably some of the
plants referred to Ofozamites are without true auriculate pinnae,
the apparently eared form being merely a result of pressure on
the upper surface of the thick pinne. He removes some of
Braun’s species from the genus, and speaks of Otozamites brevifolius
(Sternb.) and 0. gramineus (Morr.) (=Zamites gramineus, Morris)
as typical species. The following is Bornemann’s emended version
of Braun’s diagnosis:> ‘‘Leaves pinnate; pinne approximate,
alternate, or subopposite, lanceolate, pointed or more or less
blunt, auriculate at the base, and attached to the rachis only by
‘the lower part, the upper corner of the auriculate base prolonged
and partly covering the rachis. Veins radiate from the point of
attachment towards the margin of the pinne, and are for the
most part dichotomous.” This definition appears to be on the
whole satisfactory, but Bornemann unfortunately errs in describing
the pinne as attached to the rachis by the lower portion; the
manner of insertion of some auriculate pinne cannot correctly be
described according to his definition. Schenk has discussed at
some length the botanical position of the genus Otopteris in his
Flora der Grenzschichten;® he draws attention to a specimen of
which the segments exhibit a peculiar marginal structure,
suggestive of a Pteris-like fertile leaf. The structure of the
epidermal cells is also referred to in support of the inclusion of
this genus among the Filicine; but in his later writings Schenk
speaks of Otozamites as a member of the Cycadacea.

 

1 Tableau, p. 61.

? Pl. vii. fig. 2.

3 (A.), Foss. Flor. pl. exxviii.
4 p. 49.

5 p. 52.

6 p. 135.
58 OTOZAMITES.

Schimper, in the first volume of his Trait. pal. vég,' adopts
the genus Otopteris, L. and H., but afterwards (vol. ii.)? accepts
Braun’s generic name Otozamites ; he institutes a sub-genus Rhombo-
samites for Otozamites Beanit and other species, and makes use
of one of Pomel’s terms, Cyclozamites, for Otozamites Bunburyanus
and other forms. This subdivision seems quite unnecessary, and
tends rather to confusion than to useful classification. Saporta?
retains Otozamites Bucklandi (Brong.) as the type of the genus,
but in his diagnosis mention is made of certain features which
set rather narrow limits to the generic characters; the basal
callosity of the pinne and the auriculate upper angle of the base,
are features which do not always appear in fronds which must
be referred on general grounds to the genus Otozamites. It is
true we frequently find that the upper lobe of the pinna base
is more decidedly auriculate than the lower, but this is not
universal. Saporta’s figures of some of the species of Otozamites
show this quite clearly; ¢.g., O. Reglei, Sap.,4 O. Brongmarti,
Schimp.,® etc. In describing the characteristics of the various
examples of the genus, Saporta points out the numerous varia-
tions from the normal type. In discussing the geological history
of the genus, this author refers to the absence of Otuzamites from
Wealden and Neocomian strata; since these words were written
several examples of Wealden forms have been discovered, and
the material acquired in recent years shows that the small plant
figured by Dunker as Cyclopteris Klipsteinii® is most probably a
species of Otozamites. The groups into which Saporta divides
this genus have been adopted by Schimper in Zittel’s Handbuch.’
The recognition of certain typical species as representatives of
different forms of a genus may in some cases be a convenient
aid to classification, but there is always the danger of unduly
emphasizing slight and unimportant differences for the sake of
such purely arbitrary grouping. In the case of a genus such as

 

1 p. 483.

2 p. 167.

3 p. 45.

4 Pl. cix.

5 Pl. ciii.

8 (A. 2), Wealdenbildung, pl. ix. figs. 6 and 7.
7 p. 221.
OTOZAMITES, 59

Otozamites we know very little indeed as to its exact botanical
position, and for the present, at least, it will probably be better
not to bind ourselves to any of these subdivisions of the genus.
We may adopt a definition of Otozamites very similar to that
previously quoted from Bornemann, but which gives a more definite
expression to the variable character of the numerous forms and
fronds included in Braun’s genus :—

Frond pinnate; pinne attached to the upper surface of the
rachis by a portion of the auriculate base, base more or less
distinctly auriculate, the upper lobe often more prominent than
the lower; segments may be approximate, imbricate, or distinct.
Veins numerous and branched, radiating from the point of
attachment and cut off obliquely by the margin of the pinna; in
the longer and narrower form of pinna the veins are practically
parallel to the edges of the segment; pinne vary from long,
narrow, and linear-lanceolate, with acute tips, to broadly oval
or almost orbicular in form, with bluntly rounded apices.

Solms-Laubach,' after speaking of the flabelliform venation of
Otozamites, goes on to say that in some forms of this genus the
veins of the pinne conform much less distinctly to that type than
in others. If we examine the narrower and longer forms of
Otozamites pinnee, the veins become more or less parallel to the
segment margins soon after leaving the auriculate basal portion.
In the longer segments of Otozamites gramineus and other species
this is the case, so that the flabelliform character of the venation
cannot by any means be relied upon as a constant and easily
recognized characteristic of the genus. It is often a difficult
matter to decide whether the pinne bases are actually auriculate;
in dealing with some fronds we find it almost impossible to
draw a well-marked line between Otozamites, Ctenophyllum, and
Ptilophylium, etc.

 

1 Fossil Botany, p. 89.
60 OTOZAMITES,

Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.).
(Pl. I. Figs. 3 and 4; Pl. VII.]

1846. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 11, pl. ix. figs.
6 and 7.

1848. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, Broun, Index pal. nomencl. p. 377.

1849. Adiantites? Klipsteinii, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1850. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 95.

1869. Ancimidium Klipsteinii, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 486.

1871. Aneimidium Klipsteinii, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 213,
pl. xxxi. fig. 6.

Type. Detached pinna and fragment of frond. ;

Dunker defines the species as follows: ‘‘Cyclopteris fronde
pinnata, pinnulis alternis sessilibus? ovato-oblongis equalibus,
nervis creberrimis flabellatis tenerrimis.” He points out that
the veins are exceedingly delicate, and apparently dichotomous
in the upper portions, the venation shown in his figures being
coarser than it actually is in the specimens. Ettingshausen
figures four detached leaflets which he describes as intermediate
in character between Cyclopteris Mantelli and C. Klipsteinit; in
his drawings there appears to be a distinct suggestion of a
midrib, but nothing is said in the definition of the species as
to the existence of a median vein. It has already been pointed
out (Wealden Catalogue, vol. i. p. 131) that these leaflets are
certainly not typical examples of Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.),
as Ettingshausen erroneously states. It will be better to leave
them out of consideration as doubtful fragments.

Schenk figures a single pinna of this species, which shows
very clearly an auriculate base and dichotomously spreading
veins. The Rufford Collection contains a large number of well-
preserved fronds with pinne of various sizes, and which in some
cases are clearly identical with the species figured by Dunker
and Schenk as Cyclopteris or <Aneimidium Klipsteinii. The
number and variety of the specimens present a difficulty as
regards specific determination. A casual inspection of the fronds
with large and broadly oval segments would probably lead one to
institute a new specific name for their reception, but on carefully
examining and comparing all the examples, it appears to be
impossible to determine definite specific limitations. The frond
OTOZAMITES. 61

figured in Pl. I. Fig. 8 must certainly be referred to Dunker’s
species; the pinne agree closely with that figured by Schenk,
and with the inferior figure by Dunker. We have a pinnate
frond, with segments attached by an auriculate base; the venation
agrees with that of Otosamites, and the general character of the
leaf points to that genus as the most convenient designation for
the specimens. Another specimen, Pl. IT. Fig. 4, possesses
pinns of the same form as those in V. 2236, but differs in its
much stouter rachis and in the imbricate disposition of the
segments. It is difficult to speak confidently as to the relation
of the several specimens one to another, but probably we have
in Pl. II. Fig. 4 the lower portion of a young frond of the same
form of which Pl. I. Fig. 8 represents a terminal fragment.
Leaving a more detailed notice of these specimens until later,
we must turn to the extremely fine examples of the larger
fronds, such as those represented in Pl. VII. Fig. 9, etc. It is
possible there may be two or three species represented by this
splendid series of fronds, which I have referred to the genus
Otozamites; in some the pinne are longer and narrower than
in others, and in some we have a shorter and broader form of
segment. On the whole, in the absence of any constant and
well-marked differences consistent with separate species, 1 prefer
to include nearly all these various forms under one species,
Otozamites Klipsteintt (Dunk.), and resort to descriptive terms
for the designation of one or two varieties. We may thus
define this comprehensive species: Frond pinnate, rachis fairly
stout, tapering to a slender axis in the terminal portion ;’ pinne
attached to the upper surface of the rachis, in the young frond
probably imbricate, with a more or less well-marked auriculate
base; veins numerous, radiating from the point of attachment
towards the margin of the pinne; apices obtuse, pinne alternate
or subopposite, in the mature fronds almost at right angles to
the axis, or more or less obliquely inclined.

Before describing the individual specimens referred to this
species and its varieties, we may notice some other forms of the
genus Otosamites, and other plants with which the present example
may be compared. Otozamites Beanii (L. and H.)' corresponds

 

1 Fossil Flora, pl. xliv.
62 OTOZAMITES,

with O. Klipsteinii in having auriculate pinnz, broader and stouter
than the majority of species of the genus. In describing the type
specimen, Lindley and Hutton ask if the plant may be a pinnated
leaf of the Cycadeoidea, but reply with a decided negative; in the
second volume of the Fossi? Flora the generic name Otopteris is
substituted by the authors of the species for Cyclopteris, under
which the plant was originally described. In the Leckenby Collec-
tion in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge, there are several
very fine specimens of Otozamites Beanii, which in some instances
show a terminal portion with small pinne very similar to such
an apical tip as is represented in Pl. I. Fig. 8. In the Yorkshire
plant the species are, however, very distinctly auriculate, and
have the upper portion of the base more prominently lobed than
is the case in O. Klipsteinit (Dunk.). In one of Leckenby’s
specimens, which possesses a rachis 43°5 cm. long, the largest
pinna has a length of 3 cm. and a breadth of 1-9 cm., the smallest
measuring lem. by 7mm. Some of Zigno’s figures of his species
Otozamites Molinianus’ present a striking likeness to O. Beaniti,
and ought most likely to be referred to that species. Kurr’s figure
of what he calls Zamites Mandelslohi® agrees very closely with
the specimen represented in Pl. IV. Fig. 4; the genus Otozamites
has been rightly substituted by Schimper for Kurr’s species.
The larger pinne of O. Kiipsteinii show a certain resemblance
to those of some few previously described plants; but in no case
does the similarity appear sufficiently pronounced to justify a
reference to the same species. In the third volume of the
Gondwana Flora of India,® Feistmantel figures some isolated
pinne under the name Glossozamites Stolicskanus, Feist., and
describes them as probably constituting the largest representatives
of Schimper’s genus. The form of these large segments is not
at all unlike that of the Wealden pinne, but in the latter case
the auriculate base favours the adoption of the genus Ofosamites.
The plant described many years ago by Goppert, from a much
lower geological horizon, under the name of Cyclopteris frondosa‘
(Gépp.), may be compared, as regards the form of its leaf segments,

 

1 (A.), Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. ii. pl. xxxv.

2 Pl. i. fig. 3.

3 Vol. iii. pt. i. pl. xx. figs. 4 and 4.

4 Schimper (A.), Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 453, pl. xxxv.
OTOZAMITES. 63

with the larger specimens of the present species. Schimper places
this Culm species in his genus Cardiopteris, and describes it as an
unusually large-leaved neuropteroid fern. The venation of the
large pinne of the Wealden fronds suggests that of certain fern
pinnules ; and it must be borne in mind in dealing with such leaves
as those of a neuropteroid or otozamitean type, that we are
unable to speak dogmatically as to the botanical position of the
species. |

Among the Jurassic plants figured by Saporta’ there occur
a few examples of fronds with leaf segments comparable to those
of O. Klipsteinit; e.g., O. decorus, Sap., and O. lagotis, Brong.
A detached segment named by Saporta Sphenozamites Brongniarte,
agrees fairly closely with some of the larger pinne of the English
Wealden specimens, but the French fragments are too small to allow
of any precise comparison, and hardly worthy of a special specific
name. The frond fragments described by Hosius and von Marck as
Pterophyllum blechniforme*-have a certain resemblance to some of
the English specimens, but are clearly not specifically identical; the
generic name Otozamztes would seem to be more applicable to this
species of Hosius and von Marck than that of Pterophyllum. The
pinne of Fontaine’s species Zamites tenuinervis * may be compared
with some of the longer segments of Otozamites Klipsteinit, but
there is not sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of the
Potomac and English forms in the same species.

Finally, we have a somewhat similar form of leaf in some
examples of the Paleozoic genus Cordaites* recently figured by
Grand’ Eury from the Coal-field of Gard. Whilst drawing attention
to some of the plants previously described, in which a greater or
less resemblance may be traced to the present species, it must
be definitely stated, that we are without any satisfactory évidence
as to the exact position in the plant kingdom to which these large-
leaved forms should be referred. Having regard to the general’
habit of the fossil fronds, the apparently stiff nature of the pinne,
etc., the cycads appear to be the more likely plants with which to

 

1 Pl. xl.

2 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. pl. xliv. fig. 197.
3 Potomac Flora, pl. lxvii. fig. 1, etc.

4 Grand’ Eury, pl. vi. figs. 14 and 16.
64 OTOZAMITES.

compare Ofozamites Klipsteinii, Among recent cycadean species
we do not meet with fronds possessing pinne with a well-defined
auriculate base, but we are not without instances of fronds which
in other respects bear a decided resemblance to the Wealden plant.
Zamia purpuracea, Ait., may be cited as one recent species with
large pinne comparable to those of the Wealden plant; the young
pinne of this living cycad are very similar in form to the more
terminal segments of Otozamites Beantt. In this species of Zamia,.
as also in Z. pygmea, Sims, and in some other forms, etc., the
pinne are distinctly narrowed towards the point of attachment
to the rachis, from which they are readily detached, leaving a
well-marked scar. The recent fronds correspond rather more
closely with such fossil forms as Podosamites Reinit, Geyl., etc.,
described by Geyler' and others. In Otozamites latifolius (Phill.)?
we have another large-leaved form which may to some extent
be compared with the present species: the specimens of Phillips’
species are imperfectly preserved, and do not give any decided
indication of an auriculate base; the venation appears to agree
fairly closely with that of Nathorst’s genus Ptilozamites, and the
prominence of the veins reminds one of some of the large and
boldly veined segments of such recent species as Zamia picta,
Z. Skinnert, Warsz., etc.

V. 2386. Pl. I. Fig. 3. This terminal portion of a frond
must no doubt be referred to the same species in which the
detached segments figured by Dunker and Schenk have been
included. In Dunker’s specimens there is not the same distinctly
auriculated base as in this example, but this may be put down
to less perfect preservation and possibly inaccurate drawing; in
Schenk’s leaflet of the same species the auriculate base is distinct,
and agrees exactly with that in the English frond. The veins
‘appear to be rather fewer and farther apart in this terminal
portion than in the pinne of the larger fronds. Largest pinna
2cm. by 9mm. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

V. 21702. Two detached pinne ; the venation finer, and exactly
like that in Schenk’s example. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 (A), Palaontographica, vol. xxiv. pl. xxxiv.
? Phillips, p. 171, fig. 6.
OTOZAMITES. 65

O. Klipsteinii (Dunk.), var. superba mihi.

V. 27450. Pl. I. Fig. 4. ‘

Rachis 12°5 cm. in length. Largest pinna 4:2 cm. by 1°6 em.;
smallest 8-8 by 1:2. The largest pinne of V. 2386 has a length
of 2 cm. and a breadth of 9mm. Some of the pinne are very
clearly preserved, and show excellent venation. The rachis
appears to be slender, as in V. 2336. The upper pinne have
very slightly auriculate bases, which are attached by their central
portion to the surface of the frond axis. In the lower pinne the
base is more distinctly lobed. Cf. Pterophyllum oblongifolium,
Kurr [= Glossozamites oblongifolius (Kurr) ].!| There is not, I am
inclined to think, sufficient proof of any important difference
between V. 2336 (Pl. I. Fig. 3) and V. 2745a (Pl. I. Fig. 4)
to warrant a specific separation; but as we shall find a gradual
transition from such specimens as V. 27454 to the fronds with
much larger pinne, e.g. Pl. VII., it will be convenient to institute
a variety of Dunker’s species under the name superba. ccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2170. Pl. VII. Fig. 9. It may be, as suggested in the
introductory account of the species, that we have two or three
species included under 0. Hlipstecnit (Dunk.), but thanks to the
numerous and well-preserved specimens it is possible to examine
an unusually fine series, and so escape to some extent from the
dangers of fragmentary and imperfect portions of fronds, which
often lead to unnecessary multiplication of specific names. In
the present instance we can trace a gradual transition from the
short and broad segments, such as those represented in Pl. VII.
Fig. 5 (V. 2745), to the large forms such as Pl. VIL. Figs. 1
and 6 (V. 2122). The leaves with the broader and more or
less imbricating obliquely set pinnze come very near to O. Beanit,
and those with more separate, longer, and narrower segments
closely resemble the pinne figured by Fontaine as Zamites
tenuinervis, Font. In fragments of young fronds or in the lower
part of older fronds the pinne may have a length of 2cm. and
a breadth of 1-4cm., in the larger segments 8:2 x 2-4cem. In
this specimen (V. 2170) the rachis is 23cm. in length; it has
left a hollow mould in the rock, roofed over by the basal ends

 

1 Kurr, pl. i. fig. 5.
66 OTOZAMITES.

of the pinne; on one side there are nine pinne, and on the
other seven. These show the broad, obtusely terminated form of
the segments very clearly ; they are attached to the upper surface
of the rachis by the central portion of the distinctly auriculate
base. Most of the pinne overlap, the upper edge of each pro-
jecting over the lower margin of the pinna next above it; very
similar in habit to some of the larger specimens of O. Beant? in
the Leckenby Collection. On the under side of the same slab
there occur portions of pinne of another frond, and a section of
a rachis mould, about 6mm. broad and 8mm. in depth; also

a specimen of Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 21222. Pl. VII. Fig. 2. Rachis imperfectly preserved ;
portions of six pinne, the uppermost having the same form as
the largest of V. 2745 (Pl. I. Fig. 4), the lowest and largest,
6-4 x 3 cm. (Pl. VII. Fig. 2), showing a slight lobe in.the middle
of the upper margin. In some of the segments the point of
attachment is well shown, and the numerous fine spreading
veins are well marked in the carbonaceous surface layer.

V. 2126. Pl. VII. Figs. 4 and 8. Frond 28cm. long.; 11
pinne on one side. Hollow round mould of rachis, about 4-5 mm.
in diameter. Short and broad overlapping pinne, 4°8 x 2°5cm.,
and very like those of V. 2740c, V. 2740, etc. The upper and
smaller pinne, as shown in the figure, are narrower and longer
and not overlapping; these agree exactly with the segments in
V. 27452 (PL. I. Fig. 4). Uppermost pinne about 3 cm. x 1:8 cm.;
a segment separated from this by 11 cm. and attached to about the
middle of the specimen, measures 4°5 x 2°5cm. The two larger
pinne (Pl. VII. Fig. 8) agree very closely with those of V. 2170
(Pl. VII. Fig. 9); they have a strongly convex upper surface,
and show a sharp bending down of the lamina near the point
of insertion to the rachis. This bending of the pinna base is
exactly similar to the appearance frequently presented by the
stiff leathery pinne of recent species of Encephalartos, to which
allusion has been made in the introductory remarks on fossil
Cycadacea.

V. 2126. 32cm. long. Rachis about 4mm. broad, in the form
of a round hollow mould. Compare the largest pinna of this
specimen with the smallest of V. 2122.
OTOZAMITES. 67

V. 2740. Pl. VII. Fig. 7. Specimen 37cm. long; 13 pinne
on one side. The marked variation in length of pinne at the
upper and lower end of the rachis is well seen. Several segments
show the manner of insertion on the frond axis; venation fairly
distinct. The pinne present a strongly convex surface, and are
slightly inclined to the horizontal plane of the rachis, as in
Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.), (Vol. i. p. 116). At the upper end
of the axis the pinne bases are 2°7 cm. apart, towards the lower
end 2-2°5cm. apart. The upper pinne are practically identical
with those of V. 2170 (Pl. VII. Fig. 9), but the shorter, broader,
and closer pinne of V. 2170 are somewhat broader and closer than

any in V. 2740.

V. 2740. 30cm. long. The venation exceedingly well marked.
Rachis 5 mm. broad, flattened. Pinne vary considerably in size
at the two ends of the frond, 4°8 x 2°5 to 85 x%2:lem. The
auriculate base of many of the segments clearly shown. For the
most part the segments overlap one another, oblique to the rachis,
and apparently of a thick and leathery nature. Cf. O. Beaniv.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2912¢. Pl. VII. Fig. 3. Rachis 33cm. in length. Lowest
pinna 5°7 x 2°7cem.; uppermost 6°5 x 3. Venation in excellent
preservation. Apices bluntly rounded; the lower edge of the base
appears to be more distinctly lobed than the upper. Smaller
pinne like the larger ones in V. 2740, and the larger like those
of V. 2912, ete. .

V. 2912. This specimen shows six pinne attached to the rachis,
three on each side; pinne 7 x 2°7cm. broad, do not overlap,
inclined to the horizontal plane of the rock surface. Rachis
striated longitudinally, and shows cross lines at intervals, but
the latter are no doubt simply minute transversely running cracks
in a mineral substance. Cf. V. 2090, V. 2122, etc. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2745. Pl. VII. Fig. 5. Rachis 12 cm. long, with six pinne.
Pinne short and broad. Compare this specimen with V. 2336
(Pl I. Fig. 8) and V. 2745a (Pl. I. Fig. 4). Largest pinne
2°8%1°6 cm., lowest and smallest 1°8x1'4 cm. Venation distinct.
Cf. upper end of V. 2740z.
68 OTOZAMITES.

V. 27455. 12°5 cm. long. Seven pinne on one side: largest
4-216 cm., smallest 3°8x1:2 cm. Rachis appears to be 2°5 mm.
Venation good, upper pinne slightly auriculate, in the lower seg-
ments the ariculate base is more distinct. Of. Pterophyllum
oblongifolium, Kurr. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2090. Part of a rachis and four pinne. Pinne long, not
overlapping, about 3 cm. apart, of similar form to those of V. 2912.
Ecclesbourne. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1889.

V. 23642. Portion of a single pinna; compare with some of the
lower pinne in V. 2740a; broad and short, 5 x 3-8cm. Very
different in appearance from V. 2364, but probably the same
species; in V. 2122 we have the same kind of divergence in the
form of the segments as between the two specimens V. 2364
and V. 2364a. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

O. Klipsteinii var. longifolia, mihi.

V. 2122. Pl. VII. Figs. 1 and 6. Rachis 43 cm. long; 15
pinne on one side. The pinne in this specimen are of the
longer and narrower form. The smallest and lowest segment
measures 7°5 X 2'5cm.; the uppermost and longest 8°4 x 2 cm.
The lowest pinna connects such an example as this with V. 2912,
V. 2090, V. 2740, etc. Pinne separate, bases in the lower part
of the frond 3-5cm. apart, the two uppermost separated by
25cm. Venation not quite so distinctly seen as in some other

specimens; the lower pinne show very clearly the auriculate
form of base.

V. 2122. This specimen, 20cm. in length, is very imperfectly
preserved. The pinne are of the longer and narrower type,
and agree fairly well with those of Zamites tenuinervis, Font.,
but the distinctly auriculate form of the base and the manner
of insertion on the rachis seem to sufficiently distinguish the
specimen from the Potomac species, and to connect it with the
other forms of Otozamites Hlipsteinit var. superba. Possibly it
would be better to designate such forms as V. 2122, V. 21228,
V. 21280, etc., O. Klipsteinii var. longifolia. Between this
specimen and V. 2122 there is the closest similarity. Eccles-

bourne. Rufford Coll,
OTOZAMITES. 69

V. 2123c. Here again we have a specimen, imperfectly
preserved, which it is difficult to assign to a perfectly satisfactory
position. The pinne are long and narrow, and agree with those
of V. 21224, etc.; but on the other hand this form is nearer to
that of Zamites tenuinervis, Font. The bases of the pinn# are
less distinctly auriculate, and in some there is a wrinkling of the
leaf substance near the point of attachment to the frond axis.
Cf. Encephalartos Lehmanni. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Other specimens referred to this species: V. 1069, V. 2126,
V. 2364, V. 2912, V. 3160 (a good example of O. Klipsteindi
var. longifolia).

Otozamites sp. Cf. O. Klipsteinii (Dunk.).

V. 2734. Pl. II. Fig. 4. .

In Pl. II. Fig. 4 is represented one of two specimens, of which
one is the counterpart of the other. The rachis has a length of
12°5cm., and bears at its upper end six imbricate and obliquely
attached pinnw. The base of the rachis is swollen, and shows
a clean cut surface by which it was attached to the parent stem ;
just above the base there are traces of filiform appendages, possibly
scale or hair structures, such as occur on the lower portions of many
recent cycadean fronds. The bases of the alternately placed pinne
fit in between one another, and are attached to the upper surface
of the rachis. Saporta! has figured a very similar specimen as
Otozamites sp., in which the base of the petiole shows two fairly
large leaf-like or stipular(?) structures. The French Jurassic
specimen closely resembles O. Beanii (L. and H.), but it is no
doubt better to follow Saporta, and retain it as a fragment too
small to be accurately determined. Another somewhat analogous
form is figured by the same author as Otozamites marginatus’; but
in dealing with portions of such partially developed fronds, any
attempt to assign them to specific forms founded on nature fronds
must be attended with no little difficulty and risk. Possibly this

 

1 (A. 2), Pal. France. vol. ii. pl. vi. figs. 3 and 4.
2 Jbid. pl. cix. fig. 1.
70 OTOZAMITES.

specimen (V. 2784) may be the basal portion of a young partially
expanded frond of the same species (O. Kiipsteint/), of which
V. 2836 (PI. I. Fig. 3) is the apical termination of a young frond,
but it would hardly be wise to do more than offer the suggestion.
In V. 2836 the rachis appears to be very slender; here, on the other
hand, it is distinctly strong and broad: how far this constitutes an
important difference, and how far it is due to one specimen
being the terminal portion and the other the basal portion, or to
differences in the manner of preservation, is difficult to decide.
The individual pinne are very similar to, and possibly identical
with, the isolated segment figured by Dunker' and Schenk? and
now classed with V. 2336. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Otozamites sp. Cf. O. Reibeiroanus, Heer.

V. 2926. This small specimen shows ?pinne attached to the
upper surface of a rachis. It may belong to the same species
as V. 2734 (Pl. II. Fig. 4), but of this there is no obvious
proof. It agrees very closely with Heer’s Portuguese species
O. Reibeiroanus.2 The upper lobes of the pinne are more
prominent than the lower. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

Otozamites Goppertianus (Dunk.).

(Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2; Fig. 4.]

1846. Pterophyllum Géppertianum, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 14, pl. ii.
fig. 5.

1848. Pterophyllum Géppertianum, Bronn, Index pal. nomenel. p. 1055.

1849. Zamites Goppertianus, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1850. Pterophylium Géppertianum, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 290.

1851. Dioonites Géppertianus, Miquel, Tijdsch. Wis. Nat. Wet. iv. p. 7.

1852. Pterophyllum Géppertianum, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 21.

1856. Dioonites Goppertianus, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl. p. 56.

1870. Dioonites Géppertianus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 151.

1871. Dioonites Géppertianus, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 235,
pl. xxxiv. figs. 3 and 4.

 

1 Wealdenbildung, pl. ix. figs. 6 and 7.
2 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxxi. fig. 6.
3 Heer (A. 6), Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, pl. ix. figs. 1-9.
OTOZAMITES. 71

Type. Specimen of frond. Berlin Museum.

Dunker thus defined the species in 1846: ‘‘ Pterophyllum
fronde impari-pinnata, pinnis oppositis subrectis elongatis lineari-
bus acuminatis subremotis, aque distantibus angulo acuto adnatis,
nervis obsoletis quinis vel senis, rhachi crassa subtereti levi.”

He speaks of each pinna having five or six equal and thin
veins, and shows this venation in the slightly magnified portion
represented in fig. 5a, pl. ii. Dunker’s figures certainly appear
to justify his choice of the genus Pterophylium as regards the
manner of attachment and distal terminations of the segments.
Reference has already been made, in speaking of the various
sources of error connected with fossil cycads, to the very different
appearance presented by a frond when viewed from the upper
and lower surface. In the present instance it is quite possible,
and, indeed, considering all the facts before us, I believe very
probable, that we have in Dunker’s fig. 5 a view of the under
surface of the frond. The rachis is seen to project considerably
above the level of the pinne, and the latter are either attached
by broad bases to its margin, or pass underneath and are united
to the face of the rachis which is pressed against the rock
surface. The venation, as Dunker describes and figures it, does.
not accurately correspond with that of the English specimens
which I have ventured to refer to this species. If, however,
Dunker’s drawing represents an imperfect fragment seen from
below, it is very likely that we should find a somewhat different
appearance presented by the veins to that which is seen in the
more perfect pinne of the English fronds. If specimen V. 2360
(Pl. I. Fig. 2) be compared with Dunker’s pl. ii. fig. 5, the
striking resemblance between them in the form and arrangement
of the pinne cannot fail to be noticed. The English specimen
seen from the under side would present an appearance very similar
to that of Dunker’s frond. Turning to Schenk’s account of the
same species, we find he follows Miquel in adopting the generic
name Dioonttes in preference to Pterophyllum. Schenk includes
in this species the specimen figured by Dunker as Pecopteris
linearis, which the former regards as a badly preserved fragment
of Dioonites Géppertianus ; this does not seem probable, so far as
the figures enable us to form an opinion. This author extends
the original diagnosis of the species, and points, out that the pinne
are attached to the upper surface of the frond axis; his figure
72 OTOZAMITES.

shows a median groove in the upper surface of the rachis between
the two rows of segments. The veins, apparently not very distinctly
shown, are described as parallel, uniform, and delicate. Schenk’s
fig. 8, pl. xxxiv. probably represents, as in Dunker’s fig. 5,
the under surface of a frond, but in fig. 4 of Schenk’s plate we
have a small piece of leaf seen from above, and here the median
groove and manner of insertion of the segments are indistinctly
seen. A comparison of V. 2123 (Pl. I. Fig. 1) with Schenk’s
figs. 4 and 4a reveals a fairly close resemblance; the corre-
spondence in the general form of the fronds and pinne suggests
the same species. In the German specimens we have only small
and imperfect fragments, but in the Sussex examples the pre-
servation is particularly good, and the details well marked. The
pinne of the English specimens do not in every case show
a distinctly auriculate base; it is only here and there that this
feature can be seen. Considering the difference in the manner
of preservation in the two sets of specimens, it is not much to
be wondered at if no trace of the lobed base can be detected in
the more imperfect specimens. Another important point is the
probability, that Schenk’s fig. 4 is the only specimen from the
German Wealden in which we have a view of the upper surface
of the rachis. ahs

A plant from the Lower Cretaceous rocks of Portugal, originally
figured by Morris! as Zamites gramineus var. munde, and after-
wards by Heer* as Otozamites angustifolius, shows a certain amount
of resemblance to the present forms; compare especially Heer,
pl. ix. fig. 10 and fig. 36. It must be admitted that the
English specimens have a broader rachis than is apparent in
Dunker’s figures, but this may easily be due to the different
manner of fossilization, and cannot be relied upon as an essential
difference, considering the nature of the material. Some of
Saporta’s figures of Otozamites latior, Sap., resemble in general
characters the Wealden species, but differ in some points of detail
which sufficiently separate the two forms. A comparison of
Saporta’s pl. xevii. figs. 1 and 3 with the present specimens
shows very clearly the different appearance presented by an upper

 

1 (8), pl. xxvi. fig. 7.
2 Heer, loc. cit. pl. ix.
5 Saporta, pls. xevii. and xcviii.
OTOZAMITES. 73

and lower view of the same plant. I am inclined to regard some
of the examples referred by Saporta to O. Jatior as identical with
Heer’s O. angustifolius, Heer; ef. Saporta, pl. xevii. fig. 2, and
Heer, pl. ix. fig. 12, ete. The plant figured by Bartholni,’ as
Otozamites latior, closely resembles the present species. A some-
what similar habit is also seen in Leckenby’s Ofopteris lanceolata :
the type specimen of this species appears to be identical with
some other examples which have been assigned to Ctenophyllum
pectinata; the base of the pinne may be very slightly auriculate,
but the specimens do not afford satisfactory evidence of this.

It will be seen from the two specimens (V. 2123 and V. 2360)
figured in Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2, that the frond presents a very
different appearance in the lower and upper portions. The graceful
and tapering pinne, with their slightly but distinctly auriculate
base (Fig. 4), and the grooved broad rachis are perhaps the most
striking specific characteristics. The inclusion of these specimens
in Dunker’s species may, perhaps, be an error of judgment, but
I have endeavoured to show on what grounds this course has been
taken. The institution of a new species would have been in some
respects more satisfactory than defining afresh an old species
founded on specimens much less perfect than those now before us,
but, having recognized the strong probability that the apparent
differences between Dunker’s type and the English examples is
due to accidents of fossilization, the original name has been
retained. We may thus define Otozamites Géppertianus :—

Frond pinnate, deciduous; rachis broad, with a surface marked by
irregular longitudinal lines; pinne alternate, articulate, attached
by a slightly auriculate base to the middle of the upper surface
of the rachis; towards the base of the frond the pinne are very
narrow and short, and farther apart than those attached to the
middle and upper portion of the frond axis; in certain parts of
a frond the pinne are approximate and almost imbricate. Lower
pinne very obliquely attached to the rachis, the upper gradually
becoming inclined at a greater angle to the axis in passing towards
the apex of the frond. Pinne linear-lanceolate, very gradually
tapering from the base to the apex, occasionally somewhat falcate,
apices acute and slightly symmetrical, the lower margin of a
segment being sometimes decidedly curved in an upward direction,

 

1 Bartholni, pl. iii. fig. 1.
74 OTOZAMITES.

the upper edge in some cases almost straight. ‘Narrow elliptical
scars left on the surface of the rachis where the pinne have
fallen off. Veins numerous, radiating outwards from the centre
of the base, but parallel in the greater part of the length of
each pinnae.

V. 2360: Pl. I. Fig. 2. Rachis 35-5cm. long; exceedingly
well preserved at the base, which shows by its clearly cut outline
the deciduous habit of the frond. Surface wrinklings or irregular
striations very distinctly marked on the rachis. The figure
represents only a portion of the specimen; the upper part, not
shown in the drawing, is practically identical with the portion of
V. 2128 figured in Pl. I. Fig. 1. The specimen as a whole shows
very clearly the great contrast, between the loosely arranged, very
narrow, and short basal pinne; the somewhat more approximate
and much longer, gradually tapering, and slightly falecate pinne
in the middle of the frond; and the stiffer, more approximate,
and broader pinne towards the apex. The lowest pinna is about
1mm. broad, the broadest about 5mm. Some of the pinne have
a distinctly auriculate base. Cf. Dunker, pl. ii. fig. 5. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

 

Fic. 4.—Otozamites Géppertianus (Dunk.), (V. 2741). Enlarged.

V. 2741. Fig. 4. Rachis 18cm. in length. Part of the lower
portion of a frond corresponding to V. 2860 (Pl. I. Fig. 2). The
gradual increase in the breadth of the pinne in passing from the
lower to the upper part of the frond is well marked. Auriculate
bases very distinct, and venation fairly clear. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.
ZAMITES. 75

V. 2123. Pl. I. Fig. 1. Rachis 10cm. long; the pinne more
closely arranged, and resemble on a rather larger scale Schenk’s
figures of this species. The auriculate character of the bases of
the segments distinctly indicated, also the median groove in the
axis of the frond. Numerous fine veins distinct. Cf. the upper
unfigured portion of V. 2360.

There is an imperfect specimen of this species in the Museum
of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street, in which the auriculate
base and venation characters are fairly well shown.

Genus ZAMITES, Brongniart.
[Prodrome, 1828, p. 94.]

In describing some Japanese examples of the Wealden cyca-
dean frond named by Ettingshausen' Pterophyllum Buchianum,
Nathorst? draws attention to certain characters in the pinne
which, he considers, exclude the species from Pterophyllum or
Dioonites, in which it has generally been placed by other writers.
He finds that the segments are somewhat narrower towards the
point of insertion, and apparently laterally attached to the frond
axis, thus differing in essential features from the above-named
genera. The splendid series of specimens in the Rufford Collection
confirms Nathorst’s remarks with regard to the narrowing of the
pinne towards the point of attachment to the rachis, but on the
other hand, the English examples show a manner of attachment
of the pinnz more in accordance with the genus Zamites, the
pinne being inserted on the upper surface of the rachis, and
apparently along two more or less distinct lines. The new genus
Zamiophylium, proposed by Nathorst for this species as a substitute
for Pterophyllum or Dioonites, on the ground that the characters
do not conform in all essential respects with any existing genera,
cannot well be retained in the light of the more recent facts
afforded by the large series of English specimens. The genera
Dioonites and Pterophyllum are quite unsuitable for this species,

 

1 (A. 4), Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. 1852, p. 21, pl. i. fig. 1.
2 (A. 8), Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. vol. lvii. p. 46.
76 ZAMITES.

and it would seem that Brongniart’s genus Zamites corresponds
most closely in general characters with these large Wealden fronds.

A brief review of some of the numerous definitions proposed
for Zamites may suffice to emphasize the generally accepted
characters, justifying at the same time Saporta’s pertinent
remarks as to the vague sense in which the name has frequently
been applied. In 1828 Brongniart' proposed Zamites for a few
fossil fronds showing some points of difference from his other
genus Zamia; he mentions 4. Bechii, Brong., as an example
of the former, and describes the pinne as: ‘‘Se recouvrant
mutuellement et passant sur le pétiole commun; nervures
divergentes arquées, souvent bifurquées.”

The name Zamia is afterwards given up as likely to prove
misleading as regards the relationship of fossil and recent
leaves, and Zamites is described as characterized by the possession
of entire pinne, not truncate at the apex, and not decurrent,
but slightly constricted at the base. Brongniart includes Braun’s
two genera Podozamites and Pterozamites as two subsections
of Zamites. Goppert? uses Zamites in a wide sense, and. notes
the resemblance of some species to the genus Encephalartos
among recent cycads. The similarity between various fossil
fronds and species of this living genus has not been sufficiently
recognized by most paleobotanical authors. Géoppert’s definition
does not restrict Zamites to fronds with basally. constricted
pinne, but includes those with a swollen and auriculate
base. Pomel,® true to his unfortunate habit of founding new
genera, proposes Crossozamia for certain species of Zamites, but
the name has not come into general use. Bornemann‘ describes
Zumites as comprising species with a greater or less resemblance
to the recent Zamias, and defines the genus as follows: ‘‘ Frond
pinnate, leathery, pinne approximate or distant, from ovate to
slender and linear in form, contracted at the base, entire or toothed
on the upper margin, blunt at the top. Veins of uniform size,
clearly seen on both sides of the pinne, dichotomous. Epidermal
cells having the same structure as in recent Zamias.’’ Schenk?

 

1 Prodrome, p. 94.

2 (1), p. 122.

3 Pomel, p. 342.

4 Bornemann, p. 54.

5 (A. 1), Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, p. 158.
ZAMITES. 77

gives a diagnosis of Zamites in which the veins in the pinne are
described as equal and parallel, and dichotomously converging
towards the apex. He thus includes such forms as correspond
to Braun’s genus Podozamites. In Zittel’s Handbuch! we find a
closer approximation to the definition of Zamites as generally
accepted: the pinne are described as attached to the upper surface
of the rachis, and possessing a basal callosity, rounded or some-
what contracted at the base; the median veins parallel, and the
outer veins diverging towards the apex of the pinna.

Solms-Laubach? notes the occurrence in the Zamite of pinne
which articulate with and separate from the frond axis, pointed
at the apex, abruptly rounded at the base, and attached obliquely
to the rachis, which they overlap and cover. Solms pertinently
remarks that isolated segments of species of Zamites may easily
be mistaken for portions of other fossil genera. Before attempting
to modify in any way the definitions of Zamites, it may be well
to consider some of those special features which have been
referred to by several writers, and to see how far such details
of frond structure are likely to serve as trustworthy guides. As
regards the basal callosity usually included in definitions of this
genus, we must acknowledge the great difficulty to be experi-
enced in deciding definitely as to its existence in many fossil
leaves. In the process of fossilization the pinne of a cycadean
frond are often flattened down against the rock, and closely
adpressed to the surface of the rachis, and thus there may be
produced transverse wrinklings just above the point of attachment
of the segments; such wrinklings may easily suggest in a fossil
specimen the original existence of a basal callosity. The venation
may prove useful in determining certain species, but it is not
very often that fossil specimens are sufficiently well preserved to
admit of a complete diagnosis of the venation character. If, for
example, we had neither the basal nor the apical portion of a
pinna, it would be practically impossible to discriminate between
some of the long narrow Otozamites pinne, and those of Zamites
and other genera.

Nathorst’s recently proposed genus Zamiophyllum, to which
reference has already been made, was founded partly to include

 

1 Zittel (A.), p. 218.
2 Fossil Botany, p. 88.
78 ZAMITES.

fronds of which the obliquely inclined pinne have a somewhat
narrowed base. This decrease in breadth towards the point of
attachment of a pinna is characteristic of numerous species of
Zamia, Ceratozamia, and Macrozamia, and might well be included
in a more extended definition of Zamites. The basal contraction
of the segments is, as Nathorst points out, directly opposed to
the accepted definitions of Dioonites and Pterophyllum; but there
seems no good reason to regard such a feature as at variance
with the genus Zamites.. This name Zamites was proposed by
Brongniart at a time when only two genera of living cycads
had been recognized, Cycas and Zamia; and the present definition
of the genus stamps it rather as a comprehensive and provisional
designation for certain frond characters which are now shared
by various members of the recent Zamice. If we retain Zamites
as usually defined, or in a slightly modified form, it must be
regarded merely as a convenient term to be applied to certain
fossil fronds in which some of the ‘characteristics of Zamia,
Macrozamia, Ceratozamia, or even Encephalartos may be repre-
sented. In the recent Zamia the pinne are articulated to the
rachis, and in many forms are readily detached, leaving a distinct
circular or elliptical scar; this same character is also’ met with
in other genera, such as Ceratozamia, Encephalartos, etc. The
basal callosity often referred to as one of the important charac-
teristics of Zamites is best seen in some forms of the genus
Macrozamia, and the manner of insertion and position of the
pinne on the rachis in species of Zamites find a parallel living
in species of Encephalartos, Ceratozamia, Macrozamia, and Zamia.
The following general definition of Zamites may serve to
indicate those characters which are most readily recognized in
fossil fronds :—

Frond pinnate, pinne more or less obliquely inclined to
the rachis and attached to the upper surface, apices acuminate
and tapering, or obtusely rounded, the base may be abruptly
rounded and marked with a callosity near the point of attach-
_ment, or the pinne may be slightly and gradually narrowed
towards the base, margins entire; veins parallel, but slightly
divergent in the apical portion of each pinna.

Such a definition is perhaps suggestive of a genus with
characters expressed in too general terms, and not sufficiently
limited, but a more complete examination of the different types
ZAMITES. 79

of fossil leaves may possibly lead to the institution of other genera
with more narrowly defined characters.

Zamites Buchianus'’ (Ett.).
[Pl. III. Figs. 1-5; Pl IV.; Pl. VIII. A.]

1847. Pterophyllum saxonicum, Goppert, Nova Acta Ac. Cs. Leop.-Car.
vol. xxii. p. 362, pl. xxxviii. fig. 13.
1852. Pterophyllum Buchianum, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i.
Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 21, pl. i. fig. 1.
1856. ? Dioonites Buchianus, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl. p. 57.
1867. Pterophyllum sazxonicum, Httingshausen, Sitz. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien.
vol. ly. Abth. i. p. 11, pl. i. figs. 11 and 12.
1870. Dioonites Buchianus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 149.
Dioonites saxonieus, Schimper, ibid. p. 211.
1871. Zamites Gépperti, Schenk, Palwontographica, vol. xix. p. 11, pl. iti.
fig. 6.
1879-80. ? Dioonites abietinus, Hosius and von Marck, Paleontographica,
vol. xxvi. p. 213, pl. xliv. fig. 199.
1889. Dioonites Buchianus, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 182, pls. lxviii.—lxxiv.
Dioonites Buchianus var. angustifolius, Fontaine, ibid. p. 185, pls.
Ixvii., Ixviii., and Ixxi.
Dioonites Buchianus var. obtusifolius, Fontaine, ibid. p. 184, pl. clxviii.
fig. 3.
1890. Zamiophyllum Buchianum, Nathorst, Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien.
vol. lvii. pp. 46 and 49, pl. ii. figs. 1 and 2; pl. iii.; pl. v. fig. 2.
Zamiophylium Naumanni, Nathorst, ibid. p. 47, pl. v. fig. 1.
1894. Zamiophyllum Buchianum, Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. vii.
pt. iii. p. 223, pl. xx. fig. 1; pl. xxiii. fig. 6; pl. xxvii. fig. 5a, d;
pl. xxviii. figs. 1 and 2.
Zamiophyllum Buchianum var. angustifolia, Yokoyama, loc. cit. p. 224,
pl. xxii. fig. 4; pl. xxv. fig. 5; pl. xxviii. figs. 8 and 9.
Zamiophyllum Naumanni, ibid: p. 225, pl. xxii. fig. 3; pl. xxvi.

Type. Portion of frond. Collection of Herr Hohenegger, Teschen.?
Ettingshausen defined the species as follows: ‘‘P. fronde pinnata,
pinnis circa 1-2dm. longis, 4-7 mm. latis, alternis, linearibus,
subremotis, subangulo acuto adnatis, nervis creberrimis, tenuissimis
instructis; rhachide crassiuscula.”

The type specimen is described as the middle portion of a frond

 

1 Possibly Zamites Milleri, Zigno, may prove to be identical with this species
(Zigno, Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. ii. p. 40, pl. xxx. fig. 6; Hugh Miller, Testimony
of the Rocks, p. 434, fig. 136). :

2 Ettingshausen (A. 4), p. 82.
80 ZAMITES,

at least 8-4 ft. in length, and compared with Pterophyllum
Humboldti, Dunk.; the latter species, however, appears to be a
typical Pterophyllum species, and quite distinct generically from
Ettingshausen’s type. Schenk reproduces the figure given by
Ettingshausen, and points out the fact that none of the pinna
apices are shown in the specimens. Very probably we may regard
Zamites Gépperti, Schenk, as Z. Buchianus (Ett.), seen from the
lower surface; Schenk himself compared the former species with
Pierophylium saxonicum, Reich.,’ from Niederschénen, and there
seems good reason to follow Fontaine in including P. saxonicum,
as figured by Ettingshausen, as synonymous with Z. Buchianum.
Hosius and von Marck‘ have figured a small fragment of a frond,
which they refer to P. saxonicum, but the specimen is too im-
perfect to admit of accurate identification. The same authors
refer another specimen of cycadean frond to Déoonites abietinus,
which shows a distinct resemblance to the smaller forms of Zamites
Buchianus (ef. Hosius and Marck, pl. xliv. fig. 199, and Pl. III.
Fig. 1 of the present volume), but perhaps the similarity is hardly
sufficiently well marked to warrant the inclusion of the fossil in
the synonym list of the present species, without the addition of
a query. Some writers have preferred Déoonites to Pterophyllum
for Ettingshausen’s species; Schimper and Fontaine both adopt
the former name. The Potomac flora has yielded numerous
examples of fronds which Fontaine refers to D. Buchianus; he
speaks of the species as ‘‘one of the most widely diffused and
characteristic fossils of the Potomac flora.’”’* This author institutes
two varieties of Ettingshausen’s species—D. Buchianus, var.
obtusifolius and var. angustifolius. It might perhaps be advisable to
adopt Fontaine’s terms, and apply them to certain forms of the
species represented in the numerous examples from the Wealden
of Ecclesbourne, but there is the usual difficulty to be faced in
drawing lines between one form and another. In looking at some
specimens we find the pinna apices are very distinctly acutely
tapered, and closely correspond with Fontaine’s D. Buchianus var.
angustifolius ; but in such a frond as V. 21787, although on the
whole the pinne are tapered, yet some of the segments terminate

 

' Ettingshausen (A. 8), Sitz. k. Ak. Wiss. Wien. vol. lv. Abth. i. pl. i.
figs. 11 and 12.

2 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. p. 213, pl. xliv. fig. 198.

3 Potomac Flora, p. 182.
ZAMITES, 81

more obtusely, and lead us to specimens, such as V. 2227, in
which we have no longer the form characterized by gradually
tapered and pointed pinne. A similar variation in the apices and
in the breadth of the pinne is pointed out by Yokoyama! in the
Japanese examples. The frond figured by Géppert as Pterophyllum
Carnallianum? shows a certain resemblance to some of the forms
of the present species. Heer* has compared the present species
with Zamia globuliferus, Heer, from the Kome beds of Greenland.
Reference has already been made to Nathorst’s substitution of the
new genus Zamiophyllum for Miquel’s name Dioonttes. He points
out that the species is from Urgonian strata, and not of Wealden
age as Ettingshausen erroneously states. In referring to the basally
narrowed pinne in the Japanese examples, Nathorst notes that
the character is not apparent in the European specimens; we still
find, however, in the examples described from the Rufford Collection
abundant proof of this narrowing of the segments. The largest
pinna mentioned by this author has a length of 260mm. and
a breadth of 4-6mm.; in a pinna which is 3-5 mm. broad there
are 12 veins, in one with a breadth of 6mm. 17 veins, and 22
veins in pinne 8mm. broad. Nathorst compares Z. Buchianus
with the recent cycad Zamia media, Jacq. In describing a second
Japanese form, which he refers to another species, Z. Naumanni,
he expresses the opinion that it may possibly represent the lower
part of a frond of Z Buchianus*; it is compared with Zamites
Schenkti, Schimp. (=Z. Gépperti, Schenk), from the Wernsdorf
beds. Yokoyama also figures under Nathorst’s species Z. Naumannet
(pl. xxii. fig. 8, and pl. xxvi.) a portion of a frond with pinne
having a breadth up to 20mm., but suggests that it may be
specifically identical with Z. Buchianus.

The English examples clearly demonstrate that the pinne are
attached to the surface of the rachis, and not laterally as Nathorst
inferred from his less perfect material. Z. Maumanni, Nath.,
is in all probability identical with Z. Buchianus; the specimens:
of the former figured by Nathorst seem in some cases, e.g. pl. iii.
and pl. v. fig. 1, to show a surface attachment of the pinne.

 

' Yokoyama, p. 223.

2 (1), pl. i. fig. 4.

3 (A. 8), Fl. foss. Arct. vol. vi. pt. i. p. 12, pl. i.
# (A. 3), Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. vol. lvii. p. 47.
82 ZAMITES,

In the specimen represented in pl. v. fig. 1 of Nathorst, there
appear to be two elliptical scars about the middle of the frond
fragment; these agree very closely with similar scars in several
of the Rufford examples, and represent the points of detachment
of pinne. The abundant examples in the National Collection
enable us to extend and modify the existing definition of the
species. Among recent species Ceratozamia mexicana, Brong.,
Zamia cycadifolia, Jacq., Macrozamia Macleayi, Mig., and Encepha-
lartos Lehmanni, Lehm., may be mentioned as possessing fronds
very similar in form to those of Z. Buchianus (Ett. ).

We may define the species as follows :—

Frond large, pinnate; rachis longitudinally striated, with a
fairly broad median groove on the upper surface. Pinne
alternate, opposite or subopposite, varying in length from 3-4 cm.
to 20cm., and in breadth from 1'5 to 2mm., attached obliquely to
the rachis, and slightly thickened and somewhat broadened at the
actual point of insertion; separated from the rachis by a distinct
absciss line, leaving an elliptical scar; generally narrowed towards
the base, but in the narrower pinne this reduction in breadth
decreases and is not nearly so evident; usually inclined at about
45° to the rachis, they may be almost at right angles to the frond
axis, and in the case of young fronds and the apical portions
of larger ones, the pinne are attached at a much more acute angle.
The distance between the pinne varies considerably in different
parts of the same leaf, and in leaves of different ages; apices
generally tapering to a point, or more or less obtusely rounded.
Veins numerous, parallel, and as a rule not very prominent.

V. 2120. Pl. VIII.’ Fig. 1 and Pl. III. Fig. 5. This splendid
specimen has a length of 77'5cm.; broken at one point, and
somewhat displaced laterally. Breadth of pinne varies from 2 to
9mm. Attachment of the pinne not shown in this example.
The broader and lower pinne appear to taper towards the rachis
more than in many specimens. Tips of some of the pinne clearly
seen, as in Pl. III. Fig. 5; these agree very closely with the
apices of pinne in V. 2123 (Pl. III. Fig. 8). Certain parts of
this frond agree exactly with V. 2925, etc. The apical portion
appears to be identical with Dioonttes Buchianus var. angustifolia,
as figured by Fontaine in his pl. lxx. fig. 2.2, The lower portion

 

1 Represented in Pl. VIII. $ nat. size.
2 Potomac Flora.
ZAMITES, 83

corresponds to that of V. 21282, ete. Veins numerous, but not
well marked. Towards the upper end of the rachis there are
elliptical scars marking the original places of insertion of detached
segments. If V. 2120 and V. 2898 be compared, the most striking
difference seems to be the less tapered and narrowed bases of the
pinne in the latter specimen. Ecclesbourne.  Rufford Coll,

V. 2227. Pl. III. Fig. 4. Large specimen, with unusually
broad pinne; length of rachis 38cm., width 12cm. The
oblique attachment of the segments distinctly shown, also the
nature of the base and the position of the pinne on the axis.
Surface of the rachis marked with longitudinal strie; about
Imm. from each margin of the rachis there is a distinct longi-
tudinally running line. Pinne long, narrow, and slightly curved ;
one row attached obliquely by tapering bases to the upper surface
of the frond axis, alternate in position. In the lower part of the
frond the pinne have a length of about 19cm., and a breadth
of 13cm.; their distal ends are bluntly acuminate, as shown
in Pl. III. Fig. 4. Very little, if any, indication of a basal
callosity on the segments. There is only a slight difference in
size between the upper and lower pinne. Cf. V. 2820. LEcecles-
bourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2820. A very similar specimen. Rachis 29cm. long; the
longest pinna between 17 and 18cm. in length and 1 cm. broad.
Towards the upper end of the frond the pinne are about 10 or
llcm. long; the apices are not shown, and therefore the actual
length can only be approximately measured; breadth of these
pinne about 8mm. LEdcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2125a. Rachis 21cm. long. The upper portion closely
resembles Dioonites abietinus as figured by Hosius and von Marck.
Ecelesbourne. Rufford Coll.

‘V. 2128. Portion of a rachis of a large frond; the bases of
detached pinne well preserved, also traces of scars on the rachis.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2363. Pl. III. Fig. 2. The chief feature in this specimen
is the very distinctly and gradually tapering terminations of the
few pinne which are preserved. Compare the apex of one of
these pinne, with those of the two shown in Pl. III. Fig. 5
84 ZAMITES.

(V. 2120), and the less pointed form of V. 2128¢ (Pl. III. Fig. 3).
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 2123c. Pl. III. Fig. 8. At the upper end of the specimen
there is part of a rachis with five pinne attached; the rest of the
slab shows several imperfect pinne with gradually tapered tips;
the tips seem to be intermediate in form between those of
V. 2227 (Pl. Ill. Fig. 4) and V. 2363 (Pl. III. Fig. 2),
V. 2123, etc. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 21254. Pl. IV. Fig. 1. A young frond, 25cm. long;
of. V. 2123), etc. Pinne approximate, very gradually tapering
distally. The pinne are broadest in the middle of the specimen,
and narrower towards either end; at the lower end the pinne
are narrower and less closely arranged, agreeing with those of
V. 2262 (Pl. III. Fig. 1). Compare also V. 2898 and Fontaine’s
pl. lxxi. fig. 2. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2125c. Pl IV. Fig. 2. Rachis 33cm. long. Pinne
alternate and opposite, rachis depressed, the points of attachment
of segments clearly shown, apical portions not preserved ; broadest
pinna 7mm., narrowest 5mm. Venation distinct. Cf. V. 21282,
V. 21254, etc. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 21230. Pl IV. Figs. 4 and 5. 35cm. long. Rachis well
shown, the longitudinal irregular striations distinct; these pro-
bably indicate strands of hypodermal sclerenchymatous tissue.
Tips of pinne not seen, but bases very distinct ; in Figs. 4 and 5
the surface and oblique insertion is easily recognized, also in some
pinne the very slightly broadened base. In the lower part of
the frond the pinne are nearly at right angles to the rachis, but
more oblique towards the upper end. Veins numerous and fine,
and in many pinne clearly shown. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2925. Pl. IV. Fig. 3. Specimen very similar to V. 2125;
but pinne farther apart, and in this respect identical with the
lower portion of V. 2123. In addition to the larger example,
there is a very small fragment on one side of the slab, which is
evidently the tip of a frond (PL. 1V. Fig. 3); in this the segments
are closer together and more oblique to the rachis than in
V. 21255, and more like V. 212386 and V. 21253. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.
ZAMITES, 85

V. 2262. (Pl. III. Fig. 1.) This agrees fairly closely with
Dioonites adietinus (Gopp.) as figured by Hosius and von Marck?;
probably their specimen is not a true example of Gdoppert’s
species. Small piece of rachis with long and narrow pinne; mode
of insertion well seen. Cf. 2125; breadth of pinne about the
same, but in the present specimen the segments are farther apart
and more spreading; this difference, however, only applies to the
upper three-fourths of 2125); in the lower fourth it is practically
identical with V. 2262. This and some other specimens appear to
be identical with D. Buchianus var. angustifolia as figured in the
Potomac Flora, and with some of Yokoyama’s specimens, e.g.
pl. xxii. fig. 4, pl. xxv. fig. 5, and pl. xxviii. figs. 8 and 9.?
Cf. V. 2898, V. 1069, and the upper part of 21254. Longest
pinna 7'5cm., and 3mm. broad. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 720. Two specimens. Fragments of a young frond; pinne
very obliquely set and approximate. Hastings. Dawson Coll.

V. 1069. Small specimen, probably the lower part of a frond,
the pinne being much narrower in the lower than in the upper
portion ; manner of attachment of segments distinct. Cf. V. 2262,
V. 212524, V. 21234, etc. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2123. Very imperfect example. Bases of several pinne
show clearly the manner of attachment to the rachis; at the base
of some of the pinne a wrinkled appearance suggests the existence
of a callosity. There is not quite the same gradual narrowing of
the pinne towards the frond axis as in V. 2227 and many other

specimens. Pinne long, and tapered to an acuminate tip, as in
V. 2363 (Pl. III. Fig. 2), ete.

V. 21238. Rachis about 27 cm. long; pinne 4 mm. broad, alternate
and approximate. Cf. V. 2898. The lower part of this specimen
appears to be identical with the upper portion of V. 2125, also with
V. 720. Evidently a young frond.

V. 2123. Part of a single pinnae, showing sharply pointed apex;
venation not distinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

 

1 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. pl. xliv. fig. 199.
2 Yokoyama, loc. cit.
86 ZAMITES.

V. 2125. Rachis 19cm. in length. ‘Longest pinna 12cm.,
gradually tapering towards the tip, which is not present. The
long, narrow, and tapering segments of this specimen are exactly
the same as those in the smaller examples, V. 2262 and V. 1069.
Cf. Fontaine, pl. lxxiv. figs. 1-3, etc. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2373¢. Broad rachis, 1-2 mm. at the lowest end, but obviously
flattened. Groove in the middle, and on each side of the groove
there are two elliptical scars marking the places to which segments
were attached; some of the segments appear to have a basal
callosity,; pinne opposite or subopposite. Cf Nathorst’s figure
(Pl. V. Fig. 1a)? of the rachis of what he calls 27 Maumannt.
Ecclesbourne. Ruford Coit.

V. 2698. Very large specimen, but the details not well
preserved. Rachis 48cm. long; pinne of the gradually tapered
form, as in V. 2363, etc. The upper portion the same as V. 2898,
V. 2125%, etc. Breadth of uppermost pinna 1:'5-2mm.; that of
the lowest lem. This appears to be a frond seen from the lower
surface, the pinne being, therefore, apparently laterally attached
to the rachis. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2898. A fine example of what is probably a partially
expanded frond. Rachis about 20cm. long. Some pinne about
14cm. in length and 8-4mm. broad; towards the tip the pinne
are crowded and imbricate, with a width of about 3mm.; towards
the base 6mm. broad. Sussex. Beckles Coll,

Cf. the tip of this and V. 2120, V. 21250, ete. V. 3153,
V. 3154, V. 3156, and V. 3157. Other specimens of this species.
Ecclesbourne, Rufford Coll.

' Zamites Carruthersi, sp. nov.
[Pl. VI. Figs. 2-4.]

Type. Portions of fronds. British Museum.

Frond pinnate; rachis longitudinally striate; pinne alternate,
attached by an oblique base to the outer part of the upper surface
of the axis, almost at right angles to the rachis in a fully

 

1 Fontaine, Potomac Flora.
ZAMITES. 87

developed frond, linear or linear-elliptical, somewhat abruptly
narrowed towards the base, but slightly broadened at the actual
base of attachment, separate from the rachis by a well-marked
articulation. Veins divergent from the base, but for the most
part parallel, and diverging at the tip of the segments, which is
bluntly rounded.

In the examination of the fossil fronds in the National
Collection, and the comparison of them with the leaves of
existing species, 1 have often been struck with the close corre-
spondence between certain forms of Wealden fronds and species
of the genus Encephalartos. An inspection of .a thoroughly
representative collection of the different forms of Encephalartos
fronds, such as are to be found in the exceptionally good
collection of living and herbarium specimens at the Royal
Gardens, Kew, tends to very considerably widen one’s conception
as to the characters of this recent genus of cycads. The
species generally met with in collections are those in which
the pinne are broad and more or less spiny ; but the genus
includes various other forms with pinne of quite a different
form, which often bear a striking resemblance to various fossil
fronds. As examples of the diversity of leaf form to be met
with in this genus, the few following species may be cited as
representatives of some of the forms assumed: £. Caffer, Miq.,
with its stout oval pinne, with or without marginal teeth,
£. pungens, Lehm., with long, narrow, and acuminately terminated
segments, E. cycadifolius, Lehm., and £. Ghellinckit, Lem. (Pl.
XIII. Figs. 3-5), characterized by the long and narrow pinnae,
which form a striking contrast to the broader and better known
segments of £. horridus, Lehm., and other species. Some of the
species, e.g. &. Lehmanni, Lehm., ZL. cycadifolius, Lehm., and others
have a close resemblance to some species of Ceratozamia and Zamia.

In the introductory remarks mention was made of the institution
by Fontaine of a new genus, Encephalartopsis, for certain isolated
pinne from the Potomac beds of North America; and such a genus
might serve a useful purpose if founded on more satisfactory
material, but as at present defined it can have but little value.
Possibly the institution of such a genus, with a wide and modified
definition, might prove a valuable addition to our list of fossil
genera, but for the present it will perhaps be better to fall back
on the old and comprehensive Zamites. I have ventured to
88 ZAMITES,

connect the name of Mr. Carruthers with the present species ‘of
cycadean frond, as a slight recognition of his valuable contributions
to our knowledge of the fossil Cycadacee.

Some of the large detached pinne figured by Fontaine as
examples of his new species Zamites tenuinervis, agree fairly closely
with those of the present form, but in the Potomac plant the
venation appears to be coarser, and the bases of the segments
usually ‘‘abruptly subcordate”; in the pinna shown in Fontaine’s
pl. lxxvi. fig. 7 the base seems much more like that in the English
specimen. The paucity and imperfect character of the Potomac
material, and the differences already alluded to, hardly warrant
the adoption of Fontaine’s name for the English forms. There is a
close resemblance between the present specimens and some of those
referred to Z Buchianus, e.g. V. 2123, but in the latter species
the longer and more gradually tapering pinne are sufficiently
characteristic to distinguish the two forms. Among recent cycads,
Encephalartos longifolius, Lehm., is one of those which resemble
very closely in habit the fronds of Z Carruthersi. As examples
of other fossil fronds to be compared with this species, Zamites
afinis, Schenk,’ and Paleozamia recta, Tate,* may be mentioned.

V. 2123¢. Pl. VI. Fig. 4.

In this specimen the manner of attachment of the pinne is
clearly shown; the line of separation being particularly distinct
at the base of the middle pinna of the portion of frond represented
in Fig. 4, Pl. VI. Rachis at least lem. broad, and marked with
fine longitudinal lines. Venation very distinct, as in V. 2123c.
Only a portion of the specimen shown in the figure; rachis
21cm. long. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2128¢. Pl. VI. Figs. 2 and 3.

The pinne are very like those with blunt apices which have
been included in 7 Buchianus (e.g. V. 2227), but in the present
specimen the base and manner of attachment of the pinne con-
stitute the special features. The form of base clearly seen in
Fig. 8, and the blunt apex with the slightly divergent veins in
Fig. 2. Rachis in this specimen 13 cm. in length, with portions
of nine pinne on one side. Ecclesbourne. Ruford Coll.

 

1 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. iii. fig. 6.
? Tate (A.), Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. pl. v.
ZAMITES. 89

The specimens referred to as Otozamites Klipsteinit var. longi-
Jolia should be compared with Zamites Carrutherst; e.g. V. 21282,
V. 2122, and V. 21225; but in those and similar specimens the
pinne have a more or less distinctly auriculate base. V. 21280.
Single pinna. Cf. V. 2128d. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Specimens of Doubtful Position.

V. 2742. Pl. VI. Fig. 1. This may perhaps be the terminal
portion of a frond of Z Carruthersi, or possibly of Otozamites
Klipsteinit var. longifolia, but it is very difficult to feel any great
confidence in placing it in such a position. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

    
  

Fic. 5.—? Zamites sp. (V. 2744). 4 nat. size.

V. 2744. Fig. 5. This specimen and V. 27484 suggest portions
of a frond very similar to Ctenis falcata, L. and H., but no
indication of anastomosing veins has been detected in the pinne
of these Wealden examples. The portion of frond shown has
a length of 13°5cm.; one of the broadest pinne is 7mm. in
breadth, and is traversed by about ten veins (Fig. 5a). To some
extent the specimen reminds one, as regards general habit, of
90 ANOMOZAMITES,

Zamites Buchianus, but the venation and decurrent pinne are
distinctive features in the former, and the pinne are more

oblique than in Ettingshausen’s species. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 2275. Another terminal piece of frond, agreeing closely
with V. 2748, and very possibly the same species, but the
specimen shows no details, being merely a brown stain on the
surface of a coarse grit. It is possible that these two specimens
may belong to the terminal portion of a frond of which the
older and larger segments are shown in Pl, VII. Figs..1, 4, and 6

(V. 2122, V. 21262). Ecclesbourne. : Rufford Coll.

V. 2748a. In some respects not unlike Nathorst’s figure of
Zamiophyllum Naumannt, a species of Japanese frond now referred
to Zamites Buchianus. The present specimen is in all probability
part of a frond seen from the under side. Cf. Ctenophyllum late-
folium, Font., a plant which Fontaine‘ refers for no very obvious
reason to Schimper’s genus Ctenophyllum. V. 3183. Fragment of
the same form. Ecelesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Genus ANOMOZAMITES, Schimper.
(Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. 1870, p. 140.]

In discussing the genus Vilssonia mention was made of
Schimper’s genus Anomozamites, which he instituted for certain
Pterophyllum-like leaves possessing the following characteristics :
‘Folia speciosa, mediocria, vel parva, elongata-oblonga vel
elongato-linealia, pinnatisecta, hic illic (juniora) integra, nervis
rhachi perpendicularibus, parallelis, simplicibus vel e basi dicho-
tomis; pinnis inequalibus, rectangulis, membranaceis vel tenui-
coriaceis.””

No mention is made in this definition of the place of insertion
of the segments, whether lateral or on the upper surface of the
leaf axis. Nathorst has since given special prominence to the
manner of attachment of the segments as the chief distinguishing
character between the present genus and MVilssonia;* the same
author has also instituted a new genus for the reception of

 

1 Potomac Flora, p. 175, pl. lxviii. figs. 2 and 3.
2 See ante, p. 62.
ANOMOZAMITES, 91

Anomozamites-like leaves with dichotomizing veins. We must,
then, somewhat modify Schimper’s original diagnosis, and the
following may be adopted as a rough definition of this provisional
genus Anomozamites; it is a slightly altered version of that in
Zittel’s Handbuch.)

Frond comparatively small, linear or tongue-shaped, and usually
divided into segments which present a more or less obvious
difference in size, separate or confluent at the base, attached
laterally to the rachis, and never entirely covering the upper
face of the frond axis; the segments bluntly rounded or truncate
distally; veins simple and parallel, generally at right angles to
the rachis.

The examples of this genus possess, as a rule, a characteristic
habit which marks them off from the pinnate fronds of Ptero-
phyllum with their equal and longer segments. It is difficult in
some cases to distinguish between the genera Anomozamites and
Nilssonia. In the former the segments are sometimes attached
to the rachis in such a manner as to suggest the surface insertion
of Nilssonta, but there is always some part of the frond axis
exposed to view, whereas in Mélssonia the lamina appears to be
continuous from one side to the other. It is not easy in the
present instance to decide whether the genus Plerophyllum or
Anomozamites is the more suitable; both are purely provisional
genera, and it is not a matter of very great importance which
term is adopted.

Anomozamites Lyellianus (Dunk.).
[Fig. 6.]
1846. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 14, pl. vi. figs.
1 and 2.
1848. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Bronn, Index. pal. nomencl. p. 1056.
1849. Zamites Lyellianus, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.
1850. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 290.
1851. Dioonites Lyellianus, Miquel, Tijdsch. Wis. nat. Wet. iv. p. 205.
1852. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 22.
1856. Dioonites Lyellianus, Bornemann, Organ. Rest. Lettenkohl. p. 56.
1870. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 137.
1871. Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 230,
pl. xxxiv. figs. 1 and 2.

 

1p. 224,
92 ANOMOZAMITRS.

Type. Large specimens of frond. Berlin Museum.

Dunker thus defines the species in his Wealdenbildung :—

‘‘Pterophyllum fronde pinnata, pectiniformi, pinnis oppositis
linearibus seque distantibus, approximatis basi fere confluentibus,
apice obtusis, angulo recto adnatis, nervis iv. vel v. tenerrimis,
rhachi plana subsuleata.”’

The figure of Dunker’s type specimen is very much more sug-
gestive of the genus Pferophyllum, than are the drawings given by
Schenk, or that of the solitary specimen in the Rufford Collection.
Probably the original specimen is part of a frond seen from the
under surface, thus showing a particularly prominent rachis. It
may be that the English fossil should be placed in a new species,
but the apparent differences which distinguish it from Dunker’s
specimen may be merely such as are the result of a more fully
developed condition of frond in the latter case. Possibly Zamites
@qualis, Dunk.,! should be included in this species. Schenk’s
figure agrees more closely with the English specimen: this author
speaks of the segment as being attached to the upper surface of
the rachis, and not laterally inserted ; if this were really the case,
the genus Pterophyllum as usually defined would be inapplicable.
Schenk’s example does not show the rachis sufficiently clearly
to definitely settle this point, but in all probability, as in our
specimen, there is a narrow line of axis separating the two rows
of segments. A close inspection of Schenk’s figure enables us
to detect certain slight differences in the breadth of the pinnae,
similar to those in the Ecclesbourne specimen. It must be
remarked, however, that there is very little difference in the
breadth of the several segments. There is a striking agreement
as regards.general appearance and arrangement of the segments,
between the Wealden specimen and the Jurassic species Anomo-
zamites Nilssont. Lindley and Hutton? figured this plant as
Pterophyllum Nilssoni (Phill.): from their figure it is not easy to
decide between Wilssonia or Anomozamites as the most suitable
genus, but an examination of several specimens of this species
from the Yorkshire coast, shows very clearly the characteristics
of the latter genus. There are several examples of this form in

 

1 Wealdenbildung, pl. vi. fig. 3.
? Lindley and Hutton (A.), Fossil Flora, vol. i. pl. Ixvii. fig. 2.
ANOMOZAMITES. 93

the Leckenby Collection, which have been examined by Nathorst
and referred by him to Anomozamites.

In addition to the single specimen of Anomozamites Lyellianus
in the British Museum, there is a somewhat larger example in the
Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street. In this latter
specimen the pinne are broader and have a more open arrange-
ment. The lateral attachment is very clearly shown, and the four
or five veins in each segment are distinctly marked. Here and
there may be noticed slight differences in the breadth of the
segments, which are arranged alternately towards the upper and
lower ends of the specimen, but in a few cases the pinne are
opposite. The Jermyn Street specimen is from the Wealden of
Ore near Hastings.

 

Fia. 6.—Anomozamites Lyellianus (V. 3251). Nat. size.

V. 3251. Fig. 6.

Probably a young leaf, showing clearly a gradual diminution
in the length of the segments towards either end of the rachis.
Manner of attachment and venations of the pinne clearly pre-
served; each segment appears to have four or five simple,
parallel, and distinctly marked veins as shown in Fig. 64. The
94 -CYCADOLEPIS.

segments appear to be much thicker than in the similar Jurassic
form A. Milssont, and their breadth is much more uniform than in
the latter species.

A species of a somewhat analogous habit has recently been
described by Fontaine under the name of Zamites Montanensis from
the Montana Coal-field.' Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

Genus CYCADOLEPIS, Saporta.
[Pal. Frane. sér. ii. végétaux, vol. ii. 1875, p. 200.]

In 1875 Saporta proposed the term Cycadolepis as a convenient
generic designation for detached bud scales of cycadean fronds.
He defined it as follows: ‘‘Squame coriacee basi dilatatz loco
insertionis crasse facie interiori plus minusve concave nudeque,
facie autem dorsali convexiuscule, sursum elongate lanceolato-
acuminate, extus ad utrumque latus tomento piloso donate.”

A small number of fronds have been recorded in which larger
or smaller basal scaly structures are preserved ; as a few examples
of such, we have Zamites gigas, Morr., as figured by Saporta,?
Podozamites distans, Presl,? Otozamites sp.,4 Podozamites lanceolatus
minor, Schenk,® etc. Among recent cycads we have, in addition
to the ordinary pinnate fronds, various forms of smaller scale
leaves; the latter are particularly well seen in Cycas, where an
old stem shows a clearly marked alternation of the persistent
basal portions of fronds alternating with the bases of scale leaves.
These scale leaves are true leaf structures, in which the green
assimilating portion of the phyllopodium has not been developed.

 

1 (A. 3), Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xv. p. 494, pl. lxxxiv. fig. 4. Fontaine
omits to mention that Dawson has described a fragment of cycadean frond
from the Kootanie series of the Rocky Mountains as a new species, Zamites
Montana, a name dangerously near to 2. Montanensis (see Dawson, Trans. Roy.
Soc. Canada, 1885, section iv. p. 7, pl. i. fig. 6).

2 Loe. cit. pl. Ixxxi. fig. 1.

3 Ibid. pl. Ixxvi. fig. 2.

4 Ibid. pl. Ixxvi. figs. 3 and 4 [see also Zigno (A.), Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. ii.

pls. xxxv. and xxxvi.].
® Nathorst (A. 1), Flor. Bjuf, i. pl. xvi. fig. 10.
CYCADOLEPIS. 95

In the genus Ceratozamia the expanded base of a frond shows
two lateral stipule-like appendages, and these are also found in
the same position on the margin of the smaller scale leaves.' In
some forms of Macrozamia, the surface of an old stem is entirely
enclosed in a thick armour of large persistent petiole bases without
any accompanying scales. Many recent cycadean stems appear
to be covered by numerous scale-like structures of identical form ;
it is by no means an easy task in many cases to distinguish
between the bases of true fronds and those of scale leaves, even
where both forms of leaf are present. The variation in form
and size exhibited by the scale leaves of recent species, sufficiently
demonstrates the futility of attempting any exact generic or
specific discrimination in the case of the isolated fossil examples.
It is true we have in Dioon and Cycas fairly characteristic lanceo-
late scales, often clothed in a dense woolly covering; but a close
inspection of a tall stem of the latter genus reveals a marked
difference in the scale leaves towards the apex of the stem, and
those in the older portions, where there are only the persistent
broad bases adhering to the plant stem. In dealing with fossil
scale leaves it will probably be wise to extend the definitions of
Saporta’s genus and to include in it not merely the “elongate
lanceolate-acuminate’’? forms of bud scales, but also other forms
of true scale leaves, as well as those structures which may be
regarded as the persistent bases of petioles. This genus, used
in a much more comprehensive sense, should afford a convenient
means of grouping together those detached leaf structures, which
frequently cannot be definitely referred to any particular genus
or species. Such isolated plant members, in themselves, perhaps,
of little value, are worthy of record as contributions to the
material from which to build up a more complete history of
fossil cycadean plants. Some of the numerous scales in the
Rufford Collection may, indeed, be referred to certain forms of
stems, and no doubt as our material is increased others may
be recognized as portions of some well-defined genus or species
of cycad.

In the male and female flowers of some recent species the
detached scales bear a close resemblance to the sterile leaf
structures of the stem; it will be well, therefore, to include

 

* Engler and Prantl, Cycadacee, p. 7.
96 CYCADOLEPIS.

in the genus Cycadolepis such scale leaves as afford no clear proof
of their carpellary or antheriferous nature. As an example of such
a resemblance, it may be noted that some of the smaller examples
of the Ecclesbourne scales present a distinct agreement in shape
and size with the detached carpellary scales of such a form as
Macrozamia Dyert. Similarly the isolated leaves of the ‘‘ bulbils”’*
of Cycas and other genera, erroneously compared by some with
the inflorescences known as Bennettites and Williamsonia, should
be included under this comprehensive genus; also the narrow
lanceolate-acuminate and short broad leaves of the two latter
genera.

The only forms included by Saporta in Cycadolepis, e.g. C.
villosa and C. hirta,? are narrow leaf-like structures similar to the
scales of Dioon or Cycas. Fliche and Bleicher® have adopted
Saporta’s name for a very imperfect fragment which seems to
be practically indeterminable. We may, perhaps, as a matter of
convenience, and to avoid the obvious danger and inexpediency
of instituting several more or less meaningless specific names,
arrange the various detached scales under two main heads,
basing the distinction of the two sections on the general form
of the scales.

Cycadolepis.

Scale-like leaf structures of cycadean plants, varying consider-
ably in form and including detached petiolar bases, bud scales,
etc., also isolated carpellary or antheriferous scales which exhibit
no trace of ovules or pollen-sacs.

1.—Cycadolepis (Dory ‘-Cycadolepis). Scales of a more or
less linear-lanceolate form, broadest at the base and
tapering gradually towards the apex.

2.—C. (Eury®-Cycadolepis). Broadly oval or orbicular scales,
with the broadest portion frequently nearer the distal
than proximal end; thick and fibrous structures.

 

* Miquel (1), p. 7, pl. ii. figs. I and J.

» Saporta, doc. cit. pp. 201, 202, pl. exiv. figs. 4-6.

3 (A.), Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy [2], vol. v. figs. 9-11, p. 76.
4 Sdpu =spear.

5 evpis =broad.
CYCADOLEPIS. 97

1.—Dory-Cycadolepis.

The forms included in this section of Cycadolepis are practically
such as Saporta describes in his diagnosis of the genus. Saporta’s
examples are regarded as distinct species, but it is surely un-
necessary to institute elaborate specific definitions for such isolated
structures, and especially as the so-called species bear a distinct
resemblance to one another. Both forms are from the Lower
Kimmeridgian of the province Ain. C. villosa is compared with
the scales of Stangeria, and C. hirta with those of Cycas and
Dioon. It is by no means unlikely that both may belong to
Williamsonia; similar scales figured by Fontaine in a specimen
of Willkiamsonia virginiensis, Font.,' from the Potomac beds, and
some of the Wealden Wiilliamsonia scales both present a strong
likeness to the French specimens, and suggest the possibility
of generic identity. A specimen in the Rufford Collection
(V. 2830), consisting of a collection of narrow acuminate hairy
scales, which is probably part of a cycadean stem, shows some
scales very similar to C. hirta, Sap. Feistmantel has figured a
specimen of what he calls C. pilosa* from the Gondwana flora
of India which agrees very closely with Saporta’s examples,
also with the leaves of W. virginiensis, Font. The same author
figures another form as Cycadolepis,3 which may perhaps be
regarded as a cycadean scale. The specimen figured by Nathorst
as Cycadospadix integer angustior, Nath.,‘ suggests a form which
might be included in the present section of Dory-Cycadolepis.

V. 2802. Single leaf; linear-lanceolate in form; 7-5 cm. long,
9mm. broad, delicate hairs on each margin. Appears to be
identical with Saporta’s ‘‘species”’ C. villosa. Compare V. 2129,
in which there are several similar scales aggregated together.
Very likely this specimen may be a detached leaf of Williamsonia.
Further reference will be made to this form of scale in the
descriptions of cycadean stems and some of the specimens of
Bennettites (Williamsonia). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Potomac Flora, pl. cxxxiii. figs. 6 and 7.
2 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. ii. pl. vii. fig. 5.

3 Ibid. vol. i. pt. iv. pl. xiv. figs. 10-12.
4 Nathorst, Joc. cit. pl. xviii. fig. 6.
98 CYCADOLEPIS.

V. 2129%. A scale or possibly petiole base with numerous
hair-like appendages; similar to V. 2802. Cf. also Cycadolepis
hirta, Sap., and the Otozamites petiole of Pl. II. Fig. 4 of the
present volume. V. 2927. Part of another woolly or hairy scale.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

2.—Eury-Cycadolepis.

In this section are included several detached scales varying in
shape from an almost orbicular or somewhat pentagonal form, such
as V. 2699, represented in Pl. VI. Fig. 6, to the larger and longer
type as shown in Pl. V. Fig. 2. So far as I have been able to
discover, these forms have not been previously figured; there
cannot be much doubt as to their original connection with some
form of cycadean stem, and indeed some of the specimens are
identical with the stout curved scales on such stems as those of
Fittonia. In some cases the scales occur in very close associa-
tion with stems, but in none are they found actually in place.
For the present, at any rate, it is better to describe some of
the more characteristic forms, and to include them all under
Cycadolepis, suggesting at the same time the very probable
and indeed almost certain identity of some with the scales of
Fittonta and other forms of stems. Hosius and von Marck have
described a specimen from the Gault of Ahaus (Westphalia), which
they regard as probably made up of a few large petiole bases
belonging to some form of cycadean stem. One of these
“‘petiole bases” has a length of llcm., a breadth of 4°7cm.,
and is 4cm. in thickness. The generic name Megalozamia is
proposed for this doubtful fossil, and the following definition
is given by these authors: ‘‘ Rhachidum basibus incrassatis
carnosis falciformibus, costis quatuor longitudinalibus preeditis;
costis marginalibus acutioribus, costa et dorsali et ventrali
obtusiori.”! Structures such as this diagnosis describes would
be legitimately included in the genus Cycadolepis, used in the
more comprehensive sense as suggested above.

 

1 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. p. 203, pl. xliii. figs. 181-183.
CYCADOLEPIS, 99

V. 2929. Pl. V. Fig. 2.

The figure of this large example shows very well the general
appearance of the longer forms; the surface shown in the drawing
is strongly convex, and at the distal end somewhat suddenly
incurved. Some of the dark curved lines seen in the figure are
irregularly placed grooves suggesting the tracks of some small
animal, which has slightly eaten into the hard fibrous substance
of the scale. Very similar markings or grooves have been noticed.
by Grand’Eury‘ on a leaf of Cordattes, and described by him as
‘‘ galeries d’insecte.”” Other lines and striations on the convex
surface of the scale are probably due to a wrinkling of the leaf
substance. The large petiole bases on an old stem of Macrozsamia
Dougilasi, Hill, in the Botanical Department of the British Museum,
bear a striking resemblance to this form of Cycadolepis. In the
recent scales there is the same tendency to terminate in the
pointed angular fashion as seen in the figured specimen, and
in both there is a distinct narrowing towards the base of attach-
ment. The convex under surface of the recent scales is covered
with a thick down of hairs, and there is a similar wrinkled

appearance to that of many of the fossil examples. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 2699. Pl. VI. Figs. 6 and 6a.

This specimen is a good example of the stouter and more
pentagonal form of scale, the distal edge is strongly recurved as
seen in Fig. 6a, and the narrower basal end shows the surface
of attachment. A comparison of this form of scale with those
on the stems of /ittonia sqguamata, Carr.,? Bucklandia sp., Fittonia
Rigauxt, Sap.,* etc., shows a very close agreement in size and
shape. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2799. Another very large specimen, similar to V. 2929 (Pl. V.
Fig. 2), 13°5em. in length, 7°5cm. wide at the broadest part.
The convex surface is marked in places by reticulated lines and
wrinklings; towards the distal end the surface is curved gradually

 

1 p. 338, pl. xxii. fig. 7.

? Carruthers (1), pl. lvi. fig. 1. (The original specimen is in the Museum
of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street.)

3 Saporta, Joe. cit. pl. exxvii.
100 CYCADOLEPIS.

inwards. At the base there is a well-defined semicircular area
bounded by a distinct line; this is probably an attachment scar.
Very similar to DMacrosamia Douglast, Hill. Another specimen
with the same registered number has a similar form, and shows
surface wrinklings. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2131. Several specimens: in some the curvature of the
distal end is very pronounced.

V. 2131a. Smaller scales, about 5cm. by 4cm., closely
resembling those of Fittonia and Bucklandia; ef., ¢.g., Carruthers,’
pl. Ivi. fig. 1, and Saporta,’ pl. lvil. fig. 1.

V. 21316. Scale of medium size; shows similarly convex
surface and recurved apical portion, also distinct basal scar.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 26992. Part of a very large scale; reticulately marked
surface.

V. 26995. 6-5 cm. long, and about 5°5 cm. broad; here the
narrower basal end is bent sharply back, the opposite end shows
a well-defined angular margin.

V. 2699¢. 75cm. in length; similar in form to the large
scale..

V. 2799. Shows the same kind of attachment surface at the
base; the surface is marked by numerous dots and irregular lines
suggestive of insect ravages. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2749. Small scale showing distinct rectulate markings on
the surface. On the same piece of rock there is an impression
of a cycadean stem showing what appear to be the outlines of
petiole bases; possibly this may be a badly preserved piece of
a stem, to which the smaller scales were originally attached.
Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 (1), Carruthers.
2 (A. 2), Pal. Frang, vol. ii.
CARPOLITHES.: 101

V. 2132. Similar specimen, but larger, and the stem impression
more distinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2913. Part of a well-preserved scale; shows very clearly
the sharp angular contour; the general appearance is very similar
to that of a large recent cycadean scale. Cf. Macrozamia, sp.
Ecelesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Other specimens of similar Hury-Cycadolepis species: V. 2134,
piece of Sphenopteris Fontaine, Sew., on the same rock; V. 2236,
V. 2301, V. 2699d, V. 2828, V. 2929. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2800 and V. 2733. These specimens present rather a
different appearance to that of most of the larger scales; this
may, however, be due to folding over of the edges, of which
there is distinct evidence. Some of the specimens of Cycadolepis
are by no means unlike certain monocotyledous spathes, but there
can be little doubt as to their cycadean nature. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

Genus CARPOLITHES, Sternberg.
[Flor. Vorwelt, Fasc. iv. p. xl. 1823.]

Fossil seeds are abundant in rocks of various ages, and in some
cases their excellent preservation enables us to study in detail the
structure of both testa and nucellus, and to refer them, with
a considerable degree of certainty, to a particular class, family,
or genus of plants. The superb illustrations in Brongniart’s
posthumous work Recherches sur les graines fossiles silicifiées'
demonstrate in a striking manner, the excellent preservation of
isolated gymnospermous seeds under certain favourable con-
ditions; but in spite of the perfection of the mineralized tissues,
it is scarcely ever possible to assign the detached seeds to their
respective plants. In Mesozoic rocks seeds are by no means

 

1 Paris, 1881.,
102 CARPOLITHES.

uncommon, but their preservation is usually imperfect, and not
such as to throw any appreciable light on their exact botanical
position. The Wealden strata of England have as yet been
searched in vain, for any satisfactory indications of the existence
of angiospermous plants in the flora of that period, and this fact
leads us to the assumption that most probably the Wealden seeds
are either coniferous or cycadaceous. There are, however, the
detached tubers of Equisetites Burchardti, Dunk., and £. Yokoyama,
Sew., which may easily be mistaken for seeds. In the first part
of this Catalogue’ doubt was expressed as to the nature of the
oval bodies described as seeds by Stokes and Webb, and Mantell,
and by some authors referred to Eyuzsetites.

The name Carpolithes was proposed by Sternberg as a convenient
and comprehensive genus for ‘‘ Fructus seminavi mono- vel dicoty-
ledonea, solitaria, structura interna plane obliterata.” This term
has been adopted by many authors as a designation for isolated
seeds of doubtful position, and its use is in most cases more
appropriate than any term indicative of some special class or group
of plants. In 1849 Pomel proposed Ulospermum,? as a generic name
for fossil ‘fruits’ resembling those of the recent Cycadacee, but
this term, like many others suggested by the same writer, has
not been generally accepted. Schimper instituted the genus
Cycadinocarpus,? for ‘‘Semina subglobosa, ovata vel oblonga,
quoad magnitudinem valde variantia, nunc parvula, nunc majora
volumenque Castanee attingentia; epidermide plus minus crassa
instructa, levia, haud raro compressione mutua angulosa, epi-
dermide destituta solida, lignea, sublevia, striata, costata vel
reticulata, basi insertionis cicatrice lata notata, apice minute
apiculata.” In 1875 Saporta substituted Cycadospermum, as a
more fitting name for detached cycadean seeds than Schimper’s
genus Cycadinocarpus, on the grounds of an implied misconception
of the exact morphological nature of the seeds of cycads. The
genus is thus defined: ‘‘Semina e carpophyllis distracta post
maturationem in strata pervagata nune majora nunc plus minusve
parvula, plerumque ovata ovatoque-oblonga haud raro compressione

 

1 Vol. i. pp. 27, 28.
2 Pomel, p. 16.
5 Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 208.
CARPOLITHES. 103

mutua angulosa extus levia vel longitudinaliter striata costataque,
basi semper rotundiore insertionis cicatrice notata apice autem plus
Minusve attenuata.” }

As regards the difference between fossil specimens of cycadean
and coniferous seeds, it would seem that we cannot trust to any
convenient method of distinguishing, in all cases, between the
two groups of plants. The large oval, or almost spherical seeds
of certain cycads may generally be distinguished from the typical
furms of coniferous seeds, but in the latter group we have such
forms as Ginkgo, Cephalotaxus, and others, in which the size
approaches more closely to that of the cycadean ovule, than to
the smaller seeds of such conifers as Larix, Pinus, aud many
others. In many Conifere the presence of a membranous wing
affords a ready means of identification, at least as regards their
separation from Cycadacee, but the seeds of many conifers are
without any winged appendage, and even in the case of winged
seeds, the thin membrane might readily become detached before
the seed had been permanently enclosed in a mass of sediment.
Another obvious source of difficulty, worth referring to in this
connection, is the very great difference in size exhibited by the
seeds of the same plant at different stages of growth. The ripe
seeds of such a genus as Cycas, preserved with the wrinkled
reddish-brown outer coat intact, present a very different
appearance from those in which this coat has become detached,
thus exposing the perfectly smooth inner coat; and a still greater
contrast is afforded by the more spherical kernel (nucellus), with
its surface traversed by branching grooves marking the position
of vascular bundles.? On the whole, it would seem advisable to
follow the example of Schenk in his Flora der Grenzschichten,®
and make use of the old term Carpolithes for gymnospermous
Mesozoic seeds. In certain cases the character of the seeds, or
their frequent juxtaposition with cycadean fronds, may enable
us to speak of them as cycadean with reasonable certainty ;
when such is the case it will be well to give expression to our
more accurate knowledge, either by adopting Saporta’s genus,

 

1 Saporta (A. 2), Pal. Frang. vol. ii. p. 285.
? This is well shown in the seeds of Cycas circinalis.
3 Pl. xxxiii. figs. 5-9.
104 CARPOLITHES.

or, possibly the better plan, by adding the word cycadean or
Cycadacee as a descriptive epithet to Carpolithes. If some such
course as this were generally followed, there would be less cause
for the not altogether unwarranted criticisms, which students of
recent plants are in the habit of passing on the misplaced
dogmatism of paleobotanists. Our records of fossil plants ought
surely to be sufficiently trustworthy, to be made use of by
botanists in compiling statistics of the geological history of
any class or family of plants. It must be admitted that to
attempt a history of plant development or distribution in the
various epochs of the earth’s history, by simply accepting as
reliable data the examples of fossil plants, or fragments of
plants, described under the names of existing genera, or desig-
nated by terms plainly suggestive of botanical affinity, would
lead the too trustful student into hopeless error. Occasionally
a fossil seed may exhibit some definite and characteristic form,
for which some special specific term might be added, but in
the majority of cases where the individual differences are merely
those of size or slight variation in shape the use of specific
terms is to be deprecated. In Fontaine’s Potomac Flora several
seeds are recorded as species of Carpolithes, the genus being
used in this instance for the ‘“‘nut-like seeds of conifers.”!
Under the genus Cycadinocarpus the same author places ‘‘ various
horny seeds which resemble those of cycadean plants more than
those of conifers.””? It is admitted by Fontaine that the correct
placing of these seeds is impossible; his species are founded in
some cases on very slight differences in size and shape, and can
have but little taxonomic value. Saporta* has instituted various
species for the French Jurassic seeds referred to gymnosperms;
some of these show fairly well-marked characteristic features,
but in others it would be difficult to justify the adoption of
specific designations. In a recent paper by Dawson, several
gymnospermous seeds are wisely grouped together as examples
of Carpolithes.'

 

1 p. 264.

* p. 270.

8 Loe. cit. pp. 238-245.
* Dawson (2), p. 90.
CARPOLITHES. 105

Under certain circumstances, as suggested by Solms-Laubach
in speaking of Cycadites (Cycas) Steenstrupit, Heer,’ it may
be legitimate to refer seeds and fruits to certain species of plants,
even in the absence of any actual proof of organic connection ;
but it can only be in exceptional cases where the assuciation
of fronds and seeds renders such a course admissible. As an
example of what appears to be an instance of a supposed con-
nection, not sufficiently supported by facts, we may cite Heer’s
Zamites globuliferus,? where a frond occurs in association with
seeds.

Carpolithes.
Seeds of doubtful botanical position.

Carpolithes (Cycadacee).

 

Fie. 7.—(V. 2130*.) Carpolithes (Cycadacee).
a. and 6. Nat. size. e¢. Portion of 6 slightly magnified.

V. 2130*. Fig. 7.

This is a particularly well-preserved example of what must be
regarded as a cycadean seed. It is impossible to refer it to any
particular genus, but in all probability it belongs to some other

 

1 Fossil Botany, p. 86.
2 Fi. foss. Arct. vol..vi. pt. i. pl. iv. figs. 1-7, ete.
106 CARPOLITHES.

form than Cycadites, if we assume that genus to have possessed
seeds similar to those of the recent Cycas. Species of Macrozamia
possess ovules closely resembling the present specimen. The
seed has a length of 1:8cm., and is l-lem. broad. The mould
from which the kernel (Fig. 7b) is readily removed, is lined with
a thin structure probably representing the integumentary portion
of the testa (Fig. 7a); between this and the matrix there is
a layer of coaly substance. The kernel may probably be regarded
as a cast of the nucellus, with the impressions of the branched
vascular bundles clearly seen on its surface. The fossil figured
by Stokes and Webb as Carpolithus Mantelli,! shows in the
enlarged drawing similar branched markings on the surface,
suggestive of vascular strands. It may be that Mantell’s speci-
men should be retained under its original genus and not
transferred to Eguisetites, but it is difficult to speak with any
certainty, at all events in the absence of the type specimen.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2129, V. 2131, V. 2699. Large flattened and more or
less spherical bodies showing coaly substance on the exposed
surface; in V. 2131 the seed (?) is 4cm. in breadth. It is
possible that some of them may be scales and not true seeds,
but their general appearance is not unlike that of some recent
cycadean ovules, e.g. species of Cycas. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

Cf. V. 2180*, V. 2236. Small specimen of a badly preserved
seed.

V. 2827a. Seed with pointed apex, not unlike Cycadeospermum
obovatum, Font.2 V. 2256. Cast of nucellus with remains of
testa, similar to V. 2827a. V. 2700*. Cast and mould of
imperfect specimen. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

V. 8312. Probably a seed of some cycadean plant; it appears
to have split partially open along the longest diameter. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 (A.), pls. xlvi. and xlvii.
2 Potomac Flora, pl. cxxxv. fig. 13.
CARPOLITHES. 107

Carpolithes.

V. 2184. Part of a seed-like body. There are several small
circular holes on the surface of this and a few other specimens,
filled up with a fine brown dusty material, suggesting the
borings of some small animal. Similar examples are afforded by

V. 2739, V. 2918. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

The following specimens may also be included under Carpo-
lithes: WV. 2130, V. 21302, V. 21803, V. 2165, V. 2700,
V. 2739*, V. 2826, and V. 28270.

38369. Possibly an imperfect seed, but indeterminable.

Seed-like Bodies of Doubtful Position.
Cf. OOLITHES, sp.. CARRUTHERS.!

Pl IX. Fig. 5 (V. 27962). An oval body partially covered
with a chitinous-like coat; the dark brown and brittle
substance which occurs over part of the specimen, suggests some
resemblance to the dried reddish coat of a Cycas seed. The
central part does not show any signs of a nucellus or seed
structure ; it consists of an irregularly indented projecting portion
of the rock. The external skin exhibits no cellular structure
under the microscope.

Compare Oolithes sphericus, Carr.; the figures given by
Carruthers of this species, present a striking resemblance to
the present specimen and other similar forms in the Rufford
Collection. Buckman had previously identified these Stonesfield
slate bodies as reptilian eggs, and Carruthers’ examination of
the same material leads him to accept this determination. It
is probable that whatever position be assigned to the Jurassic
fossils, it may with equal force bé accepted for many of the
Wealden seed-like bodies.

V. 2796. In this specimen the outer brown skin has been
removed.

V. 2818. Smooth brown skin present. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

 

1 (2), p. 447, pl. xix.
108 FLORES.

V. 2825. Flattened and subspherical body, with a hard shiny
and dark brown skin more or less deeply indented. (Cf.
Carruther’s figures of Oolithes, sp.

V. 2828. Specimens showing a similar brown skin, enclosing
a smooth central kernel.

V. 2817. Small specimen with smooth surface, showing at
the two opposite ends of a diameter a number of very small
rounded prominences; these are just visible, as small dots, to:
the naked eye.

V. 2817a. Small body, 5mm. long, with smooth brown coat,
similar to V. 2796a, etc. V. 2165, fragment. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

FLORES.

In Solms-Laubach’s Fossi} Botany,’ we have a concise and
critical resumé of the various male and female cycadean flowers
described in paleobotanical literature prior to 1887. It will
be seen from this account, that our knowledge of the floral
structures of fossil cycadean plants is extremely meagre. In
the carpophylls of the recent Cycas, we have a well-marked
and peculiar form of female flower which is readily distinguished
from the cone-like collection of carpophylls met with in other
genera; occasionally these Cycas forms of flowers have been
found in close association with the sterile fronds of Cycadites,
and justify the conclusion that both structures formed parts of
the same plant. In other cases, however, we are less fortunate:
in the records of staminal or carpellary leaves, and there must
be considerable hesitation in accepting several of the examples
which have been described as true cycadean flowers.

It will be convenient to adopt Schimper’s genus Androstrobus
in speaking of a few Wealden specimens, of what appear to be
male flowers of some genus of cycadean plant.

 

1 Solms-Laubach (A.), p. 89.
ANDROSTROBUS. 109

Genus ANDROSTROBUS, Schimper.

[Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 199, 1870.]

Schimper has thus defined the genus: ‘‘Amenta cycadeacea
antherifera, cylindrica, e squamis imbricatis, latere postico
antheras sessiles ferentibus efformata.”

A sufficient definition of Androstrobus, would be to speak of
the genus as a convenient term to apply to such fossils as
resemble more or less closely the male flowers of recent cycads,
and which appear to belong to the Cycadacee.

The genus was founded on a specimen originally described by
Saporta from the Upper Bathonian of Etrochey as 4. zamioides,
but afterwards renamed A. Balduini) after the discoverer of the
specimen, the latter specific term being considered more suitable
as not suggesting such a definite resemblance to a particular form
of cycad. Saporta’s figures show the outline of several pollen-
sacs between the spirally arranged staminal leaves, attached
apparently in the same manner as in recent species. This
author describes another and more imperfect specimen of a male
cone, under the name Androstrobus (Zamiostrobus) Guerangert ;?
the same specimen having been previously referred to by
Brongniart* as an undoubted example of a male cycadean
flower. Saporta compares this fossil with the genus Dzoon, but,
as Solms-Laubach* has suggested, there seems to be but slender
grounds for such a comparison. The specimens described by
Nathorst® and Heer® respectively as Androstrobus borealis and
A. Sibirieus, are far from satisfactory, and cannot be accepted
as entirely trustworthy records of this genus. In addition to

 

1 Pal. Frang. vol. ii. p. 209, pl. exv. figs. 1 and 2.
2 Ibid. p. 37, pl. lxxviii. figs. 1-3.
3 Tableau, p. 64.
4 Loc. cit. p. 90.
5 (A. 1), Flor. Hoganis, p. 49, pl. ii. figs. 12 and 13, and pl. ii. (Helsingborg)
figs. 15 and 16.
6 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 47, pl. iv. figs. 14 and 15.
110 ANDROSTROBUS,

the genus Fricia of Velenovsky,' reference may also be made
to Zamites familiaris (Cord.)? from the Lower Quader of Bohemia,
which Corda and Carruthers* regard as an example of a male
cone; the figures of this form lend support to such an opinion.
The specimen described by Carruthers in his monograph on
cycadean stems as the ‘“‘antheriferous cone of Bucklandia’’* does
not seem to me to afford any distinct evidence in favour of such
a determination.

Androstrobus Nathorsti, sp. nov.

Pl. IX. Figs. 1-4.

Type. Specimens of imperfect flowers and detached staminal
leaves. British Museum.

It is difficult to give a definition of this species which shall
be in any sense complete. The following may serve to indicate
the most obvious features of this somewhat unusual form of
cycadean cone.

Axis fairly stout, bearing spirally disposed and more or
less triangular staminal scules; in section the scales have a
hexagonal outline, in side view they show a broad base in close
contact with the axis of the flower, and measure about 1-1'5cm.
in length, gradually tapered towards the apex, which is pointed
or slightly rounded. On some of the staminal leaves there are
rows of regularly placed angular depressions, probably repre-
senting the impressions of pollen-sacs, borne towards the basal
or proximal end of each scale.

V. 2701. Pl. IX. Figs. 3 and 4.

This specimen shows several fairly well-preserved scales of
a male flower, length about 6°5cm., breadth 4cm. The central
axis is not very clearly seen, but there are indications here and
there of the points of attachment of the sporophylls. The axis

 

1 (A. 1), Gym. Bohm. Kreid. p. 8, pl. iii.
2 Corda in Reuss (A.), Verstein. bohm. Kreid. p. 86, pl. xlix. figs. 10 and 11.

3 (3), p. 6.
4 (1), pl. liv. fig. 6.
ANDROSTROBUS. 111

appears to have been about lem. in breadth, but it is difficult
to estimate the’ dimensions with any accuracy. The surface of
the scales is of a brown colour; the longest measures 1:5 cm. in
a direction at right angles to the floral axis; the surface is con-
siderably wrinkled and bears obvious traces of having been folded
and crushed. Towards one end of the specimen the basal part
of a scale is seen in surface view, and on it are clearly preserved
what are taken to be the outlines of pollen-sacs (Figs. 3 and 4).
These are in the form of small depressed areas radiating from
the proximal portion of the scale surface; each depression is
bounded by a straight basal wall, and two slightly diverging
lateral walls, with two apical walls inclined to one another at
an angle of about 35°; from the apex there is a slight median
ridge passing to the basal wall. In the upper row there are
about 14 of these pollen-sac impressions, and below these there
are the remains of a lower set of similar structures. Traces of
the pollen-sacs occur on some of the other scales, but less clearly
preserved. The striking regularity with which these impressions
are arranged, is much more marked than in the pollen-sacs of
recent cycads. On the lower surface of a staminal leaf of Dzoon
or Encephalartos, we find on the removal of the pollen-sacs a
fairly distinct reticulate marking, but of much less regularity than
in the fossil. The angular outline of the sacs in the present
specimens may be due, to some extent, to the mutual pressure
of more or less oval structures, such as we have in the pollen-
sacs of recent male flowers.

The tapered free ends of the scales are somewhat similar to
the narrowed apices of the staminal leaves of species of Ence-
phalartos; eg. the male flower of E. <Altensteinii, Lehm, £.
pungens, Lehm., etc. Cf. Androstrobus Balduini, Sap., pl. cxv.
figs. 2a and 26.1 Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2810. Pl. IX. Fig. 1.

7cem. in length. This specimen shows several fairly well-
preserved scales somewhat closely set on a central axis which
is narrower than that in V. 2701. Each staminal leaf presents
a triangular, outline, with a more or less distinct median ridge

 

1 Loe. cit.
112 ANDROSTROBUS.

extending across the middle; if this be clearly seen in the scales
on the right-hand side of the axis in Pl. IX. Fig. 1, towards
the upper margin of some of the scales there are clear indica-
tions of another projecting angle, ¢.g. the third from the bottom
on the right of the axis in Fig. 1. There is a close similarity
in form between the detached scale figured by Carruthers as
Araucarites Phillipsit, Carr.,! and those of the present specimens.
The median line, as seen in the scales of Fig. 1, should be com-
pared with the prominent lateral angles seen in the end view
of the scales in Pl. IX. Fig. 2. In one place on the surface
of the argillaceous matrix, there were some fairly distinct
impressions of pollen-sacs. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2811. Pl. IX. Fig. 2.

This shows several staminal leaves in end view, some being
apparently in place and retaining the spiral arrangement. There
can be little doubt as to the identity of these with V. 2810 and
V. 2701, the different appearance in the present example being
due to the fact that here we have a view of the end, and in the
previous specimen, a view of the flattened sides of the scales.
The exposed ends show a central depression, and a distinct
hexagonal outline. The shape and general appearance of the
scales remind one of the staminal leaves in Zamia, sp.; but in
the present specimen we are presumably looking at the basal, and
not the distal ends of the scales; the specimens V. 2810 and
V. 2701 show the much greater width of the base than the
apex. It may be, however, that in Fig. 2 (V. 2811) the
apices have been depressed, and we have a view of the apical
rather than the basal parts of the scales.

- Cf. Androstrobus Guerangert, Brong.? Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 2236. A smaller specimen than V. 2701 and V. 2810;
the remains of a central axis with a few well-preserved scales
attached. No trace of pollen-sacs. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

 

1 Carruthers (5), pl. ii. fig. 8.
2 Loe, cit. pl. lxxviii. fig. 1.
CONITES. 113

Genus CONITES, Sternberg.
[Flor. Vorwelt, fase. iii. p. 36, 1823.]

Several writers have called attention to the close resemblance
between the cones of certain Conifere and those of some species
of cycads. In attempting to determine the true nature of a fossil
cone, of which the internal structure is either very imperfect or
entirely wanting, we are met by the great difficulty of clearly
discriminating between the female flowers of these two groups of
plants. Carruthers’ has mentioned certain distinctive characters
of cycadean cones which, he considers, should enable us to
distinguish them from the corresponding structures of conifers,
but the main differences which he notes are such as can only
be recognized by the help of internal structure; he writes:
“Any difficulty in determining the affinity of a cone by its
external characters can easily be solved, as to whether it is
coniferous, cycadean, or proteaceous, by a transverse section,
which would show, if the structure is even a little preserved,
the form of the scale and the position of the seed.”? Unless
the structure is fairly well preserved there is often no little
difficulty in deciding in favour of one or other of the two
orders of plants, Conifere and Cycadacea.

In view of the generally recognized difficulty of clearly
separating the cones of these plants, and of distinguishing some
cones from small cycadean stems, there must be a certain amount
of hesitation in choosing the most suitable generic term for cone-
like fossils of doubtful affinity.

Endlicher* proposed the name Zamiostrobus for a cone originally
figured by Lindley and Hutton as Zamia macrocephala*; but
Carruthers has since shown that the original reference of this
fossil to the Cycadacee@ cannot be accepted, and it is now known

 

1 Carruthers (4), p. 535.
2 Thid. p. 536.

* p. 72 (No. 707).

4 Fossil Flora, pl. exxxvi.
114 CONITES.

as Pinites macrocephala (L. and H.).1 Owing to the erroneous
inclusion of this specimen in the genus Zamiostrobus, and the
unwarranted application of the name to cones which are clearly
not cycadean, Carruthers proposed the generic name Cycadeostrobus
as a more suitable designation for what are ‘‘ supposed to be fruits
of Cycadee.” In speaking of the cones figured by Carruthers
under this genus, Solms-Laubach? reasonably suggests that possibly
several of the fossils may be either small stems or true cones. The
only certain cone he considers to be that figured as Cycadeostrobus
Brunonis, Carr., but this, he adds, ‘‘looks more like a cone of
Araucaria than of Cycadee.” Having had an opportunity of
examining Carruthers’ type specimens, I must confess to a con-
siderable amount of scepticism in accepting them as well-authenti-
cated examples of cycadean flowers.

In cases where it seems impossible to express oneself with any
degree of certainty as to whether a specimen is a small stem or
cone, the better plan is probably to give expression to the doubtful
affinity by leaving the fossil unnamed, or by prefixing a query to
any name which it may have already received. The practice of
replacing some of the older and more indefinite names of the older
palzobotanists by newer terms more expressive of definite botanical
affinity, has not always marked an advance in accurate knowledge.
Such a name as Conites does not, indeed, convey any particular
information to the mind of botanists as to the nature of the
fossils so designated, but, on the other hand, Zamiostrobus or
Cycadeostrobus both definitely suggest either the male or female
flowers of some form of cycad.

In the first volume of this Catalogue the term <Algites® was
proposed as a useful generic designation for doubtful forms of
fossil -Alg@, in preference to the more committal and frequently
misleading names often made use of. Although such a course
as this is, in one sense, rather retrogressive than progressive,
yet it would at all events minimise the chances of possible error
if we adopted the old name Conztes for several of the cones
previously referred to the Cycadacee on what appears to be too

 

1 Carruthers (4), p. 538.
2 Loe. eit. p. 92.
3 Seward (2), p. 2.
CONITES. 115

often insufficient evidence. If we have distinct cycadean cones
before us, the name Cycadeostrobus would seem a suitable term
to apply to them. As in the case of the genus Carpolithes, we
may always give expression to any bias towards one or other
group of plants, by adding the word Cycadee or Conifer@’ as
qualifying epithets to the more comprehensive generic name.

I would suggest, then, the revival of the old genus Conttes?
as a convenient generic name for cones of doubtful botanical
affinity.

Conites elegans (Carr.).

1867. Cycadeostrobus elegans, Carruthers, Journ. Bot. vol. v. p. 7, pl. lvii.
fig. 9.

1867. Cycadeostrobus ovatus, Carruthers, loc. cit. p. 6, pl. lvii. fig. 1.

1870. Zamiostrobus elegans, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 203.
Zamiostrobus ovatus, Schimper, loc. cit. p. 203.

1871. Zamiostrobus elegans, Schenk, Palaontographica, vol. xix. p. 228.
Zamiostrobus ovatus, Schenk, loc. cit. p. 228.

1889. Cycadeostrobus elegans, Bristow, Geol. I. Wight, p. 248.
Cycadeostrobus ovatus, Bristow, loc. cit. p. 258.

Type. Pyritized specimens, British Museum.

After an examination of the type specimens of Cycadeostrobus
elegans and C. ovatus which Carruthers has described, I have
ventured to include both examples under one specific name. The
pyritized specimens do not appear to present any distinctive
characters which can be regarded as of specific value. Unfor-
tunately the preservation is not such as to enable us to prove
either cycadean or coniferous relationship. Carruthers speaks of
Cycadeostrobus elegans as an ‘‘ovoid cone, truncate below; scales
nearly as deep as they are wide,” ® and of C. ovatus as an ‘‘ ovate
cone; scales somewhat broader than deep.” In the absence of
structural characters it is impossible to give any more complete
diagnosis.

 

1 The genus Strobilites was suggested in 1840 by Schimper and Mougeot for
certain cones from the Triassic beds of the Vosges.

2 (3), p. 7.
3 Ibid. p. 6.
116 TRUNCI.

40962. Journ. Bot. vol. v. 1867, pl. lvii. fig. 9. One of the
two specimens is the type of Carruthers’ species, Cycadeostrobus
elegans. In the better specimen, as shown in the figure,
the pyritized cone has been more or less compressed ; at
the base there is a central depression or scar of attachment of
a peduncle. The surface view of the scales suggests a wearing
down of their distal ends. The second example is less perfect
than the type specimen. Brook Point. Lady Hasiings Coll.

V. 2543. Two specimens, very friable. Cf. Carruthers’ figure
of Cycadeostrobus ovatus, Carr. Possibly Cycadeostrobus truncatus,
Carr.,! might also be included as a synonym of the present
species. Brook. Presented by A. Dendy, Esq., 1888.

V. 63. Imperfect pyritized specimens. These and V. 2543 are
somewhat larger than the cone represented by Carruthers in Journ.
Bot. vol. v. pl. lvii. fig. 9; but they are probably examples of the
same species. Brook. Purchased 1882.

V. 2853. Portion of a flattened cone; apparently the same as
40962. Sussex. Beckles Coll.

V. 385. Very imperfect pyritized specimens. Brook.
Presented by C. Westendarp, Esq., 1884.

TRUNCI.

In the introductory remarks? on cycadean fronds it was
suggested that the use of some more general term than that of
Cycadacez, might prove advantageous in dealing with the remains
of extinct cycad-like leaves. The chief reason for such a proposal
is to be found in the character of the floral structures of the
genus, for which Carruthers instituted the name of Bennettites.
This plant, as we have already shown, cannot well be included
in the class Cycadacee as at present defined for recent species;

 

1 (8), p. 6, pl. lvii. fig. 3.
oP he
TRUNCI. 117

the same necessity for a more comprehensive class designation is
equally apparent in the case of cycad-like stems. It would be
impossible to so far extend the present limits of the Cycadacea, as
to incorporate under that term all the fossil stem structures in
which characteristic features of cycadean anatomical structure
have been recognized; but we must in any case clearly under-
stand that such stems as Bennettites and others, although very
closely related to recent cycads in histological details, are,
however, separated from living forms by certain peculiarities
in the morphology of their reproductive organs. The above
heading, therefore, of Zrunei does not exclude such stems as
are known to be associated with a bennettitean form of floral
structure; it must be taken in a more comprehensive sense than
merely including stem structures which agree in all essential
features with living members of the Cycadee or Zamice.

The study of cycadean stems has been raised to considerable
importance by the fact of the preservation, in several instances,
of more or less perfect internal structure in fossil specimens.
As with fronds, so here again we are debarred from any complete
diagnoses of many fossil stems by the isolated occurrence of the
leaves and their supporting axes. We must for the present
restrict ourselves to an investigation of facts as regards the
anatomy of stem structures; and, as in Rennettites, of the
accompanying floral shoots.

The early records of so-called cycadean stems in Paleozoic
rocks have already been referred to. It is often a matter of
some considerable difficulty to confidently identify a structureless
cast or impression of a cycadean trunk; the imperfectly preserved
stems of some forms of Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, or Lepidofloyos
may simulate fairly closely the characteristic appearance of
cycadean stems. In Grand’Eury’s recent monograph on the
Coal-field of Gard there is a figure of Lepzdofloyos laricinus,
Sternb.,1 which may be reasonably compared to a stem of
a cycadean plant, bearing lateral appendages suggestive of a
bennettitean inflorescence. The tree fern genus Protopteris, with
its leaf-trace bundle scars imperfectly shown or apparently
absent, may be mistaken for a cycadean axis with its prominent

 

1 Grand’ Eury (1), pl. vi. fig. 17.
18 TRUNCI.

petiole bases. An example of such resemblance is afforded by
a specimen figured by Hosius and von Marck as probably Proto-
pteris punctata, Sternb.; the plant represented in their plate xliii.
fig. 1861 might well be described as an imperfect cycadean stem.
_Again, it is almost impossible in some cases to decide with
certainty between an imperfect cone and a small cycadean stem.
The fossil described by Lesquereux from Colorado as Zamdostrobus
mirabilis,? is obviously a badly preserved stem with basal portions
of petioles. An examination of such a stem ‘as that of the living
species of Cycas, is sufficient to demonstrate the difficulties
_attending our attempts to separate into specific forms fragments
‘of imperfect stems. The upper part of an old Cycas stem with
its bud scales still in place, presents a very different appearance to
.the lower portion of the same axis, from which the scale leaves and
petiole bases have become detached, leaving clean-cut rhomboidal
scars. As a general rule we have a fairly easy task in identifying
fossils as cycadean stems. The frond scars and scale leaves which
clothe the woody axis afford a convenient distinguishing feature ;
but, on the other hand, it is important to keep in view the existence
of other forms of stems among recent cycads, in which the well-
known covering of leaf bases is absent. In such plants as Zamia
Loddigestt, Mig., and Z. Skinnert, Warsz., the peculiar branched
stem, with its transversely elongated wrinklings and small knob-
like protuberances, presents a totally different aspect to the trunks
of Cycas, Encephalartos, Dioon, and others. It may be noted
in this connection that the Lower Greensand fossil which Konig
named Dracena Benstedtii,? and of which the National Collection
contains several examples from the Kentish Rag of Maidstone,
and a few recently added by Mr. Rufford from the Ecclesbourne
Wealden Beds, shows a striking resemblance to the stems of the
above-named forms of Zamia. The fossils have at all events no
claim to a generic name implying a monocotyledonous affinity.

We cannot here undertake a descriptive account of the
‘morphology of recent cycadean stems; but for information on
this head, reference may be made to the treatment of these

 

1 (A. 1), Paleontographica, vol. xxvi.
2 Lesquereux (1), p. 70, pl. Ixiii. fig. 1.
3 Morris (A), Brit. Foss. p. 8.
TRUNCI. 119

plants in Engler and Prantl’s Die natirlichen pflansenfamilien?
Saporta* and Renault? have also given some account of the
living ‘cycads, and further details may be found in the writings
of Brongniart,‘ Miquel,’ Richard,® Karsten,’ Carruthers,® Solms-
Laubach, and others.

By far the greater number of known fossil stems have been
found in Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic strata, and it is with
these Mesozoic examples that we are at present concerned. In
Brongniart’s Prodrome’ there is recorded but one example of
a cycadean stem; this is the plant described by Buckland from
the Portland dirt-bed, and for which the French author suggested
the name of Mantellia. The common Clathraria Lyelli, Mant.,
is included by Brongniart among the Monocotyledons. In the
Tableau we find several additions to the list of cycadean stems,
and among them is the interesting genus Medullosa of Cotta;
this Paleozoic plant has been subjected to a detailed investigation
by Goppert and Stenzel," Schenk,” and others, and we may
probably regard it as an extinct type of cycadean structure,
using the term cycadean in a wide sense. In 1828 Buckland®
figured and described some large specimens of silicified stems
from the Isle of Portland, and, with the concurrence of Robert
Brown, instituted a new family, Cycadeoidea, for their reception.
Buckland fully recognized the close resemblance between these
“petrified birds’ nests”? and the stems of certain cycads; but
a new family name was proposed on account of some peculiarity
as regards the position and size of the rings of wood. In a

 

1 Teil. ti, Abth.i.p.6. ” Pal. Frang. vol. ii.
3 (A. 4), Cours bot. foss. vol. i. p. 33.

4 (2). 5 (1) and (3).

® Richard. 7 Karsten.

§ Carruthers (1). See also Solms-Laubach (8).
9 p. 92. Wp. 59.

11 Géppert and Stenzel.—In speaking of the Medullosee, Solms-Laubach
remarks (Fossil Botany, p. 100) that ‘‘that in their anatomical structure they
show many points of resemblance to the Cycadee, though they depart from them,
according to the most recent investigations, in some important particulars.’’

2 Schenk. 13 Buckland (1).
120 TRUNCI.

later work,! this author has given some further description of
the Portland fossils, and discusses the question of terminology ;
the genus Cycadites being regarded by Brown as preferable to
Cycadeoidea, and the name of HMantellia, proposed by Brongniart,
is thought to be unsuitable, having been already used by Parkinson
for a genus of fossil Zoophytes. At the present day? it is un-
fortunately not always held that the use of a particular name
by paleozoologists, is a fatal objection to the adoption of the same
for a fossil plant. Among the new figures added by Buckland to
those given in his earlier paper, we find some drawings of longi-
tudinal sections of petioles and axillary buds; the latter have since
been fully described by Carruthers as the inflorescence of
Bennettites. In 1870 an important monograph appeared by the
latter author on Fossil cycadean stems from the Secondary rocks
of Britain;? the memoir contains full reference to earlier records
of cycadean stems, and includes figures and descriptions of the
following new genera — Yatesia, Fittonia, Williamsonia, and
Bennettites. Five years later, several additions were made by
Saporta* to our knowledge of the stems of fossil cycads; he
founded the genera Bolbopodium, Cylindropodium, Platylepis,
Clathropodium, and Cycadeomyelon. The numerous terms added or
substituted for those previously proposed by Carruthers have
involved the terminology of cycadean stem structures in some
confusion. In more recent years we have a valuable contribution
from Solms-Laubach and Capellini® on the examples of bennettitean
stems preserved in Italian museums. These authors limit the use
of the term Bennettites to a single species, B. Grbsonianus, Carr.,
and in a still later preliminary paper by Lester Ward,® Carruthers’
genus is absorbed into the more comprehensive Cycadeoidea. We
may look for an important monograph at an early date by Lester
Ward and Knowlton on the exceedingly fine series of American
cycadean stems. In Dana’s Manual of Geology’ mention is

 

1 (2), p. 453.

2 See Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. 1. 1894, p. 435.
3 Carruthers (1).

4 Pal. France. vol. ii, p. 245,

5 Capellini.

8 Ward (1), p. 78.

7 p. 472.
BUCKLANDIA. 121

made of some large stumps of cycads having been found near
Baltimore, Maryland, and their age is spoken of by Tyson as
probably Upper Jurassic. Fontaine’s Potomac Flora‘ contains
a few photographs of these Maryland stems, and a splendid
specimen has lately been received by the Botanical Department
of the British Museum. The few facts we so far possess as to
these American stems lead us to expect a descriptive monograph
of exceptional interest.?

The material so far collected from Upper Jurassic and Lower
Cretaceous strata has already yielded valuable information with
regard to the anatomy of the vegetative, and in some instances
of the reproductive, structures of Mesozoic cycadean plants. To
further extend our knowledge of these various fossil species, a more
intimate acquaintance with the several types of recent cycads
is much to be desired; and, as Solms-Laubach* points out, we
possess no detailed and modern account of the large tuberous
stems long ago described by Buckland from the dirt-beds of
Portland.

Genus BUCKLANDIA, Presl.
[Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt, fase. iv. p. xxiii. 1825.]

This genus was instituted by Presl for a plant discovered by
Mantell in the Wealden of Tilgate; the same fossil had been
previously referred by Stokes and Webb to Clathraria,* a term
proposed by Brongniart® in 1822 for certain forms of sigillarian
stems. Mantell® was the first to give a description of these Tilgate
plants, but he proposed no name for them, merely pointing out
a probable affinity with the Huphorbiacee, or possibly with the
arborescent ferns. Carruthers pays a tribute to the ‘‘ remarkable
discrimination”’ with which Pres] recognized the cycadean nature

 

1 Fontaine (A. 2), pls. clxxiv.—clxxx.

2 MacBride.

3 Fossil Botany, p. 99.

4 Stokes and Webb (A.), Trans. Geol. Soc. [2] vol. i. p. 421.
5 (8), p. 209.

6 Mantell (A. 3), Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 42.

7 Loe, cit. p. 682.
/ 122 BUCKLANDIA.

of the English fossils. In the Zableau Brongniart includes Mantell’s
plant in the Liliacee, noting at the same time its resemblance to
the stem of a cycad. Schimper? retains Clathraria for plants of
the type of Clathraria anomala, Stokes and Webb (C. Lyelli,
Mant.); and Saporta,? who follows Carruthers in preferring the
name Bucklandia to Clathraria, speaks of the plant figured by
Schenk as C. Lyell: as probably a species of Carruthers’ genus
Fittonia. Nathorst, in his Floran vid Bjuf,t on the other hand,
includes under Clathraria two new species, but in the latter part
of the same work he substitutes Bucklandia® for Stokes and
Webb’s genus. Nathorst’s specimens are imperfect fragments
of stems with alternating series of narrower and crowded leaf-
scars, and broader and more‘openly arranged leaf bases; he
compares them with the stem of Cycas.

The separation of such conventional genera as Bucklandia and
those proposed by Saporta, is often a matter of great difficulty,
and so long as we have only imperfect external or internal casts
to deal with, there must always be a certain amount of doubt
as to the existence of true generic and specific differences.
Carruthers thus defines the genus Bucklandia:—

“Trunk cylindrical, sometimes bifurcating, reticulate, with the
scars of the bases of the leaves, which are arranged in alternating
series of large and small scars, the large being placed on swellings
and the small on constrictions of the stems. Androecium a cone (?),
gyneecium a terminal crown of leaves bearing seeds on their some-
what altered margins.” ®

The so-called male cone referred to in this definition was
discovered in the same series of strata as those in which
Bucklandia occurs; it is assigned to this genus on the strength
of its occurrence in the same beds, and on account of a resemblance
which its scales present to the sporophylls of a male flower of
the recent species of Cycas. In the absence of more satisfactory
evidence than is afforded by this single imperfect specimen, the
nature of which does not appear to be by any means established,
we are not in a position to include the male flower in a definition
of Presl’s genus. The alternating swellings and constrictions

 

1 Brongniart (A. 4), p. 91. 4 Nathorst (A. 1), p. 77.
2 Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 182. 5 Ibid. p. 124.
3 Loe. cit. p. 307. 8 Loe. cit. p. 682.
BUCKLANDIA,. 123

of the stem, and the slight difference in the form and size of
the leaf-scars, led Carruthers to draw a close parallel between
Bucklandia and Cycas, and to infer the nature of the female
flowers.| He writes: ‘If the interpretation I have given of
the stem of Bucklandia be correct, and if there be good reason,
from a morphological point of view, for connecting with it the
seeds and male cone found in the same beds, we have a plant
which, in these known particulars, cannot be separated generically
from Cyeas.”? In addition to the original species, Bucklandia
anomala (8. and W.), Carruthers proposes a second specific name
for certain Wealden stems which he considers to be distinct from
Stokes and Webb’s type. An examination of the British Museum
material does not appear to favour this separation into two
distinct forms, and I have ventured to incorporate both of the
species into B. anomala. We cannot hope to separate such
imperfect and structureless specimens into specific forms of any
real value, seeing what marked variations in surface features we
must expect to find in examples of cycadean stems clothed with
a number of more or less decayed leaf bases. It may be noted
that the upper portion of the specimen of Bucklandia anomala
figured by Carruthers in pl. liv. fig. 1, shows a close approximation
in form to that of some forms of the genus Fittonia.

Bucklandia anomala (Stokes and Webb).

1824. Clathraria anomala, Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soc. [2] vol. i.
p- 422, pls. xlv., xlvi. fig. 8; pl. xlvii. fig. iv.

1827. Clathraria Lyelli, Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 52, pl. i. fig. 2;
pl. ii. figs. 4 and 5.

1828. Clathraria Lyelli, Brongniart, Prodrome, p. 200.

1833. Clathraria Lyelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 233, pl. i. figs. i., ii.,
and vi.

1844. Clathraria Lyelli, Mantell, Medals, vol. i. p. 182, fig. 44.

1847. Clathraria Lyelli,? Mantell, Geol. Excurs. I. Wight, p. 292.

1848. Clathraria Lyelli, Bronn, Index pal. nomencl.

 

1 This suggested resemblance to Cycas does not appear to me very close;
a comparison of the fossil stem and its pith cast with the stem and pith cast
of Macrozamia, sp., reveals a striking similarity. ,

2 Carruthers, Joc. cit. p. 685.

3 The specimen figured by Mantell (p. 293), Abth. i. p. 305, as Clathraria
Lyelli is a waterworn fragment of Bennettites. i
124 BUCKLANDIA.

1850. Clathraria Lyelli, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 314.
1851. Clathraria Lyelli, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth.
iii. No. 2, p. 25.
1851-52. Clathraria Lyelli, Bronn, Leth. geog. vol. ii. p. 68, pl. xxviii. fig. 7.
1854, Clathraria Lyelli, Morris, Brit. Foss. p. 6. :
1870. Bucklandia anomala, Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 686,
pl. liv. figs. 1-3.
Bucklandia Mantelli, Carruthers, ibid. p. 686, pl. liv. fig. iv.
1870. Clathraria Lyelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 182.
1871. Clathraria Lyelli, erhenh Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 227, pl. xxx.
fig. 7.
1874. Clathraria Lyelli, Bahimne, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ili. p. 533.
Clathraria Mantelli, Schimper, ibid. p. 5338.
1875. Clathraria Lyelli, Topley, Weald, p. 409.
1889. Clathraria Lyeili, Bristow, Geol. I. Wight, p. 258.

Type. Pith casts and structureless casts of the cortical surface
of stems. British Museum.

In 1822 Mantell gave a brief description of some fossil stems
from Tilgate Forest for which he proposed no name, but suggested
that they might be allied to the Huphorbiacea, or possibly to certain
arborescent ferns. Two years later Stokes and Webb proposed
to include these fossils in the genus Clathraria, and gave them
the name of C. anomala; the surface-markings suggested to them
a resemblance to the recent Zamia and Cycas. In the Geology
of the South-East of Hngland Mantell claims priority for his
name of Clathraria Lyelli; he notes the occurrence of imperfect
leaf fragments in association with the stems, and speaks of them
as linear-lanceolate in shape. Having mentioned such plants as
he considers most closely allied to the Tilgate fossils, Mantell
adds: ‘the impressions of the petioles on the bark bear a great
resemblance to those on the stems of Cycas revoluta and
C. circinalis.” In a later work’ the same writer speaks of the
axis, roots, leaves, and probably fruit of Clathraria as having been
discovered in close association or connection with one another.
He gives a woodcut showing some of the long linear-lanceolate
leaves attached to the stem, and remarks that impressions of such
yucca-like leaves have often come under his notice. It is
unfortunate that none of the specimens of Clathraria afford any
evidence whatever as to the form of the leaves as described by

 

1 Mantell, Medals, vol. i. p. 182.
BUCKLANDIA. 125

Mantell. In the younger stems Mantell notes that the internal
axis (pith cast) cannot be distinguished from the outer cortical
portion.

Carruthers! gives the following detailed definition of Bucklandia
anomala: ‘Scars of the leaves subrhomboidal, the lateral angles
more or less truncate, inferior angle acute, the superior obtuse or
somewhat rounded. The surface of the scar in some specimens
marked with a triradiate ridge. The smaller scars oblong, with
blunt lateral angles, obtuse inferior, and slightly rounded, almost
straight superior angle; the scars equal in breadth to the larger
ones, but not nearly so deep; the cicatrix on the, upper margin.
The bases of the leaves are set somewhat obliquely on the stem,
their upper margin following the direction of the right-hand
spiral. Each series of leaves occupies a considerable length of the
stem. The phyllotaxy is represented by the fraction +f;.”’

The new species, Buchklandia Mantelli, is thus described:
“Scars of the leaves rhomboidal, the lateral angles acute, the
inferior and superior angles obtuse, the latter somewhat rounded.
The small scars equal in breadth to the large ones, and increasing
in depth from the bottom of the constriction upwards. Each
swelling of the stem bearing three or four series of leaves, the
constricted portion much longer, and crowded with the smaller
scars, forming twelve or fourteen vertical series. The base of the
leaves set horizontally on the stem. The phyllotaxy is represented
by the fraction +45.” It will be noticed that the more acute
lateral angles of the leaf-scars and certain other slight differences,
constitute the chief distinctive features of Buchklandia Mantelli,
Carr. The close agreement between these two forms will be
pointed out in the following descriptive notes on the British
Museum specimens :—

In the original figures of Bucklandia anomala a specimen is
shown with the cortical portion of the stem separated by some
coaly substance—no doubt the carbonized remains of the wood—
from a central sandstone cast; the latter, with its ‘‘interrupted
longitudinal ridges,’’ being a cast of the pith cavity, and the ridges
the impressions of spaces in the xylem cylinder which were

 

1 Loc. cit. p. 686.
2 Ibid. p. 686.
126 BUCKLANDIA.

originally occupied by the cells of the primary medullary rays.
In speaking of the numerous specimens of these pith casts,
Carruthers admits the impossibility of referring them with any
certainty to their respective species of bucklandian stems, and
suggests that probably they may belong to three or four distinct
forms of the genus. Saporta’ has instituted a comprehensive
genus, Cycadeomyelon, with the following definition: ‘‘ Medulla
centralis primum substantiz cellularis disperditione evanida, dein
sedimento cylindrum lignosum intus vacuum cumulorite substitula
et tunc post ligni circumfusi abolitionem cylindrum plenum plus
minusve compressum fasciculorum meatuumque impressionibus
superficialiter notatum efformans.”’

In cases where we cannot be certain as to the relation between
casts of the pith cavity and those of the cortical surface of a stem,
it will be convenient to make use of Saporta’s genus as a useful
designation to express the absence of sufficient data for any
more accurate identification. In some specimens we have the
clathrarian pith cast enclosed in a bucklandian cortex, but in
most cases the internal and external casts have been separated.
Although very probably, as Carruthers suggests, the detached
pith casts belong to more than one species of Bucklandia, yet
the very striking resemblance between those internal casts, which
are still surrounded by the cortical surface, and the isolated
specimens is sufficient reason for the inclusion of such forms
under the present genus. Hosius and von der Marck? have
described an Aptien fossil stem as Clathrarda (?) galtiana, and
compare it with Clathraria Lyelli as figured by Schenk*; it is,
however, probably not identical with the English type, and
should perhaps be referred to the genus Fittonia.

8262. Figured by Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soc. [2]
vol. i. pl. xlv. fig. 1. Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, pl. ii. fig. 1.¢
Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. pl. liv. fig. 3.

From one end of the specimen the cast of the hollow pith
projects beyond the encasing wood and cortex; it shows the

 

1 Loe. cit. p. 331.

2 (A. 1), Palwontographica, vol. xxvi. pl. xlii. fig. 180.

3 (A. 2), Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxx. fig. 7.

4 Mantell explains the repetition of Stokes and Webb’s plates in his ‘ Illus-
trations of the Geology of Sussex’’ in a note on page 52 of that work.
BUCKLANDIA. 127

characteristic ridges’ of Clathraria. The petiole scars have
rounded or truncate lateral angles, but those towards the lower
part of the specimen have their lateral angles more acute; this
is indicated in Carruthers’ figure on the left of the pith cast.
Probably specifically identical with specimen V. 3309, figured
by Carruthers as Bucklandia Mantelli. Tilgate Forest.

8358. Figured by Stokes and Webb, Joc. ct. pl. xlv. fig. 2.
Mantell, Joc. ct. pl. il. fig. 2.

The figure of this specimen does not do full justice to the
details shown on the stem surface. If some of the scars be
compared with the lower petiole bases of V. 3308 it will be found
to be a matter of some difficulty, not to say impossible, to point
to any distinct difference between the two forms, the former of
which Carruthers speaks of as Bucklandia Mantelli, and the latter
as B. anomala.

A second smaller specimen in the form of a slightly com-
pressed hollow cast of the bark with weathered petiole bases, and
on the upper portion bearing scars of scale leaves. Very similar
to Mantell’s pl. iii. fig. 4¢. As shown in Mantell’s figure, there
is a distinct projecting ridge above the petiole scar, and separated
by a depression from the main part of the petiole; this is pro-
bably due to the irregular or unequal weathering of scleren-
chymatous and parenchymatous tissue. Cf. a stem of Cycas.
Tilgate.

V. 3308. Figured by Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, pl. i. fig. 2,
and by the same author in Illust. Geol. Sussex, pl. i. fig. 2.

Here again the figures do not do justice to the specimen. In
this stem the petiole scars are clearly preserved and larger than
in the other examples of the same species; they are not so much
obscured, as in many specimens, by the irregular surface ridge
and projections which Carruthers regards as the remains of a
gummy exudation on the original plant stem. Some of the more
prominent scales resemble the form which occurs in close associa-
tion with V. 2749, and the lower portions of some of the larger
scales suggest a reticulate marking like that in V. 2749 and in
several of the isolated scales. The lateral angles of the scars are
for the most part rounded or obtuse, but in some the angles
128 BUCKLANDIA.

are much more acute. The form of many of the leaf base scars
points to a partially decayed petiole rather than a clean-cut
surface of a persistent corky, base. Cf. Carruthers, loc. ext.
pl. liv. fig. 1; of. also Fittonda. Tilgate Forest.

V. 3309. Figured by Carruthers, pl. liv. fig. 4, as Bucklandia
Manielli.

In this specimen the two kinds of scars are clearly shown,
also the increased diameter of the axis where the large scars
occur. The lateral angles of the scale scars are more obviously
truncate than those of the petiole bases. Cf. 46644. Cuckfield.

V. 3310. Figured by Carruthers, pl. liv. fig. 2.

In describing this specimen Carruthers speaks of a “‘ triradiate
ridge’’ on the surface of the scars, but I am unable to recognize
any such character; the markings are probably the result of
some secondary changes and cannot be regarded as an original
character.

V. 713. This specimen shows the clathrarian pith cast, as in
8262, but much more clearly. The flattened internal cast has
a length of 45cm., and exhibits the usual surface features
characteristic of Clathraria Lyell. Part of it projects beyond
the surrounding cortical cast, but it is enclosed to some extent
by the remains of leaf bases, and between the cortical shell and
the pith there is a space about 5mm. in width, here and there
filled with coal; this no doubt represents the portion of the stem
originally occupied by woody tissue. The pith case is flattened
and shows alternations of broader and narrower portions; the
surface markings, in the form of narrower and tapered ridges,
do not appear to be disposed with any regularity. The large
leaf bases are approximately 3 cm. in depth and 4:3 cm. in breadth.
Some of the leaf bases have projecting upper surfaces, as in
V. 3308, suggesting partially decayed petioles, but in other parts
of the stem the scars are much flatter and more like the clean-
cut bases of detached fronds.

V. 7132. 23cm. in length. In the broader and lower part
of the specimen the petiole bases are fairly large, and have much
the same form as in V. 713.
BUCKLANDIA. 129

V. 713. Poor specimen. On one side an irregularly marked
surface is exposed, which prcebably represents the impression of
the external portion of the wood. Hastings. Dawson Coit.

V. 21323. Imperfect impression of a stem. Shows some resem-
blance to V. 2182, but differs in having two well-marked forms
of scars, and in the absence of ramenta. Part of a scale in
close connection with the stem, identical with V. 2699, etc.
Mr. Rufford informs me that he has frequently found large
scales, such as V. 2799, in association with this form of stem;
the base of V. 2799 might well have been in attachment with
scars like those of the present specimen.

? V. 2132c. A small specimen showing petiole scars: this may
be an example of Bucklandia, but it also closely resembles the
genus Fittonia, and its precise nature must be a matter of un-
certainty. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2749. Small piece of a stem with two or three fairly distinct
petiole scars, and some narrow and longer scars to which scales
were probably attached. A single detached scale, with the
reticulate surface markings, occurs in close association with the
stem. Cf. Carruthers, Joc. cit. pl. liv. fig. 4 (Bucklandia Mantellt).

V. 27492. In the lower part of the stem the petiole scars are
shown with a flat surface, and higher up there appear to be
casts of the lower portions of the petioles; the latter bear a
strong resemblance to some of the smaller examples of scales.
This, like many other specimens, shows a general resemblance
to Fittonta. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

8372. Small specimen showing petiole scars. Tilgate Forest.
46644. A portion of a small stem with the scars characteristic
of Bucklandia. Tilgate Forest. Bowerbank Coll.

V. 3311. Species showing narrow scale scars. Cf. Carruthers,
Joe. cit. pl. liv. fig. 4.

K
130 BUCKLANDIA.

Cycadeomyelon (Bucklandia), sp.

V. 2832. Probably a portion of a pith cast; but the larger
medullary ray impressions suggest some other stem than that
with which the ordinary Clathraria Lyelli is occasionally found.

V. 2804. Considerably flattened sandstone cast. The form of
the medullary ray impression and of the leaf-trace bundle is more
distinctly shown than in most specimens. Schenk’s figure also
shows this feature clearly. The form of the medullary ray casts
in Weiss’ genus Zylodendron is very similar to that of the cor-
responding structures in the present specimen. Good figures of
Tylodendron will be found in a paper on that genus by Potonié.
Cf. also similar casts in Voltzia.

V. 28040. Similar specimen, but less flattened. Part of a scale
at one end of the cast. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

8268, 12333. Portions of pith casts; probably of the lower
portion of the stem axis. Tilgate Forest.

8264. Figured by Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, pl. i.: 93cm.
in length; at broadest part the diameter is 13cm. The details

of surface characters not very clearly preserved. Tilgate Forest.
Mantel Coll.

8269. 79cm. long, diameter 13cm. A large branched specimen,
showing at the summit an apparently dichotomous bifurcation. In
addition to the large branches, there are the scars of six or seven
smaller lateral branches, about 2cm. in length; the smaller
sears are all on one side of the specimen and arranged in a
fairly regular line. Cf. Goppert’s figure of Cycas revoluta with
the numerous large and small branches.” Tuilgate Forest.

Hantell Coll.

8274. 78cm. long, 75cm. in diameter. The breadth varies,
but there is no regular alternation of narrower and thicker
portions. Tilgate Forest. Mantel Coil.

 

1 Potonié (2).
* Goppert (38), pl. ix. fig. 3.
FITTONIA. 1381

V. 8807. A long specimen with distinct constrictions at fairly
regular intervals; the surface projections are rather broader than
in many examples, and resemble those in V. 2832; they show
a considerable variation in size, some being identical with the
usual clathrarian form of medullary ray cast, and others larger
and more prominent.

V. 3306. Here again there is a marked variation in the size of
the ray impressions. A well-defined branch scar.

V. 718¢. Hastings. Dawson Coll.
V. 1880. Near Hastings. Dawson Coll.
V. 2249. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

8272. Large specimen.

Genus FITTONIA, Carruthers.

[Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. 1870, p. 690.]

This generic name was proposed by Carruthers for an unusually
perfect specimen of a structureless cycadean stem, which was
probably obtained from the Wealden of Brook, in the Isle of
Wight. Mantell first figured and described this specimen as
Clathraria Lyelli in his Geological Excursions round the Isle of
Wight'; a larger and more complete figure appears in Carruthers’
Monograph. The genus is thus defined :—

‘“‘ Trunk short, obovate ; woody axis slender, enlarging upwards ;
cortical layer large. Scales and bases of the petioles large,
imbricated, at first reflexed, then ascending.”

Carruthers notes the absence of any fruit or foliage which
can be referred to this form of stem, but he considers the
resemblance to Lncephalartos sufficiently distinct to justify him
assigning Fittonia to a position near to the living genus. Saporta
adopts the name, and points out the resemblance between Fittonia
and Bucklandia; he calls attention, however, to certain points

 

1p. 297,
132 - FITTONIA.

of difference, and considers that Mantell’s specimen has been
correctly made the type of a new genus. In Bucklandia the
stem appears to have been frequently branched, but no such
habit is indicated in the specimens of Fittonia; in the latter
genus the increase in size both of the petiole and scale-leaf
bases, and of the lower portion of the petioles as well as the
scale leaves, with the subsequent disarticulation of the upper
part of the frond axis, constitute constant and characteristic
features. The pith is large and surrounded by a narrow zone
of wood. The scale leaves, associated here and there with the
bases of fronds, are distinguished from the latter by their
thinner distal margins, and the absence of any distinct surface
of articulation. As Saporta remarks, there is a striking re-
semblance between some forms of Fittonia and Bucklandia; this
similarity has already been noted in the descriptions of some
of the Museum examples of the latter genus, and it is also
clearly seen in Carruthers’ type specimen in the Jermyn Street
Museum of Practical Geology. It may be that the two genera
are not really distinct, but merely represent different forms of
preservation of very similar, if not identical, plants. In describing
the single English specimen of f#ttonia, Mantell quotes the
opinion of Brongniart,' to whom a drawing of the fossil was
sent, that it is probably the upper portion of a clathrarian
stem with persistent petioles. It may be more convenient, with
the evidence at present available, to retain both generic names,
and to make use of Fittonda as a useful designation for a certain
form of cycadean trunk.

Fittonia Ruffordi, sp. nov.
(Pl. IX. Fig. 6.]

Type. Large impressions of stems. British Museum.

The lower portion of the petioles persistent, showing a well-
marked surface from which the upper part of the frond has
been detached. The persistent and swollen bases are regularly
disposed in the stem surface, and apparently without any
alternation of petiole scars and scale-leaf scars.

 

1 Mantell (A. 7), Geol. Excurs. I. Wight, p. 298.
FITTONIA. 13838

V. 2238. Pl. IX. Fig. 6.
_ 18cm. in length, 10cm. broad. An impression of part of the
lateral surface of a cycadean stem, covered with a carbonaceous
layer. The petiole bases are shown with unusual definition, and
the form of the surface of articulation is particularly clearly
marked. The swollen portion or cushion below the petiole scar
presents a fairly close resemblance to some forms of Sigillaria
Brardii, Brong., with its similarly situated leaf-scar, which
agrees closely in shape with that of Fittonia. The petiole base
or cushion has a length of 1°7em. The form of the leaf-scar
is practically identical with that of the cleanly-cut end of the
frond of Otozamites Géppertianus as figured in Pl. I. Fig. 2.
Cf. Fittonia squamata, Carr.,' and Ff. insignis, Sap.*; the present
species differs from these in the smaller size of the leaf base and
in their much more regular and uniform arrangement on the
stem. cclesbourne. — Rufford Colt.

V. 2121. 77cm. long, 8-9 cm. broad. Here again the surface
of the stem has been carbonized, and the petiole bases present
a similar appearance to those in V. 2238, but are rather less
perfectly preserved. The comparatively long and narrow form of
the leaf base is clearly shown. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 2244. 35cm. long. Probably this may be referred to
Fittonia Ruffordi, but the petiole bases are much less clearly
preserved. In all the specimens the characteristic feature is the
great length as compared with the breadth of the petiole bases.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

?V. 3181. Possibly a specimen of this species. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

 

} Carruthers (1), pl. lvi.
2 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. ii. pl. exxv. figs. 1-3.
1384 BENNETTITES.

Genus BENNETTITES, Carruthers.

(Trans. Linn. Soe. vol. xxvi. 1870, p. 681.]

In 1855 the President of the Linnean Society of that year,
Robert Brown, exhibited a new form of cycadean stem which
had been found by Saxby at Bonchurch, in the Isle of Wight.'
The name Cycadites Saxbyanus was suggested by Brown for this
new fossil, of which the two most striking features were the
elliptical outline of the stem as seen in transverse section, and
the presence of a bud in the axil of each leaf. Fifteen years
after the discovery of this stem, Carruthers* published a full and
scientific description of several examples of the same species.
As a result of careful investigation of the morphology of these
specimens, Carruthers instituted the generic name Bennettites
for the new form of stem, which he found could not be classed
under any of the recognized subdivisions of the Order Cycadacea.
' After speaking of the elliptical form of the axis and the presence
of buds in the axils of many of the leaves, Carruthers proceeds
to describe the anatomical structure of the stem, and calls special
attention to the leaf-traces as affording another characteristic
feature of the genus. ‘‘In all the known members of the Order
(Cycadacez),”* says Carruthers, ‘‘the leaf-traces arise in the
interior of the cylinder of wood, as bundles of small size, and,
passing through the meshes of the ligneous cylinder, and then
through the cortical parenchyma, as small distinct bundles, after
running for a short distance, at least in some genera, in a
horizontal direction parallel to the periphery of the stem, they
pass in the petiole of the leaf.”’ In Bennettites, however, ‘“ the
vascular tissue for each leaf springs from the woody cylinder in
a single large compact bundle, which as it passes outwards breaks
up into the different bundles required for the service of the leaf.”
Tliis peculiar behaviour of the leaf-traces is also referred to
by Solms-Laubach* as an important distinctive character of

 

1 Brown, p. 180.
? ().

3 1bid.

4 (2), p. 422.
BENNETTITES, 1385

Carruthers’ genus. The structure of the petiole bases and the
ramenta-like scales has been fully described by Carruthers and
others. In the axils of some of the petiole bases which surround
the woody axis of the stem, there occur the lateral branches
which constitute the most important and interesting feature of
the genus. ‘These organs,” writes Carruthers, ‘are not
properly buds, for although they do not appear to have pushed
themselves beyond the surfaces of the permanent bases of the
leaves, they are fully developed organs, and differ from the
secondary axes of MMantellia, which are generally broken off
-beyond the surfaces of the permanent bases of the petioles, and
show there a woody cylinder agreeing in structure with the
principal axis of the plant. The secondary axis consists of a
very short and slender stem, bearing a number of simple linear
acuminate leaves. These are the only foliar organs hitherto
found connected with these fossils.”’! Each of the axillary
branches terminates in a subpyriform enlargement, bearing seeds ;
this terminal portion with its seeds are fully described and
illustrated by Carruthers and Solms-Laubach. The former
author, in summing up the affinities of the genus, expresses
the opinion that ‘‘it must be considered to hold the same
relation to the other Cycadee, that Taxus, with its succulent,
cup-shaped pericarp does to the cone-bearing Conifere.”’*

In his Hinlettung in die Paldéophytologie Graf Solms
confirms many of the characteristics of Bennettites as described
by Carruthers, and by a careful examination of the English
material he is able to settle certain doubtful points, and to carry
a stage further our knowledge of this interesting type? <A
more detailed account was afterwards published by Solms in
the Botanische Zeitung, and the article subsequently appeared
in English in the fifth volume of the Annals of Botany.
Without entering at length into a histological description of
Bennettites, we may call attention to some of the more striking
and characteristic features. The structure and course of the

 

‘Carruthers, loc. cit. p. 697.
2 Tbid. p. 698.

3 Solms-Laubach (A.), p. 94.
4 Ibid. (1).

© Thid. (2).
136 BENNETTITES.

leaf-trace as described by Carruthers, and the analogy which
he noted between the trellis-work form of the vascular cylinder
and the bundle system of a fern stem are confirmed by Solms;
he adds, however, that a ‘closer examination will doubtless
disclose a greater affinity with the course of the vascular
bundles in many Conifere.”! The pith and cortex are traversed
by numerous and large gum-canals, and the stems are enclosed
in the armour of leaf bases characteristic of recent cycads.
Between the petioles of Bennettites and those of living cycads
there is the closest agreement; the bases of the leaves are
separated from one another by a felt of ramenta-like outgrowths
from the petiole surface. Occasionally the substance of the petiole
has rotted away, leaving deep cavities occupying the meshes in
a network of intervening projecting ridges. In Bennettites
Gibsonianus the structure of the lateral branches bearing the
remarkable form of fructification is very perfectly preserved,
and it is evident that we have to deal with a plant differing
in many important respects from the present types of cycads.
Referring to the cycadean character of the stem and leaf-stalk
of Bennettites, Solms remarks: ‘‘ We arrive at the surprising
result that all the Jurassic and Neocomian stems which are
termed Cycas-stems, so far as anything is known of their
structure, belong to Bennettitee, and that not a single one of
them has been proved to be a genuine stem of Cycadee. This
further shows how precarious is the identification of fossil remains
when it rests on superficial characters only.”* The form of the
lateral fructification branches may be summarized as follows:
They occasionally arise exactly over a leaf base, but in some
cases have been pushed somewhat to the side; as a rule it
appears impossible to ‘‘determine the precise relative position
of the two kinds of organs.”* The flower-bearing shoots are,
at all events, not terminal structures, as in recent cycads. Each
fertile branch is made up of several short internodes, and bears
spirally-arranged lanceolate acuminate bracts; in structure the
bracts agree for the most part with the larger leaf bases of the

 

1 Solms-Laubach (2), p. 422.
2 Ibid. p. 424.
% p. 481.
BENNETTITES. 137

main stem. The apex of the fertile shoots has the form of a
hemispherical parenchymatous cushion, from which are given off
a number of closely crowded stalks united into a club-shaped
group; between these stalks or seed-bearing cords there occur
smaller structures, the so-called interstitial organs. External to
these is a comparatively broad parenchymatous band of tissue,
which arises from a lower level on the cushion than the
cords and interstitial organs. Surrounding this homogeneous
peripheral tissue we have several lanceolate bracts encircling
the entire fructification. Towards the upper surface of the
spadix, and near its periphery, there are numerous seeds situated
just internal to the homogeneous tissue, which becomes rather
more strongly developed towards the apex of the fructification.
Each seed lies in a flask-shaped pit, and is borne on a long
stalk or cord; in some seeds the structure of the embryo with
its radicle, plumule, and two cotyledons, may be clearly
recognized. Solms suggests that the homogeneous tissue which
overtops the spadix and contains the seeds, has been formed
by the union of interstitial organs. A surface view of the
terminal portion of the fructification would present a number
of. areoles, probably raised to the form of pyramidal projections,
and between these areole or distal ends of interstitial organs,
there would be seen the narrow openings leading to the flask-
shaped seed cavities.

In his description of Bennettites, Solms compares its fructifica-
tion with that described by Saporta and Marion as Williamsonia
Moriered from the Oxfordian of Vaches-Noires. This French
specimen, with its histological details preserved in unusual
perfection, has recently been thoroughly examined and described
by Prof. Lignier, of Caen. His description clearly shows that
Saporta’s and Marion’s species must be referred to Bennettites,
and is closely allied to the English species of that genus.) In
the main Lignier’s description agrees with those of Carruthers
and Solms; there are, however, one or two points in which
the French author’s account is slightly at variance with that
of the former writers. Bennettites Morieret has the form of
a detached ovoid fossil, with a length of 55mm. and a breadth

 

1 Lignier. See also Seward (3) for a short abstract of Lignier’s paper.
138 BENNETTITES,

of 85mm. At the base a fractured surface reveals the existence
of a slightly convex receptacle, from which is given off a compact
cluster of long peduncles, each of which bears at its apex an
oval seed. The seed-bearing peduncles are surrounded by several
involucral bracts closely applied to the surface of the fruit.
Numerous thin lamelle occur in association with the seminiferous
peduncles; to these Lignier applies the term interseminal scales.
The seeds are arranged side by side close to the upper surface
of the mass of peduncles’ and interseminal scales; the latter
passing between and beyond the seeds, and their swollen distal
ends forming a protective covering to the blunt hemispherical apex
of the fruit. In surface view, the upper part of the specimen
appears to be made up of a large number of small projecting
areas with polygonal bases and rounded summits. Here and
there the projections arrange themselves in the form of rosettes
round a small central cavity, marking the position of a seed.

As in Bennettites Gibsonianus the fruit is covered by involucral
bracts, but we have the interesting suggestion of Lignier that
these were not simply linear acuminate in form, but that the
portion of the bracts preserved is merely the petiolar part of a
leaf structure of which the pinnate or flabellate lamina has been
detached. This inference is drawn from a detailed examination
of the vascular strands traversing each bract. After comparing
and contrasting Bennettitee with the Cycadacee and Conifere,
Lignier concludes that they represent ‘‘a family which has been
derived with the cycads from common ancestors, but not from the
cycads themselves. Of these common ancestors the two families
have preserved the form of the trunk, the structure of certain
tissues, the foliar origin of the ovule, etc. But whilst the cycads
have retained a grouping of carpophylls on a single axis, and
have acquired special characters, such as the complication of the
leaf-trace and the lateral poxition of the ovules, the Bennettitee
have retained the simple leaf-trace and have acquired a terminal
position of the ovules, the reduction of the fertile axes to single
carpophylls, the grouping of these fertile nednaed axes, and the
modification of the neighbouring leaves.’’ !

In a recent paper on fossil cycadean trunks from North

 

1 Lignier, loc. cit. p. 78,
BENNETTITES. 1389

America, Lester Ward? transfers Carruthers’ species of Bennettites
to Buckland’s genus Cycadeoidea; he considers the fact of the
fruit being known in a single species, B. Gibsonianus, is not a
sufficient reason for the retention of the genus. Solms-Laubach?
had previously restricted Carruthers’ term to the species in
which the characters of the fructification are known, viz.
Bennettites Gibsonianus; this use of the term is probably the
most convenient, and it would seem much better to retain
Carruthers’ name for stems bearing the bennettitean inflorescence
than to include these under such a comprehensive and purely
provisional genus as Cycadeotdea.

Bennettites (Cycadeoidea) Saxbyanus (Brown).

1851. Cycadites Saxbyanus, Brown, Proc. Linn. Soc. vol. ii. p. 130.

1854. Cycadeoidea Saxbyana, Morris, Brit. Foss. p. 7.

1870. Bennettites Sauxbyanus, Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 698.
1874. Bennettites Saxbyanus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 558.
1878. Bennettites Saxbyanus, Carruthers, in Dixon’s Geol. Sussex, p. 281.
1894. Cycadeoidea Saxbyana, Ward, Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. ix. p. 80.

Type. Stems showing internal structure. British and Oxford
Museums.

The specific name of this plant was proposed by Robert Brown
in honour of Mr. Saxby, who found the first specimen near
Bonchurch, in the Isle of Wight. The following definition of
the species was given by Carruthers :—

“Trunk elliptical, with large medulla, and thin, much inter-
rupted woody cylinder, vascular bundles passing upwards and
outwards and breaking up into two rows of small bundles, which
are parallel to the superior and inferior surfaces of the petiole;
section of petiole subtriangular.”

In accordance with the narrower use of the genus Bennettites,
as suggested by Solms and others, the present species ought to be
transferred to Buckland’s Cycadeocdea, but for the present it may

 

1 Ward (1), p. 78.
2 Capellini and Solms-Laubach, p. 29.
140 BENNETTITES.

be better to retain Carruthers’ generic name, and by the addition
of Cycadeoidea to indicate our incomplete knowledge of the
fructification. Cycadeoidea is employed, therefore, in the wider
sense of the term, including stems with a circular as well as an
elliptical transverse section.

46628 (V. 3233'). Figured by Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc.
vol, xxvi. 1870, pl. lvii. fig. 3, as Bennettites Saxbyanus.

Length 21cm.; at one end the specimen shows the transverse
and polished section as represented in Carruthers’ figure; at the
opposite end the stem has been considerably worn. The varying
degrees of wearing in this specimen show remarkably well the
striking differences in appearance presented by the several surfaces
of cortical or woody tissue exposed to view. Carruthers calls
attention to the striking similarity ‘between these fossil stems
and the caudex of a tree fern”’?; the U-shaped petiolar bundles
shown in section on part of the specimen present a distinct
resemblance to the corresponding leaf-traces in fern stems. Brook
Point, Isle of Wight. Saxby Coll.

V. 3234. Figured by Carruthers, Joc. cit. pl. lvii. fig. 4.

The surface of the specimen shows fairly good sections of
petioles with numerous vascular bundles; the portion represented
in Carruthers’ figure shows the inner face of the wood, and a
radial section through the cortex in which the course of the
leaf-trace bundles is clearly seen. I am unable to detect any
difference between the present specimen and that bearing the
number 38360, which has been labelled by Carruthers Bennettites
Gibsonianus. In his definition of B. Saxbyanus, Carruthers speaks
of the petioles as subtriangular in section, whilst those of
B. Gibsonianus are described as subquadrangular. Each of the
above specimens shows both forms of petioles, and in other respects
there appear to be no real differences.

V. 3235. Figured (in part) by Carruthers, Joc. cit. pl. lvii. fig. 7.
The figure shows very clearly the form of the petiole bundles
as seen in a tangential section of the cortex. The resemblance

 

1 A second number recently added (1895).
2 Carruthers, loc. cit. p. 696.
BENNETTITES. 141

between these bundles and the leaf-traces of Protopteris punctata,
Sternb., is fairly close. Other portions of this specimen demon-
strate very clearly the mode of origin and course of the petiole
bundles. The tangential section of the wood, close to the inner
(pith) face, presents the same appearance as figured by Carruthers
(pl. lvii. fig. 6).

V. 3236. Figured by Carruthers, Joc. cit. pl. lvii. figs. 1 and 2.

The figured portion is the smaller half of a fine specimen in the
Museum Collection. The surface is made up of triangular cavities
which constitute the meshes in a network of projecting ridges of
interpetiolar ramenta. A few inflorescences, or rather the cavities
originally occupied by inflorescences, are seen in surface view,
and also in the longitudinally cut face represented in Carruthers’
figure. The woolly or finely fibrous ramenta appear to be identical
with the corresponding interpetiolar structures in some specimens
in the Rufford Collection from Ecclesbourne (ef. V. 3177, V. 2349,
and V. 2132). There is a distinct similarity between the slightly
raised base forming the floor of one of the inflorescence cavities,
and the rounded receptacle seen in some of the Ecclesbourne
examples of isolated inflorescences (Bennettites [Wilhamsonia]
Carrutherst), e.g. V. 21296, etc. Brook Point.

38363. A waterworn specimen showing petiole base projecting
somewhat beyond the ramental network. Cf. V. 3284 (pl. lvii.
fig. 4) and 38360. Solms’ refers to this and some other specimens
as no doubt examples of Bennettitee, but without traces of fructifi-
cation. An old label on the specimen gives Tilgate as the locality ;
this has been altered to Brook. Brook. Mantel Coil.

cf. Bennettites Saxbyanus.

V. 2132. Part of a large stem, resembling the specimen of
Bennettites Saxbyanus figured by Carruthers in pl. lvii. fig. 3.
The external surface shows numerous imperfectly preserved leaf

 

1 Solms-Laubach (2), p. 426.
142 BENNETTITES,

bases. Between the petioles there appears to have been a fairly
wide space occupied by ramenta. A side view of the specimen
shows the inward prolongation of some of the petioles, and
demonstrates that the so-called bases as seen on the surface
simply represent the level in the leaf armour to which dis-
organization has extended. The inner face of the block is probably
the outer surface of the wood. No fructification seen. LEccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

Bennettites Gibsonianus, Carr.

1851. Clathraria Lyellii, Mantell, Petrifactions, p. 46.

1864. Clathraria Lyellii, Mantell, Medals, vol. i. (edit. 2), p. 163.

1854. Clathraria Lyellii, Mantell, Geol. Excurs. I. Wight, p. 214.

1870. Bennettites Gibsonianus, Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 700.

1874. Bennettites Gibsonianus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iti. p. 559.

1878. Bennettites Gibsonianus, Carruthers, in Dixon’s Geol. Sussex, p. 281.

1890. Bennettites Gibsonianus, Solms-Laubach, Bot. Zeit. 1890, p. 789, pls.
ix. and x.

1891. Bennettites Gibsonianus, Solms-Laubach, Annals Bot. vol. v. p. 419,
pls. xxv. and xxvi.

1894, Bennettites Gibsonianus, Lignier, Mém. Soc. Linn. Normandie, vol.
xviii. p. 76.

1894. Cycadeoidea Gibsoni, Ward, Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. ix. p. 80.

Type. Portions of a large block showing internal structures.
British Museum and Kew.

The specimens on which Carruthers founded this species are
recorded by him as of Lower Greensand age, and Solms-Laubach
has since confirmed this determination! The examples of 2B.
Saxbyanus are regarded as Wealden, and were obtained from Brook
Point, in the Isle of Wight; B. Gibsonianus was found in Luccomb
Chine, Isle of Wight, by Mr. Gibson. Some of the specimens
which Carruthers has referred to the present species are apparently
from Brook, and from the same beds as B. Saxbyanus.

Carruthers defines the species as follows :—

“Trunk compressed, elliptical, with small medulla, and a thick
subcontinuous woody cylinder; vascular bundles passing almost

 

1 Solms-Laubach (2), p. 429.
BENNETTITES. 143

directly outwards and breaking up into a double series of small
bundles, which are parallel to the superior and inferior surfaces of
the petiole, except that a loop is sent down from the upper series
into the centre of the petiole. The section of the petiole is sub-
quadrangular.”

Lignier has recently extended this definition to include the
characteristic features of the inflorescence; he makes the following
addition to the above diagnosis !:—

‘“‘ Fruit haut de 3 centim. 4. Bractées involucrales lancéolées,
acuminées, dépourvues de limbe. Pozls écailleue peu larges,
souvent ventrus, a cellules allongées perpendiculairement aux
faces. Graines longues de 3 A 4 millim., larges de 1:2 a 2°5, non
anguleuses (ou a peine anguleuses), dépourvues d’épiderme
rayonnant, Assise réticulée scléreuse et formée de cellules qui
ont 60 de longeur sur 50 de large.”

The following specimens are included here as somewhat doubtful
examples of Bennettites Gibsonianus :—

38360. Figured by Mantell as Clathraria Lyellit, Medals of
Creation, vol. i. 1854 (edit. 2), p. 163; Petrifactions and their
Teachings, 1851, p. 46; Geological Excursions round the Isle of
Wight, 1854, p. 214.

The old label on this specimen gives Tilgate Forest as the
locality, but Carruthers has substituted Brook Point. The pre-
servation of this waterworn example is very different from that
of the larger blocks of Bennettites. The surface, as figured by
Mantell, shows the characteristic ramental network with the
meshes occupied by petiole bases. Towards the right-hand upper
corner of the specimen there appears to be an inflorescence shown
on the waterworn surface. In the absence of any well-defined
inflorescence, and in view of the striking similarity to, if not
identity with, V. 3234 (labelled by Carruthers B. Saxbyanus), it
will be better to regard the exact position of this specimen as
somewhat doubtful. Solms* quotes Mantell’s description of this
fossil, and says he believes he recognizes the specimen in the
British Museum (Geological Department) Collection as one on which
the word ‘‘ Brook” is written in ink on the upper surface. There

 

* Lignier (1), p. 76.
2 Loe. cit. p. 420.
144 BENNETTITES.

can be no doubt as to the original of Mantell’s figure; the fact
of its being figured is recorded on the label, but there is no word
“Brook” written on it. No doubt Solms is referring to some
other specimen; in another place the same author speaks of
Mantell’s figure as a very good representation of a specimen in
the Geological Department.

38361 and 38362. Solms' refers to this specimen (cut into two
pieces, bearing the above :registered numbers) as being without
fructification. On the smaller piece there appears to be inflores-
cences shown in transverse and longitudinal section. The label on
one piece bears the name Clathraria Lyellit. Possibly this specimen
should be referred to Bennettites Saxbyanus.

V. 3232. Another waterworn specimen cut into three pieces,
one transverse slice and two larger portions. It would seem
impossible to definitely refer this imperfect example to one or
other species of Bennettites.

,

Bennettites (Cycadeoidea), sp.
[Pl. XV.]

V. 3177. The chief interest of this specimen is in the numerous
casts of inflorescences which occur on the stem. The surface
features cannot be accurately made out; the portions shown in
Pl. XV. Fig. 1 exhibit the conical cavities originally occupied
by the fertile axes, and the impressions of petioles and ramental
tissue. The whole surface presents a somewhat waterworn
appearance, and instead of showing a surface view of the petiole
bases in the form of rhomboidal sections, it has the-form of
a worn-down surface with an oblique view of petiole casts and
ramental tissue.

In longitudinal section the fertile axes have the form of cavities
narrowed towards the distal end; these cavities were no doubt
originally occupied by the fleshy terminations of inflorescences.
The wall of such a cavity (Pl. XV. Fig. 3) shows clearly preserved

 

1 Loc. cit. p. 426.
BENNETTITES. 145

casts of the bases of crowded involucral bracts. The bracts them-
selves are represented partly by cavities and partly by carbonaceous
matter; between the bracts the woolly or hair-like ramenta
are distinctly shown, and these, as frequently happens in such
tissue in cycadean stems, have been permeated by a mineralizing
solution, and so preserved. The bracts appear to be somewhat
expanded distally (Pl. XV. Fig. 2), as described by Lignier
in Bennettites Moriéred (Sap. and Mar.).' In Pl. XV. Fig 3 an
inflorescence cast is shown, of which the surface is covered by
a fine and well-marked reticulation; in the upper portion of the
cavity this reticulum has the form represented in Fig. 5, a fairly
regular network formed by thin plates projecting from the surface,
and some of the meshes are partially filled by round or oval
bodies suggesting very small seeds; the meshes thus filled are
less angular than those without seed-like bodies. In Fig. 4 is
shown a wax cast of the inflorescence cavity of Fig. 3, and in
Fig. 6 the small dot-like depressions on the surface of the
cast correspond to the small bodies in the meshes of Fig. 5.
Towards the base of Fig. 4, the reticulum is rather larger, and
there are no dots in the more basal portion, owing to the absence
of any ‘‘seeds” in this part of the inflorescence (Fig. 7). In the
middle of one side of this reticulately marked cavity there is a
narrow longitudinal ridge, probably representing a median groove
in the inflorescence. The portion of inflorescence figured in Pl. X.
Fig. 4, should be compared with the present specimen. Further
reference is made to this stem in the description of the detached
specimens referred to a new species, Bennettites Carruthersi. Cf.
Pl. X. Figs. 1 and 4, and Saporta’s figures of Williamsonia gigas,
Carr., in the Pal. Frang., vol. iv. pl. xiii. fig. 2, and pl. xiv.
figs. 1 and 2. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2896. Imperfectly preserved stem, 26cm. in length, and
20cm. in broadest part; leaf-stalks and ramenta shown, but no
inflorescence. Beckles Coll.

V. 2816. Smaller specimen; no actual stem surface visible.
The woolly ramenta suggest a connection with V. 2132 and
B. Saxbyanus (Brown). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Lignier (1), p. 25.
146 BENNETTITES.

Bennettites (Williamsonia).
FLORES.

In the Rufford collection of Wealden plants from the neighbour-
hood of Hastings, there are several specimens which must be
assigned to the same position as the well-known Jurassic William-
sonia. For reasons which are stated more fully below, I have
referred these Wealden fossils to the genus Bennettites, and am
led to regard them as portions of the inflorescence of that plant.
Hitherto typical Williamsonias have not been recorded from any
Wealden or Lower Cretaceous rocks in England; the importance
of the discovery is considerably increased by the fact that the
specimens appear to throw some new light upon the nature and
affinity of ‘this anomalous form of inflorescence. Before describing
the individual fossils in detail, it may be convenient to give a
short summary of our present position with regard to the opinions
of paleobotanists on the nature of Williamsonia.

In A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast, by Young and
Bird, published in 1822, there is a figure of a specimen from
the ironstone of Saltwick, which is spoken of as resembling the
head of an artichoke (Cynara integrifolia), with the ‘“ covering
or calyx consisting of numerous lanceolate and striated leaves.”!
Another figure in this work represents ‘‘a petrified nut of a
singular kind”; these two fossils are examples of what was
subsequently named Willkiamsonia.?

Part of a cycadean frond from the ‘‘ Oolitic rocks of Scarborough”
is figured by Lindley and Hutton, and named by them Zamia gigas*;
afew years later Williamson notes the occurrence with this form
of frond of ‘‘a remarkable fossil, apparently connected with the
fructification of a Cycas.”* In 1849 Yates® draws attention
to the identity of Zama gigas, L. and H., Zamia Manteil:, Brong.,
and Cycadites lanceolatus, Phill. He recognizes the difficulty of
connecting the leaves and stem with the peculiar form of in-
florescence associated with them, and while favouring the view

 

1 Young and Bird, pl. ii. fig. 6, p. 183.
2 Ibid. pl. iii. fig. 7, p. 186.

3 Fossil Flora, vol. iii. pl. elxv.

4 Williamson (1), p. 230.

5 Yates.
BENNETTITES. 147

that Zaméa gigas and the fructification are parts of the same
plant, admits the absence of any actual proof. In the same year
Mantell! figures a specimen of Wiilliamsonia in his Medals of
Creation, as the fruit of Zamites lanceolata, and describes the
lanceolate involucral bracts as concealing the seeds of the in-
florescence. In a short communication to the Yorkshire Philo-
sophical Society, Williamson gives a vertical section of a restored
inflorescence, and represents the ovoid body of the fructification
as terminating in a cone.” Brongniart calls attention in his
Tableau,? to the similarity between the Scarborough fossils and
a specimen described by Buckland‘ from the Inferior Oolite of
Charmouth, Dorset, under. the name of Podocarya. This com-
parison is one which has, I believe, been justified by recent
investigations, and it is highly probable that Buckland’s specimen
is a particularly well-preserved bennettitean inflorescence. It is
to be hoped that this valuable specimen may be rediscovered,*
and subjected to a careful examination.

The name Podocarya was chosen by Buckland for this Oolitic
fossil, on the suggestion of Robert Brown. It is described as
chiefly resembling the inflorescence of the recent genus Pandanus,
and by most subsequent writers it is included in the Pandanacea.
Saporta,® in his volume on Types proangiospermiques, reproduces
Buckland’s figures, and substitutes Williamsonia for Podocarya
as the generic name; Unger’ had previously named the species
after Buckland.

In a specimen figured by Leckenby in 1864°® we have leaves
of Paleozamia pecten (Lind.) in close association with a small
form of Wilkamsonia, which Nathorst afterwards referred to
the new species Wilhiamsonia Leckenbyi. Carruthers,? writing

 

1 Mantell (1), p. 161.

2 Williamson (2), p. 47.

3 p. 88.

4 Buckland (2), vol. i. p. 466, pl. Ixxxiv.

5 It is said to be in the Oxford Geological Museum, but cannot be found.

6 Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 127, pl. cexxxviii. figs. 1-3, and pl. cexxxix. fig. 1.

7 Unger (A. 2), Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 327.

8 Leckenby (A.), Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 77, pl. ix. fig. 4a.
This specimen is in the Woodwardian (Geological) Museum, Cambridge. It
agrees closely with Williamson’s ‘‘carpellary disk’’ of Wiiliamsonia gigas,
Carr., except in its smaller size.

9 Carruthers (3). This paper was also printed in the Geol. Mag. vol. iv. 1867.
148 BENNETTITES,

in 1867, refers to the opinions of Yates and Williamson, and
adds: “I have examined numerous specimens of this fossil
(Williamsonia gigas) in the British Museum, but have been
unable to determine anything satisfactorily in regard to the
precise structure of this anomalous fruit. It presents so many
peculiarities unknown in the fruit of any modern cycad, that
for the present at least, and notwithstanding its Zamia-like leaves,
I must ‘consider it a doubtful cycad.”

In the volume of the ‘Linnean Society’s Transactions for 1870
we have the first exhaustive treatment of this Oolitic fossil.
From his intimate knowledge, both of the fossils and their
manner of occurrence in the rocks of the Yorkshire coast,
Williamson was peculiarly fitted to attack this difficult problem.
Williamson describes and figures what he regards as the stem of
Zamites gigas, L. and H.; the surface is made up of broad
lozenge-shaped areas, and is compared with the trunk of a recent
Cycas. One example is referred to as ‘‘ obviously the apex
of a stem with portions of seven or eight diverging fronds.”
The fronds are next described, also certain structures spoken
of as the ‘‘squamous peduncles” of the fructification. The
greater part of the paper is, however, devoted to a detailed
examination of the ‘‘organs of fructification.” Surrounding the
ovoid inflorescence we have a number of linear bracts constituting
an involucrum; usually these involucral leaves have been broken
off towards the base, and immediately below the broken ends
there is exposed an annular area of “radiating cells.” In
pl. lii. fig. 7, Williamson represents a specimen in which the
bracts have been completely preserved and are continued to the
base of the fructification. The central part of the whole structure
is occupied by a pyriform cavity which contracts apically, and
then expands into a funnel-shaped appendage. In one of the
figured specimens the form of this central cavity is clearly seen,
and from its being filled with carbonaceous matter, it is assumed
that the axis was originally a solid structure. A very similar
appearance is presented by one of Rufford’s recently discovered
specimens.? The ring of radiating cells seen at the base of most
of the examples is considered to be the lowest margin of a layer

 

1 Williamson (3).
2 Fig. 8, p. 16.
BENNETTITES. 149

of cells which ‘‘formed a cortical layer, arranged vertically upon
and extending over the entire surface of the pyriform axis.”
In another type of specimen figured by Williamson, we have
a disk-shaped structure with a central depression, and split up
peripherally into several short and narrow segments; this is
named the ‘‘carpellary disk,” and towards the apex of each of
these rays there are said to be two small pits on the lower
surface. These pits are regarded as the places of attachment
of ovules; but it is now generally agreed that there is no good
evidence for the existence of well-defined depressions which
could be described as marking the position of seeds. The general
conclusion arrived at, and expressed by a restoration of the whole
plant, is that the two forms of fructification are probably the
male and female organs of Zamites gigas; the commoner ovoid
fossil being the male flower, with a pyriform axis originally
invested by a deciduous antheriferous tissue, and the female
flower being represented by the much less abundant ‘“‘ carpellary
disk,” with the ovules inserted in pits towards the tips of the
star-like rays.

As a convenient provisional name for these anomalous structures
Carruthers instituted the genus Williamsonia, and placed it in
a new tribe—Williamsonee. The genus is thus defined:' ‘‘Stem
cylindrical, elongated, marked with the equal-sized, tumid,
rhomboidal scars of the fallen leaves. Leaves ovate-lanceolate
or linear acuminate, segments numerous, attached to the rachis
by the central portion, with small free margins; veins numerous,
parallel, at the base slightly diverging into the free margins.
Flowers terminal, stamens surrounding a fleshy axis, ovules borne
on the upper surface of an orbicular laciniate spadix.”

Carruthers thus expresses himself with reference to Williamson’s
work: ‘‘ He has introduced a clearer apprehension of the different
forms of the supposed organs of reproduction, by the suggestion
that the two kinds represent the different sexes, and by the
discovery of a seed-bearing spadix.”? In the second volume
of his Plantes Jurassiques, Saporta considers the problem of
Wiltiamsonta,’? and denies the existence of any satisfactory grounds

 

1 Carruthers (1), p. 691.
2 Ibid. p. 692.
3 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. ii. p. 538.
150 BENNETTITES.

for the supposed connection between the fronds of Zamites gigas,
the cycadean stem, and the floral structures; the last-mentioned he
prefers to regard as some primitive form of a monocotyledonous
inflorescence, probably a pandanaceous type, analogous to Yuccites,
Podocarya, Eolurion, ete.

In the Paleontologica Indica there have been described by
Oldham and Morris! and afterwards by Feistmantel,? various
specimens of Williamsonia. The latter author figures certain
cycad-like stems found in association with the Williamsonia
fossils as belonging to. the plant which bore the Walliamsonia
inflorescence. Further additions to our knowledge of the
distribution of this fructification were made by Nathorst in 1880,°
and he put forward the opinion that Williamsonia should be
placed with the Balunophoree. This idea he afterwards abandoned,
and in a later paper‘ upholds the view that Williamsonia was
the inflorescence of a plant bearing cycadean fronds. He gives
a restoration of Anomosamites minor (Brong.) bearing in the
forks of a branched stem large flowers of the type Wilhiamsonia
angustifolia, Nath. The restored species presents an appearance
certainly more suggestive of some extinct form of plant than of
anything at present in existence.’ Nathorst associates his other
species, W. Leckenbyi, with Anomozamites Lindleyanus, Schimp.,
and connects W. gigas, Carr., with Zamites gigas, L. and H.,
adding that possibly Braun’s Weltrichia may be regarded as the
inflorescence of Otozamites. In another place® the same writer
refers to the likelihood of a connection or identity of Bennettites
and Williamsonia.

In Zigno’s second volume of the Flora fossilis formationis
Oolithice,’ certain specimens from Italian rocks are described
under the new generic name of Blastolepis; the figures of the
two species of this genus, -B. otozamitis and B. falcata, Zig., are
strikingly suggestive of Carruther’s genus. There can be little
doubt that these specimens should be assigned to the genus
Williamsonia.

 

1 Oldham and Morris (A), p. 32, pl. xxxii. fig. 12.

2 Feistmantel (2). 3 Nathorst (3). 4 Ibid. (4).

5 Since this was written, I have had an opportunity of examining Nathorst’s
specimens, and can bear testimony to the accuracy of his description.

6 Ibid. (1), p. 97.

7 Zigno (1), p. 178, pl. xlii. figs. 9-11.
BENNETTITES. 151

In a recent volume of the Plantes Jurassiques, Saporta’ gives
a full account of the Williamsonia question, and discusses at
length such views as have been advanced as to the nature of the
genus. Several of the Yates’ specimens, now in the Paris
Museum (Jardin des Plantes), and many others are figured in
Saporta’s monograph. Some of these figures were originally
drawn for Brongniart,? whosé intention it was to publish a
memoir on the subject. In addition to. this very important
contribution by Saporta, reference should be made to a paper
by him in conjunction with Marion in the Comptes Rendus for
1881,? and also to the account by the same authors in LD’ Evolution
du régne végétal.« The genus Williamsonia, with Yuecites,
Goniolina, Weltrichia, and others, is included in the special class
of ‘‘Types proangiospermiques.” ‘Ces types sont appelés par
nous des Proangiospermes, parce, qu’ayant en réalité précédé dans
Yordre des temps les Angiospermes véritables et ne pouvant étre
classés méthodiquement parmi ces derniéres, ils se distinguent
pourtant trés nettement de tous les végétaux passés en revue
jusqwici, et qu’ils s’écartent a la fois et des Cryptogames et
des Gymnospermes, n’ayant d’ailleurs de points de contact
appréciables ni avec les Cycadées, ni avec les Salisburiées, encore
moins avec les Coniféres.””® As an introduction to the examination
of the genus, Saporta writes:® ‘‘Avec les Williamsonia nous
abordons un des problémes les plus difficiles, un des sujets les
plus controversés, mais aussi les plus curieux, peut-étre méme
le plus remarquable de tous ceux que nous offre l’ensemble des
plantes jurassiques.”” He agrees with Brongniart that Williamsonia
is probably generically identical with Buckland’s Podocarya.
Some of Williamson’s conclusions he does not accept; the
“‘carpellary disk’ of that author, Saporta regards as a terminal
expansion of the male spadix. One important point to note
in reference to Saporta’s conclusions is his interpretation of two
forms of specimens; that figured by Williamson in his pl. lii.

 

1 Pal. Frang. vol. iv. 1891.

2 Ibid. p. 90 (footnote).

3 Saporta and Marion. (1).

4 Ibid. (2), Les Phanérogames, vol. i. p. 235.
5 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 68.

8 Ibid. p. 89.

RE oa.
152 BENNETTITES,

figs. 8-61 is described as the male inflorescence, and another form,
of which several figures are given in the Paléontologie Francaise,
is regarded as the female inflorescence. Like Williamson, Saporta
sees in the fibrous layer at the base of the common form of
Wiiliamsonia an antheriferous tissue; the pyriform central axis
he describes as expanding distally into a large structure like that
figured by the English writer as the carpellary disk; this
terminal expansion appears to have been readily separated by
a natural surface of disarticulation from the rest of the axis.
In the whole inflorescence, according to Saporta and Marion,
we have a male involucre surrounding a conical axis with its
base enclosed in a circular zone marked by radiating strie; the
external edge of this zone being occupied by a number of small
compartments of an irregular hexagonal form, which geem to
correspond to pollen-sacs. The basal zone represents the sterile
and persistent portion of an androphore, which, when complete,
covered the whole of the conical receptacle with a layer of
staminal appendages. In the female inflorescence the bracts are
somewhat shorter; the centre was occupied by a more or less
globular axis, having its surface marked out into a number
of compartments arranged in the form of facettes grouped in
rosettes; the general appearance of the whole structure being
very similar to that presented by Buckland’s Podocarya. The
ovules were situated in subcortical cavities, which communicated
with the surface by small openings; the latter appearing as the
central points of groups of comparatively small meshes of the
superficial reticulum. In 1869 Moriére described a petrified
fruit from the Oxfordian beds of Vaches-Noires (Calvador),? and
this specimen is regarded by Saporta and Marion as throwing
considerable light on the nature of Williamsonia. The recent
examination of this specimen by Lignier® has already been
alluded to; his work has afforded us very important data with
regard to the connection between Bennettites and Williamsonia.

Saporta draws attention to a close resemblance between the
terminal infundibuliform expansion of Williamsonia and the fossil

 

1 ‘Williamson (3).
2 Moriére, pl. ii. fig. 4.
5 Lignier (1).

es
BENNETTITES. 153

dealt with many years ago by Braun.1 Braun’s genus Weltrichia
was instituted for a specimen discovered in the neighbourhood
of Baireuth, and referred to as a new genus of the Rhizanthee.
Schenk? expresses himself as very sceptical as to the correctness
of Braun’s description of this fossil, and does not consider it of
any scientific value.

In discussing the systematic position of Williamsonia and
other genera, Schenk very reasonably calls attention to the
absence of any satisfactory evidence in favour of a pandanaceous
alliance; he suggests that possibly Bennettites and Waolliamsonia
should be classed together, but refers to the absence of histological
characters as a serious obstacle to any decided conclusion. In
Zittel’s Handbuch, Schenk ® refers to Williamsonia as the female
inflorescence of Bennettites, and refers to Nathorst’s and Solms’
work in support of this opinion. Solms-Laubach‘ agrees with
Nathorst and Saporta & Marion as to the absence of trustworthy
evidence of the connection between Zamia gigas and Williamsonia.
After referring to Moriére’s important specimen, he concludes :?
“‘T have no doubt, therefore, that this specimen belongs to
Bennettites, but in saying this I have no intention of prejudging
the question of its relation to Williamsonda ; for it is still possible
that further discoveries may show the fructifications of Bennettites
and Willamsonia both belong to similar stems resembling the
stems of Cycadacee@, and confirm the opinion of Williamson and
Carruthers. But until the truth of these conjectures is ascertained,
we must be content to leave the relationship of Williamsonia
undetermined.” In another place, Solms’ draws attention to the
probability that we have long been familiar with the male
inflorescence of Bennettites in the fossil known as Williamsonia.

In his account of Bennettites etrusca, Cap. and Solms,’ Solms
figures and describes certain boat-shaped sacs which he regards
as pollen grains. He goes on to-say that, if his interpretation
of these structures be correct, the inflorescence of Bennettites

 

1 Braun (1).

2 Schenk (A. 8), p. 190.

3 Zittel (A.), Handbuch, p. 805.

4 Fossil Botany, p. 370.

5 Ibid. p. 372.

8 Note on Bennettites in Saporta’s Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 308.
7 Capellini and Solms, p. 202, pl. v. figs. 7 and 8,
154 BENNETTITES,

apparently bore anthers and pollen grains in its early stage of
development, and afterwards assumed the female condition. The
figures of isolated ‘‘ pollen grains” are not thoroughly convincing ;
but if Solms’ opinion be correct, we have a most important
addition to our knowledge of this interesting genus.

My examination of the Wealden examples of Williamsonia
leads me to support the view that this problematical fossil is
generically identical with Bennettites, and so far as our evidence
goes, we are, I believe, justified in regarding the former genus
as a form of inflorescence of the same type as that which has
been found in organic union with bennettitean stems. This
opinion is chiefly based on the Wealden forms, but if the suggested
relationship or identity of these with Bennettites be admitted, we
have a very strong case for including the Jurassic species in the
same category. A critical discussion of the Oolite specimens must
‘be deferred until the French material has been studied; such a
question will be best dealt with in a later volume devoted to
the Jurassic flora.

As regards the question of male and female inflorescences, I
am unable to recognize any sexual difference in the various
examples from the Wealden beds, and there does not seem to
be any good reason for regarding the so-called male Williamsonias
among the Jurassic specimens, as in any way proved to be of
that nature. In comparing Williamsonia with Bennettites we have
to rely entirely on the female inflorescence of the latter plant,
and it would seem that so far as our present evidence goes, we
have more reason for speaking of Williamsonia as the female
inflorescence. As to the nature of the male inflorescence we
are still without any very satisfactory evidence.

The following records have been made of Williamsonia, showing
a fairly wide distribution; but probably some of these species
cannot well be retained as trustworthy examples of the genus.

ENGLAND. Williamsonia gigas, Carr. Inferior Oolite.
W. Leckenbyi, Nath. a *
W. Bucklandi (Ung.). 5 *5
FRANCE. W. Pougneti, Sap. Lower Lias.
W. Morvérei, Sap. Oxfordian.
W. pictaviensis, Sap. is
W. Zeilleri, Sap. Kimmeridgian.
W. Gagnierei, Sap. Portlandian and Purbeckian.

PortugaL. W. minima, Sap. Lower Cretaceous.
BENNETTITES. 155

Swepen (Scanza). W. angustifolia, Nath. Rhetic.
Bornuotm. W. Forchhammeri, Nath. Jurassic.
GreEntanp. W. cretacea, Heer. Cenomanian.
Ivar. W. (Blastolepis) otozamitis, Zig. Inferior Oolite.
W. (Blastolepis) falcata, Zig. 3 9
: W. (Blastolepis) acuminata, Zig. 3 3
Canapa. W. recentior, Daws. Middle Cretaceous,
Williamsonia ? Neocomian.
AMERICA. W. virginiensis, Font. Potomac.
W. elocata, Lesq. Dakota.
W.? Riesti, Hollick Cretaceous.
Inpia.! W. Blanfordi, Feist. Kach (Umia beds; Up. Oolite).
W. cf. gigas, Carr. Rajmahal (Lias).
W. microps, Feist. 3 s

The second English species, W. Leckenbyi, is founded on a small
rayed disk like the large “‘carpellary disk” of Williamson, and
is regarded by Saporta as a lobed terminal expansion and not an
involucre as suggested by Nathorst. Saporta considers it possible
that the forms referred to this species may be simply a anorp ine
logical variation”? of W. gigas.

Buckland’s Podocarya is transferred by Saporta to Williamsonia,®
and it is highly probable that this plant is a bennettitean in-
florescence.

The French species W. Pougneti’, Sap.,* is founded on an
imperfect specimen which does not admit of any exact determina-
tion, and hardly justifies the institution of a new species. W.
Zeilleri, Sap.,° is also founded on a very poor specimen, and cannot
be diagnosed with any exactness. W. minima, Sap.,° recently
described from Portugal, is represented by an imperfect cluster
of small bracts, and cannot be accepted as a satisfactory record
of the genus.

Saporta has pointed out that Heer’s species, W. cretacea, from
Greenland, shows many points of divergence from the typical

 

1 A fossil figured by Sharpe as -Asterophyllites P from South Africa resembles
an involucre of Williamsonia ; but Hooker’s description of the specimen is more
suggestive of such a genus as Schizonewra (Sharpe, Trans. Geol. Soc. vol. vii.
[2], p. 227). Iam indebted to Prof. Rupert Jones for calling my attention to
Sharpe’s figure.

2 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 167. 3 Ibid. p. 127.

4 Ibid. p. 124, pl. cexxxvii.; see also-Saporta and Marion (2), vol. i. p. 234.

5 Ibid. p. 181, pl. ecxxxiv. fig. 3.

§ Saporta (1), p. 108, pl. xix. fig. 9.
156 BENNETTITES.

form;' it may possibly be an inflorescence of some cycad-like
stem, but is far from satisfactory.? One of the forms figured by
Zigno® (Blastolepis acuminata) is named by Saportat W. Ltalica.
Dawson’s W. recentior is an exceedingly poor specimen and
hardly worthy of any naine.

It is difficult in the case of some of the above fossils to
precisely define their geological horizon. The Bornholm species,
W. Forchhammeri, Nath.,' is from beds which have recently been
shown by Bartholin to contain 46 species of plants, of which
25 are regarded as Rhetic, and about 15 as indicating a Lower
Oolitic age.

The fragment described by Dawson* as W. recentior is from
the Canadian Middle Creek series, which is compared with the
Patoot series of Greenland and the Dakota group of the Western
United States.

The unnamed Williamsonia is from the Kootanie formation,
which is correlated with the Neocomian of Europe.’

Fontaine’s Potomac series includes rocks differing somewhat
widely in age, Jurassic and Cretaceous strata being incorporated
in one formation. 5

Williamsonia? Riesit is probably a true Williamsonia with
numerous and unusually narrow bracts; the author of the species
compares it with some composite flower.

As regards the Indian beds, it has long been a difficult problem
to determine their exact geological position; the Rajmahal beds
are spoken of by Oldham,® in the recent edition of the Manual
of Indian Geology, as Liassic, the Kach (Cutch) or Umia beds
being correlated with the Upper Oolite, but the precise horizon
can only be approximately stated.

 

1 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 118.

2 Heer, Flor. foss. Arct. vol. vi. p. 59, pl. xii. fig. 1; pl. xiii. fig. 9.
[Since writing the above I have examined Heer’s type specimen of W. cretacea
in the Geological Museum in Copenhagen, and find the impression is very
indistinct and unsatisfactory. ]

3 Zigno, loc. cit. p. 173, pl. xlii. fig. 10.

« Saporta, Joc. cit. p. 180, pl. ccli. fig. 3; and pl. cclii. fig. 4.

5 Nathorst (4). See also Bartholin, p. 112.

® Dawson (A. 5), p. 12, pl. iv. fig. 1.

7 Dawson (2), p. 87.

8 Medlicott and Blanford, p. 207.
BENNETTITES. 157

Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov.
[Pl. X., and Pl. XI. Fig. 8.]

Type. Specimens in the British Museum from the Fairlight
clays, Fairlight, near Hastings.

As a matter of convenience, a new specific name is adopted for
several specimens in the Rufford Collection. Without a fuller
knowledge of their anatomical structure it is impossible to give
an exact specific definition, but the general characters may be
briefly expressed as follows :—

Inflorescence ovoid, surrounded by numerous linear bracts,
enclosing a central axis (from which seed-bearing peduncles and
interseminal structures were given off); between the involucral
bracts and the periphery of the spadix there was a regular
reticulum of projecting ingrowths marking out the surface of
the inflorescence into small areolations.

In dealing with detached inflorescences or portions of such
structures, it is impossible to clearly discriminate between different
specific forms, as distinct from portions of the same species or
the same inflorescence in different stages of development. The
most important features in the following specimens are those
which serve to connect them, on the one hand with the typical
Bennettites, and on the other with the Jurassic Wolliamsonia.
Some of the examples of these Wealden forms differ from the
majority in having short and broad bracts at the base of the
inflorescence; these we may speak of as B. ( Williamsonia)
Carrutherst var. latifolius. I have ventured to associate the name
of Mr. Carruthers with the present species; it is to his work
that we are primarily indebted for our knowledge of Bennettites.

V. 3177. Pl. X. Figs. 1, 1a, and 16.

This specimen is one of the most important of those to be
described. In general form and appearance it is very similar to
Bennettites Moriéret as figured by Lignier,' except that in the
present specimen the linear bracts are distinctly shown, about

 

1 Lignier (1), pl. v. figs. 55 and 56.
158 BENNETTITES.

twelve in number, and, as occurs so commonly in the Jurassic
Williamsonias, they are broken off basally, leaving an annular
area immediately surrounding the base. This annular area shows
very distinctly numerous parallel longitudinal striations; these I
regard as corresponding to the so-called ‘‘ antheriferous tissue”? of
some writers in Williamsonia gigas, Carr. At the base we have
a well-defined rim surrounding a central short and conical cavity
(Fig. 16); a similar form of axis occupied by carbonaceous matter
occurs in the specimen represented in Fig. 8. Compare also Saporta,
pl. xxvi. fig. 8. Length of V. 3177 6cm., breadth 35cm. In
Fig. 1a the truncated base of one of the bracts is represented as seen
from below; this shows a number of regularly placed projections
from the face of a bract, extending from the latter to the internal
fibrous structures. In some of the figures of the inflorescence
of Bennettites Gibsonianus, Carr., given by Solms-Laubach,} there
are similar internal projections represented in the inner face of
the ‘outer layer” of the fructification. In describing the
structure of the inflorescence, Solms writes: ‘Not unfrequently
sharp and tolerably deep indentations penetrate from without into
this homogeneous external layer; these indentations are covered
with the epidermis, and probably answer to the cross-sections of
a superficial areolation of the entire fructification ; they are par-
ticularly well and clearly seen near the base of the spadix in
fig. xii. of pl. xxv.” The same indentations are seen in Solms’
pl. xxv. fig. 8, fig. 10, and fig. 11. These ingrowths are, I
believe, the structures seen in our Fig. 1a, Pl. X. In the longi-
tudinal section of Cycadeoidea etrusea, Cap. and Solms,? figured
by Capellini and Solms, pl. iv. fig. 1, we have the structures
clearly represented, and again, on a larger scale, by Carruthers?
in B. Gibsonianus (pl. lx. fig. 8). In his description of the latter
species, Solms speaks of the interstitial organs as becoming much
more numerous towards the periphery of the spadix (pl. xxv.
figs. 8 and 11); Lignier also refers to this character, and in a
figure of the peripheral region of the fructification (p. 31, fig. 2),
shows the superficial bracts on the outside, and internal to these
much smaller interseminal bracts and atrophied seed-bearing

 

1 Solms-Laubach (2), pl. xxv. figs. 8 and 10-12.
2 Capellini.
3 Carruthers (1).
BENNETTITES. 159

peduncles. The fine longitudinal lines seen on the surface of
the specimen figured by Lignier on pl. v. figs. 55 and 56, and
described by him as the peduncles, bear a very close resemblance
to the fine lines traversing the basal annular area in our figure
(Pl. X. Fig. 1), and to the so-called antheriferous tissue of
Williamsonia gigas. Vt is, I believe, the interseminal structures
or possibly atrophied peduncles that are seen in such specimens of
Bennettites Carrutherst as are represented in Pl. X. Fig. 1, Pl. X.
Fig. 2, Pl. X. Fig. 8, and Pl. XI. Fig. 4. The central conical
cavity was originally occupied by a fleshy axis, on which were
borne the seed-bearing peduncles. Ecclesbourne.  Rufford Coil.

V. 3201. Pl. X. Fig. 4.

In this specimen we have the outer part of the basal portion of
a larger form, or older inflorescence. In the centre there is a
somewhat oval area with an uneven surface 2°3cm. in diameter,
surrounded by a series of slightly raised structures; external to
this is a concave rim, with its surface marked by a well-defined
reticulum of projecting ridges. The appearance of this saucer-like
rim suggests that there were originally numerous narrow bracts in
close contact with it; the outline of these being indicated by the
shallow depressions and intervening ridges as shown in the figure.
This specimen approximately corresponds to the basal portion of
V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1), the external margin of the reticulately
marked rim coinciding with the truncated bases of the involucral
bracts of such examples as V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1) and V. 2129
(PL X. Fig. 2). The network is probably formed by the same
regular indentations which are seen in Fig. 1a, and described by
Solms! as forming a regular areolation over the surface of the
spadix. Between the reticulately marked rim and the central
boss there would be the continuous external layer of the peripheral

zone. Cf. Solms, pl. xxv. figs. 4 and 7-12. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 3202. Pl. X. Fig. 2.

Here again we have the characteristic Williamsonia gigas base,
somewhat larger than in V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig 1). The linear bracts
are unevenly broken, exposing the numerous fine, interseminal,

 

1 Loe. eit. p. 487.
160 BENNETTITES,

fibre-like structures. Probably in this specimen the whole in-
florescence is partially expanded, and is not so conical in form
as the more completely closed example shown in Pl. X. Fig. 1.
Cf. W. gigas as figured by Williamson (pl. lii. fig. 3), W. Gagnieret
as figured by Saporta’ (pl. xxvi. figs. 1-3), ete. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 21295. PIX. Fig. 3.

The remains of a fructification similar to but rather smaller
than V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1). Occupying the centre is a well-
defined hemispherical boss, 8mm. in diameter, differing from that
in Pl. X. Fig. 1d in its more spherical form; its surface is covered
with small punctations. At the base of this boss there appears to
be a small projecting rim, and external to this an almost vertical
involucre of narrow bracts. Resting on the inner face of these
bracts is a fibrous material, consisting probably of the same
slender structures as those seen in V. 3202 (Pl. X. Fig. 2), and
like them being the small interseminal scales, or peduncles,
which make up the peripheral portion of the spadix. Compare
B. Gibsonianus, Carr.: in that species the central boss is more
cushion-like in form. At a distance of about two-thirds from
the base the bracts are bent outwards, as shown in the figure.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2129. Pl. X. Fig. 5.

A star-like cluster of broader bracts, closely resembling such
a form as Williamsonia (Blastolepis) acuminata, Zig. (= W. Italica,
Sap.).2. The bracts are arranged in a close spiral, and do not
form a true whorl. In some there are a number of fine hairs
obliquely attached to the margin; these are shown on the
lower margin of the middle left-hand bract in the figure. The
hairy margin corresponds with that in Cycadolepis villosa, Sap.,%
and our V. 2802,‘ etc. This specimen probably represents a series
of bracts which surrounded the base of an inflorescence. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Pal. Franc. vol. iv.

2 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. pl. ccli. fig. 3.
3 Ibid. vol. ii. pl. exiv. fig. 4.

4 p. 97.
BENNETTITES. 161

V. 2793. Pl. XI. Fig. 1.

The bracts in this specimen are of large size, and less complete.
In the centre we have the remains of the base of the axis to
which seed-bearing peduncles were originally attached: ef. V. 3201
(Pl. X. Fig. 4). On one side of the central boss a portion of the
fibrous annular ring is preserved, showing the impressions of some
of the peripheral structures of the spadix; external to this we
have traces of a reticulate structure resembling that of V. 3201
(Pl. X. Fig. 4). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2129¢d. Pl. XI. Fig. 2.

Portions of large and spreading bracts surrounding a slightly
irregular conical cavity; on the inner face of this there are
numerous fine reticulations. Probably of the same type as
V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1), but much less complete. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

 

Fic. 8.—Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov. (nat. size).
Specimen in the possession of Mr. Rufford.

This specimen (Fig. 8) shows the clearly outlined central
structure, of conical form, similar to the smaller conical cavity

M
162 BENNETTITES.

in V. 8177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1). The impression immediately below
the inflorescence is probably not in organic connection with it.
Preservation imperfect. Fairlight.

V. 2918. [Involucral bracts, surrounding a central boss.
Towards the base of one of the bracts, and on the surface of the
rock, there are some traces of the reticulate structure usually
met with in this position. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 3172. Fairly broad involucral leaves surrounding a small
central cavity. Cf. V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1). Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coil.

V. 29138c. Small specimen showing a portion of the annular
zone,! with narrow irregular projecting ridges towards its inner
margin, passing towards the outer edge into distinct reticulations :
of. V. 3201 (Pl. X. Fig. 4), ete. In the centre is a slightly
raised boss, separated by a circular groove from the annular
zone; in the circular groove was probably situated the “con-
tinuous external layer of the peripheral zone,” as figured and
described by Solms.? Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 27984 and V. 2793). Very similar to V. 2129¢ (Pl. X.
Fig. 5).

V. 2801. This specimen shows a central portion like that
in V. 8201 (Pl. X. Fig. 4); surrounding this there are irregular
radiating lines gradually passing towards the periphery into
a regular reticulation. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 29134. <A circle of narrow bracts surrounding a central

area. Cf. Pl. XI. Fig. 1 (V. 2793).

 

1 There is a specimen very similar to this in the Leckenby Coll. (Cambridge).
2 Solms (2), pl. xxv.
BENNETTITES. 163

V. 21299. Two specimens with an involucre of broader
bracts surrounding a central boss. It is difficult to decide how
far the breadth of the bracts may constitute a specific difference.
These examples are somewhat intermediate between the specimens
referred to the variety Jatifolius, and the narrow leaved forms.

Cf. V. 27985 and V. 2129/, ete.

V. 2254. Small portion of the annular zone. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 2129. Small specimens showing a central cavity bordered
by an annular zone of fibrous structures.

Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov.,
var. latifolius mihi.

V. 2129¢. Pl. XI. Fig. 4.

Compare with a figure of Williamsonia gigas given by Oldham
and Morris. In the centre is a depressed boss, as in V. 2798
(Pl. XI. Fig. 1), V. 3201 (Pl. X. Fig. 4), surrounded by a narrow
ring, and external to this a rim of fibrous structures, about 1:3 cm.
broad. At a lower level than the fine radiating fibrous structures
(peripheral interseminal scales or abortive peduncles), we find here
and there an impression of a reticulately marked surface; this
reticulum is probably identical with that in V. 3201 (Pl. X.
Fig. 4), and in V. 3177 (Pl. X. Fig. 1). External to the annular
ring are the blunt and rounded tips of a few broad bracts. The
specimen consists of the detached basal portion of an inflorescence
seen from the inside. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V.2129/. Pl. XI. Fig. 3.

Very similar to V. 2129 (Pl. XI. Fig. 4); an involucre of short
and broad bracts like those of the preceding specimen, but in this
case seen from the outside. In places where portions of the bracts
have been removed, a fine reticulate structure is seen on the rock-
surface. In the centre of many of the polygonal meshes a slight
magnification reveals the presence of a small black dot of coaly
164 BENNETTITES.

substance. A mesh with such a central dot presents some resem-
blance to the section of a peduncle as figured by Lignier,' the
dot representing the central vascular bundle. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 21290. Very similar to V. 2129/.

P Bennettites.

V. 2304, V. 3174, V. 3176. Indistinct remains of carbonized.
hairy bracts; may possibly belong to Bennettites. Also V. 2830
and V. 2816. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 3163 and V. 3164. A short axis, about 4cm. in breadth,
terminating in partially expanded bracts. The bracts and hairy
ramenta closely resemble those of V. 3177 (p. 144), and suggest
the same plant. May possibly be an axis which bore a
Wiiliamsonia inflorescence. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2305, V. 2306. May be portions of similar stems, but cannot
be accurately determined. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coli.

V. 2349. A mass of hairy or woolly structures evidently
arranged round some axis; pressed together as so many thin
lamine. Very similar to the hairy scale leaves, etc., in the stem
previously described (V. 3177, p. 144). Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coil.

V. 2930. Woolly scales or masses of ramental structures.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Lignier (1), pl. v.
YATESIA. 165

Genus YATESIA, Carruthers.
(Trans. Linn. Soe. vol. xxvi. 1870, p. 687.]

This generic name was proposed by Carruthers for a form of
cycadean stem originally described as Cycadeoidea Yatesti, Carr.t
The genus is thus defined :-—

‘Trunk cylindrical, of uniform thickness, and covered with
the short persistent bases of the petioles; scars of the aborted
leaves scattered among those of the true leaves. Andreecium
unknown; gyncecium forming a cone, each carpophyll of which
bears two reflexed ovules.”

The characters of the floral structures are based on certain
cones of somewhat doubtful affinity, which have not been found
in actual connection with Yatesia stems, and cannot, therefore,
be regarded as of much value. In some of the specimens referred
to this genus, the general arrangement of the tissues, and to
some extent the histological structure, have been preserved, but
the latter are but very imperfectly known. If we examine the
figures of stems included in Yatesia, we shall find it a difficult
task to distinguish some of the examples figured by Carruthers
from stems referred to the genus Bucklandia. The form of the
leaf-scars in Bucklandia Milleriana, Carr.,? agrees closely with
that in the Yatesia stems; and in Y. Joassiana, Carr.,° there
appear to be distinct indications of the transverse constrictions
in the stem, as in many bucklandian stems; the form of the
leaf bases is also very similar in the two genera. Questions as to
differences in age, stages of growth, and the manner of preservation
of the stems, render the discrimination and exact limitation of
generic types exceedingly difficult, or even impossible; my im-
pression is, that at all events in some of Carruthers’ species there
are no satisfactory grounds for the application of two generic
names. It does not seem possible to draw any distinct line of

 

1 Carruthers (6).
3 Carruthers (1), pl. lv. fig. 1.
3 {bid. pl. lv. fig. 8.
166 YATESIA.

separation between some of the smaller stems of Bucklandia and
the yatesian form of trunk. Schimper includes Yatesia Joassiana,
Carr.,1 in the genus Clathraria, and expresses surprise that it
has been referred by Carruthers to another genus.

The specimens of Yatesia Morrisii, Carr., described by the
author of the species, were obtained from the Lower Greensand
beds of Potton and Leighton Buzzard. One of the examples in
the National Collection is described as being from the ‘‘ Wealden”
beds of Leighton Buzzard. The exact age of fossils from these
beds must be a matter of some uncertainty, owing to the fact
of many of them being clearly derived forms; it may be noted,
however, that some of the plant fossils from Potton appear to be
specifically identical with Wealden types.

Among the genera instituted by Saporta, that of Cylindropodium
includes some forms of stems which bear a striking resemblance
to Carruthers’ species of Yatesca.

Yatesia Morrisii, Carr.

1867. Cycadeoidea Morrisii, Carruthers, Geol. Mag. vol. iv. p. 199.

1870. Yatesia Morrisii, Carruthers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 688,
pl. lv. figs. 3-6.

1874. Yatesia Morrisii, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 555.

Type. Stem with internal structure imperfectly preserved.
Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester.

The following is Carruthers’ definition of this species :—

‘Stem cylindrical, covered with the bases of the petioles, which
are rhomboidal in form, and terminate in a tumid boss, the apex
of which is directed upwards. The cellular axis is very large.
The pith has disappeared, except in one specimen, where sufficient
of it remains to show that it was permeated with vascular
bundles. The woody cylinder surrounding the pith, in the
specimen figured, consists of two rings (figs. 5 and 6); it is
everywhere pierced by medullary rays, which are often so large
as to break the continuity of the wood (fig. 6). The sides of the
wood-cells parallel to the medullary rays are covered with disks

 

1 Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 554.
YATESIA. 167

in two or three rows (pl. lx. fig. 18). The inner surface of the
woody cylinder exhibits numerous narrow grooves, being the
meshes for the passage outwards of the vascular bundles to
the leaves. These meshes are larger and more regular on the
outer surface of the wood. A very thin layer of cortical tissue
separates the wood from the base of the petioles. The bases
of the petioles spring from this layer, at right angles to the stem.
Externally they present a rhomboid form, the horizontal diameter
of which is but little more than the perpendicular.”

Although the Potton and Leighton Buzzard sands, in which
the examples of this species have been found, are of Lower
Greensand age, the plant may be reasonably included in the
present list as possibly a member of the Wealden flora.

47029. Portion of a stem preserved in oxide of iron. The
inner face of the wood is shown, with the elongated medullary
ray cavities; an impression of this face would present a similar
appearance to the medullary cast of Bucklandia. Pith large,
surrounded by a zone of wood 1:4cm. in width, and consisting
of two concentric rings. The transverse section does not show
any well-marked medullary rays traversing the wood. The
petiole bases fairly distinct; some of them terminate apically
in a manner suggestive of a clean surface from which the frond
has been detached. Leighton Buzzard. Morris Coil.

V. 221. Two smaller specimens. A distinct variation in the
size of the leaf bases: ef. V. 2610. Leighton Buzzard.
Morris Coll.

Cf. Yatesia Morrisii, Carr.
[Fig. 9.]

The following specimens in the Beckles Collection, from the
Wealden rocks of Sussex, while agreeing fairly closely with
Yatesia Morrisii, possess certain points of resemblance to the
genus Bucklandia. The external characters correspond to some
extent with those in Saporta’s genus Cylindropodium,! but the

 

1 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. ii. p. 265, pl. xlix.
168 YATESIA.

specimens from the French beds are in a better state of
preservation, and admit of a more complete diagnosis, than the
English examples,

 

Fig. 9.—Cf. Yatesia Morrisii (nat. size). (V. 26106.)

V. 26103. Fig. 9. ‘

Leaf bases very prominent and considerably waterworn
(Fig. 9, @ and 4). At the upper end of the specimen, as seen
in Fig. 9a, the outer surface of the wood is exposed; in a view
of the transverse section (Fig. 9c) there is seen to be a single
ring of wood, with the bundles separated by broad primary
medullary rays, the spaces in the structureless cast representing
the xylem bundles. The small development of wood points to
a young stem, in which no second cambium had been formed.
Cf. Carruthers’ figures of Y. Morrisii (pl. lv. figs. 8, 5, and 6).
Sussex. Beckles Coll.

 

1 Carruthers (1).
TRUNCI. 169

V. 2607. Two specimens. The leaf bases present for the most
part a different appearance to those in the other specimens; they
are closer together and not separated by the deep grooves shown
in Fig. 9 (V. 26100). Some of the bases, however, project exactly
as in the preceding example, and there can be little doubt as to
their specific identity. There is a distinct disparity in the size |
of the petiole bases. Sussex. Beckles Colt.

V. 2610. “Waterworn stem with leaf bases as in V. 26100.
There is only one ring of wood, but this is no doubt merely
a matter of age, and shows that the stem was younger than that
of 47029 ( Yatesia Morrisit).

V. 2610¢. Smaller example.

V. 2610c. Two impressions of the worn surface of a stem, or
possibly a large cone. Cf. V. 26100 (Fig. 9). Sussex.
Beckles Coll.

V. 2612. An impression of the outer surface of a stem, or less
probably of a cone. Cf. V. 2607, also V. 2749a (Bucklandia
anomala, Stokes and Webb).! Sussex. Beckles Coll.

Trunci (Cycadaces).
Cf. “‘ Dracaena Benstedtit,” Konig.
(Pl. XII. Figs. 4 and 6.]

In a paper on Mesozoic Angiosperms, contributed to the
Geological Magazine in 1886 by Starkie Gardner, we find the
following statement: ‘The stems of Andogenites erosa, so common
in the Wealden and Neocomian, are now known to be cycadeous,
and it is probable that the Dracena-like stems from Tilgate Forest
and elsewhere, so often referred to by Mantell, are referable to
the same group.”* ndogenites erosa is now recognized as a fern
(Vol. I. p. 148); but the Dracena-like stems are in all probability,
as Gardner suggests, cycadean. Unfortunately no reasons are
given for this opinion. In the Second Report of the Committee
on British Tertiary and Secondary Beds, Gardner writes:* ‘We

 

1p. 129.
2 Gardner (A. 1), p. 201.
3 Gardner (A. 2), p. 243.
170 TRUNCI.

are not able to speak with certainty regarding the supposed
liliaceous or Dracena-like stems from the Wealden, so frequently
mentioned by Mantell, since it is not easy now to identify the
particular specimens referred to by him.”’ Mantell! refers to the
fossil stems discovered by Bensted at Maidstone, as nearly related
to Yucea or Dracena. On examining the large specimens of stems
in the British Museum, from the Iguanodon quarry” at Maidstone,
I was struck by their resemblance in external characters to the
stem of such recent cycads as Zamia Loddigesii, Miq., 2. Skinnert,
Warsz., and Z. pumila, L.

In 1868 Carruthers referred to the Maidstone fossils under the
name Dracena Benstedtii of Konig, and expressed his opinion that
they exhibit a closer resemblance to the stem of a Pandanus than
to that of a Dracena; but he refers to certain specimens in the
British Museum which appear to show the remains of internal
woody tissue, and thinks it possible that a closer examination
might not lend support to the comparison with either mono-
cotyledonous genus. In one or two of the Maidstone Kentish
Rag stems, there are portions of what closely resembles woody
tissue showing well-marked rings of growth, but a section cut
from this wood-like material proves it to be simply a deposit of
carbonate of lime formed in such a way as to closely simulate the
structure of wood. One of these so-called Dracena stems was
figured and briefly described in the Geologist for 1862,* but the
drawing does not give a very accurate idea of the specimen.
In a footnote to a paper by Bensted, Mackie® points out
the absence of any figure or description of Dracena Benstedtir
by Kénig.6 Morris’ gives this name as Kénig’s, but adds after
the author’s name ‘‘ British Museym,” and gives no reference to
any published account. In attempting to trace the geological
history of Monocotyledons, we are confronted on every hand with

 

1 Mantell (1), vol. i. p. 186.

? Bensted.

3 Carruthers (7), p. 154 (footnote).

4 Mackie, Geologist, vol. v, p. 401, pl. xxii.

5 Bensted, Geologist, Joc. cit. p. 336.

6 Kénig was sometime Keeper in the Mineralogical Department of the British
Museum.

7 Morris (A.), Brit. Foss. p. 8.
TRUNCI. 171

exceedingly doubtful fossils which cannot be relied upon as
satisfactory records; many of the supposed oldest monocotyledonous
plants have been shown to be either inorganic fossils, or to belong
to some other class of plants. These Maidstone Lower Greensand
stems, and the smaller Wealden examples of what appear to be
the same form of plant, do not afford any trustworthy evidence
of the existence of angiospermous plants at this horizon. The
resemblance to Dracena or Pandanus does not bear the test of
any careful comparison with the recent genera; in the fossils we
have none of the regular transversely elongated leaf-scars so
characteristic of these living monocotyledons. The method of
branching and the general surface characters are much more in
harmony with certain species of the genus Zamia. It may perhaps
be advisable to institute a new generic name for this form of
fossil stem, but for the present we are chiefly concerned with the
small Wealden examples, and need not introduce any new term.

V. 3162. Pl. XII. Fig. 5.

This specimen is probably the impression of a stem at a point
where branching is taking place; the surface is deeply and
irregularly wrinkled, and studded with round or oval pro-
minences showing no regularity of disposition. On the surface
of the specimen there is a small amount of carbonaceous matter,
which probably represents altered cortical tissue. A comparison
of this specimen with Dracena, and with Zamia Loddigesie or
Z. Skinnert, shows a much more striking resemblance to the latter
genus. In these forms of Zamia, as in the fossil stems, there
is not the characteristic armour of petiole bases, but a surface
marked by transverse and irregular wrinklings, with here and
there small knob-like protuberances. There is some slight
resemblance to Saporta’s Changarniera inguirenda’; but this is
described as a leaf, and not a stem structure. Very similar to
some of the Maidstone specimens. Ecclesbourne.  Rufford Coll.

V. 2350. Pl. XII. Fig. 4.

A portion of the specimen shown in the figure. The surface
is slightly convex, suggesting a small segment of a large stem.
The surface markings resemble those of V. 3162, but in this

 

1 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 246, pl. cclxx. fig. 2, etc.
172 TRUNCI.

case they assume the somewhat more definite form of transversely
elongated elliptical areas. Were it not for the convexity of the
specimen, one might, perhaps, be inclined to regard it as a pith
cast showing impressions of medullary rays. It closely resembles
the stems referred to as Dracena Benstedtit. A very thin layer of
a mineral substance occurs on the surface of the stem. Lccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2822. Part of a smaller stem than V. 3162; at one end
it shows the same form of branching as in the figured specimen
(Pl. XII. Fig. 5). Just below the place of origin of the large
branch there is a smaller branch or lateral appendage. Inter-
rupted transversely running ridges and numerous circular and

elliptical scars constitute the surface features. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coil.

V. 2170. An impression of what seems to be the surface of
a stem like V. 2322, etc. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Trunci, etc. (incertz sedis).

V. 2807. Small specimen of some cylindrical structure; surface
marked with irregular longitudinal ridges; apparently crushed.
Mr. Rufford suggests that this may be the axis on which a
williamsonian fructification was borne. LEcclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2259. Similar specimen, but more like some pith cast.
Cf. Fittonia insignis, Sap. (Pal. Frang. vol. ii. pl. Ivi.). Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 2133. This specimen shows several more or less rhomboidal
scaly structures, which may be the petiole bases of a cycadean
stem. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 3237. Possibly the impression of a petiole base, showing
what appear to be the impressions of vascular bundles, and other
smaller black spots, which may be gum canals. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 21324. V. 3187. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.
WITHAMIA. 178

Specimens of Doubtful Position.

Genus WITHAMTA, gen. nov.

In the second volume of the Plantes Jurassiques, Saporta figures
two specimens under the generic name Cycadorachis,’ C. armata,?
Sap., from the Lower Kimmeridgian, and C. abscissa,’ Sap., from
the same horizon. The former species is represented by a fairly
stout axis bearing four spinous recurved appendages, having the
appearance of rose thorns. This is not unnaturally compared
with the rachis of a cycadean petiole, in which, as in recent
species of Cycas and Dioon, the lower pinne are reduced to
spiny processes.

The genus is thus defined :—

‘ Rachides frondium foliolis destitute vel etiam frondium partes
infer, petioli dictz, sive nude sint, sive aculeis armatx, aut
ad basin insertionis causa paullo dilatatam squamatis e tomento
piloso constantibus ad utrumque latus preeditz videantur.”

Such a provisional genus like that of Rachiopteris among ferns,
is a useful institution, and the species Cycadorachis abscissa may
well be included in it; but the discovery by Mr. Rufford of
several specimens very similar to Saporta’s C. armata, negatives
the suggested relationship to a cycadean frond.

In the Ecclesbourne (Hastings) specimens there are large leaf-
like structures attached to the axis in the axils of the spines,

and, without attempting to speak definitely as to the precise
Grature of these two Kinds of appendages, | it it would seem unwise
to1 retain a _a_generic designation indicating a cycadean alliance.
Although it is held by some a wrong course to adopt, I propose to
substitute, in the case of Cycadorachis armata, Sap., and the almost
identical fossils from the English Wealden, a new generic name in

place of that instituted by Saporta. To retain Saporta’s genus, with ,

 

 

1 Pal. Franc. vol. ii. p. 193.
2 Ibid. p. 196, pl. exvii. fig. 1.
3 Ibid. p. 198, pl. cxiv. fig. 3.
174 WITHAMIA.

the recently discovered specimens before us, would be practically
equivalent to assigning the plant to a position which appears to
be entirely at variance with the facts. I propose, therefore, to
institute the: new genus Withamia for these spiny axes with
leaf-like appendages, and in doing so to place on record some
slight recognition of the immensely important service which
Witham of Lartington rendered to paleobotanical science. The
Internal Structure of Fossil Vegetables! is widely known as a
classic work marking the beginning of a new method of in-
vestigation; but so far as I am able to discover, the name of
the author of this epoch-making book has not been made use
of as a genus of plants. We may define Withamia as follows :—

A woody axis bearing two rows of spiny appendages, in the
axils of which are borne flat leaf-like appendages.

Withamia Saporte, gen. et spec. nov.
[Pl. II. Figs. 1 and 2; Pl. V. Fig. 1.7]

Type. Specimens in the British Museum.

There is a very strong likeness between Saporta’s species,
C. armata, and the English specimens as regards the axis and
recurved spines, but the absence of any leaf-like appendages in
the former, and the difference in geological age, render it advisable
to adopt a new specific name for the present examples of the
genus. I have chosen as a specific designation the name of the
author who first described this form of fossil plant. The species
may be defined as follows :—

Axis having a breadth of about lcm., striated longitudinally,
bearing stout recurved spines arranged laterally in two rows,
and at slightly irregular intervals. In the axils of the spinous
processes there are attached more or less orbicular or obcuneate
leaf-like structures, having a distinct flabellate (Cyclopteris type)
venation.

 

’ Edinburgh, 1833.

» For Saportaia on Pl. II, substitute Withamia; the former name being too
nearly identical with Saportea (Fontaine and White, The Permian or Upper
Carboniferous Flora. Harrisburg, 1880).
WITHAMIA. 175

A purely provisional genus like Withamia seems decidedly
preferable for the present species, to one which in any way
implies a definite botanical position. It is by no means. clear
how such a plant can well be included in the Cycadace@; and
we have no evidence of sufficient value to enable us to assign
the species to any other particular group. In the English Wealden
rocks there has not so far been found any trustworthy record
of an angiospermous plant. The Conifers and Ferns may be
mentioned as possible groups in which to include this species,
but as yet we have not sufficient evidence to warrant the selection
of a generic name, which would imply a connection with one or
other of these sub-classes.

In a letter written about a fortnight before his death, the
Marquis of Saporta wrote to me at some length in answer to
an expression of doubt on my part as to the cycadean nature’
of his Cycadorachis armata, and our more perfect English species.
The following sentences are taken from his letter, written on
January 10th, 18951; his words may be quoted in full; they
are valuable, not merely as giving the opinion of one so well
qualified to speak on such a question, but as some of the last
from the ready pen of this indefatigable and accomplished student.

“Je suis en effet ravi l’apprendre que vous avez rencontré
dans votre Wealdien une portion de fronde, encore munie de
pinnules en place de nion Cycadorachis armata (Pal. franc.
Cycadées, p. 195, pl. exvii. fig. 1). Point de doute relativement
4 Vétroite conformité de Votre échantillon avec le mien les épines
sont égales des deux parts et distribuées de la méme facgon sur
le rachis. Du Kimmeridgien au Wealdien la distance verticale
nest pas telle que la méme espéce de Cycadées n’ait pu se
maintenir et réparaitre sans changement appréciable. Le type
est assurément curieux, et mérite d’obtenir une dénomination
générique. A votre place je donnerais 4 ce type de Cycadées le
nom d'Acanthozamites. Remarquez d’abord, cher Monsieur, qu’il
n’y a dans la présence de ces épines acérées disposées le long du
rachis de la fronde rien d’insolite et pour en étre persuadé vous
navez qu’a consulter la figure 1, pl. xi. du volume des Cycadées
de mes plantes Jurassiques. Cette figure represente la base d’une

 

1 The Marquis of Saporta died at Aix-en-Provence on January 26th, 1895.
176 WITHAMIA.

fronde de Cycas avec les épines, qui sauf Ja dimension plus petite
sont pareilles a celles du type fossile Wealdien et Kimmeridgien.
Seulement au lieu d’un Cycas ou d’un Dioon, comme je le
présumais, nous avons ici un type eteint dont les frondes portaient.
En méme temps des épines et a leur aisselle vers milieu du rachis
des folioles, sans doute caduques dont le ressemblance avec celles
du Sphenosamites latifolius, Brong. (Pal. frang. Cycadées, pl. cxvii. et
pls. exii. and cxiii. pour les folioles de Sphenozamites), doit étre prise
en considération. Il l’agit: seulement de décider si la présence de
ces épines constitue un caractére générique ou seulement spécifique,
puisque nous savons par )’échantillon de ma planche cxii., que le
rachis du Sphenozamites latifolius n’était pas armé d’appendices
épineux. Je crois que dans l’incertitude on est fondé a reconnaitre
au moins dans cette particulité Vindice d’un sous-genre ou section
& part qu’il est naturel de désigner par un dénomination a part,
comme serait celle de Acanthozamites que je proposais plus haut ou
toute autre 4 votre convenance.

Mon sentiment est donc ici que le rapprochement avec les
Phyllocladus v’aurait aucune vraisemblance tandis que celui avec
les Cycadées et les Sphenozamites en particulier dont étre adopté
comme le plus naturel.”

My reason for not adopting the genus <Acanthozamites, as
suggested by Saporta, is that it suggests a cycadean affinity
which is hardly supported by the nature of the specimens. As
regards the spines, these in themselves are by no means opposed
to a cycadean rachis, but the structures in their axils seem to
me quite inconsistent with the morphological character of any
recent cycadean frond. Mr. Carruthers suggested to me that the
specimens show some resemblance to certain ferns, and expressed
an opinion in favour of the Filicine as the most likely plants
“with which to compare the fossil species. We have various recent
fern fronds which are more or less spinous!; but the general habit
of the fossil form, the nature of the spines, their disposition on
the axis, and their definite relation to the leaf-like structures
constitute important points of divergence from any living Filicine.

 

1 An interesting form of fossil fern, @leichenia Hantonensis, is figured by
Starkie Gardner from the Eocene plant-beds of Bournemouth, in which strongly
recurved climbing organs are preserved. [Gardner (2), p. 60.]
WITHAMIA. 177

In answer to my question as to the probability of such a fern-
affinity, Mr. Baker, of the Kew Herbarium, wrote as follows:
“T should not think this very curious fossil is likely to be a
fern. Phyllocladus seems far more likely. But, of course, without
flower and fruit there can be no certainty. The climbing stem
and hooked prickles recall Calamus.” I had suggested the
possibility of the Wealden plant being compared with the New
Zealand conifer, Phyllocladus,’ in the recent species of which we
have small scaly leaves subtending flattened cuneiform branches
(phylloclades). If the leaves were modified into climbing-hooks,
we should have a fairly close approximation to Withamia, but
the evidence at hand does not allow of any great weight being
attached to such a comparison. In a palm such as Calamus or
Desmoncus we find somewhat analogous spines, but in these
monocotyledonous plants, there is not the same relation as regards
position on the axis between hooks and leaf segments as in
Withamia. For the present, then, I propose to leave the position
of Withamia an open question, in view of the difficulty of deciding
the morphological value of the stout recurved spines and leaf-like
appendages, and the insufficient evidence afforded by incomplete
vegetative structures.

V. 2134. Pl. IT. Fig. 2.

Length of axis 12°2cm., about 1cm. broad, striated longi-
tudinally. In the axil of each stout recurved hook there occurs
a portion of a leaf-like appendage; these leaves or phylloclades
are imperfectly preserved, but enough is seen to demonstrate the
flabellate venation, and to suggest a form similar to that of
the detached “‘leaf” represented in Pl. II. Fig. 1 (V. 2195).
The markings shown on the surface of the uppermost left-hand
spine are merely cracks, and not the remains of any original
structure; the two highest spines are attached to the axis in
a manner indicative of an alternate arrangement, the middle pair
are opposite, and the lowest subopposite. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2915. Pl. II. Fig. 1.
This well-preserved Cyclopteris-like leaf appears to have been

 

1 Species occur in New Zealand, Tasmania, and Borneo.
178 WITHAMIA.

sessile; the veins are numerous and clearly shown. The irre-
gularity of the margin is probably an original character; in some
other examples of these ‘‘leaves” the margin is much more indented,
and the form of the ‘leaf’ longer and narrower: ¢f. V. 2184e,
V. 2798, etc. There is a distinct similarity between this speci-
men and an unusually entire Ginkgo leaf. Saporta’s figure of a
Sphenozamites latifolius leaf agrees very closely with the Wealden
specimen; if this form of leaf were attached to Withamia ( Cycado-
rachis) armata it would make the resemblance between the French

and English species still more striking. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 2134a. Pl. V. Fig. 1.

Axis 18cm. in length, and 9mm. broad. The longitudinal
striations very clearly shown, also the stout nature of the hooks.
Very incomplete fragments of the flat appendages in the spine
axils. The spines are less regularly placed than in V. 2134
(Pl. II. Fig. 2) and farther apart. Cf. Cycadorachis armata, Sap.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2805. <A short piece of an axis with two well-preserved
recurved spines. No leaves shown.

V. 2805a. 20cm. long, showing seven spines. Traces of
flattened appendages in the axils of some of the spines. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2134. Portion of a large leaf, apparently about 7°8 cm.
in length. A good specimen of Sphenopteris Fontainet, Sew.,
on the same piece of rock.

V. 2134c, V. 2134d, V. 2134¢, and V. 2134f. Portions of

“leaves,” showing venation. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2182, V. 2732, and V. 2798. Specimens of “leaves” Some
have a more cuneiform shape than the example figured (V. 2915,
Pl. II. Fig. 1). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Loe. cit. pl. exiii.
BECKLESIA. 179

V. 2928. Axis 43 cm. long, 1-1°3cm. broad. Portions of four
hooks seen on one side, smaller than those of 2134¢ (Pl. V. Fig. 1).
The appearance of this specimen is suggestive of a hollow axis,
but this is probably due to the preservation of the cortex apart
from the internal woody tissue. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Genus BECKLESIA, gen. nov.

The specimens included under this genus are difficult to describe
with any completeness, on account of the fragmentary and
imperfect nature of the material. So far as I have been able
to discover, it is impossible to include these fossils in any known
genus; the above name is therefore proposed as a convenient
generic term, and one which does not imply any exact botanical
position. The National Museum owes some of its valuable
examples of Mesozoic plants to the enthusiasm of the late
Mr. Beckles; I have therefore made use of his name as a generic
designation. As a specific name for the few examples referred to
the genus Becklesia, the term anomala may be adopted.

Becklesia anomala, gen. et spec. nov,
[Pl. XIV. Figs. 2 and 3.]

Type. Fragments, British Museum; from Ecclesbourne, near
Hastings.

The type species of the genus may be defined as follows :—

Axis comparatively broad, giving off (on one side?) stout and
stiff branches, attached to the axis of higher order in different
positions, either laterally or on the surface, and at irregular
intervals. On one surface the branches show a number of
parallel longitudinal striations, and on the other surface a broad
median rib with a small groove on either side.

The specimens are, however, too imperfect to admit of any
satisfactory generic or specific diagnosis,

In his monograph on fossil cycadean stems, Carruthers makes
a brief reference to a specimen found at Maidstone, which is
spoken of as possibly a bennettitean frond. This fossil bears
180 BECKLESIA.

in some respects a distinct resemblance to the present species.
Carruthers thus describes the Maidstone specimen: ‘‘It is a very
large leaf, with numerous long linear segments, attached very
obliquely to the rachis. The segments are simple on the upper
part of the frond, but the lower ones give off, at regular distances,
several long and slender ultimate segments.”’! Mr. Carruthers
afforded me an opportunity of examining these Lower Greensand
specimens, and suggested that the Wealden examples figured in
Pl. XIV. Figs. 2 and 3, represent the lateral segments of the
Maidstone “frond” with their lateral long and slender segments.
Although there undoubtedly exists a distinct resemblance, yet
one cannot speak at all positively as to the identity of the two
sets of fossils. In the Wernsdorf flora of the northern Carpathians,
an abundant and characteristic species is that described by
Ettingshausen as Thuites Hoheneggert, Ett.,? and afterwards by
Schenk as Frenelopsis Hoheneggert (Ett.).2 Of the specimens so
named, some of those figured by the latter author present a more
or less close resemblance to Becklesia anomala; this is especially
the case with those represented in Schenk’s pl. v. figs. 1 and 2.
Frenelopsis was proposed by Schenk as a generic name for plants
having a similar habit to the recent genus Frenela, and possessing
among other characters cylindrical articulated branches bearing
small scaly leaves. The majority of the Wernsdorf examples of this
genus show these characters very clearly, but those in pl. v. figs. 1
and 2 are apparently without them, and in some degree conform
to the present species. Without examining Schenk’s material,
it is impossible to speak definitely as to the exact nature of these
particular examples; it may be that a difference in age or manner
of preservation, is sufficient to account for the apparent absence
of the articulations and small leaves. Schenk‘ speaks of these two
specimens (pl. v. figs. 1 and 2) as older examples, in which the
leaves are only partially preserved. The chief point of contact
between the Wealden fossils and those from the Wernsdorf beds,
described as older portions of Prenelopsis Hoheneggert, lies in the

 

1 Carruthers (1), p. 697 (footnote).

2 Ettingshausen (A. 4), Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2,
p. 26, pl. i. figs. 6 and 7.

3 Schenk (A. 8), Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 13, pls. iv.—vii.

* Loe. et. p. 14.
BECKLESIA. 181

long and stiff lateral branches. In the English specimens there
are no signs of any articulations or of leaf structures; so that
they cannot well be included in the genus Frenelopsis. The
typical form of the genus is well illustrated by Ettingshausen’s
figures, as also by those of Heer‘ and Saporta.2 In Fontaine’s
Potomac Flora,’ several specimens are referred to Schenk’s genus,
but these have recently been transferred by Nathorst to a new
genus, Pseudofrenelopsis,4 on the ground that the American forms
have been incorrectly interpreted by Fontaine. As regards habit,
there is some slight resemblance between Becklesta and Camptopteris
spiralis, Nath.,> from Bjuf. On the whole, however, Carruthers’
specimens offer the greatest similarity to the following fragments,
the nature of which must be left entirely unsettled.

V. 28610. Pl. XIV. Fig. 2.

In the portion of the specimen represented in the figure the
characters of the lateral segments are fairly clearly shown. A small
piece of the branch at the right-hand upper corner of the drawing,
shows the parallel striation and apparently woody nature of the
segments; a little below, this branch is crossed by another in
which the broad median ridge may be seen. Most of the lateral
segments are flattened, and do not present such distinct surface
features.

V. 2361c. Pl. XIV. Fig. 3.

The flattened main axis fairly distinct, with the irregularly
placed lateral branches. The third branch from the top does not
appear to arise laterally, but rather from the exposed face of the
broader axis.

V. 23612. Smaller fragment. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colb.

 

1 Heer (A. 6), Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 21, pl. xii. figs. 3-7. (The
specimens figured by Heer in his Flor. foss. Arct., and referred to Frenelopsis,
are probably not true examples of this genus.)

2 Saporta (1), pp. 113 and 139, pl. xxi. figs. 9-11, and pl. xxvi. fig. 16.

3 Fontaine (A. 2), p. 218, pls. xcv.-xcix., cxi., cxii., and clxviii.

4 Nathorst (5).

5 Ibid. (A. 1), p. 38, pl. iii.
182 BECKLESIA.

Cf. Becklesia anomala, sp. nov.
[Pl. XIV. Fig. 1.]

V. 2608. Pil. XIV. Fig. 1. (4 nat. size.)

The nature of this specimen is very doubtful, and its imperfect
preservation does not allow of any accurate description. Length
46cm., breadth about lem. From the central flattened axis a
number of comparatively straight lateral branches are given off
at irregular intervals; many of these appendages are separated
from one another by about 1-5cm., and have a breadth of 3cm.;
they are linear in form and of a uniform breadth; one branch, in
which the tip is not shown, measures 13cm. There appear to be
a small number of parallel veins in each segment. In some cases
the branches appear to bifurcate close to the point of attachment
to the central axis. Possibly we have here a larger specimen of
Becklesta, but the occurrence of branches on both sides of the axis
makes it difficult to be at all certain as to specific or even generic
identity with the previous specimens. Among recent plants there
is a form of Macrozamia heteromera, WM. heteromera var. glauca,
Moore,' in which the bifurcate pinne bear a certain resemblance
to the Wealden fossil, but in the former the more regular dis-
position of the segments affords an important point of divergence.
Cf. Schenk’s Frenelopsis Hoheneggert (Ett.),” as shown in pl. v.
figs. 1 and 2; also Camptopteris spiralis, Nath? Beckles Coll.

V. 2359. Two detached forked segments, probably the same as
V. 2608.

 

' Moore, p. 6.
2 Schenk, Joc. cit.
3 Nathorst, loc. cit.
DICHOPTERIS. 183

Genus DICHOPTERIS, Zigno.
[Mem. Instit. Veneto, vol. xii. p: 217, 1864.]

This genus is defined by Zigno as follows :—

‘“‘Frons bipartita, bipinnata, rachide primaria, crassa, striata.
Pinne liberw, pinnatifide, alterne, vel subopposite. Pinnule
coriacee integerrime, seepe basi angustate, in rachides alatas
decurrentes. Nervi squales pauci, simplices, interdum furcati,
e rachide seriatim orti, ad apicem marginemve pinnularum
flabellatim excurrentes. Sori rotundi, prominuli, sparsi. Capsule
(Sporangia) ovato-globose, sessiles, vel subsessiles, annulo completo
cincte. FFilices elastic, rachide crassa bipartita, facie Gleicheria-
cearum.”

Zigno’s genus is classed by Solms-Laubach! with Milssonia,
Thinnfeldia, and others, which ‘“‘have been shifted backwards
and forwards by different authors from cycads to ferns, and from
ferns to cycads.” In looking over the references to Dichopteris
by various writers, we find a considerable difference of opinion,
both as regards the necessity for such a generic designation, in
distinction to the much older genus Pachypteris of Brongniart,
and as to the affinity of the plants described under this name.
Schimper, in the first volume of the Trait. pal. vég.,? includes
Dichopteris under Pachypteris, and remarks that it is ‘‘impossible
to doubt the identity of the two genera”; in the third volume*
of the same work, he includes the former among the ferns as an
independent genus. Saporta includes some species of Dichopteris
in his genus Scleropteris*; e.g. the two plants originally described
by Phillips from the Lower Sandstone and Shale of the Yorkshire
Coast as Sphenopteris lanceolata,’ Phill., and Neuropteris levigata,®
Phill., but the nature of these species has been a matter of

 

1 Fossil Botany, p. 87.

2 p. 492.

3 p. 490.

4 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. i. p. 364.
5 Phillips (A. 2), p. 200, pl. x. fig. 6.
® Ibid. p. 201, pl. x. fig. 9.
184 DICHOPTERIS,

much discussion and need not be considered here. Feistmantel *
describes certain plant remains from the Gondwana flora of
India, which closely resemble Zigno’s species; he prefers to go
back to Brongniart’s Pachypéteris, and extends the original definition
so as to make it embrace, not only plants with the ultimate
segments ‘‘ enerviis vel uninerviis’”’* but those in which the veins
are more numerous. In Schenk’s monograph on Die fossile Flora
der Grenzschichten ... . a specimen is figured as Dichopteris
tmeisa, Schenk, but, as Feistmantel suggests,‘ the characters do
not seem to agree with Zigno’s genus. The larger and more
perfect specimens of Dichopteris figured by Zigno® would seem to
favour the inclusion of such plants among the Filicine; but, as
Schenk points out,® the fructification is too indistinct to be of
any taxonomic value. It is safer, therefore, while expressing
a bias towards the pteridophytic nature of the genus, to speak
of it as occupying a somewhat doubtful position.

Dichopteris, sp. Cf. D. levigata (Phill.).’
(Pl. XII. Fig. 6.]

V. 3145. Part of a single pinna, showing the coriaceous
ultimate segments without any distinct venation.

Ci. Dichopteris Visianica, Zig., D. levigata (Phill.), and
Scleropteris Pomelii, Sap.6 Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. ii. p. 29.

2 Brongniart (A. 3), Hist. vég. foss, p. 166.

3 Schenk (A. 1), p. 121, pl. xxviii. figs. 5-8,

4 Loe. cit. p. 30.

5 (1), pls. xii. and xiii.

6 (A. 8), Schenk’s Handbuch, p. 41.

1 =Neuropteris levigata, Phill., Pachypteris levigata (Phill.), Scleropteris
levigata (Phill.).

® Saporta, oc. cit. pl. xlvii.
CONIFERE. 185

Order CONIFER.

Stem much branched, leaves usually small and simple. Flowers
unisexual and without a perianth, plants monecious or dicecious.

The past history of the Conifere is but imperfectly known, and,
owing to peculiar difficulties connected with the determination of
fossil forms, the evidence of paleobotany as to the development
and geological distribution of these plants, must be accepted with
the greatest caution. It would take us far beyond the limits of
the present work to discuss at length the distribution in time of
coniferous types. In the Paleozoic rocks there are various repre-
sentatives of this Class, and we have an example, in such an
extinct genus as Cordaites, of a synthetic type in which coniferous
characteristics are combined with certain structural features met
with in other Orders of gymnosperms. As a general rule, fossil
conifers are perhaps the most unsatisfactory plants with which the
palzobotanist has to deal: structureless and imperfectly preserved
fragments of broken twigs, isolated cones, leaves or seeds, have
usually to be determined separately, and it is only in comparatively
rare instances that we are in a position to connect cones and vege-
tative branches. Coniferous wood, with its mineralized tissues more
or less well defined, is met with in rocks of nearly every age,
but here, again, the stems or thick branches must be determined as
far as possible from histological structure alone, and without any
leafy twigs or reproductive organs. Gdppert,! Kraus,! Kleeberg,!
Felix,’ Schenk,? Knowlton, and others have attempted to devise
convenient methods of classifying and identifying fossil Conifere by
means of the peculiarities of structure presented by the secondary
wood and the distribution of resin ducts. For the most part,
however, fossil conifers are represented by structureless casts or
impressions of leafy branches, occasionally bearing characteristic
cones or other forms of reproductive organs.

In treating of the Cycadacea, some general account was attempted
of the difficulties and possible sources of error which ought to be

 

1 For references see Solms-Laubach’s Fossil Botany.:

2 Zittel (A.), Handbuch, p. 848.

3 Knowlton (A. 2), Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 56, 1889. (See also Géppert
and Menge, Die Flora des Bernsteins, vol. i., and Conwentz.)
186 CONIFER.

kept in mind in the identification of fossil specimens. It may be
useful to draw attention to similar difficulties in the case of
Conifere, which have not always been observed by paleobotanical
writers.

If we examine the external characters of older branches of recent
conifers from which the leaves have been detached, it will be found
impossible to institute on such a basis any useful classification. It
happens, not infrequently, that the leaves and cortical tissues
become readily detached from the surface of the wood, leaving
a smooth axis in place of the corticated branch or stem. A good
example of this is afforded by such specimens as those represented
in Pl. XVII. Figs. 4-6. Occasionally we have to deal with pith
casts having the surface covered with lozenge-shaped prominences,
simulating elongated leaf bases. A good example of such a
medullary cast is afforded by Weiss’ genus Tylodendron, of which
the true nature was pointed out by Potonié! in 1887. Again, in
some specimens of the Triassic Voltzia® we have smaller pith casts
of similar form. In his Introduction to the Study of Paleontological
Botany, Balfour calls attention to the unnecessary multiplication of
fossil species, and illustrates the need for careful observation of the
characters of recent stems, by reference to the striking differences
presented by a branch of Araucaria imbricata, Pav., when the bark
is viewed intact, and after it has been more or less completely
stripped off the surface of the wood. In Araucaria Cunningham,
Ait., we find equally striking contrasts between the younger
branches, with their stiff falcate leaves, the slightly older stems, on
which only the rhomboidal leaf bases are left, the smooth surface of
the wood, from which overlying tissues are readily detached, and
finally, the surface features presented by a pith cast.

In the long needles of Pinus and the broad flabellately veined
leaves of Ginkgo, we have sufficiently well-marked characters to
enable us in most cases to arrive at a generic determination. In
many instances, however, it is a hopeless task to attempt to found
any accurate determination on leaves alone. Among recent genera
we have a deciduous habit in suck plants as Larix, Ginkgo, Taxodium

 

1 Potonié (2).
2 Seward (4).
* Balfour, p. 4
CONIFER. 187

distichum, Rich.; also, to a certain extent, in Sequoia sempervirens,
Endl., Thuja occidentalis, L., Libocedrus decurrens, Torr., etc.+; but
in most species the leaves remain on the tree for more than one
year. Occasionally, the manner of occurrence of detached leaves or
leafy shoots in a fossil state may afford evidence of the existence of
deciduous species. A careful examination of branches of recent
conifers bearing vegetative leaves, enables us to realize the im-
possibility of relying for accurate determination or comparison on
such uncertain characters as leaf form or arrangement. The uni-
veined leaves of Podocarpus in some forms of the genus, may be
confused with the foliage of araucarian species, in which the veins
are imperfectly preserved ; in such a plant as Podocarpus andina,
Popp., the long narrow leaves agree closely with those of some
forms of Cephalotaxus, and the detached leaves of either bear a strong
resemblance to single pinne of Cycas. A specimen of an unnamed
species of Cephalotaxus in the British Museum possesses leaves
measuring 11cm. in length and 4mm. broad, a close approach to
the pinne of Cycas species. The genus Agathis, e.g. A. Australis,
Salisb., cannot be readily distinguished from some forms of Arau-
caria, if we have only the leaves to guide us. The large leaves of
Agathis Dammara, Rich., and the broad pinne of Podozamites
cannot always be separated with certainty, at least in such
specimens as do not show distinct venation. If we have not the
general habit of the tree, or characteristic differences of colour to
help us, it is practically impossible to discriminate with accuracy
between the leafy twigs of many recent genera. Without entering
into any detailed comparison of living forms from this point of
view, we may note the close agreement between Zaxodium distichum,
Rich., Sequoia sempervirens, Endl., and Taxus baccata, L.; between
Cryptomeria, sp., and Araucaria, sp.; between different genera of
the Cupressine, etc. Similar examples might be readily multiplied ;
but an examination of the recent species will at once demonstrate
the futility of attempting generic distinction on such data, and will
emphasize the unfortunate habit of some writers of applying to
fossil fragments the unaltered names of recent genera. Another
pitfall as regards leaf form, is the fairly common occurrence of
heterophylly among coniferous plants. Writing in 1803, Lambert

 

1 Stark,
188 CONIFER.

says:! ‘‘T must here observe a remarkable peculiarity belonging to
the Conifere of the Southern Hemisphere, which is, that while the
trees are young their leaves are long and divaricating, but when
they become old enough to bear fruit, those leaves fall off, and are
succeeded by short scales, closely imbricated on the branches, so
that, seeing them in their different states, one could hardly suppose
it possible that they could belong to the same species.” This
young form of leaf may be retained for some few years before the
adult foliage is developed, and thus present a possible source of
error in the determination of fossil branches. In such’ a species as
Pinus pinea, L., we have the young leaves retained for some con-
siderable time previous to the development of the needles and short
shoots. An interesting case of this difference between the leaves
of young and adult plants was pointed out to me at the Royal
Gardens, Kew: the young plants of the new species of Widdring-
tonia, W. Whyted, Rend.,? from Nyassa-Land, bear comparatively
long needles, in marked contrast to the small scale leaves of the
older tree. A striking instance of a similar kind is afforded by
some specimens of Araucaria excelsa, R. Br., in the Herbarium of
the British Museum : there is a seedling with its long and spreading
leaves, an older specimen with narrow and spreading leaves, and
another with the stiff leaves of the adult plant. In Daerydium
Kirkii, F. Muell.,? from New Zealand, we find a marked difference
between the small and closely adpressed leaves, and the much
larger and more spreading leaves of other branches; also, in
D. elatum, Wall., D. Westlandicum, Kirk.,‘ and other forms, there
is a striking disparity in the leaf form. In Podocarpus cupressina,®
R. Br., there is a decided difference between the young and old
forms of leaves. In Athrotaxis selaginoides, Don.,® we have various
forms of leaf, from the longer and more openly disposed to the
smaller and closer leaves. Among other species exhibiting similar
differences in the shape and size of the leaves, we may note the
well-known Juniperus Chinensis, L., Biota orientalis, Endl., Junt-
perus Bermudiana, L., Glyptostrobus heterophyllus, Endl., etc.

 

1 Lambert, p. 89.

2 Rendle, p. 60.

3 Hooker (1), pl. mecxix.

4 Ibid. pl. mecxviii.

5 Brown and Bennett, pl. x.
* Don, pl. xiv.
CONIFERS. 189

Examples of heterophylly have been recorded among fossil forms—
e.g., Voltzia heterophylla, Brong.,! from the Bunter beds; and the
specimens of Sequoia Tournalit (Brong.), figured by Gardner* from
the Bagshot beds of Bournemouth, show a considerable difference
in the form of the leaves. The microscopical examination of the
epidermal cell-outlines of fossil coniferous leaves has been success-
fully adopted in some instances, ¢.g. by Zeiller* in the case of
Frenelopsis Hoheneggert (Ett.), and by Schenk ‘ in several instances.

In addition to the similarity of leaf form in different species and
genera, and the heterophylly in the same species, it is important
to note the common occurrence of more than one method of leaf
arrangement in the same tree. Masters,® in his useful paper in
the Journal of the Linnean Society for 1891, has drawn attention to
this variation in leaf arrangement among recent species of conifers.

In describing cycadean flowers, it was pointed out how difficult
it is in some cases to distinguish between the cones of cycads and
those of certain genera of conifers, when we have only external
form to guide us. The seeds of Cephalotaxus, Ginkgs, Torreya, and
other genera may be easily mistaken for those of Cycas and other
cycads. There is in many instances, the same difficulty in identifying
the detached cones of recent conifers as in determining detached
leafy twigs. Schimper and Mougeot, recognizing the difficulty of
discriminating between fossil cones, suggested the general generic
term Strobilites,® which they used in a somewhat similar sense to
that in which I have used the more comprehensive genus Conttes.

Hitherto the number of Conifere recorded from English Wealden
strata has been extremely small. In addition to isolated cones
described by Carruthers, Gardner, and others, we have only one
species represented by a leaf-bearing branch—Sphenolepidium Kur-
rianum (Dunk.). The Rufford Collection has enabled us to recognize
as British plants several of the species previously described from
Germany and elsewhere, and to make several additions to the list
of Wealden Conzfere.

 

1 Brongniart (5), p. 451. See also Schimper and Mougeot, p. 22, pls. vi.—xiv.

2 Gardner (2), pl. v.

3 Zeiller (3), p. 231, pl. xi.

4 Schenk (A. 1), Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, and (A. 2) Paleontographica,
vol. xix.

5 Masters, p. 244.

8 Schimper and Mougeot, p. 31.
190 ARAUCARITES,

Prvowrs — AsizTInEm—Anrav- , Araucarites cf. Conites elegans (Carr.),
CARINE. etc.

Araucarites, sp.
Povoirx—ABIETINEE—ABIETINE. Pinites Dunkeri, Carr.

Pinites Carruthersi, Gard.

Pinites Solmsi, sp. nov.

Pinites Ruffordi, sp. nov.

Pinites, sp.
PrnoipEx—ABIETINEE—Taxopuna Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.).

Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.).

Sphenolepidium cf. 8. subulatum (Heer).
PinoripEZ#—CuPRESSINEE.. . . . Thuites, sp.
Taxopis£Z£—PopocarPez®. . . . Nageiopsis, sp., cf. NV. heterophylla, Font.
GENERA ET SPECIES INCERTE SEDIS . Pagiophyliwm crassifolium, Schenk.

Pagiophylium, sp.

Brachyphylium obesum, Heer.

Brachyphyllum spinosum, sp. nov.

In the above list of Conifere described in this volume, I have
suggested the probable position of various species in the classifica-
tion adopted in Engler and Prantl’s recent work. It must,
however, be admitted that at present we cannot feel great con-
fidence in the attempts to determine, even the approximate affinities
of such provisional genera as Sphenolepidium, Pagiophyllum, and
Brachyphylium.

Genus ARAUCARITES, Presl.
[Flor. Vorwelt, Fasc. vii. p. 203, 1838.]

In the present instance this genus is used as a convenient
designation for certain female cones which resemble, in their
form and structure, these of the recent genus Araucaria.

Araucarites (Conites), sp. Cf Conites elegans (Carr.)
and Kaidocarpon minor, Carr,

[Pl. XII. Figs. 1 and 2.]

It has already been pointed out that the specimen figured by
Carruthers as probably a male cone of Bucklandia has little or no
claim to be regarded as cycadean; it very closely resembles the
specimens figured in Pl. XII. Figs. 1 and 2, and like them should
ARAUCARITES, 191

probably be referred to the genus Araucarites. Another fossil
which is probably identical with these Wealden cones is that
described by Carruthers as Katdocarpon minor from the Potton
beds of Bedfordshire; the type specimen! of this species in the
‘Woodwardian Museum shows the general characters of a somewhat
waterworn female araucarian cone. The same form of cone, but
one belonging to another species, is illustrated by a beautiful
specimen in the York Museum, which has been described and
figured by Carruthers from the Coralline Oolite of Malton, in York-
shire, under the name of Araucarites Hudlestoni.2, Mr. Carruthers
tells me he is disposed to regard some of the fossils described
by him as monocotyledonous inflorescences, as more probably
araucarian cones. It is proposed to discuss elsewhere, at greater
length, the value of several of the published records of supposed
monocotyledonous plants from Jurassic and Wealden strata.

V. 2180. Pl. XII. Fig. 2.

In this specimen we have a view of the proximal ends of the
scales, their broad and flattened form is clearly seen, also the
lozenge-shaped cavity in which the seeds were originally situated.
The form of the scales and the more or less globose form of the
cone, present a strong resemblance to the female strobili of species
of Araucaria; ¢.g., of. the figure given by Martius in pl. ex. of
his Flora Brasiliensis, with the specimens in our Pl. XII. Figs.
1 and 2.

V. 21802. Pl. XII. Fig. 1.
- The stout central axis is clearly shown, with the spirally
disposed points of insertion of the broad scales. Breadth of axis
about 4cem.; the scales probably wider towards the distal end,
showing prominent lateral angles or wings with a slightly convex
and wrinkled upper and lower surface. In one part of the
specimen the impressions of the scale apices show a prominent
distal end with a central dot, as in V. 2148. Some of the scales
show a clearly defined cavity, originally occupied by the small
seeds which were narrowed towards the cone axis. There are
three small seeds which seem to have fallen out from this cone.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 The specimen has not been figured.
2 Carruthers (8).
192 ARAUCARITES,

V. 2331. Two specimens, in the form of oblique sections, of
a cone, probably belonging to the same species as V. 2180. Cf.
Carruthers,! pl. vi. figs. 1 and 9. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 21805. Two specimens, showing an impression of the cone
surface. In size, and as regards the form of the scales, very
similar to Carruthers’ supposed bucklandian male cone, pl. liv.
fig. 6.2 Cf. V. 2148. Possibly this specimen should be referred
to another species; it is smaller than V. 2180 (Pl. XII. Fig. 2).
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2148. The impressions of the distal ends of the scales show
a small central depression, corresponding to an umbo on the
scale apex. This and other examples should be compared with
Araucarites Pippingfordensis (Ung.), the original of which is in
the Museum Collection. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 22652. Scales clearly preserved, showing in side view
a longitudinal depression, suggesting a shrinking of the seed
cavity. V. 2265. A well-preserved, but smaller specimen.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2277. Of. V. 2148. V. 3185. The thick central axis clearly
shown, also impressions of scales in side view. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 3178. Cone in cross section; scales with seeds clearly pre-
served. Other specimens referred to this form of Araucarites :

V. 2245, V. 2263, V. 22630, V. 2264, V. 2279.

Araucarites, sp.

V. 2266 and V. 2280. Two specimens of small subspherical
cones imperfectly preserved ; of the same form as the preceding
examples, but considerably smaller. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Carruthers (3).
2 Tbid. (1).
PINITES, 193

Genus PINITES, Endlicher.

[Synopsis Coniferarum, 1847, p. 283.]

In dealing with detached and imperfect cones, in which the
scales have a flattened form like those of -Adves and certain
species of Pinus, it is difficult, or indeed impossible, to arrive at
a very accurate generic determination. The use of Endlicher’s
genus in a wide sense is, therefore, a matter of convenience, and
in most cases preferable to the application of the generic name of
Pinus to detached cones which cannot be referred with absolute
confidence to a narrowly defined recent genus.

Endlicher defines this genus as follows :—

‘Folia, amenta staminigera et strobili, diversis Pinuum speciebus
similes.”” The term is a convenient one to adopt, if we do not
confine its use within the limits of the genus Prnus as defined in
modern systematic works.

Several detached cones have been described by Carruthers,
Gardner, and others from the Wealden rocks of England, under
the generic name Pinites. Their general character justifies the
choice of this genus, but an examination of several of the type
specimens lends no support to the existence of so many distinct
species as have been described. In the second report of the
Committee appointed for the purpose of reporting on the fossil
plants of the Tertiary and Secondary beds of the United Kingdom,
Starkie Gardner figures and describes the following new species:
Pinites valdensis, P. Carruthersi, P. cylindroides, and P. Pottont-
ensts, from the Wealden rocks of the Isle of Wight and the
Lower Greensand of Potton. The Potton specimens are pro-
bably of Wealden age. In the case of Pinites cylindrovdes, from
Potton, Gardner describes the solitary specimen as being “in
excellent condition, certainly not derived from any older bed.”
An inspection of the type specimen in the Woodwardian
Museum, Cambridge, leads me to unhesitatingly describe it as
distinctly worn and rolled, and impertectly preserved. The figure
does not convey a very accurate idea of the actual fossil; the scales
are very imperfect, and their half-moon form spoken of by the
author of the species, is almost certainly due to wearing, and
cannot, I believe, be accepted as an original character.

0
194 PINITES,

Pinites cylindroides may possibly be identical with P. Dunkert,
Carr., and even with P. Carrutherst, P. Pottonienses, and P. valdensis.
The type specimen on which the species P. Pottoniensis is founded
is too small to admit of any specific diagnosis, and does not appear
to me to have any claim to be regarded as specifically distinct from
P. cylindroides. It must be admitted, however, that there is
considerable risk in attempting to discriminate between these
imperfect and detached cones; but it is surely a mistake to
multiply the number of species without stronger evidence for the
existence of any real specific differences.

A careful revision of the cones of Mesozoic Absetinee is very
desirable; the number of species would no doubt be considerably
reduced.

In the Rufford Collection there are some specimens of fairly
well-preserved cones attached to their branches, and in addition
to these, several isolated specimens in other Wealden collections,
which differ in their greater length from those preserved in the
position of growth. The larger detached cones I have referred
to Carruthers’ species Pinites Dunkerd; the others, with their
branches and leaves, are placed in a new species, P. Solmst.

Pinites Dunkeri, Carruthers.

1858. Abietites Dunkeri, Mantell, Geol. I. Wight, p. 452.

1866. Pinites Dunkeri, Carruthers, Geol. Mag. vol. iii. p. 542, pl. xxi. figs. 1
and 2. '

1867. Pinites Dunkeri, Carruthers, Journ. Bot. vol. vy. p. 14, pl. lix. figs. 1
and2.

1870. Abietites Dunkeri, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 307.

1878. Pinites Dunkeri, Dixon’s Geol. Sussex, p. 279.

1886. Pinites Dunkeri, Gardner, Rep. Brit. Assoc. p. 5.

1889. Pinites Dunkeri, Bristow, Geol. I. Wight, p. 258.

Type. Isolated cones. British Museum.

The following definition is given by Carruthers for this species :—

“Cone elongated cylindrical; scales broad, with a rounded and
thin apex; axis slender; seeds oval compressed.”

The largest cone referred to this species has a length of over
33cm. and is 83cm. broad. Cones of a similar form have been
PINITES, 195

described by Velenovsky' under the name of Pinus longissima,
having a length of 3lcm. and 38cm. broad. It is difficult to
decide in many instances between P. Dunkeri and P. Carrutherst
as the most suitable species to which to refer the specimens.

46654. Portion of a long cone, with the scales partially ex-
panded, showing some clearly preserved cavities from which the
small oval seeds have fallen. Very similar to Pinites Carruthersi,
Gard. Several specimens with this registered number containing
iron pyrites, and very friable. Brook, I. Wight. Bowerbank Coll.

Pinites Carruthersi, Gardner.
(Pl. XX. Fig. 6.]
1886. Pinites Carruthersi, Gardner, Brit. Assoc. Rep. 1886, p. 4, fig. 6.

Type. Imperfect cone. Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge.

Gardner speaks of the type specimen as a long cylindrical cone
with numerous persistent, leathery, imbricated scales, tapering
towards the base, with scales thicker than those of Pinites valdensis,
Gard., but thin at the edges, smooth, without a keel, and with
entire rounded margins.

This form of cone is very similar to that represented by the
more perfect specimens which I have included under a new species,
Pinites Solmst. In P. Andrei, Coem.,? P. Coemansi, Heer,’ and
other Mesozoic forms, the same type occurs; as a rule, however,
it is impossible to determine the precise affinities of these detached
examples.

V. 2611. Pl. XX. Fig. 5. V. 2852.

Cones in a crumbling condition, partly preserved in iron
pyrites. Larger than those of V. 2146 (Pl. XIX. Fig. 1), but
it is possible that they both belong to the same species. LEccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2266. Two smaller specimens, ee belonging to this
species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

* Velenovsky (A. 1), p. 26, pl. i. figs. 14-17.
? Coemans (A.).
3 Saporta, Pal. France. vol. iii. p. 474, pl. exci. figs. 6 and 7.
196 PINITES.

Pinites Solmsi, sp. nov.
[Pl. XVIII. Figs. 2and3. Pl. XIX.]

Type. Cones attached to leaf-bearing branches. British Museum.

Some of the specimens referred to this species, closely resemble
-Pinites Carruthersi, Gard., but in view of the much more perfect
‘nature of the Rufford material, and the doubtful identity of
Gardner’s type, I have ventured to found a new species. The
specific name Solmsi has been adopted as a slight record of
Graf zu Solms-Laubach’s services to Mesozoic paleobotany. The
species may be thus defined :—

Short lateral branches covered with well-marked elongated bases
of the scale leaves, in the axil of which are borne the short shoots
with long needle-like leaves. Cones oblong in form, with broad
scales similar to those of the Strodus section of the recent genus
Pinus, or those of Picea and Abzes,

In Pinites Carruthersi the scales have a similar form, but
slightly larger, and with a more flattened thin upper border. In
a few specimens of this species the needles are in place, but do
not show the manner of attachment of the leaves with sufficient
clearness, to enable us to determine how many needles are borne
on each short shoot. It is possible, indeed, that the leaves arise
direct from the large branches, as in Abzes and Picea, but the
form and size of the needles are much more in accordance with
the characters of the genus Pinus.

V. 2146. Pl. XIX. Fig. 1.

Portions of four unripe cones, apparently in place; possibly the
three uppermost cones are in their natural position, and the lower
one displaced. The clearly marked impressions of the bracts show
their rounded outline very distinctly: cf. P. Carruthersi, Gard.,
and P. Andrei, Coem., as figured by Gardner.’ Similar to A bietetes
ellipticus, Font.,2 but smaller. The surface of the cones is
marked by a number of fine longitudinally running striations.
The branches are covered with well-preserved decurrent leaf
cushions. There are no leaves in their position of growth, but
several fragments of needles occur on the rock surface. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Gardner, loc. cit. fig. 1.
? Potomac Flora, pl. cxxxiii. figs. 2-4.
PINITES. 197

V. 2169. Pl. XVIII. Fig. 2.

Here again the leaf cushions are clearly preserved ; at the ends
of the short lateral branches there are borne clusters of long
needles, but it is impossible to make out with certainty the actual
leaf arrangement, or manner of attachment to the leaf-bearing axes.
A few of the leaves show an acuminate apex. The general habit
of the specimen is similar to that of Cedrus or Larix, but the
greater length of the branches and the form of the leaves offer
a still stronger resemblance to Pinus. If we compare young
branches of some species of Pinus with this and other specimens
we find a very close agreement. The portion of a cone below the
main branch probably belongs to this species. There is some
resemblance to Leptostrobus longifolius, Font.1 Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 214%. Pl. XIX. Fig. 4.

With some of the scales in this specimen there appear to be
associated narrow and pointed structures, similar to the semin-
iferous scales, and shorter and broader bract scales of such a
form as TZsuga Douglasii, Sab. This appearance is, however,
probably deceptive, and is the result of our seeing some of
the bracts edgewise. There can be very little doubt as to the
identity of this cone with those in V. 2146 (Pl. XIX. Fig. 1).
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 21460. Pl. XIX. Fig. 3.

In this specimen we have two female cones which appear to be
in place, and a branch continued above them, on the upper portion
of which there appear to be the remains of imperfectly preserved
structures, which may possibly be male cones. There is not,
however, sufficient evidence on which to found any very definite
statement. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2255. Pl. XVIII. Fig. 3.

Part of a somewhat smaller cone, and a cluster of needles borne
on a short lateral branch. Probably the same species as the larger
specimens. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

 

1 Loe. cit. pl. citi. figs. 1 and 2.
198 PINITES.

V. 2147. Pl. XIX. Fig. 2.

Part of a cone like that of V. 2147a (Pl. XIX. Fig. 4),
attached to a branch bearing the characteristic leaf cushions.
The difference between this specimen and V. 2146 (Pl. XIX.
Fig. 1) is due to the scales being open in the present example.

V. 21475. Open cone, and portions of branches with well-
preserved leaf cushions. Cf. Pl. XIX. Fig. 1. Eccleshourne.
’ Rufford Coll.

V. 1069. Branches with leaf cushions fairly distinct ; cones
imperfectly preserved. Somewhat similar to the specimens de-
scribed in Volume I. as rhizomes of Onychiopsis Mantellc (Brong.).'
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 3167. In this specimen the leaf cushions are clearly shown,
and the limits of annual growth are suggested by the closer
arrangement of the cushions in certain parts of the branch.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 3165.. Very small needles, like those of V. 2255 (Pl. XVIII.
Fig. 3). A fairly long branch with short leaf-bearing lateral
branches.

V. 2270. A cone in longitudinal section.

V. 2291. Possibly a different plant, but too imperfect to deter-
mine with any certainty. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

Other specimens of cones and branches referred to this species:
V. 10692, V. 10693, V. 1069c¢, V. 1069¢, V. 2291, V. 3165,
V. 3168.

Pinites, sp.

V. 2922. A single winged seed. Numerous fragments of
Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.) on the same piece of rock. LEccles-
bourne. Rufford Coil.

 

1 Vol. I. p. 52.
SPHENOLEPIDIUM. 199

Pinites Ruffordi, sp. nov.

V. 2304. A specimen of coniferous wood with the minute
structure clearly preserved, and showing the characters of the
genus Pinites. It is proposed to publish elsewhere a detailed
description of the anatomy of this specimen of Pinstes, under
the name of Pinites Ruffordi. The annual rings are very clearly
marked; resin ducts fairly numerous; the tracheids in radial
section show either a single row of bordered pits, or a double
row having the arrangement characteristic of the genus Pinites.
Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

Genus SPHENOLEPIDIUM, Heer.
[Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 19.]

The generic name Sphenolepis, proposed by Schenk in 1871,' was
changed by Heer to Sphenolepidium, on account of the previous use
of the former name by Agassiz as a genus of fishes. Heer’s new
term is adopted by Schenk in his account of fossil Conifere con-
tributed to Zittel’s Handbuch.? The species of this genus have been
included by Schenk and others in the family Zaxodie, but Solms-
Laubach considers that the botanical nature of these fossils is too
imperfectly known to admit of any precise localization among
existing subdivisions of the Group Conifere. Previous writers have
drawn attention to the resemblance of the Wealden species, Spheno-
lepidium Kurrianum, to Athrotaxis, and Sequoia has also been
referred to as the nearest living genus. There is nothing in the
nature of the fossil cones of this genus, so far as I am able to judge
from the published figures, and an examination of fairly well-pre-
served English specimens, to stand in the way of a comparison with
these two living genera. As regards the leaf form and arrangement,
and the general habit of the fossil species, there is a very close

 

1 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 243.
2 Zittel (A.), p. 304.
3 Fossil Botany, p. 71.
200 SPHENOLEPIDIUM.

resemblance between Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.) and
species of Athrotawis, e.g. A. laxifolia, Hook, and A. cupressoides,
Don.! Both Athrotaxis and Sequoia are placed by Eichler? in the
section Pinoidee-Abietinee-Taxodiing, and it would seem highly
probable that the Wealden form bears a close relationship to these
recent genera, especially to Don’s genus Athrotaxis.

We may define Sphenolepidium as follows: Branches alternate,
with spirally disposed and decurrent leaves, cones small, oblong
and spherical, borne on short lateral branches.

Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.).
[Pl]. XVII. Figs. 7 and 8; Pl. XVIII. Fig. 1.]

1839. ? Muscites imbricatus, Rémer, Verstein. Ool. Geb. p. 9, pl. xvii. fig. le.
1846. Zhuites (Cupressites?) Kurrianus, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 20,
pl. vii. fig. 8.
? Lycopodites, Dunker, doe. cit. p. 20, pl. viii. fig. 8.
Thuites Germari, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 19, pl. ix. fig. 10.
1847. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Endlicher, Synopsis, p. 272.
1848. Thuites Kurrianus, Bronn, Index nomencl. p- 1271.
1849. Brachyphyllum Kurrianum, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.
1849. Brachyphyllum Germari, Brongniart, loc. cit. p. 107.
1850. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Goppert, Foss. Conif. p. 176.
1850. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 342.
Thuites Germari, Unger, loc. cit. p. 348.
1851. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 26.
W iddringtonites Haidingeri, Ettingshausen, loc. cit. p. 26.
Araucarites Dunkeri, Ettingshausen, Joc. cit. pl. ii. fig. 10; pl. ii. fig. 1.
1854. Thuites Kurrianus, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 24.
1861. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Hildebrand, Verbreit. Conif. p. 296.
Widdringtonites Haidingeri, Hildebrand, loc. cit. p. 296.
1870. Widdringtonites Kurrianus, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 829.
1870. ? Araucarites hamatus, Trautschold, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou,
vol. xiii. p. 37, pl. xxi. fig. 3.
1871. Sphenolepis Kurriana, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 248,
pl. xxxvii. figs. 5-8; pl. xxxviii. fig. 1.

 

1 Don.
? Engler and Prantl (Conifer), p. 84.
SPHENOLEPIDIUM. 201

1875. Thuites (Cupressites) Kurrianus, Topley, Weald, p. 409.
1881. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 19,
pl. xii. fig. 10; pl. xiii. figs. 15 and 84; pl. xviii. figs. 1-8.
1881. ? Thwites Choffati, Heer, loc. cit. p. 11, pl. x. fig. 8.
1884. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, Schenk in Zittel’s Handbuch, p. 304, fig. 210.
1885. ? Sphenolepis Kurriana, Hosius and Von der Marck, Paleontographica,
vol. xxvi. p. 216, pl. xliv. fig. 209. 7
1889. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 260, ? pl. exxvi.
figs. 1-6 ; pl. exxviii. figs. 1 and 7; pl. cxxix. figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8;
P pl. exxx. fig. 11; pl. exxxi. fig. 4; pl. clsvii. fig. 2.
P Sphenolepidium Virginicum, Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 259, pl. exxv. fig. 4,
and pl. elxvi. fig. 6.
? Athrotaxopsis expansa, Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 241, pl. cxxxv. figs. 15,
18, and 22. :
1894. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, Saporta, Flor. foss, Port. p. 115, pl. xxii.
figs. 38-5.
1895. PSphenolepidium Kurrianum, Kerner, Jahrb. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. xlv. Heft i. p. 51, pl. iv. fig. 2.

Type. Vegetative branch. ? Berlin Museum.

Dunker thus defines the species :—

“Thuites ramulis erectis irregulariter pinnatis, compressiusculis
utrimque subcarinatis, foliolis crassiusculis imbricatis irregulariter
dispositis elongatis subflexuosis apice acutis dorso carinatis sub-
distantibus.”’

The small fragment figured by Romer as Musectes imbricatus,
Rom., is probably identical with Sphenolepidium Kurrianum
(Dunk.); Schenk calls attention to this resemblance, but, not having
seen the type specimen, hesitates to express any decided opinion.
Although there is a strong probability of Rémer’s specimen being
a leafy twig of the present species, it would hardly be wise to
enforce the rule of priority as regards the specific designation
without more trustworthy data. The other fragment figured by
Romer’ as Muscites falevfolius, Rom., and compared by Dunker
with Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, is too small to identify with
certainty, and does not bear such a strong resemblance to Dunker’s
species as does I. imbricatus.

Ettinghausen’s species Widdringtonites Haidingert is no doubt
correctly included by Schenk in the present species. The specimens
figured by Ettingshausen as Araucarites curvifolius agree so closely

 

1 Romer, F. A. (A.), Verstein. Ool. Geb. pl. xvii. fig. le.
202 SPHENOLEPIDIUM.

with S. Kurrianum that there cannot be much doubt as to their
specific identity. It has already been pointed out,’ that one of the
specimens referred by Schenk to this species is no doubt a fertile
frond of Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Some of the numerous
fragments figured by Fontaine from the Potomac beds, as examples
of .S. Kurrianum, suggest a plant with a habit somewhat different
to that of Dunker’s species. Without attempting to discuss the
exact nature of all Fontaine’s fragments, it is probably safe to
assert that the present species is represented in the Potomac
Flora. Fontaine’s specimens are all without cones, but the
small cones figured by him as Athrotavopsis expansa, Font., may
in all probability be referred to 8S. Kurrianum. The specimen
figured by this author as Seguora gracilis, Heer,’ bears a decided
resemblance to the present species. The fragments of cone-bearing
twigs figured by Fontaine as a new species, S. Virginicum, are
compared by him with S. Kurrianum. I have included these
specimens in the synonomy as probably identical with the present
species. Saporta’s Portuguese examples of the species are for
the most part small fragments of twigs; but there can be little
or no doubt as to their specific identity with the English plant.
The numerous specimens figured by Heer from the Lower
Cretaceous rocks of Greenland as Cyparassidium gracile, Heer,’
agree so closely with S. Kurrianum, that one feels tempted to
regard the two as identical. Heer notes the resemblance as
regards leaf form and disposition between Cyparissidium, Wid-
dringtonites, Glyptostrobus, Athrotaxis, and Sequoia; but adds that
the form of the cones in Cyparissidium is quite distinct from
that in the other genera, and more allied to Cunninghamia.
Although there are some slight differences between the cones
figured by Heer and those of Sphenolepidium, the points of
difference do not appear to be very wide. Ettingshausen figures
some specimens from Niederschoena under the name of Frenelites
Reichit, Ett.;* these bear a strong resemblance to the present
species, and it is difficult to determine on what grounds the

 

1 Vol. I. p. 44.

2 Fontaine, Potomac Flora, pl. exxvi.

® Heer (A. 3), Fl. foss. Arct. vol. vi. pl.i., and Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. (2)
pl. xix. etc.

* Ettingshausen (A. 8), p. 246, pl. i. fig. 10.
SPHENOLEPIDIUM. 203

|

|

comparison with Frenela is made. Possibly Yokoyama’s Japanese

species, Cyparyssidium (?) Japonicum,) may be closely allied to

8. Kirrienum\ but the preservation of the specimens is too

imperfect to allow of any satisfactory comparison. We may
define the species as follows :—

Branching altiernate; leaves ovate, acuminate, or triangular;

keeled dorsally; , cones small, borne on clusters of short slender

branches, aie or oblong; scales broad and short, thick, with
an elongated lozenge-shaped depression at the apex.

V. 2313. Pl. XVII. Figs. 8 and 8a.

This specimen appears to be practically identical with that
figured by Schenk in his pl. xxxviii. figs. 10 and 11.2 The
oblong cone and the broad scales with the elliptical transversely
elongated scars are well shown. ‘The leaves of the fertile
branches have an elongated oval form, with acute tips, and are
closely adpressed to the stem. The cone is similar to that figured
by Heer in pl. xiv.,> but in his specimen the leaves are less
adpressed to the branch. ‘Compare also Fontaine’s S. Virginicum ;
this species may, however, be identical with S. Sternbergianum.
Ecclesbourne. : Rufford Coll.

V.2816d. Pl. XViFI. Fig. 1.

This specimen shows wery clearly the connection between the
thicker and more slender 'branches. Compare the thicker portion
with V. 23164. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2316. Pl. XVII. Fig. 7.

The clustered fertile branches and small cones represent a
characteristic feature of the species, and may be compared with
those of such a recent plant as <Athrotaxis lamxifolia. Cf.
V. 2318, etc.

V. 23133, V. 23162, V. 23164. Cones; some with fairly well-
preserved scales.

V. 2316¢. Part of a thicker unbranched stem with clearly
preserved leaves. This specimen, if examined without reference

 

of .
’ Yokoyama, p. 229, pl. xx. figs. 3, 6, and 13, and pl. xxiv. fig. 4.
2 Paleontographica, vol. xix.
3 Secc. Trab. Geol. Port. 1881.
|
204 SPHENOLEPIDIUM. {

i
to the more slender branches of S. Kurrianum, would probably
be referred to Brachyphyllum, and it serves to illustrate the great
difficulty in attempting to discriminate between the various
provisional genera of fossil conifers.

V. 2316¢. Fragment of a thick axis. Of. Brachyphyllum obesum,
Heer. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2303. The adpressed leaves very clearly defined. The
smaller branches appear to be identical with the: fertile branch of
V. 2318 (Pl. XVII. Fig. 8). The long unbranched axis of this

and other specimens suggests an open habit of branching.
i

V. 23082. Probably the same species, but the leaves are rather
less closely adpressed to the stem. Cf. Schenk, pl. xxxvii. fig. 5.+

V. 23085. A much branched specimen. Towards the lower
part of the thickest branch the leaves are seen to be shorter
and more crowded. Of. also V. 2808, and Widdringtonites
Haidingert, Ett., which Schenk has referred to’ S. Kurrianum.

V. 2303c. Long branches with the leaves ios clearly preserved.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2253. Portions of branches. The leaves showing longi-
tudinal striations, as in V. 2750 (PL) XVII. Fig. 5). Eecles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2285. Probably 8S. Kurrianum. Hcclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2286. Cones with open scales, probably belonging to this
species. V. 718. Fragments of branches. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Colt.

V. 23032. Slender branches with leaves rather less adpressed
to the stem than in some examples of the species. This form
suggests a passage to the more open leaves of S. Sternbergianum.
Cf. V. 21890 (Pl. XVI. Fig. 5). Hcoleshourne. Rufford Coll.

? Sphenolepidium Kurrignum.
V. 3343. Two large specimens. Slenter branches given off
from an axis 3cm. in diameter.
il

1 Schenk, Joc. cit.
SPHENOLEPIDIUM. 205

Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.).

[Pl. XVI. Figs. 4-6.]

1846. Muscites Sternbergianus, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 20, pl. vii. fig. 10.
1848. Muscites Sternbergianus, Broun, Index nomencl. p. 759.
1849. Juniperites Sternbergianus, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 108.
1850. Muscites Sternbergianus, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 42.
1851. Araucarites Dunkeri, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i.
Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 27, pl. ii. figs. 2, 3, 7, and 8.
Araucarites curvifolius, Ettingshausen, loc. cit. p. 28, pl. ii. figs. 11,
13, 14, 17-21.
1861. Avaucarites Dunkeri, Hildebrand, Verbreit. Conif. p. 276.
Araucarites curvifolius, Hildebrand, ibid. p. 276.
1870. . Widdringtonites Dunkeri, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 329.
Widdringtonites curvifolius, Schimper, ibid. p. 329.
1871. Sphenolepis Sternbergiana, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 243,
pl. xxxvii. figs. 3 and 4; pl. xxxviii. figs. 3-13.
1881. Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum, Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 19,
pl. xiii. fig. la; pl. xiv. figs. 2-8.
1884. Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum, Schenk in Zittel’s Handbuch, p. 304,
fig. 2104, 6, and e.
1885. Sphenolepis Sternbergiana, Hosius and Von der Marck, Palwontographica,
vol. xxvi. p. 215, pl. xliv. figs. 206-208.!
1889. Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 261,
? pl. exxi. figs. 8, 10, and 11; pl. cxxx. fig. 9.
1894. Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum, Saporta, Flor. foss. Port. p. 114,
pl. xxii. figs. 1 and 2; p. 189, pl. xxvii. fig. 14; p. 193, pl. xxxiii.
fig. 13.

Type. Fragments of small twigs.

Dunker gives the following definition of the species :—

‘‘Muscites caule virgato subflexuoso, foliis bifariis imbricatis
patentibus ovato-lanceolatis subfalcatis.”

Brongniart substituted Juniperttes as a more appropriate generic
name than Musertes; and Ettingshausen renamed Dunker’s plant
Araucarites Dunkert. The specimen figured in Ettingshausen’s

 

1 These fragments, from the Neocomian of Ténsberg, are very small and
imperfect; fig. 206 is probably a fragment of S. Sternbergianum, but it would
be unwise to make any definite statements on such slender evidence.
206 SPHENOLEPIDIUM.

pl. ii. fig. x. seems to be identical with what he called Widdring-
tonites Haidingert, and which we have included, following Schenk’s
example, as a synonym of S. Sternbergianum. Most of the speci-
mens figured by Ettingshausen as Araucarites curvifolius (Dunk.),
must no doubt be included in the present species, and are not
identical with Dunker’s Lycopodites curvifolius. Some of the
species, on the other hand, are the same as Dunker’s type,
and do not appear to belong to Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum.
Fontaine’s small specimens agree with this species, but it is
impossible to discriminate with any degree of certainty between
the numerous and very similar twigs, which he figures from the
Potomac beds under different specific names.

If we compare the figures of Sequoia ambigua, Heer,’ with
Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.), we find a striking re-
semblance; ¢.g., Heer, pl. xxi. fig. 8, and Schenk, pl. xvi.
figs. 38 and 4. It is exceedingly difficult to come to any satis-
factory conclusion as to the specific identity of these various
coniferous twigs; and the striking resemblance between the
branches of certain recent forms, should sufficiently demonstrate
the futility of attempting to carry our comparisons too far in
the case of fossil fragments. It would seem, however, that if
Heer’s Greenland plant is not identical with the present species,
it is closely allied to it. SS. Sternbergianum differs from the
preceding species chiefly in the more open and linear leaves.
As regards the cones of the two species, it is not quite clear how
far Schenk’s description of a specific difference holds good; the
material from the English beds is hardly sufficiently well preserved
to enable us to give any satisfactory detailed diagnosis.

V. 2311. Pl. XVI. Fig. 4.

An imperfectly preserved specimen showing two cones attached
to short branches. The difference in the leaf form from that of
S. Kurrianum is clearly shown. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2144. Pl. XVI. Fig. 6.
Well-preserved branches with spreading and falcate leaves.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

 

1 Heer, Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. (2) pl. xxi. ete.
SPHENOLEPIDIUM, 207

V. 2139a. Pl. XVI. Fig. 5.

Smaller specimen, with more crowded leaves, leaf form dis-
tinctly preserved. Compare with the upper part of V. 2139, in
which the leaves are less closely arranged. Very similar to the
specimens figured by Schenk! in pl. xxxvii. figs. 8 and 4.

V. 2139. 20cm. in length. No doubt the same form as
Muscites Sternbergianus, Dunk. The thicker branch well pre-
served, showing clearly defined leaves, with the distal end free,
and the broader basal portion adpressed to the axis. Several
delicate branches shown at the upper end. Cf. Schenk,’ pl.
xxxvill. fig. 3. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2141. Probably the same species. Cf. V. 2144, also

Ettingshausen’s figures of Araucarites curvifolius,? some of which
Schenk refers to S. Sternbergianum. “Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2289, V. 22894. ‘Larger examples with imperfect fragments
of cones.

V. 2289c. Imperfectly preserved, probably specifically identical
with the above specimens. Compare the finer branches with
Dunker’s Lycopodites, pl. viii. fig. 8.3

V. 2289d¢. Imperfect fragment showing the leaves in side and
surface view. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2290, V. 2315. Small curved and closely crowded leaves,
probably identical with the form represented in Ettingshausen’s
figures of Araucarites Dunkert. Of. also V. 21892, ete. Possibly
this form should be regarded as a distinct species, but the evidence

is hardly sufficient to justify a separation from S. Sternbergianum.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2311la. Cone; fairly well preserved.

V. 2919. The leaves show very clearly the single median vein.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

 

1 Loe. cit.
2 Kittingshausen (A. 4).
3 Dunker, Wealdenbildung.
208 “ SPHENOLEPIDIUM.

Cf. Sphenolepidium (Sequoia) subulatum (Heer).
[Pl. XVI. Fig. 3.]

There are a few specimens in the Rufford Collection which
differ from the typical S. Sternbergianum (Dunk.), in having more
closely arranged, longer and narrower leaves; they agree very
well with Heer’s Greenland species Seguota subulata,! and are
probably identical with this form, and with the specimens described
by Saporta from Portugal as Sequoia subulata var. Lusitanica.?
Saporta’s variety appears to be hardly justified by the very small
differences which he notes between the Portuguese and Arctic
forms. There would seem to be no satisfactory evidence to
warrant the use of the generic name of Sequoza.

Ettingshausen’s fig. 18, pl. ii? [Araucarites curvifolius (Dunk.)]
bears a strong likeness to the specimen represented in our Pl. XVI.
Fig. 3 (V. 2140). It is not improbable that some of the specimens
figured by Fontaine as Sequoia Reichenbachit, Heer,‘ are identical
with the present species. Possibly the following specimens might
reasonably be referred to as constituting a variety of Spheno-
lepidium Sternbergianum.

V. 2140. Pl. XVI. Fig. 3.

Branches fairly closely set. Leaves narrow, linear and keeled,
slightly curved or almost straight. At first sight the branches
appear to have a bilateral form as regards the leaf arrangement,
but this may be simply due to manner of preservation. LEccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2093. Broken fragments. Leaves fairly distinct. Cf. S.
Sternbergianum and Ettingshausen’s pl. ii. fig. 18. Ecclesbourne.
Rufford Coll.

V. 1069. Smaller specimen. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Sphenolepidium, sp.

V. 2281, V. 2283. Specimens of cones which cannot be referred
with any certainty to a particular species of the genus.

 

1 Heer, FI. foss. Arct. vol. iii. (2) p. 102, pls. xxvii.-xxix.
2 Saporta (1), p. 177, pl. xxxiii. figs. 7-12.

3 Ettingshausen, loc. cit.

4 Fontaine, Potomac Flora, pl. exviii. etc.
THUITES. 209

Genus THUITES, Brongniart.

[Tableau, 1849, p. 71.]

Thuites valdensis, sp. nov.
[Pl. XX. Fig. 6.]

Type. Single specimen of a leafy twig. British Museum.

Although it is impossible to give a complete or entirely satis-
factory definition of this species from the single specimen in the
Rufford Collection, it may be convenient to adopt a new specific
term, as there seems to be little doubt that we have to do
with fragments of a conifer different from any known species.
The characters may be summarized as follows :—

Branching opposite, leaves in whorls, adpressed to the stem,
two in each whorl, keeled dorsally and with comparatively
blunt apices.

Some of the specimens referred by Ettingshausen to Frenelopsis
Hoheneggert (Ett.), and, in a less degree, a few of those figured
by Schenk under Ettingshausen’s specific name, show a distinct
resemblance to the present specimen.

V. 2138. Pl. XX. Fig. 6.

Preservation good. The leaves and opposite branching are
clearly seen. Cf. Frenelopsis ramosissima, Font., Potomac Flora,
pl. xev.,) etc., also F. Hoheneggert (Ett.).2 In describing the
specimens subsequently referred by Schenk to the genus Frene-
lopsis, Ettingshausen adopts the generic name Thuites in the
wide sense, as including various forms of Cupressinee; it would
probably be wiser to retain Thwites for such examples as those
figured by Httingshausen. In instituting the species 7. Hohen-
eggert, Ettingshausen speaks of the branching as alternate, and
the leaves as ‘‘quadrifariam imbricatis”; but the: specimen
shown in his pl. i. fig. 7 has clearly only two leaves in some
of the verticils; indeed, there is a striking similarity between
this German specimen and the single example from the English

 

1 Fontaine (A. 2), Potomac Flora.
? Ettingshausen (A. 4), Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iti, 1852, pl. i.
figs. 6 and 7.

P
210 NAGEIOPSIS.

beds. Turning to Schenk’s description, we find that he notes
the presence of rows of small tubercles on the branches as an
additional character, and describes the leaves as decussate and
opposite, and not four in each whorl as stated by Ettingshausen.
It may be that under Frenelopsis Hoheneggert (Ett.) we have
more than one species; the younger fragments, such as those
figured by Ettingshausen, and a few of those described by Schenk,
agree very closely with the English specimen of TZhuites, but
the larger branches of Schenk may perhaps belong to another
plant. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Genus NAGEIOPSIS, Fontaine.

[Potomac Flora, 1889, p. 194.]

Fontaine proposes this generic title for one of the most largely
developed and characteristic Potomac plants. He compares the
leaves with those of Podozamites, but is enabled by the large and
numerous specimens at his disposal to recognize distinct coniferous
features. He defines the genus as follows :—

‘Trees or shrubs with leaves and branches spreading in one
plane; leaves varying much in size and shape, those towards
the base of the twigs sometimes smaller than those higher up,
distichous mostly, or rarely subdistichous, opposite and persistent,
attached by a short, slightly twisted foot-stalk, usually to the
side of the twig, more rarely slightly within the margin on
the upper or under surface of the stem, either attenuated towards
the base or abruptly rounded off there, at their ends acute or
sub-acute; nerves several, coalescing at base to form a foot-stalk,
forking immediately at the base or a short distance above, then
approximately parallel to near the tips of the leaves, where
they are somewhat crowded together, but do not converge to a
union, ending in or near the extremity.”

The genus Podocarpus-is divided by Eichler’ into four sections,
of which section i. is Wagera, formerly regarded as a distinct
genus.2. In this form of Podocarpus the leaves have numerous
veins, and not a single midrib as in other species of the same
genus,

 

1 Engler and Prantl, p. 104.
2 E. G. Gordon, The Pinetum, p. 135 (1858).
PAGIOPHYLLUM. 211

Nageiopsis ¢f. N. heterophylla, Font.’
[Pl. XII. Fig. 3.]

The few small fragments from the English beds bear a strong
resemblance to the specimen figured by Fontaine as Nagetopsis
heterophylla, and most probably belong to this species.

V. 3190. Pl. XII. Fig. 3.

Compare Fontaine, pl. lxxxvi. figs. 6 and 7, etc. There are
several equal veins in each leaf which converge somewhat towards
the apex; the leaves are gradually tapered distally, and towards
the point of attachment. The actual manner of attachment to
the branch is not clearly shown. Near Hastings. Rufford Coll.

V. 2123, V. 2362.
Probably the same species, but much more imperfect. Eccles-
bourne. Rufford Coll.

Coniferse incertz sedis.

Genus PAGIOPHYLLUM, Heer.
[Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 11.]

Saporta? includes in the tribe Araucarinee two genera, Pachy-
phyllum and Araucaria; the former representing the extinct types,
the latter the living species. Pachyphyllum was first instituted
by Pomel? as a section of his genus Moreania, including HM. brevi-
folia, Pom., as the typical species.

Saporta figures some examples of the genus in which portions
of cones are preserved, and is thus able to give a fairly detailed
diagnosis. He places Pachyphyllum close to Araucaria ( Hutacta),
Agathis, and Cunninghamia. The general appearance of the

 

1 Potomac Flora, p. 201, pls. lxxxiv.-lxxxvi.
? Pal. Frang. vol. iii. p. 372.
* Pomel, p. 21.
212 PAGIOPHYLLUM..

branches referred to this genus suggests an araucarian habit,
and there is a decided probability that we may consider the fossil
forms as closely allied to the recent genus. As regards the
English specimens, in the absence of fossil cones we have no
very satisfactory evidence as to the relationship to modern forms.
Heer substituted Pagiophyllum for Pachyphyllum, on the ground
that the latter name had already been assigned to a genus of
orchids. The following concise definition is given in Zittel’s
Handbuch’: ‘Leaves spirally arranged, leathery, thick, triangular,
lanceolate; spreading or closely imbricate; decurrent at the base.”
Solms-Laubach?* justly considers Pagiophyllum a purely artificial
and provisional genus.

Pagiophyllum crassifolium (Schenk).
[Pl. XVI. Figs. 1 and 2.]

1871. Pachyphyllum crassifolium, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 240,
pl. xl. fig. 8.

1874. Pachyphyllum crassifolium, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 570.

1884. ? Pachyphyllum crassifolium, Saporta, Pal. Franc. vol. iii. p. 655,
pl. cexxvi. fig. 1.

1884. Pagiophyllum crassifolium, Schenk in Zittel’s Handbuch, p. 276.

Type. Small and imperfect fragment of a branch. Gottingen
Museum.

Schenk defines the species as follows :—

‘Folia in ramulo spiraliter disposita, trigona crassa conica
falcata basi sessilia decurrentia.”’

The specimens referred by Saporta to Schenk’s species were
obtained from some limestone rocks of Upper Jurassic age, in the
neighbourhood of Grenoble; it is by no means certain that they
are specifically identical with the Wealden type.

We may slightly extend Schenk’s diagnosis :—

Leaves spirally arranged; sessile, with broad base, triangular,
somewhat falcate, keeled on the dorsal surface; the leaf lamina
marked by fine parallel lines. Branching alternate.

 

1 p. 275.
2 Fossil Botany, p. 77.
PAGIOPHYLLUM. 213

V. 2803. Pl. XVI. Fig. 1.

Well-preserved specimen; the thick, falcate, and keeled leaves
are closely arranged on the branches, reminding one of Cryptomeria
Japonica. This form is very similar to the smaller specimens,
compared with Lycopodites curvifolius, Dunk., and referred to
Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum. cclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 21420, Pl. XVI. Fig. 2.

The left-hand fragment agrees closely with Sphenolepidium
Sternbergianum; the leaves seen edgewise appear to be narrow,
and show traces of a median keel. Cf. V. 2289.

Towards the upper end of the large branch the tips of the
falcate leaves are distinctly preserved; in the lower part they are
seen in side view, and present a broader triangular appearance.

V. 2142 and V. 21425. Here the leaves appear to be narrower,
but this is largely due to the fact that they are seen edgewise,
and not so directly as in V. 2747. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2747. Cf. V. 21420 (Pl. XVI. Fig. 2). The flattened leaves
seen in this view do not show the falcate form so distinctly in
other specimens. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

Pagiophyllum, sp.
[Pl. XX. Fig. 3.]

V. 2288. Pl. XX. Fig. 3.

In this specimen the leaves are fairly well preserved; they
appear to be broader than those of the specimens referred to
P. crassifolium. The fragment is, however, too small and im-
perfect to admit of more exact determination. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2143, V. 2317, V. 2931.

These fragments may possibly be portions of branches of the
preceding species, but they are too fragmentary to determine with
any accuracy.
214 BRACHYPHYLLUM.

Genus BRACHYPHYLLUM, Brongniart.
[Tableau, 1849, p. 69.]

Brongniart proposed this name for conifers with alternate leaves
disposed in a spiral, short, fleshy, and inserted by a broad and
rhomboidal base. Schimper extends this definition, and speaks
of the genus as differing in its characters from all living forms;
he points out the striking resemblance between old branches of
Brachyphyllum, with the leaves in the form of hexagonal or
pentagonal cushions, and certain strobili of cycads and conifers.
The surface features of a branch from which the leaves have
fallen resemble those of Lepidodendron. Saporta? further extends
Brongniart’s definition; and remarks that probably no genus of
conifers has given rise to more confusion and uncertainty than
the present genus. It has been compared with several recent
genera, but we cannot regard Brachyphyllum, with its numerous
species from various geological horizons, as more than a purely
provisional genus, the actual botanical position of which is very
uncertain; probably more than one family of Conifere being
represented by the forms referred to under this generic name.
Schenk* has drawn attention to the too comprehensive nature of
the genus as used by Saporta, Heer, and others, but does not
suggest any more precise definition of the generic characters.

As Fontaine remarks, there is a striking resemblance between
some forms of Echinostrobus, Brachyphyllum, and Paleocyparis.
Saporta, in describing the characteristics of Echinostrobus, points
out that it differs from Brachyphyllum in having the leaves less
thick, more pointed, and less completely adnate to the stem. We
may compare both of these fossil genera with certain species of
the recent genus Athrotaxis. The thick fleshy leaves, with their
broad rhomboidal bases and spiral arrangement, constitute the
leading features of this artificial genus of fossil conifers.

 

1 Trait. pal. vég. vol. ii. p. 334.
2 Pal. Franc. vol. iii. p. 310.
3 Zittel’s Handbuch, p. 301.
BRACHYPHYLLUM. 215

Brachyphyllum spinosum, sp. nov.
[Pl. XVII. Figs. 1-6.]

Type. Large specimens from: Ecclesbourne, near Hastings.
British Museum.

This specific term is proposed as a convenient designation for
what is probably a new species of Brachyphyllum. It is possible
that some of the Wealden specimens previously recorded from
other localities, and referred to this genus, may be fragments of
the present species; but of this there is no proof. Seeing that
no fossils have been, so far, described in which the characters of
the large branches in the Rufford Collection are represented, we
must institute a new term. ‘The species may be defined as
follows :—

Leaves fleshy, with a median keel on the convex surface; the
surface may be finely striated; leaf-scars rhomboidal, contiguous,
and spirally arranged. Some of the short lateral branches have
a pointed thorn-like form, and are clothed with the characteristic
fleshy leaves with pointed apices. Two or three of the spiny
branches arise approximately at the same level from the parent
axis.

The short, stiff, leaf-bearing thorns or pointed branches constitute
the most prominent feature of the species. One may compare the
thicker branches, with their large rhomboidal leaf bases, with small
cycadean stems or twigs of Lepidodendron. In the absence of any
reproductive organs, it is impossible to assign the species to any
definite position among the Conifere. It is no easy task to
determine the connection, if any, between such large specimens
as that represented in Pl. XVII. Fig. 1, and the numerous
smaller portions of branches. The specimen shown in Pl. XVII.
Fig. 6 (V. 2135)! is regarded as specifically identical with Pl.
XVII. Fig. 1 (V. 2746), the striking difference being probably
due to the destruction of the cortical tissues in the former case.
The small piece of branch represented in Fig. 5 (V. 2750), shows
very clearly the woody axis detached in the lower part of the
specimen from the cortical tissues and leaves.

 

1 Represented in the figure one-third natural size.
216 BRACHYPHYLLUM.

This form of Brachyphyllum does not appear to have been
hitherto recorded from rocks of Upper Jurassic or Lower Cretaceous
age, unless we may refer to this species some of the small twigs
described by Saporta, Heer, Fontaine, and others from Wealden
strata. The spinous branches and general habit of B. spinosum
distinguish it from previously figured examples with similar leaves
and leaf cushions. Velenovsky! figures some specimens from
the Perucer beds of Bohemia under the name of Zehinostrobus
squamosus, Vel.: these have similar leaves to those of B. spinosum ;
but coniferous branches with this form of leaf are too abundant in
Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks to admit of any strict comparison.
Brachyphyllum crassicaule, Font.,? B. obesum, Heer,® and others
may be referred to as similar in leaf form to the present species.
Among the numerous conifers figured by Saporta from’ Jurassic
strata, we have such species as B. nepos, Sap.,* and B. Desnoyersii®
(Brong.), and other forms which resemble the Wealden species in
a greater or less degree. We may compare also Pagiophyllum
cirinicum,® Sap. Possibly the latter genus might be a suitable
designation for the English specimens, but the distinction between
Brachyphyllum and Pagiophyllum is in many cases by no means
well marked, and neither term is more than a convenient generic
name which does not imply any precise botanical affinity.

V. 2746. Pl. XVII. Fig. 1.

The main axis of this large specimen has a breadth of 2cm.,
and is covered with polygonal areas representing the impressions
of large scale leaves, very similar to those in thicker branches of
species of Athrotaxis, Thujopsis, etc., among recent genera. These
are the remains of short and broad leaves preserved in the form
of carbonaceous impressions on the matrix, immediately in contact
with ‘the thick axis. The two lowest branches are 4cm. apart;
their surface markings are identical with those on the main branch;
from each of the lateral branches there are given off short tapered
stiff branches covered with similar leaf impressions. Each of

 

1 (A. 1) Gym. bohm. Kreid. p. 16, pl. vi. figs. 3, 6, 7, 8.

2 Potomac Flora, p. 221, pl. 100, fig. 4, pl. cix. etc.

3 Heer (A. 6), Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1851, p. 20, pl. xvii. figs. 1-4.
* Pal, Frang. vol. iii. p. 356, pl. clxviii. ete.

5 Ibid. p. 331, pl. clsiii. ete.

6 Ibid. p. 402, pl. clxxx. etc.
BRACHYPHYLLUM. 217

these small branches ends in a distinct spinous apex, and in the
axils of some of them are seen the indistinct impressions of smaller
leafy twigs. A still larger specimen, very similar to the above,
is in the possession of Mr. Rufford; it shows two branches, the
longest of which has a length of 42cm., and gives off numerous
stiff, pointed branches like those shown in V. 2746. These
spinous branches appear to be given off approximately at the
same level, and probably there were three in each pseudo-whorl.
Some of the large leaves in these specimens show fine longitudinal
striations. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2135. Pl. XVII. Fig. 6. (4 nat. size.)

This long and narrow branched axis I have referred to Brachy-
phyllum spinosum, on the grounds that it represents a decorticated
specimen of the same plant which is more perfectly preserved in
V. 2746 (Pl. XVII. Fig. 1). The breadth is fairly uniform, about
5-6 mm.; the numerous short spinous branches are clearly marked,
and appear to have been given off in groups of twos or threes ; one
sees in some cases two branches lying lengthwise in the sandstone,
and the base of a third in the form of a round scar in the sub-
stance of the main branch. There are no signs of any leaf bases
or leaves in this example, the exposed surface of which probably
represents the face of the woody axis. In specimen V. 2750
(Pl. XVII. Fig. 5) we have a good example of the marked
difference in breadth and surface characters between the leafy
branch and the decorticated woody axis. The thorn-like processes
in this specimen are regarded as the decorticated spinous branches
of V. 2746 (Pl. XVII. Fig. 1). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

V. 2240. Pl. XVII. Fig. 4. (A portion of the specimen
shown in the figure.)

At the upper end of the specimen we have what appears to be
a pith cast, surrounded by a woody cylinder, in the form of a
dusty substance, representing the remains of wood tissue. The
figured portion shows two spinous branches and the base of a
third; probably there may have been four such branches in each
pseudo-whorl. It may be noted that the spinous appendages in
this specimen and in V. 2135 (Pl. XVII. Fig. 6), are more nearly
at right angles to the larger axis than in V. 2746 (Pl. XVII.
Fig. 1). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.
218 BRACHYPHYLLUM.

V. 3180. Pl. XVII. Fig. 3.

This thicker branch resembles a small cycadean axis with well-
marked bases of petioles. Probably it is a portion of B. spzmosum.
At the edges of the cast there are here and there the impressions
of the narrow distal ends of scale leaves; also at one place there
is shown the point of attachment of a lateral branch. Length
15cm.; diameter 1‘5em. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 2750. Pl. XVII. Figs. 5 and 5a.

A small piece of a branch, showing clearly preserved leaves
with longitudinal striations (5a). At each end there projects the
impression of the woody axis, or possibly of a large pith-cavity,
such as one finds in the genus Araucaria. It is difficult, not to
say impossible, to distinguish between fragments of this species
and those of B. obesum.

V. 27464. Axis 13em. long, showing the clearly defined out-
lines of short and broad leaves. Immediately above and below
the point of attachment of a spinous branch, there are impressions
of much more slender leafy twigs. Ecclesbourne. Ruffurd Coll.

? Brachyphyllum spinosum.
V. 2296. Pl. XVII. Fig. 2.

The broad leaves of this specimen show very clearly the fine
striations similar to those already noted, and identical with the
surface characters represented by Saporta in species of Pagto-
phyllum and Brachyphyllum.

V. 27502, V. 2751. Fragments. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

Brachyphyllum obesum, Heer.

1881. Brachyphyllum obesum, Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 20, pl. xvii.
figs. 1-4.
1889. ? Brachyphyllum crassicaule, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 221, pl. 100,
fig. 4; pl. cix. figs. 1-7.
1894. Brachyphyllwm obesum, Saporta, Flor. foss. Port. pp. 112, 188, pl. xxi.
figs. 1-7; pl. xxvii. figs. 7 and 8.
Brachyphyllum obesiforme, Saporta, loc. cit. p. 176, pl. xxxi. figs. 12
and 13.
Brachyphyllum obesiforme var. elongatum, Saporta, loc. cit. p. 176,
pl. xxxi. fig. 14.
BRACHYPHYLLUM. 219

Type. Portions of vegetative branches.

Heer instituted this species from some fragments of coniferous
branches from the Lower Cretaceous rocks of Almargem, Portugal ;
and defined it as follows :—

“Br, ramis alternis, ramulis numerosis, aggregatis, crassis,
brevibus, apice obtusis, foliis rhombeis, dense imbricatis, dorso
leviter striatis.”’

In his recent monograph on the Portuguese flora, Saporta
proposes a new specific name, obesiforme, for some examples of
Brachyphyllum, which he considers may be distinguished from
Heer’s species by their more elender branches, which are less thick-
set, more elongated, and subdivided. He speaks of the difference
between the two forms as slight, and admits that one may be
merely a variety of the other. If we compare Saporta’s figures with
those of B. obesum given by Heer, it must be admitted that the
grounds for a specific distinction are extremely slight, and we may
not unreasonably regard the two sets of specimens as specifically
identical. Another specimen figured by Saporta is spoken of as
B. obesiforme var. elongatum; this, again, appears to be too closely
allied to such examples of B. obesiforme as are figured on pl. xxxi.
figs. 12 and 18 to be entitled to a separate designation. The new
specific term instituted by Fontaine for some Potomac specimens is
perhaps a somewhat unnecessary addition to specific nomenclature ;
the author of the species does not, apparently, draw attention to
the very close resemblance between the fossils he describes as
B. crassicaule and those already figured by Heer and Saporta as
B. obesum. The figures in Fontaine’s pl. cix. may include more
than one specific form, but the evidence is too meagre to admit
of exact determination; figs. 4 and 5 resemble the form named
by Saporta B. confusum,’ but the difference between this species
and B. obesum is very small. The agreement between Fontaine’s
pl. cix. fig. 1 (B. erassicaule).and Heer’s pl. xvii. fig. 2, is very
striking: compare also Fontaine, pl. cix. fig. 2, Heer, pl. xvii.
fig. 8, and Saporta, pl. xxxi. fig. 12. Fontaine’s species, B. par-
ceramosum,” comes very near to the specimen figured by Saporta as
B. obesiforme var. elongatum.

 

1 Flor. foss. Portugal, p. 112, pl. xxi. fig. 8.
2 Potomac Flora, pl. ex. fig. 4.
220 BRACHYPHYLLUM,

I believe we cannot sufficiently discriminate between the several
specimens figured by the above authors, and the similar fragments
from the English Wealden strata, to arrive at any trustworthy
specific distinctions or diagnoses of well-marked specific types.
To group together all these forms may be unwise, and it has
already been pointed out that we find certain points of difference
between some of the specimens, which suggest either specific
distinctions or varieties of the same type. I venture, therefore,
to make use of Heer’s specific name B. obesum in a somewhat
more comprehensive sense than has been adopted by Saporta.

Among recent conifers, e.g. Cupressus Lawsoniana, Parl., etc.,
we find a considerable difference in the appearance of the branches
depending on the development of numerous or few lateral branches
in the axils of the leaves; we have the closely set lateral branches
as in some forms of B. crassicaule, as figured by Fontaine, and
the more elongated branches without the closely set lateral shoots,
as in B. obesiforme var. elongatum, Sap. To unite such forms under
one name, especially in the absence of cone-bearing branches, can
hardly be regarded as an unwarranted extension of the limits of
a fossil species of which our accurate knowledge is extremely
small. The Jurassic species Brachyphyllum gracile, Brong.,' appears
almost identical with some forms of B. obesum; such comparisons
might, however, be considerably increased, but without leading
to any satisfactory conclusions.

Many of the specimens referred to B. obesum agree very closely
with B. spinosum, sp. nov., and it is, I believe, almost impossible
to feel much confidence in our attempts to distinguish between
small specimens of plants of this particular form. Possibly it
would have been better to make use of Fontaine’s specific term
crassicaule for some of the following examples, and to have
included others under B. obesum; but if we examine such a series
as is represented by the following specimens, the difficulty of
accurate determination becomes apparent: V. $348 (Pl. XVII.
Fig. 9), V. 2187 (Pl. XX. Fig. 1), V. 2187a (Pl. XX. Fig. 2),
V. 2337 (Pl. XX. Fig. 4).

V. 2137. Pl. XX. Fig. 1.
Ci. Brachyphyllum obesiforme var. elongatum, Saporta, pl. xxxi.

 

1 Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 365, pl. clxviii., clxx., and clxxi.
BRACHYPHYLLUM. 221

fig. 14; also Fontaine’s Athrotaxopsis expansa, pl. cxiii. figs. 5 and 6,
and 4. grandis, Font., pl. cxvi. figs. 1-4. This specimen does not
show the leaf form very clearly, but the manner of branching is
well illustrated; similar to the smaller example (V. 3348) figured
in Pl. XVII. Fig. 9. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll,

V. 21370. Pl. XX. Fig. 2.

Leaves distinct ; the habit agrees with that of the smaller speci-
men (V. 3348) shown in Pl. XVII. Fig. 9. Cf. Saporta, pl. xxxi.
fig. 14, and Fontaine, pl. cxi. fig. 7.

V. 3348. Pl. XVII. Fig. 9.

Leaves very indistinct. Cf. Brachyphyllum obesum, Heer,
pl. xvii. fig. 2, and Saporta, pl. xxxiv. fig. 8; also B. crassicaule,
Font., pl. cxii. fig. 6. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

V. 2387. Pl. XX. Fig. 4.
Leaves well shown, with faint indications of longitudinal
striations. Similar to V. 23162, etc. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 23160. Leaves agree closely with those of Sphenolepidium
Kurrianum (Dunk.), but the branching is apparently different.
Cf. V. 2816e (S. Kurrianum). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 21870. Cf. Saporta, pl. xxxi. fig. 14, and Fontaine’s B.
crassicaule, pl. cxi. fig. 7. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 22920. Cf. Saporta, pl. xxxiv. fig. 8. Branches in this
specimen closer together and thicker. Similar habit to V. 2292.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2807. Similar to V. 23160, ete. Branch 18cm. long;
imperfectly preserved.

V. 8312. Broad axis with two small branches; similar habit to
that of V. 2292a. Cf. Fontaine, pl. cxi. fig. 7. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

Other specimens of branches or leaves referred to this
species: V. 2257, V. 2808, V. 23030, V. 2810, V. 2883,
V. 3188, V. 3192. Ecclesbourne, Rufford Coll,
222 CONITES.

Genus CONITES, Sternberg.

On page 113 of the present volume I have suggested the revival
of Sternberg’s genus Conites for cones of doubtful position, and
have included under this generic name two species previously
described by Carruthers as examples of cycadean strobili. From
an examination of additional specimens in the Rufford Collection,
it would seem that the species Conites elegans should be
referred to the genus Araucarites, as being, in all probability,
a female araucarian cone. Owing to the different manner of
preservation of the Rufford specimens, it would, perhaps, be
somewhat rash to speak of them as specifically identical with
Carruthers’ cones from the Isle of Wight, but there is a strong
likelihood of their close relationship, if not specific identity.
Possibly the institution of a new species of -Araucarites would
be the most convenient course to adopt in dealing with these
new Wealden specimens; but the various strobili hitherto described
as species of Cycadeostrobus, Araucarites, and Kacdocarpon require
careful revision, and I prefer, therefore, to refrain from adding
a new specific name until the several forms have been more
thoroughly examined.

Conites armatus, sp. nov.

[Pl. IX. Fig. 7.]

Type. Imperfectly preserved impression of flattened cone.
British Museum.

The single specimen to which I have assigned the above specific
name is too imperfect to admit of any complete diagnosis, but
the very distinctly marked and characteristic spinous processes
render it convenient to have some descriptive designation, even
in the absence of those more important characters on which a
satisfactory specific definition could be founded.

V. 2338. Details very obscure; the long recurved spines are
in all probability the apical prolongation of the cone scales,
similar to those in the cones of such recent species as Araucaria
Bidwiti, Hook., A. Cooki, Brown, Pinus Coulter’, Don, P.
Sabiniana, Dougl., ete. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll.
CONIFEROUS WOOD.’ 223

CONIFEROUS WOOD.

The occurrence of coniferous wood of Wealden age has long
been known in the case of the so-called Pine-raft of Brook Point,
in the Isle of Wight. This seems to have been first observed by
Webster in 1811,’ and was afterwards described by Mantell in
1846?; the latter writer compares the numerous coniferous trunks
and associated fossils, with the rafts of drifted trees carried
down by the waters of the Mississippi. In addition to the
fossil wood, with its tissues more or less perfectly preserved in
carbonate of lime, there are numerous deposits of lignite at various
horizons in the Wealden strata, in which the lignitic material
obviously consists of the wood of coniferous trees. In the Medals
of Creation, Mantell writes:* ‘‘In the Wealden deposits of Sussex,
Kent, and Surrey, I have not observed a single fragment of
coniferous wood.”’ More recently, in Dixon’s Geology of Sussex,
we find that the occurrence of wood similar to that of the recent
genus Pinus is recorded, both in the form of brittle jet and as
mineralized fossil wood.4

In the British Museum Collection, there are several good
specimens of lignite in which the characters of coniferous wood
are clearly seen, and numerous examples of wood with the tissues
for the most part imperfectly preserved.

By far the most perfectly preserved specimen of coniferous wood
is that previously mentioned as Pinites Ruffordi, sp. nov., and
which I hope to describe in detail elsewhere. In addition to
this, the following specimens may be mentioned :—

V. 701. Specimens of lignite, or perhaps more accurately de-
scribed as jet; the annual rings clearly seen at one end of the

large block. Hastings. Dawson Coll.

V. 704. Lignite. Hastings, Dawson Coll.

 

1 Bristow (A), Geol. I. Wight, pp. 6 and 252.
2 Mantell (2), p. 92.

3 Ibid. (1), vol. i. p. 168.

4 Dixon (A.), p. 279.
224 ‘CONIFEROUS WOOD.

V. 706. A fairly large piece of wood with patches of resinous
material or amber traversing the mass longitudinally; some of
these suggest the presence in the wood of large groups of
parenchymatous tissue, such as Conwentz has described as
“‘abnormes Holz-parenchym” in the case of Pinus succinifera
(Gépp.)} from the North German amber beds. The microscopic
structure is very imperfectly preserved. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 707. Wood partially converted into lignite. Ecclesbourne.

Dawson Coil.

V. 718 (Dawson Coll.), V. 2288, V. 2237.

Specimens of wood showing little or no internal structure.
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Colt.

V. 2247 and V. 22472. In the latter specimen the structure
is fairly well preserved ; annual rings are distinct, but less so than

in V. 23804 (Pinites Ruffordi).

V. 2826. A specimen of wood which has undergone com-
paratively little alteration. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coil.

38374. Small piece of lignite. Fairlight. HMantell Coit.

[Spirangium Jugleri (Ett.). In the Rufford Collection
there are several exceedingly well-preserved specimens of this
fossil which merit careful examination; but if we accept the view
that they are the eggs of fishes and not plant structures, this is
not the place for any descriptive account of them. For informa-
tion as to the nature of Spzrangiwm reference may be made to
the following sources :—Ettingshausen, Ueber Palgobromelia, ein
neues Fossiles Pflanzengeschlecht, 4bh. k.-k. geol Reichs., vol. i.
Abth. iii. p. 1; Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. 1871, p. 247;
Schenk, Die fossilen Pflanzenreste (Schenk’s Handbuch, vol. iv.
1888), p. 186; Nathorst, Ofvers. kongl. Vetensk.-Ahad. Forhand.
1879, No. 3; Renault and Zeiller, Compt. Rend. vol. cvii. 1888,
p. 1022; Saporta, Pal. Frang. vol. iv. 1891, p. 38; Seward,
A new British Carboniferous fossil, Naturalist, 1894, p. 238;
A. Hollick, Remarks on a paper by Dean in the Zrans. New
York Acad. Set. vol. xiii. 1898, p. 115, ete. ]

 

1 Conwentz, p. 51.
ADDENDA TO VOL. I. 225

ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

Nathorstia valdensis (=Leckenbya valdensis), gen. et sp. nov.
Vol. I. p. 145, Pl. VII. Fig. 5, and Pl. TX. Figs. 2 and 2a.

After the publication of the first volume of the Wealden
Catalogue, it was pointed out to me by Prof. Nathorst that his
name had been previously made use of by Heer for certain
marattiaceous ferns from the Cretaceous strata of Pattorfik, in
Greenland. This oversight on my part was corrected in a short
note published in the Geological Magazine for 1894,? and the
generic name Leckenbya suggested as a substitute for Wathorstia.

Phyllopteris acutifolia (= Sagenopteris acutyfolia). Vol. I. p. 148,
Pl. IX. Fig. 6.

The generic name Phyllopterts was chosen for certain small
isolated leaflets, on account of the apparent absence of any
anastomosis of the lateral veins. The examination of more
perfect specimens has enabled me to detect true reticulate venation,
and to confirm Mr. Rufford’s opinion that the leaflets should be
included in the genus Sagenopteris.

Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Vol. I. p. 114.

In the synonymy of this species, I included a plant named by
Nathorst Weichselia erratica, as probably identical with the English
Wealden form. Prof. Nathorst® has expressed some doubt as to
the correctness of this suggestion, his species being found in
a deposit which is probably of Upper Cretaceous age; he adds
that there are no Wealden strata in Sweden.

Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.). Vol. I. p. 182.

In speaking of this species I referred to a plant described by
Velenovsky under the name of Thinnfeldia variabilis as probably
identical with S. Muntelli, and added, with regard to his use of the

 

’ Fi. foss. Arct. vol. vi. 1882.
2 Geol. Mag. 1894, p. 384.
* Letter, June 25, 1894.
226 ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

genus Thinnfeldia, that he made no reference to the resemblance
of the leaves to the genus Sagenopteris. Velenovsky’s error
was pointed out to him by Nathorst,’ with the result that he
afterwards acknowledged his mistake,? a correction which I un-
fortunately overlooked.

CANADA.

Sir William Dawson has pointed out to me, that I appear to
have done injustice to Canadian geologists in the brief notice
of the Kootanie plant beds in Vol. I. p. xxxi® It was not
my intention to give a complete historical sketch of these
Cretaceous deposits, but I am glad to take the opportunity of
calling attention to a paper by Dawson On the Correlation of
early Cretaceous Floras in Canada and the United States, and on
some new plants of this period. In this contribution we have a
summary of the work of Richardson, G. M. Dawson, and others,
and a description of some new plants from the Kootanie forma-
tion of the Rocky Mountains. After giving a list of Kootanie
species, Dawson discusses the age of the flora, and points out
that while some of the plants must be regarded as Jurassic, the
majority have a Lower Cretaceous facies. On the whole, he
concludes that ‘‘the Kootanie flora belongs to the lowest portion
of the Cretaceous, and may be a little older than that of the
main part of the Potomac formation.” ¢

Among the plants described by Dawson we find the following
Wealden forms: Hyuisetites Lyelli, Mant., Pecopteris Browniana,
Dunk., Sphenolepidium, sp. The pinna figured as Pecopteris
Browniana is very imperfectly preserved, and does not afford
very satisfactory proof of the occurrence of Dunker’s Wealden
species in the Kootanie flora. In another form, Cladophilebis
Jalcata, Font., we have one of those ferns which it is very
difficult to separate from the widely distributed C. Whitbyensis
(Brong.) and C. Albertsit (Dunk.). The fragment figured as

 

* Letter, June 25, 1894.

® Velenovsky (A. 2), Abh. k. béhm. Ges. Wiss. vol. ii. 1888, p. 5.
3 Letter, Oct. 17, 1894.

* Dawson (2), p. 93.
ADDENDA TO VOL. I. 227

Sphenopteris latiloba? Font., I am disposed to regard as identical
with S. Fittoni, Sew.: of. Vol. I. p. 111, Fig. 11, and Pl. VI.
Fig. 2. The specimens figured by Dawson are for the most
part very small and imperfectly preserved, and the task of deter-
mination has necessarily been extremely difficult.

AMERICA.

Prof. Lester Ward writes to me as follows in reference to the
geological age of the Potomac formation? :—

‘‘As you may know, I have been engaged for several years
on our Potomac formation, and I have established the fact that
it is by no means so simple a group as might be supposed from
what has been thus far said about it. I have been able to
subdivide it into no less than six somewhat distinct horizons,
each of which is fairly well marked off stratigraphically, and
has its own peculiar flora. The uppermost of these subdivisions
embraces the well-known Amboy clays of New Jersey, which
have yielded a very rich flora, a monograph of which had been
nearly completed by Dr. Newberry at the time of his death,
and has been edited by Dr. Arthur Hollick, and has now gone
to press to be published by the U.S. Geological Survey. The
difference between the lowest and highest of these beds is very
great, and the flora is correspondingly different. I suppose that
the series as a whole includes nearly the entire Lower Cretaceous.

“Tt is only with the older Potomac that your Wealden of
England can properly be compared. It is in that that we have
the remarkable cycad trunks, so much like those of the Isle
of Purbeck, which I suppose are really Jurassic; although, as
you show, they are most intimately connected with the overlying
Wealden.”

PORTUGAL.

Reference was made in Volume I. (p. xxiii.), to Saporta’s
important work on the fossil flora of Portugal, and a few notes
were added with regard to some of the more interesting species.

 

1 Letter, July 3, 1894.
228 ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

Since this was written a large monograph! has been published, in
which the Portuguese floras receive a full and careful treatment;
this work is of considerable scientific importance, and its value
is enhanced by the fact of its being the last important contribution
to paleeobotany by that indefatigable worker whose loss is so deeply
deplored.

Beginning with strata of infra-Liassic age, Saporta describes a
number of plants from beds referred to the following geological
horizons: Niveau de Sinémurien (Couches a Gryphea obliqua),
Niveau du lusitanien, Niveaux du néo-jurassique (Couches a Lima
alternicostata, ptérocérien et portlandien), Niveaux infra-crétaciques
(du valanginien 4 l’aptien et de l'urgonien a lalbien). In summing
up the characteristics and affinities of the neo-Jurassic floras,
Saporta draws attention to the occurrence of species characteristic
of the Corallian and Kimmeridgian, and associated with these he
recognizes various Wealden types such as occur in Northern
Germany, the Carpathians, and in North America. To discuss at
length the numerous points suggested by this extremely valuable
memoir, would take us far beyond the limits of the present work,
but some portions of the monograph more immediately germane
to our present subject must be briefly dealt with. In looking
through the excellent plates, we find a large number of very small
specimens referred to a great variety of species, and on examining
the evidence on which many of the determinations are based, it
would seem that the number of specific names might well be
considerably reduced.

Neo-Jurassic SprcrEs.
Sphenopteris dissectifolia, Sap., p. 19, pl. iil. fig. 9; pl. viil. fig. 2;
and pl. x. fig. 9.

Saporta notes a resemblance to the Wealden species Ruffordia
Gépperti (Dunk.); we may also draw attention to a resemblance
with Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.).

S. marginata, Sap., p. 20, pl. vill. fig. 6. While recognizing
the striking agreement of this fern with Onychiopsis Mantelli
(Brong.), Saporta prefers to consider it a distinct type. It is
impossible to be quite certain as to the precise nature of the

 

1 Saporta (1).
ADDENDA TO VOL. I. 229

specimen, but it is difficult to understand on what grounds it can
be separated from such a form as 0. Mantelli.

S. Mantelli neojurassica, p. 21, pl. vii. ete.

S. (Davallia) Uantelli, Brong., p. 72, pls. xv. and xviii.

After referring to the wide range and distribution of this fern,
Saporta describes specimens of fertile fronds, which he compares
with those of the recent species Davallia gibberosa, Sw., and
D. concinna, Schrad. The agreement of the fossil and recent
specimens, leads the author to refer the Wealden fern to the genus
Davailia, or at least to a sub-genus of the Davalliee. The figured
examples of fertile pinne are less perfect than those which I
have described in Volume I. (p. 50, Pl. III. Figs. 2-4); and the
comparison made by Yokoyama in the case of Onychiopsis elongata,
and by myself as regards O. Mantelli, with the recent genus
Onychium, is, I believe, a much nearer approach to the truth than
if we adopt the conclusions of Saporta.

The following are a few of the numerous instances in which mere
fragments are referred to specific types, or on which new species
are founded :—Sphenopteris trifida, Sap., p. 26, pl. x. fig. 20;
S. pedicellata, Sap., p. 26, pl. x. fig. 21; S. minima, Sap., p. 26,
pl. xiv. fig. 16; S. trapezoddea, Sap., p. 27, pl. xi. fig. la;
S. acutidens, Sap., p. 27, pl. x. fig. 14; Cladophlebis minor,
Sap., p. 30, pl. iv. fig. 14; C. obtustloba, Sap., p. 30, pl. xiv.
fig. 15. To carry the niceties of determination so far, and to
institute new species on almost microscopic fragments of pinne
or pinnules, is, I venture to think, a retrograde rather than a
progressive method in paleobotany. A large number of other
cases might be cited illustrating this method of determination,
but the above may serve as examples of this dangerous practice.
The specimens named S. mécroclada, Sap., p. 23, pl. vi., may
be compared with S. Fontaine’, Sew., and those described as
Scleropteris sinuata, Sap. (p. 45, pls. vii. and viii.), with Spheno-
pteris Fittont, Sew.

Any traces of angiospermous plants in strata of Jurassic age
are of special interest. Saporta, in speaking of fossil angiosperms,
writes: ‘‘En dépit du nombre restreint des espéces et de l’extréme
rareté des échantillons, la présence de végétaux angiospermiques
dans la flore portugaise néo-jurassique est cependant certaine.’’!

 

1 Saporta, loc. cit. p. 56.
230 ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

The fragment referred to as Rhizocaulon vetus, Sap. (p. 57, pl. x.
fig. 22), is very small, and in itself hardly satisfactory as an
example of a monocotyledonous species. Other fragments of
parallel-veined leaves are referred to five species of Poacites ; it
may be that we have in them portions of monocotyledonous leaves,
but the specimens are so small and fragmentary, that one cannot
feel much confidence in them as trustworthy evidence in so
important a matter.

Inrra-Cretaczovs (Valanginian to Aptian).
Adiantum aneimiafolium, Sap., p. 82, pl. xv. fig. 21.

There is apparently no evidence that this fragment belongs to
the genus Adiantum: cf. Ruffordia Gépperti var. latifolia (Vol. 1.
Pl. VI. Figs. 1 and 1a). Similarly there does not appear to be
sufficient reason for naming the fragment represented in pl. xvi.
fig. 14 Marattia minor, Sap. Oleandridium tenerum, Sap., p. 85,
pl. xv. fig. 3; pl. xvi. fig. 18, as Saporta points out, closely
resembles Zeniopteris Beyrichit (Schenk). The leaf figured as
Glossozamites brevior, Sap., pl. xvi. fig. 82, may be a pinna of
Otozsamites Khipstemi (Dunk.).

Saporta has drawn my attention to the resemblance of Cyclopitys
Delgadoi, Sap. (p. 91), to the specimen figured by me in Vol. I.
(p. 19, Pl. I. Fig. 7) as probably an equisetaceous sheath.

From these infra-Cretaceous strata we have several specimens
referred to. Rhizocaulon and Poacites, which may be portions of
monocotyledonous leaves, but the leaf fragment spoken of as
Yuccites fractifolius, Sap., p. 110, pl. xix. fig. 20a, cannot be
accepted as a certain monocotyledon. A few specimens are
described as probably dicotyledons, but the existence of such
plants at this horizon is considered as still problematical.

Inrra-Creraczous (Urgonian to Albian).

Sphenopteris circalensis, Sap., p. 126, pls. xxiv. and xxv.:
cf. Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.). S. cunetfida, Sap., p. 127,
pl. xxiii. fig. 5. This closely resembles the finely divided form
of Ruffordia Gopperti (Vol. I. Pl. IV.).

An interesting series of specimens is described and figured
under the name of Jsoetes Choffatr, Sap., p. 184, pls. xxiv., xxv.,
and xxvii.; these fossils show a striking resemblance to this
recent genus of vascular cryptogams. Among the specimens
ADDENDA TO VOL, I. 231

figured as Protorrhipis Choffati, Sap., p. 144, pls. xxii., xxvi.,
and xxvii., there are some which suggest leaves very similar
to those described by Bartholin from Bornholm under the name
of Hausmannia Forchhammeri, Barth.

Sphenopteris tenuifissa, Sap., p. 161, pl. xxviii. fig. 4. In all
probability this is identical with Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.).
Saporta himself noted the close agreement; but he does not
accept my determination of the broad-leaved fronds figured in
Vol. I. Pl. VI. as a variety of Dunker’s species.

Adiantum eximium, Sap., p. 164, pl. xxviii. fig. 18; pl. xxxi.
fig. 6. Probably identical with R. Gpperti var. latifolia.

In speaking of Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov. (p. 80), I have
drawn attention to the very close similarity of the Portuguese
specimens named by Saporta Cycadites tenuisectus. The numerous
dicotyledonous leaves described by Saporta are of considerable
interest, but need not be dealt with here, as we have no trace
of angiospermous fossils in our Wealden strata, which occupy
a lower horizon than the beds from which Saporta’s specimens
were obtained.

In taking a review of the whole flora described in his monograph,
Saporta calls attention to the remarkable series of types which are
represented in the plant-bearing beds ranging from the Corallian
to the Cenomanian; the series is practically continuous, and
without any distinct break or hiatus in the succession of genera
and species. The flora is compared with that of the Potomac beds
of America; a close comparison of the two sets of plants‘ has
also been recently instituted by Prof. Lester Ward.

JAPAN.

Yokoyama followed up his account of the Jurassic plants from
Kaga, Hida, and Echizen, by a memoir on the Mesozoic plants
from Kotzuke, Kii, Awa, and Tosa.? Nathorst® had previously
described several species from some of these localities, and con-
cluded that the plant-bearing strata should be classed as transition

 

1 Science, March 29, 1896.
° ‘Yokoyama.
3 Nathorst (A. 8), Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. vol. lvii. 1890, p. 43.
232 ADDENDA TO VOL. I.

beds between the Jurassic and Cretaceous systems. Yokoyama
supports Nathorst’s view, but prefers to regard the Japanese beds
as corresponding to the whole Neocomian series, and to the Potomac
of America. The following species are mentioned in Yokoyama’s
paper :—

Thyrsopteris, sp. Podozamites lanceolatus, L. and H.,
Dicksonia Tosana, Yok. var. minor, Heer.

Dicksoniopteris Nawmanni, Nath. P. lanceolatus var. latifolia, Nath.
Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.). P. pusillus, Velen.

O. elegans, Yok. Zamiophyllum Buchianum (Ett.).
Adiantites Yuasensis, Yok. Z. Buchianum var. angustifolia, Font.
Pieris (?), sp. Z. Naumanni, Nath.

Sphenopteris tenuicula, Yok. Glossozamites parvifolius, Yok.
Pecopteris Browniana, Dunk. Nilssonia Johnstrupi, Heer.

P. Geyleriana, Nath. NV. Schaumburgensis, Dunk.

P. cf. virginiensis, Font. NV. pterophylloides, Yok.

Cladophlebis Nathorsti, Yok. Ptilophyllum cf. Cutchense, Morr.
Maeroteniopteris (?) marginata, Nath. | Cyparissidium (?) Japonicum, Yok.
Lycopodites, sp. Torreya venusta, Yok.

Podozamites, sp. :

 

Some of the specimens described as Podozamites show a strong
resemblance to Fontaine’s Wageiopsis; but it is no easy matter
to decide between these two.genera when we have to deal with
small specimens.

AUSTRIA.

Fritz Von Kerner' has recently described some fossil plants
from the Island of Lesina, off the Austrian coast, in the Adriatic
Sea; the flora is regarded as Lower Cretaceous in age. Among
the species recorded from these beds we have Dioonttes cf.
Saxonicus (Reich.), p. 49, pl. iv. fig. 6: this species I have
included as a synonym of Zamites Buchianus (Ett.); but it is
difficult to decide from the indistinct photograph of Kerner’s
fragment how far his specimen may be regarded as identical with
the Wealden species. A coniferous twig figured by Kerner as
Pagiophyllum rigidum, Sap., resembles fairly closely some of the
English specimens of P. crassifolium, Schenk: ef. Kerner’s figure,
pl. iv. fig. 3, and my Pl. XVI. Fig. 2.

 

1 Kerner.
CONCLUSIONS. 233

A very small and imperfect specimen is figured as a piece of
Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.), (pl. iv. fig. 2); this does not
seem to be a typical example of the species, but it is impossible
to accurately determine so small a fragment.

SPITZBERGEN.

In 1883 Nathorst? published a short account of some plant-
bearing beds in Spitzbergen, which had formerly been classed as
Cretaceous, but which he preferred to consider as uppermost Jurassic
in age. Having lately had an opportunity, through the kindness of
Professor Nathorst, of examining the Spitzbergen fossils, I am
disposed to think that we shall find in his forthcoming monograph
on this flora a certain amount of evidence in favour of its being
regarded as Wealden.

CONCLUSIONS.

Prior to the acquisition of the Rufford Collection by the British
Museum, the following plants had been recorded from the Wealden
strata of England. Such alteration as 1 have suggested with
regard to any of the species are noted in brackets.

 

Chara (=€. Knowltoni, sp. nov.). Pinites Mantelli, Carr.

Equisetites Lyelli, 8. and W. P. patens, Carr.

LE. Burchardti, Dunk. Cycadeostrobus elegans, \ [ = Conites

Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Carr. | elegans

Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov. (=8. | C. ovatus, Carr. (Carr.)].
Mantelli, Brong.). C. tumidus, Carr. [ = Conites tumidus,

Tempskya Schimperi, Corda. (Carr.)].

Teniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk). Bucklandia anomaia (8. and W.).

Weichselia Mantel (Brong.). Fittonia squamata, Carr.

Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.). Yatesia Morrisii, Carr.

Araucarites Pippingfordensis (Ung.). Bennettites Saxbyanus (Brown).

Pinites Dunkeri, Mant. Dioonites Brongniarti (Mant.) (= Cyca-

P. Carruthersi, Gard. dites Brongniarti, Mant.).

P. valdensis, Gard. Nilssonia Schaumburgensis (Dunk.).

 

1 Nathorst (6).
234 CONCLUSIONS.

The following list includes the species described in Volume I.,
with the addition of those dealt with in Volume II.

{ SPECIES CONFINED TO ENGLAND.

THALLOPHYTA.
t Algites valdensis, Sew. t A. catenelloides, Sew.

CHAROPHYTA.
t Chara Knowltoni, Sew.

BRYOPHYTA.
+ Marchantites Zeilleri, Sew.

PTERIDOPHYTA.
Equisetites Lyelli, Mant. Cladophlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.).
E. Burchardti, Dunk. Sphenopteris Fontainei, Sew.
E. Yokoyame, Sew. S. Fittoni, Sew.
Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.).
O. elongata (Geyl.). Teniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk).
+ Acrostichopteris Ruffordi, Sew. tT. Beyrichii var. superba, Sew.
Matonidium Gépperti (Ett.). t Z. Dawsoni, Sew.
Protopteris Witteana, Schenk. Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.).
—»Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). t 8S. acutifolia, Sew.
—> R. Gépperti var. latifolia, Sew. Microdictyon Dunkeri (Schenk).
} Cladophlebis longipennis, Sew. Dietyophyllum Rémeri, Schenk.
C. Albertsii (Dunk.). + Leckenbya valdensis, Sew.
C. Browniana (Dunk.). +> Tempskya Schimperi, Cord.

 

GYMNOSPERM &#.
Cycadites Rémeri, Schenk. ‘ Anomozamites Lyellianus (Dunk.).
t+ C. Saporte, Sew. Cycadolepis (Dory-Cycadolepis and
Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gépp.). Eury-Cycadolepis).
D. Brongniarti (Mant.). Carpolithes, sp.
Nilssonia Schaumburgensis (Dunk.). t Androstrobus Nathorsti, Sew.
Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.). Bucklandia anomala (8. and W.).
+ O. Klipsteinti var. superbus, Sew. t Fittonia Ruffordia, Sew.

+ O. Klipsteinii var. longifolius, Sew. | + Bennettites Saxbyanus (Brown).
Otozamites, sp. Cf. O. Reibeiroanus, | t B. Gibsonianus, Carr.

Heer. Bennettites, sp.
O. Géppertianus (Dunk.). t B. (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, Sew.
Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). + B. (Williamsonia) Carruthersi var.
t Z. Carruthersi, Sew. latifolius, Sew.

 

Z. Carruthersi var. latifolius, Sew. t Yatesia Morrisii, Carr.
CONCLUSIONS. 235

Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Dunk.). | + Pinites Dunkeri, Carr.

S. Sternbergianum (Dunk.). TP. Carruthersi, Gard.
Cf. S. (Sequoia) subulatum, Heer. + P. Solmsi, Sew.
Sphenolepidium, sp. + P. Ruffordi, Sew.
Pagiophylium crassifolium (Schenk). Cf. Nageiopsis heterophylla, Font.
Pagiophyllum, sp. t Thuites valdensis, Sew.
t Brachyphyllum spinosum, Sew. Conites (Araucarites), sp.
B. obesum, Heer. t C. armatus, Sew.

PLANTZ INCERT# SEDIS.

Specimen A. (Vol. I. p. xxxv. Pl. I. Fig. 7).
Specimen B. (Vol. I. p. xxxv. Pl. I. Figs. 8 and 9).
+ Withamia Saporte, Sew.
t+ Becklesia anomala, Sew.
Cf. Dichopteris levigata (Phill.).

In the accompanying table an attempt is made to show the
geographical range of such species as are not confined to the
Wealden rocks of England. The occurrence of the same species
in different regions is not regarded as necessarily proving homo-
taxial strata. A more detailed consideration of the geological
correlation of the plant-bearing strata, in which Wealden types
occur, will be undertaken elsewhere, as there are still a few
species to be described from the English beds. Such plants as
Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.), atonidium Gépperti, Schenk,
Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.), are by no means confined to one
geological horizon; and it is possible that we have other species,
the range of which is not strictly limited to true Wealden strata.

In the following list are added the chief districts or localities
in each country from which the plants have been obtained. The
names of the principal authors of the several Wealden floras (or
floras containing Wealden species), are given below, with numbers
referring to the bibliographies at the end of Part I. and Part II. ;
those in the former being printed with A. after the author’s name,
those in the latter with B.
aa a ve We OR, PS aS ae

 

 

f

ane (qqa

saeeees

pue saxoyg) wyowoun vipunpyong
“yun) snunpahT sazruvzomoupy
* (4401) snumyong saqvung
Jaep ‘snuvo.nagiay $aguwz0j() 3
(yun) snevyuaddoy sazzuyz039Q
“(yun (]) seaagsdy y sazrunz07Q
“yUN) sisuabinqunnyog vruossyisy
* (queyl) wumrubuorg sapuoorg
“ddoy ‘snumsayuny sagiuoorgy
-aou “ds ‘wp1odvg sazipoahg
“ yuayog “augur sagipoolig
“quo, ‘vpphydowazay sisdovbvgr 2
* yuoyog ‘unyofrssvso un hydorbag
ses TaaH ‘unsago unphydhysmeg
sre (HUN) wnunrbraquiagg mniprdajouaydy
vee (yung) wnunrwiny uniprdaoucydy
tieerreeeens Bpon, “wadunyag vhysduay, ce
‘aout ‘ds yo “Uad ‘sesuapyua vhquayaaT
* yuaypg “wamoy wnyhydohjarg
+ (queyog) wayung uohzarpo.rpy
“= CHUN) wazunyy srsazdouabng
“+ (yuayog) wyarwhag sivardoruay
trees (CBuoIg) ypaqunyy vyasyna
“+ -aom “ds ‘2u0p7u7 srtagdouaydg
 (duumgog) vayung sigayydopng
“ (yun) vunwnosg sigaydopn)g
serereess Cum) sespuaqy Pr seqazydopnyg
seers Corey) yiaddog vipsoging ae
“+ yuayog ‘wuvanze A 82002002017
vee (aay) aquaddog wnipruopn yr
veres (Than) vypbuoja sisdoryahug
* (Suorg) wpagunyy sisdoryahug
+ sou ‘ds ‘wumhoyox sagyasundsy
“yung ‘epevyaing sagyasinbyT
tenes tee caer ‘gah sagigasinbsy

                

 

1K Pd

tM
oO

Moe RK Oe

4
ao

          

 

 
 

m4
Wo PO OOO OO OO OO OOO Odd

     

   
 
 

how
o
HMM KM MRM OO PO dO Od td

 

*pueleez
AON
*eTTeaysny

 

 

 

 

 

*sotoadg Jo SIT

‘epeuey
*eoLlawWy
“eISSN
*eLISsny
“Auvuriey
‘uns eg
*pesnqa0g
“pursuq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*“puejusein
“WoT ulog
pue uapaasg

 

 
CONCLUSIONS. 237

Evnexanpv. Isle of Wight, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Bedfordshire. [Stokes
and Webb (A.), Mantell (A. 1-7), Carruthers (A. 3 and 4),
(B. 1, 3, 6, and 8), Topley (A. 1.), Gardner (A. 1 and 2),
Bristow (A.), Peyton (A.), ete.] :

Porrueat. Cercal, Bellas, Torres-Vedras, etc. [Heer (A. 6), Saporta (B. 1).]

FRANcE. Beauvais. [Brongniart (A. 4).]

Bretcrum. Hainaut. [Coemans (A.), Bommer (B. 1 and 2).]

Germany. Deister, Quedlinburg, Tentoburgerwald, and other localities in
N.W. Germany. [Dunker (A. 2), Schenk (A. 2 and 4), Hosius
and Von der Marck (A. 1 and 2).]

Avsrria. _ North Carpathians. [Ettingshausen (A. 4), Schenk (A. 3).]—
Lesina I. [Kerner (B.).]

Russia. Klin. [Trautschold (A. 3).]

Bornuotm. [Bartholin (A.) and (B.).]

SwEDEN. Hor (Scania). [Nathorst (A. 4).]

America. Virginia, Maryland, Montana. [Fontaine (A. 2 and 3), New-
berry (A. 1), Knowlton (A. 2).]

Camapa. Rocky Mountains (Kootanie R.). [Dawson (B. 2).]

Greentanp. Kome (Nugsuaks Peninsula). [Heer (B.).]

JAPAN. Kaga, Hida, Echizen, Ki, etc. [Yokoyama (A. 2) and (B.),
Nathorst (A. 3).]

AFRICA. Geelhoutboon (South Afriea). [Tate (A.).]

Austrauta. [Tenison-Woods (A.).]

New Zzatanp. Prov. Auckland. [Unger (A. 3).]

The questions of geological age suggested by the above table,
will be discussed in a subsequent communication on the Wealden
floras, which it is intended to lay before the Geological Society
at an early date. With a view to discover if the manner of
occurrence of the fossil plants, or the association of different’
genera and species, would afford any evidence as to the relative
positions of growth of the various floral types, I wrote to Mr.
Rufford asking him to give me such information as his accurate
knowledge of the Hastings district! enabled him to contribute with
regard to this question. I cannot do better than reproduce the
main facts which he communicated to me. He writes that he is
unable to discover any reliable data as to the relative altitudes at
which the plants grew, but adds the following useful information
as to the occurrence of some of the characteristic species in the
different beds :—

 

1 For a geological section of this district see Vol. I. p. xvii.
238 CONCLUSIONS.

Faretreut Crays.

(a) Fine clay ironstone; ferns well preserved, no cycads or
conifers. This bed occupies about the same geological position as (4),
although separated from it horizontally; it contains Marchantites,
Lquisetites Burchardti, Onychiopsis Mantelli, Ruffordia Gopperti,
Sphenopteris Fittont, and other ferns.

(6) Fine blue clay. The ‘‘cycad bed,” containing Zamites,
Anomozamites, Otozamites, Fittonia, etc.; ferns rare. A few yards
farther on, and about the same horizon, there have been found
coniferous twigs, etc.

(¢) Porous sandstone, with Prnites; no cycads or ferns. This
bed occupies a lower horizon than (a) and (4).

(@) Blue clays, sometimes sandy. ‘Fern bed’; no cycads;
occasionally leaves of Pinites, also Onychiopsis Mantelli, Ruffordia,
Sphenopteris Fittont, Cladophlebis, etc.

(e) For the most part reddish ironstone, with some grey sand-
stone merging into sandy clay. About the same horizon as (d);
plants very abundant— Onychiopsis, Ruffordia, Sphenopteris, Clado-
phlebis, Tentopterts, Protopteris ; also Dioonites Brongniarti, Zamites,
Otozamites, Benneitites (Williamsonia), Pagtophyllum, and other
conifers, etc. This bed is of somewhat coarser material than the
others, and contains a greater mixture of plants; Pagiophyllum
crassifolium and other conifers are very abundant.

In reading the above notes by Mr. Rufford, we find that with
the exception of bed (e), in which the various classes of plants are
well represented, the ferns, cycads, and conifers are not usually
intermixed. The partial or complete separation of ferns, cycads,
and conifers, may be due either to the nature of the plant material,
which might be sorted by the water by reason of some differences
in weight, or to the relative adaptability to louger or shorter
transport by water; or the result of the plants growing in
different districts and at different elevations. The more delicate
fern fronds would probably be carried to a greater distance
than the heavier and larger pieces of cycadean or coniferous
plants. On the other hand, the gymnosperms may well have
been more abundant on higher ground and in drier situations
than the Filicine. Assuming the bed (e) to occupy the lowest
horizon in the series, it would appear that the material com-
posing the sandstones and ironstones was laid down in somewhat
CONCLUSIONS. 239

shallow water, and the fossils embedded in the strata were
derived from a wide area, embracing localities rich in both
ferns and gymnosperms. The petrological nature of (d) and the
absence of cycads suggest deeper water; while the fine blue clay
of (6) may have been derived from rocks in an area characterized
by the predominance of cycads. It would, however, be difficult to
reconstruct the conditions of growth of the several plants without
a very careful examination of the rocks and their fossil contents,
and at best our conclusions would probably not possess any great
scientific value.

In an old work by Unger,’ we read that in the Wealden period
there were ‘‘ small wet islands, covered with forests, inhabited by
the largest and most terrible monsters of the primitive world.
The atmosphere was filled with moist vapour, and carbon dioxide
exhalations favourable to the prodigious propagation of the
amphibian race, and to the development of ferns, cycads,
conifers, and some monocotyledons.” He goes on to say that
“La triste sauvagerie de cet intérieur de forét est encore redoublée
par celle de ses habitants, parmi lesquels le gigantesque Jguanodon
& crété osseuse et la monstreux Hyleosaurus tiennent la premicre
place.”

In a more recent monograph on the Wealden period, Schenk * con-
fidently speaks of the climate as undoubtedly tropical, and refers to
the occurrence of tree ferns, the abundance of cycads, and other facts
in support of this conclusion. It would be extremely difficult,
or indeed impossible, to give any approximate estimate of the
temperature in Northern and Central Europe during the Wealden
period. The general characters of the vegetation would certainly
seem to point to a tropical climate, and there can be little doubt
that the temperature was considerably higher than the Wealden
districts enjoy at the present day.

In discussing the climate of a past age, in which no living species
of plants existed, and in attempting to make use of fossil plants
as indices of climatal conditions, we have to bear in mind the
great danger of drawing conclusions from a comparison of extinct
and living forms. It is superfluous to point out the lesson so
clearly taught by recent plants, that closely allied species frequently

 

1 Unger, p. 29.
2 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 256.
240 CONCLUSIONS.

occur under very different conditions of temperature. In the
present instance, the numerous species of cycads naturally suggest
conditions similar to those most favourable or essential to the
living representatives of the Cycadacee; but we must remember
that the so-called cycadean fronds from Mesozoic rocks are nearly
always found apart from the stems and reproductive structures,
and we are still to a large extent in the dark as to the exact
nature and structure of these extinct cycadean plants.

Looking at the Wealden plants collectively, we notice a very
striking agreement with the flora of the underlying Jurassic
strata, and it would be difficult to point to any well-marked or
essential difference between the plant-life of the two periods.
The evidence of paleobotany certainly favours the inclusion of
the Wealden rocks in the Jurassic series.

One of the most attractive and difficult problems which is
suggested to a botanist by such a flora as that of the Wealden
period, is the evolution of angiospermous plants. A reviewer has
happily expressed this in the following words!: “In the folds of
the Wealden we imagine the secret of the evolution of angiosperms
must be locked. It is as if we stood at the mouth of a great
river flowing from an unexplored interior, whose flotsam we
anxiously interrogated for clues as to the nature of the unknown
Hinterland; yet nothing reaches us from beyond the coast-belt,
which we have already explored.” Among the English species
there are none which can be regarded as the earliest angiosperms,
and we search in vain among the abundant samples of the Wealden
vegetation for any fragments of monocotyledonous or dicotyledonous
plants. In the Potomac beds of America, which include strata of
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous age, we have several undoubted
angiospermous species; and again, in the closely parallel series of
Portuguese rocks, dicotyledons and monocotyledons are fairly
abundant. The true Wealden vegetation would seem to have
been without any examples of the highest class of plants, and
may be looked upon as the last of the Mesozoic floras in which
the gymnosperms represented the limit of plant development.
One genus, however, carries us a few steps towards the next
stage in botanical evolution ; the inflorescence of Bennettites marks

 

1 Nature, July 26, 1894, p. 294.
CONCLUSIONS. 241

a distinct advance in the differentiation of reproductive structures
beyond the characteristic cycadean type. Were we in a position
to speak of the anatomical structure, or to describe more fully
the reproductive organs, of Wealden plants, it might be that we
should be able to recognize a distinct foreshadowing of angio-
spermous characters; unfortunately, however, the extreme scarcity
of mineralized plant tissues precludes any such treatment of plant
types. In spite of the somewhat disappointing nature of the
flora from the point of view of angiosperm development, we
may reasonably hope that a more detailed comparison of floras
possessing a Wealden facies will enable us to add something of
value to the history of plant evolution, and to the facts of plant
distribution.
LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

[With two or three exceptions the works quoted in Part I. are not repeated in the

following list. The letter (A.) after authors’ names in the footnotes of the

resent volume signifies that the work referred to is in the bibliography of

Dart I. Under Feistmantel, Heer, and Zittel, I have given the dates of the

several parts of vols. i. and ii. of the Memoirs of the Geological Survey of

India (second series), of the Flora fossilis Arctica, and of Schimper and
Schenk’s volume on fossil plants in Zittel’s Handbuch. ]

Balfour, J. H. Introduction to the Study of Paleontological Botany.
Edinburgh, 1872.

Bartholin, C. T. Nogle i den bornholmske Juraformation forekom-
mende Planteforsteninger. [Bot. Tidssk. vol. xix. 1894, p. 87.]

Bennett, J. J. See Brown, RB.

Bensted, W. H. (1) On the Kentish Rag as exhibited in the Iguanodon
Quarry at Maidstone. [Proc. Geol. Assoc. vol. i. 1860, p. 57.]

Bensted, W. H. (2) Notes on the Geology of Maidstone. [@eologist,
vol. v. 1862, p. 294.]

Berger, H. A. C. Die Versteinerungen der Fische und Pflanzen im
Sandsteine der Coburger Gegend. Coburg, 1832.

Bertrand, C. H, and Renault, B. (1) Recherches sur les Poroxylons.
[Arch. Bot. Nord France, Ann. 3, 1886, p. 243.]

Bertrand, C. EF. and Renault, B. (2) Remarques sur les faisceaux
foliaires des Cycadées actuelles. [Arch. Bot. Nord France,
Ann. 3, 1886, p. 232.]

Bird, J. See Young.

Bornemann, J. G. Ueber organische Reste Lettenkohlen Gruppe
Thiiringens. Leipzig, 1856.

Botanical Magazine. Edited by J. D. Hooker. London.

Braun, F. (1) Weltrichia, eine neue Gattung fossiler Rhizantheen.
[Flora, No. 45, 1845, p. 705.)

Braun, F. (2) See Minster.

Brongniart, A. (1) Observations sur les végétaux fossiles renfermés
dans les grés de Hoer en Scaniée. [Ann. Sct. Vat. vol. iv.
1825, p. 200.]

Brongniart, A. (2) Recherches sur Vorganisation des tiges des Cycadées.
[Ann. Sct. Nat. vol. xvi. 1829, p. 389.]
244 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

Brongniart, A. (3) Sur la classification et la distribution des végétaux
fossiles en général. [Mém. Mus. vol. viii. 1822, p. 209.]

Brongniart, A. (4) Note sur les végétaux fossiles de Voolite &
Fongeéres de Mamers. [Ann. Sei. Nat. vol. iv. 1825, p. 422.]

Brown, R. (Proc. Linn. Soe. vol. ii. 1855, p. 130.]

Brown, R. and Bennett, J. J. Plante Javanice rariores. London,
1838-52,

Buckland, W. (1) On the Cycadeotdee, a family of Fossil Plants found
in the Oolite Quarries of the Isle of Portland. [G@eol. Trans.
(2) vol. ii. 1828, p. 395.)

Buckland, W. (2) Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to
Natural Theology. London, 1858.

Capellini, G. and Solms-Laubach. I Tronchi di Bennettitee dei musei
italiani. ([Jfem. R. Accad. Sei. inst. Bologna (5), vol. ii.
1891, p. 161.]

Carruthers, W. (1) On Fossil Cycadean Stems from the Secondary
Rocks of Britain. [Zrans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxvi. 1870, p. 675.]

Carruthers, W. (2) On some supposed Vegetable Fossils. [Quart.
Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvii. 1871, p. 443.]

Carruthers, W. (3) On Gymnospermous Fruits from the Secondary
Rocks of Britain. [Journ. Bot. vol. v. 1867, p. 1.]

Carruthers, W. (4) On some Fossil Coniferous Fruits. [Geol. Mag.
vol. iii. 1866, p. 534.]
Carruthers, W. (5) On some Coniferous Fruits from the Secondary
Rocks of Britain. [Geol. Mag. vol. vi. p. 1, 1869.]
Carruthers, W. (6) On Cycadeoidea Yatesii, sp. nov., a Fossil Cycadean
Stem from the Potton Sands, Bedfordshire. [Geol. Mag.
vol. iv. 1867, p. 199.]

Carruthers, W. (7) British Fossil Pandanacee. [Geol. Mag. vol. v.
1868, p. 153.]

Carruthers, W. (8) Description of a new species of Araucarites from
the Coralline Oolite of Malton. [Appendix to a paper by
Blake and Hudleston on the Corallian Rocks of England.
Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. p. 402, 1877.]

Conwentz, H. Monographie der baltischen Bernsteinbiéume. Danzig,
1890.

Dana, J.D. Manual of Geology. Edit. ii. New York and London,
1874.

Dawson, J. W. (1) On the Cretaceous and Tertiary Floras of British
Columbia and the N.W. Territory. [Zrans. R. Soc. Canada,
vol. i. 1882, sect. iv. p. 15.]

Dawson, J. W. (2) On the Correlation of the early Cretaceous Floras
in Canada and the United States, and on some new Plants
of this period. [Zrans. R. Soc. Canada, vol. x. 1893, sect. iv.]

Per
LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. 245

De Candolle, A. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis.
Vol. xvi. p. 522. Paris, 1868.
De la Beche, H. T. Remarks on the Geology of the South Coast of
England, from Bridport Harbour, Dorset, to Babbacombe
Bay, Devon. [rans. Geol. Soc. vol. i. (2) 1824, p. 40.]
Don, D. Description of the New Genera of the Natural Family of
Plants called Conifere. [Trans. Linn. Soe. vol. xviii. 1841,
p. 163.]
Dyer, T. Thiselton. On a new species of Cycas from Southern India.
[Trans. Linn. Soc. Bot. (2) vol. ii. 1883, p. 85.]
EFichwald, E. ‘Lethza Rossica, vols. i.-iii. Stuttgart, 1853-68.
Endlicher, S. (1) Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales dis-
posita. Vindobone, 1836-40.
Endlicher, 8. (2) Synopsis Coniferarum. Sangalli, 1847.
Engler, A. and Prantl, K. Die natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Lief. ii.
Leipzig, 1889.
Eittingshausen, C. von. (1) Beitréage zur Kenntniss der fossilen Flora
Neuseelands. [Denkschr. k. Akad. Wiss. vol. liii. 1887, p. 3.]
Ettingshausen, C. von. (2) Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Tertiirflora
Australiens. Zweite folge. [Lbid. vol. liii. 1886, p. 1.]
Ettingshausen, C. von. (8) Die fossile Flora von Leoben in Steirmark.
[Zbid. vol. liv. Abth. i. 1888, p. 261.]
Feistmaniel, O. (1) (a) Jurassic (Liassic) Flora of the Rajmahal Group
in the Rajmahal Hills. Part ii. 1877.
(b) Jurassic (Liassic) Flora of the Rajmahal Group from
the Golapili near Ellore 8S. Godavari. Pt. ili. 1877.
(ce) Upper Gondwana Flora of the Outliers on the Madras
Coast. Pt. iv. 1879.
[Pal. Ind. Mem. Geol. Surv. India, ser. 2, vol. i. 1880.]
(a) Jurassic (Oolitic) Flora of Kach. Pt. i. 1876.
(6) Flora of the Jabalpur Group (U. Gondwanas) in the
Son-narbeida Region. Pt. ii. 1877.
[Pal. Ind. Ibid. ser. 2, vol. ii. 1880.]
Feistmantel, O. (2) Paleontologische Beitrage. II. Ueber die Gattung
Williamsonia, Carr., in India. [Paleontographica, supp. iii.
Lief. iii. 1877.]
Gardner, S. (1) On Mesozoic Angiosperms. [Geol. Mag. vol. iii. 1886,
p. 193.]
Gardner, S. (2) A Monograph of the British Eocene Flora. Vol. i.
Filices, by Gardner and Ettingshausen, Palsontographical
Society, 1879-82. Vol. ii. Gymnosperma, by Gardner,
; Palzontographical Society, 1883-6.
Geintz, H. B. and Gutbier, A. von. Die Versteinerungen des Rothlie-
genden und Zechstein Gebirges. Dresden and Leipzig, 1848.
246 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

Goppert, H. R. (1) Ueber die fossilen Cycadeen iiberhaupt, mit Riick-
sicht auf die in Schlesien vorkommender Arten. [Uebericht
der Arbeiten und Vertinderungen der Schlesischen Gessel. fiir
Vart. Kultur. 1843, p. 114. Breslau, 1844.]

Géppert, H. R. (2) Beitrage zur Kenntniss fossiler Cycadeen. [ewes
Jahrb. 1866, p. 129.]

Géppert, H. R. (8) Ueber die gegenwirtigen Verhiltnisse der Palion-
tologie in Schlesien, so wie tiber fossile Cycadeen. [Schles.
Ges. Denkschr. 1853, p. 251.]

Goppert, H. R. (4) Ueber lebende und fossile Cycadeen. [Zeztsch.
geol. deutsch. Ges. vol. xvi. 1864, p.173.]  ~

Goppert, H. R. (5) Zur Flora des Quadersandsteins in Schlesien.
Nachtrag. [Nova Acta Ac. Ows. Leop.-Car. vol. xxii. 1847,
p. 355.]

Géppert, H. R. (6) Monographie der fossilen Coniferen. [Wat. Verhand.
Holland. Maatschaf Haarlem. Leiden, 1850. ]

Géppert, H. R. and Menge. Die Flora des Bernsteins. Vol. i. Danzig,
1883. -

Géppert, H. R. and Stenzel, G. Die Medullosee. [Paleontographica,
vol. xxviii. 1881, p. 113.]

Gordon, EF. G. The Pinetum. London, 1858.

Grand’ Eury, M. C. Géologie et paléontologie du bassin houiller du
Gard. St. Etienne, 1890. ;

Grant, C. W. Memoir to illustrate a Geological Map of Cutch. [Trans.
Geol. Soc. vol. v. (2) 1840, p. 289.]

Guillard, — Note sur un végétal fossile des terrains-houillers de Rive-
de-Gier. [Ann. Sct. phys. nat. Agric. indust. Lyon, vol. ii.
1839, p. 123.]

Heer, O. Flora fossilis Arctica. Die fossile Flora der Polarlinder.

Vol. I. Ziirich, 1868.—(i.) Die in Nordgrénland, auf der Melville-
Insel, im Banksland, am Mackenzie, im Island und in Spitz-
bergen entdeckten fossilen Pflanzen. pp. 1-192; map and
plates, i.—1.

(ii.) Mit Einem Anhang iiber versteinerte Hélzer der
arctischen Zone. C. Cramer.

Vol. II. Winterthur, 1871.—(i.) Fossile Flora der Baren-Insel.
[Kongl. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Hand. vol. ix. No. 5, 1871,
pp. 3-51, pls. i—xv.]

(ii.) Flora fossilis Alaskana ; Fossile Flora von Alaska.
[K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Hand. vol. viii. No. 4, 1869, pp. 3-41,
pls. i.-x.]

(iii.) Die Miocene Flora und Fauna Spitzbergens. [Tbid.
vol. viii. No. 7, 1870, pp. 3-98, pls. i—xvi.]

(iv.) Contributions to the Fossil Flora of North Greenland,
Vol.

LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. 247

being a description of the plants collected by Mr. Edward
Whymper during the Summer of 1867. [PAdl. Trans. 1869,
pp. 445-88, pls. xxxix.—lvi.]
III. Ziirich, 1875.—(i.) Beitrage zur Steinkohlen-Flora der
arctischen Zone. [K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Hand. vol. xii.
No. 3, 1874, pp. 3-11, pls. i.-vi.]

(ii.) Die Kreide-Flora der arctischen Zone. [Jbid. vol. xii.
No. 6, 1874, pp. 3-140, pls. i-xxxviii.]

(iii.) Nachtriége zur Miocenen Flora Grénlands. [Jbid.
vol. xiii. No. 2, 1874, pp. 3-29, pls. ii-v.]

(iv.) Uebersicht der Miocenen Flora der arctischen Zone.
Ziirich, 1874; pp. 3-24.

Vol. IV. Ziirich, 1877.—(i.) Beitrége zur fossilen Flora Spitz-

Vol.

Vol.

bergens. [K. Svensk. Vet.-Ahkad. Hand. vol. xiv. No. 5,
1876, pp. 3-141, pls. i-xxxii.]

(ii.) Beitrige zur Jura-Flora Ost Sibiriens und des Amur-
landes. [Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pét. (7) vol. xxii. No. 12,
1876, pp. 1-122, pls. i-xxxi.]

iii.) Ueber die Pflanzen-Versteinerungen von Andé in
Norwegen. Pp. 3-15, pls. i—iii.

V. Ziirich, 1878.—(i.) Die Miocene Flora des Grinnell-
Landes. Pp. 3-38, pls. i.—ix.

(ii.) Beitrage zur fossilen Flora Sibiriens und deg Amur-
landes. [dém. Acad. Imp. Set. St. Pét. (7) vol. xxv. No. 6.
1878, pp. 1-58, pls. i-xv.]

(iii.) Primitize flore fossilis Sachalinensis. Miocene Flora
der Insel Sachalin. [Zbed. vol. xxv. No. 7, pp. 1-61, pls. i—xv.]

(iv.) Ueber fossile Pllanzen von Novaja Semlya. [A. Svensk.
Vet.-Akad. Hand. vol. xv. No. 3, 1878, pp. 3-6, pl. i.]

(v.) Beitriige zur Miocenen Flora von Sachalin. [Jbid.
vol. xv. No. 4, 1878, pp. 3-11, pls. i.-iv.]

VI.—Flora fossilis Grénlandica. Die fossile Flora Gronlands.

Th. i. Ziirich, 1882.

i.) (a) Flora der Kome Schichten, pp. 1-19
(0) Flora der Atane Schichten, pp. 20-112

(ii.) Nachtrige zur Jura-Flora Sibiriens. [Ifém. Acad.
Imp. Sei. St. Pét. (7) vol. xxvii. No. 10, 1880, pp. 1-34,
pls. i-ix.]

(iii.) Nachtriige zur fossilen Flora Grénlands. [X. Svensk.
Vet.-Akad. Hand. vol. xviii. No. 2, 1880, pp. 3-17, pls. i—vi.]

(iv.) Beitrage zur Miocenen Flora von Nord - Canada.
Zirich, 1880; pp. 3-17, pls. i—iii.

(v.) Untersuchung iiber fossile Hélzer aus der arctischen
Zone. C. Schroeter, Ziirich, 1880 ; pp. 3-38, pls. i—iii.

pls. i.-xlvii.
248 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

Vol. VII.—Flor. foss. Grén. Th. ii. Zurich, 1883; pp. 1-275,
pls. xlviii-cix., one map, and two photographic views as
frontispiece.

Hildebrand, F. Die Verbreitung der Coniferen. [Verh. Nat. Ver.
preuss. Rheinl. vol. xviii. 1861, p. 199.]

Hisinger, W. Lethza Suecica. Holmiz, 1837.

Holtick, A. Additions to the Paleobotany of the Cretaceous For-
mations on Staten Island. [Trans. N.F. Acad. Set. vol. xii.
1892-3, ]

Hooker, J. D. (1) See Botanical Magazine.

Hooker, W. J. (2) Icones Plantarum. Edited by D. Oliver. London.

Karsten, H. Organographische Betrachtung der Zamia muricata,
Willd. [402. &. Akad. Wiss. 1856, p. 193.]

Kerner, F. von. Kreidepflanzen von Lesina. [Jahrd. k.-k. geol. Reichs.
vol. xlv. 1895, Heft i.]

Kidston, R. On the Fructification of some Ferns from the Carboniferous
Formation. [Zrans. R. Soc. Edinb. vol. xxxiii. 1887, pt. i.]

Kurr, J. G. Beitrige zur fossilen Flora der Juraformation Wirttem-

bergs. Stuttgart, 1845.

Lambert, A. B. A Description of the genus Pinus. London, 1803.

Lemaire, C. Lillustration horticole. Journal special des Serres et des
Jardins. Vol. xv. 1868.

Lesquereux, LZ. (1) Contributions to the Fossil Flora of the Western
Territories. Pt. ii: The Tertiary Flora. [Rep. U.S. Geol.
Surv. Territ. vol. vii. 1878.]

Lesquereux, L. (2) Recent Determinations of Fossil Plants from Ken-
tucky, Louisiana, Oregon, California, Alaska, Greenland,
etc., with descriptions of new species. Compiled and edited
by Knowlton. [Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xi. 1888, p. 11.]

Lngnier, O. Végétaux fossiles de Normandie. Structure et affinités
du Bennettites Moriérei (Sap. and Mar.). [MJém. Soc. Linn.
Normandie, vol. xviii. 1894.]

McBride, T. H. Anew Cycad. [Amer. Geol. vol. xii. 1893, p. 248.]

Mackie, 8. J. The ‘“‘Dragon Tree” of the Kentish Rag. [Geologist,
vol. v. 1862, p. 401.]

Mantell, G. (1) The Medals of Creation. Vols. i. and ii. London,
1844.

Mantell, G. (2) Notes on the Wealden Strata of the Isle of Wight,
with an account of the bones of Jguanodon and other
Reptiles discovered at Brook Point and Sandown Bay.
[Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. ii. 1846, p. 91.]

Maniell, G. (8) Petrifactions and their teachings. London, 1851.

Marion, A. F. See Saporta.

Martius. Flora brasiliensis. Vol. iv. 1852-63. Munich.
LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. 249

Masters, M. T. Review of some points in the Comparative Morphology,
Anatomy, and Life-history of the Conifere. [Journ. Linn.
Soe. vol. xxvii. 1891, p. 226.]

Medtlicott, H. B. and Blanford, W. T. Manual of the Geology of India,
Edit. ii, Edited by R. D. Oldham. Calcutta, 1893.

Miquel, F. A. W. (1) Monographia Cycadearum. Utrecht, 1842.

Afiquel, F. A. W. (2) Over de Rangschikking der fossiele Cycadez.
[Tijdsch. Wis. Nat. Wet. vol. iv. 1851, p. 205.]

Miquel, F. A. W. (8) Ueber den Bau eines erwachsenen Stammes von
Cycas circinatis, [Linnea, vol. ii. 1844, p. 125.]

Moore, C. Notes on the genus Macrozamia. [Journ. Proc. R. Soc.
N.S. W. vol. xviii. 1884, p. 115.]

Moriere, J. Note sur deux végétaux fossiles trouvés dans le départe-
ment du Calvados. [dfém. Soc. Linn. Normandie, vol. xv.
1869,]

Morris, J. (1) Remarks upon the Recent and Fossil Cycadacee.
[Annads, vol. vii. 1841, p. 110.]

Morris, J. (2) See Grant, C. W.

Morris, J. (3) See Sharpe.

Morris, J. (4) See Oldham and Morris.

Minster, G. Graf zu. Beitrige zur Petrefactenkunde Bayreuth.
Heft vi. Bayreuth, 1843.

Nathorst, A. G. (1) Sur la présence du genre Dictyozamites, Oldham,
dans les couches jurassiques de Bornholm. [Ofv. 4. Vet.-
Akad. Férh, 1889, p. 96.]

Nathorst, A. G. (2) Beriittelse om en med understéd af allminna
medel ut ford vetenskaplig resa till Schweiz och Tyskland.
[Zbid. 1881, No. 1, p. 61.]

Nathorst, A.G. (3) Nagra anmirkningar om Williamsonia, Carruthers.
[Zbed. 1880, No. 9, p. 33.]

Nathorst, A. G. (4) Nya anmarkningar om Williamsonia. [Ibid.
1888, No. 6, p. 359.]

Nathorst, A. G. (5) Beitrage zur Geologie und Paleontologie der Re-
publik Mexico, Felix, J. and Lark, H. Th. ii. Heft i.
Leipzig, 1893. Plants by Nathorst.

Nathorst, A. G. (6) Ueber die Wissenschaftlichen Resultate der letzten
Schwedischen Expedition nach Spitzbergen. [Verh. h.-k.
geol. Reichs. 1883, No. 2, p. 25.]

Newberry, J. S. Rhetic Plants from Honduras. [Amer. Journ. Sev.
vol, xxxvi. 1888, p. 342.]

Nilsson, S. V. (1) Om Forsteningar aftryck af tropiska tridslag och
deras blad, funne i ett Sandstenslager i Skane. [K. Svensk.
Vet.-Akad. Hand. 1820, p. 108.]

Nilsson, S. V. (2) Underriittelse om fossila landtvaxter som finnes
250 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

tillsammans ned kafsmusslor, Snachor m.m. i den Skanska
Grénsands-kalken. [Zbid. 1824, p. 143.]

Oldham, R. D. See Medlicott and Blanford.

Oldham, J. and Morris, J. Fossil Flora of the Rajmahal Series in the
Rajmahal Hills. [Jfem. Geol. Surv. India (2) vol.i. 1868, pt. i.]

Phillips, J. Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire. Pt. i: The
Yorkshire Coast. Edit. iii. London, 1875.

Pomel, A. Matériaux pour servir 4 la flore fossile des terrains
Jurassiques de la France. [Amtlicher Bericht tiber die 25te
Versammlung Ges. deutsch. Naturforsch. und Arete in Aachen,

1847, p. 832. Aachen, 1849.]

Potonié, H. (1) Ueber das Rothliegende des Thiiringer Waldes.
[Abhand. k. preuss. Geol. Landesanst, Heft ix. 1893.]

Potonié, H. (2) Die fossile Pflanzen-Gattung Tylodendron. [Jahrb.
Geol. Landesanst, 1887, p. 311.]

Renault, B. (1) Structure comparée de quelques tiges de la flore
Carbonifére. [Nouwv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. vol. ii. (2) 1879,
p. 213.]

Renault, B. (2) Sur les Sphenozamites. [Compt. Rend. vol. xciii. 1881,
p. 1165]

Renault, B.* (3) Sur les Pterophyllum. (Ibid. vol. exviii. 1894, p. 671.]

Renault, B. and Zeiller, R. (1) Sur quelques Cycadées houilléres.
[Compt. Rend. vol. cii. 1886, p. 325.]

Renault, B. and Zeiller, R. (2) Etudes sur la terrain houiller de
Commentry. Livre deux. [Bull. Soc. indust. min. (8)
vol. iv. livre ii. St, Etienne, 1890.]

Rendle, A. B. and others. The plants of Milanji, Nyasa~Land, collected
by Mr. Alex. Whyte. [Zrans. Linn. Soc. vol. iv. 1894,
pt. i. p. 60]

Richard, L. C. Commentatio botanico de Coniferis et Cycadeis.
Stuttgart, 1826.

Richards, J. T. Synopsis of British Fossil Cycadaceous Leaves.

Rémer, F. Lethea geognostica, Th. i.: Leth. Pal. Stuttgart, 1880.

Sandberger, F. Die Flora der oberen Steinkohlenformation im
badischen Schwarzwalde. [Verh. Wat. Ver. Carlsruhe,
vol. i, 1864, p. 30.]

Saporta, G. de. Flore fossile du Portugal. [Diréct. trav. géolog.
Portugal, Lisbon, 1894.]

Saporta, G. de and Marion, A. F. (1) Sur les genres Williamsonia,
Carr., and Goniolina, D’Orb. [Compt. Rend. vol. xcii. 1881,
p. 1185.] :

Saporta, G. de and Marion, A. F. (2) L’Evolution du régne végétal.
Les Cryptogames, 1881. Les Phanérogames, vols. i. and ii.
Paris, 1885.
LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. 251

Schenk, A. Ueber Medullosa, Cotta, und Tubicaulis, Cotta. [AbdA.
math.-phys. Cl. k. Stichs. Ges. Wiss. vol. xv. 1889, p. 523.]

Schimper and Mougeot. Plantes fossiles du Grés Bigarré. 1840.

Schmalhausen, J. Die Pflanzenreste der Artinskischen und Permischen
Ablagerungen in Osten des Europiischen Russlands. [J/ém.
Comit. Géol. vol. ii. 1887, No. 4.]

Schoenlein, J. L. Abbildungen von fossilen Pflanzen aus dem Keuper
Frankens. Wiesbaden, 1865.

Seward, A.C. (1) On the genus Myeloxylon, Brong. [Annals Bot.
vol. vii. 1893, No. xxv. p. 1.]

Seward, A.C. (2) Catalogue of the Mesozoic Plants in the Department
of Geology (British Museum). The Wealden Flora, pt. i.
London, 1894.

Seward, A. C. (3) [Wature, vol. t. 1894, p. 594.] Some new facts
with regard to Bennettites.

Seward, A. C. (4) Tylodendron, Weiss, and Volizia- heterophylla,
Brong. [Geol. Mag. dec. 3, vol. vii. 1890, p. 218.]

Sharpe, D. On the Secondary District of Portugal which lies on the
North of the Tagus. Remarks by J. Morris on Zamites
gramineus var. munde, Morr. ([Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.
vol. vi. 1850, p. 135.]

Smith, J. Observations on a remarkable Cycadaceous Blat from
Port Natal. [Hooker’s Journ. Bot. and Kew Garden
Miscellany, vol. vi. 1854, p. 88.]

Solms-Laubach, Graf zu. See Capellini.

Solms-Laubach, Graf zu. (1) Ueber die Fructification von Bennettites
Gibsonianus, Carr. [Bot. Zeit. 1890, p. 789.]

Solms-Laubach, Graf zu. (2) On the Fructification of Bennettites
Gibsonianus, Carr. [Annals. Bot. vol. v. 1890-91, p. 419.]

Solms-Laubach, Graf zu. (8) Die Sprossfolge der Stangeria und der
iibrigen Cycadeen. [Bot. Zeit. 1890, p. 177.]

Stark, J. On the Shedding of Branches and Leaves in Condfere.
[Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. vol. xxvii. 1876, p. 651.]

Sterzel, J. T. Die Flora des Rothliegenden im Plauenschen Grunde bei
Dresden. [Abh. math.-phys. Cl. k. Stichs. Ges. Wiss. vol. xix.
1893.]

Unger, F. Die Urwelt in ihren Verschiedenen Bildungspericden.
Munich, 1851.

Ward, L. F. Fossil Cycadean Trunks of North America, with a
revision of the genus Cycadeoidea, Buckland. [Proc. Biol.
Soc. Washington, vol. ix. 1894, p. 75.]

Williamson, W. C. (1) On the Distribution of Fossil Remains on the
Yorkshire Coast, from the Lower Lias to the Bath Oolite
inclusive. [Zrans. Geol. Soc. (2) vol. v. 1840, p. 223.]
252 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED.

Williamson, W. C. (2) On the Scaly Vegetable Heads or Collars
from Runswick Bay, supposed to belong to Zamia gigas.
[Proe. Yorks. Phil. Soc. vol. i. 1847, p. 45.]

Williamson, W. C. (3) Contributions towards the History of Zamia
gigas, L. and H. [Zann. Trans. vol. xxvi. 1870, p. 663.]

Yates, J. Notice of Zamia gigas. [Proc. Yorks. Phil. Soc, vol. i. 1855,
p. 37.]

Yokoyama, M. Mesozoic Plants from Kozuke, Kii, Awa, and Tosa.
[Journ. Coll. Sct. Japan, vol. vii. pt. iii. 1894, p. 201.]

Young, G. and Bird, J. A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast.
Whitby, 1822.

Zeiller, R. See Renault and Zeiller.

Zeiller, R. (1) Bassin houiller et Permien d’Autun et d’Epinac. Paris,
1890.

Zeiller, R. (2) Notes sur la flore des couches permiennes de Trienbach
(Alsace). [Bull. Soc. Géol. France, vol. xxii. (3) 1994, p. 163.]

Zeiller, R. (3) Observations sur quelques cuticles fossiles. [Ann. Sc.
Nat. 1882, p. 217.]

Zigno, A. (1) Flora fossilis formationis Oolithice. Vol. ii. Padova,
1873-85.

Zigno, A. (2) Monografia del genere Dichopteris nuovo genere di felce
fossile. [J/ém. instit. Veneto, vol. xii. 1864.]

Zittel, K. A. Handbuch der Palzontologie. Abtheilung ii.: Paleo-
phytologie. Schimper, W. P. and Schenk, A. Munich and
Leipzig, 1890.

Lieferung i. pp. 1-152 1879.
- ii, y> 153-232 —-1880,
yh ,, 233-332 1884.
liv. » 333-396 1885.
: Vv. = 4, 397-492 «1887.
Ui », 493-572 1888.
a He. ,, 973-668 1889,
Vidi ,, 669-764 1889.

» as, = 4, 765-958 1890.
INDEX OF GENERA, SPECIES, ETC.

[Synonyms are printed in italics. |

Abies, 193.

Abietites ellipticus, 196.

Acanthozamites, 175, 176.

Acrostichopteris Ruffordi, 234.

Adiantites Klipsteinii, 60.
Yuasensis, 232.

Adiantum aneimiefolium, 230.
eximium, 231.

Agathis, 187, 211.
Australis, 187.
Dammara, 187.

Alethopteris, 5.

Algites, 114.
catenelloides, 234.
valdensis, 234.

Androstrobus, 108 -112.
Balduini, 109, 111.
borealis, 109.
Guerangeri, 109, 112.
Nathorsti, 110-112, 234.
Sibiricus, 109.
zamioides, 109.

Aneimidium Klipsteinti, 60.

Anomozamites, 36, 50, 51, 53, 90-94.

gracilis, 53.

Lindleyanus, 150.

Lyellianus, 91-94, 234, 236.

minor, 53, 150.

Muelleri, 14.

Nilssoni, 92, 94.

Schaumburgensis, 53.
Aralia, 24.

Araucaria, 114, 187, 190, 191, 211, 218.

Bidwilli, 222.

Cooki, 222.

Cunninghami, 186.

excelsa, 188.

imbricata, 186.
Araucarites, 190-192, 235.

curvifolius, 201, 205, 207, 208.

Dunkeri, 200,'205.

hamatus, 200.

Hudlestoni, 191.

Phillipsii, 112.

Pippingfordensis, 192, 233.
Asterophyllites, 155.

 

Athrotaxis, 199, 200, 202, 216.
grandis, 221.
lexifolia, 200, 203.
selaginoides, 188.

Athrotaxopsis expansa, 201, 202, 221.

Baiera, 5.
Balanophores, 150.
Becklesia, 179-182.
anomala 179-182, 235.
Bennettitez, 6.
Bennettites, 6, 7, 9, 96, 97, 116, 117,
120, 128, 134-164.
Carruthersi, 141, 145, 157-164,
234,
etrusca, 153.
Gibsonianus, 120, 136, 188-140,
142-144, 158, 160.
Moriérei, 137, 145, 157.
Saxbyanus, 139-144, 238, 234.
Biota orientalis, 188.
Blastolepis, 150.
falcata, 150, 155.
otozamitis, 150, 155.
Bolbopodium, 120.
Bowenia, 3, 4, 20.
Brachyphyllum, 204, 214-221.
confusum, 219.
crassicaule, 216, 218-221.
Desnoyersii, 216,
Germari, 200.
gracile, 220.
Kurrianum, 200.
nepos, 216.
obesiforme, 218-220.
obesum, 190, 204, 216, 218-221,
235, 236.
parceramosum, 219.
spinosum, 190, 215-218, 234.
Bucklandia, 99, 100, 121-132, 165,
167, 190.
anomala, 123, 169, 233, 284, 236.
Mantelli, 124, 125, 127.
Milleriana, 165.
254

Calamus, 177.

Calpoxylon, 13.
Camptopteris spiralis, 182.
Cardiopteris, 63.
Carpolithes, 101-107, 118.
Carpolithus Mantelli, 106.
Cedrus, 197.

Cephalotaxus, 103, 187, 189.

Fortunei, 26.

Ceratozamia, 3, 17, 78, 87, 95.

Hofimanni, 16.

Mexicana, 21, 82.
Changarniera inquirenda, 171.
Chara Knowltoni, 233, 234.
Cladophlebis Albertsii, 226, 234, 286.

Browniana, 234, 236.

Dunkeri, 284, 236.

falcata, 236.

longipennis, 234.

minor, 229.

Nathorsti, 232.

obtusiloba, 229.

Whitbyensis, 226.
Clathraria, 121, 122, 124, 127, 166.

anomala, 122, 123.

Galtiana, 126.

Lyelli, 119, 122-126, 128, 130,

131, 142-144,

Mantelli, 124.

strigata, 10.
Clathropodium, 120.

Conifere, 6, 13, 103, 113, 115, 136,
138, 185-224.
Conites, 113-116, 189, 222.

armatus, 222, 2385.

elegans, 115, 116, 183, 190.

tumidus, 233.

Cordaitez, 9.
Cordaites, 9,13, 63, 99.

lancifolius, 10.
Crossozamia, 76.

Cryptomeria, 187.

Japonica, 213.
Ctenis, 20.

falcata, 10, 89.

Leckenbyi, 52.
Ctenophyllum, 37, 40, 41, 59, 90.

latifolium, 90.

pectinata, 73.
Cunninghamia, 202, 211.
Cupressine, 187.

Cupressus Lawsoniana, 220.
Cycadaceze, 2-172.
Cycadeoidea, 120, 139, 140.

etrusca, 158.

Gibsoni, 142.

Morrisii, 166.

Saxbyana, 139.

Yatesvi, 165.

 

ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

Cycadeoidew, 119, 120.
Cycadeomyelon, 120, 126, 130, 181.
Cycadeostrobus, 114, 115.

Brunonis, 114.

elegans, 115, 116, 233.

ovatus, 115, 233.

truncatus, 116.

Cycadinocarpus, 102, 103.

Cycadites, 11, 19, 20, 23-35, 43, 48,
106, 108, 120.

acinaciformis, 33.
alatus, 25.
Brongniarti, 30, 31, 43, 44, 47,
48, 50, 233.
constrictus, 27.
Dicksoni, 25, 27.
Escheri, 14, 27.
gramineus, 26.
gyrosus, 10, 11, 25.
Heerii, 31, 32, 44.
lanceolatus, 146.
linearis, 23.
Morrisianus, 20, 29, 81, 35, 36,
42, 44.
Nilssoni, 23.
palmatus, 23.
lanicosta, 27.
ajmahalensis, 33.
rectangularis, 32.
Rémeri, 27-30, 32, 234, 236.
Saporte, 28, 29-35, 44-46, 66,
231, 234, 236.
Saxbyanus, 134, 139.
Sibiricus, 26.
Steenstrupi, 105.
taxodinus, 10, 11, 25.
tenuisectus, 30, 231.
Unjuga, 27.
zamioides, 23, 26.
Cycadolepis, 94-101, 234.
hirta, 96-98.
villosa, 96, 97, 160.
Cycadorachis, 173.
abscissa, 173.
armuta, 173, 175, 178.
Cycadospadix integer angustior, 97.
Cycadospermum, 102.
obovatum, 106.

Cycadoxylon, 8.

Cycas, 3, 4, 20, 24, 29, 78, 95-97,
103, 106, 108, 118, 122-124, 136,
173, 176, 187, 189.

Beddomei, 20.
Cairnsiana, 20.
circinalis, 16, 25, 124.
media, 19.
revoluta, 19, 28, 124, 130.
Siamensis, 28.

Cyclopitys Delgadoi, 230.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

Cyclopteris frondosa, 62.
Kilipsteinii, 58, 60.
Mantelli, 60.

Cyclozamites, 58.

Cylindropodium, 120, 166, 167.

Cynara integrifolia, 146.

Cyparissidium gracile, 202.
Japonicum, 208, 282.

Dacrydium elatum, 188.

Kirkii, 188.

Westlandicum, 188.

Davallia, 229.
concinna, 229.
gibberosa, 229.

Desmoncus, 177.

Dichopteris, 183, 184.
levigata, 184.

Visianica, 184.

Dicksonia Tosana, 232.

Dicksoniopteris Naumanni, 232.

Dictyophyllum Rémeri, 234, 236.

Dictyozamites, 4.

Dioon, 3, 17, 18, 95, 97, 109, 111,

118, 173.

edule, 22.

Dioonites, 18, 31, 35-49, 71, 75, 80.
abietinus, 32, 42, 43, 83, 85.
Brongniarti, 31, 39, 47-49, 233,

234,
Buchianus, 79, 80, 82, 85.
Dunkerianus, 31, 34, 40-47, 234,
236.

Géppertianus, 70, 71.

Kotoei, 47-49.

Kurrii, 39.

Lyeilianus, 91.

Saxonicus, 79, 232.
Dory-Cycadolepis, 96-98, 234.
Dracena, 170, 171.

Benstedti, 118, 169, 170, 172.

Echinostrobus squamosus, 216.
Encephalartopsis, 21, 87.
Encephalartos, 3, 17, 21, 22, 44, 48,
66, 76, 78, 87, 111, 118, 181.
Altensteinii, 111.
Cafter, 18, 22, 87.
cretaceus, 22.
cycadifolius, 22, 45, 87.
Ghellinckii, 26, 22, 29, 44, 45, 87.
Gorceixianus, 14, 22.
horridus, 22, 87.
Lehmanni, 22, 69, 82.
longifolius, 21, 88.
pungens, 87, 111.
Endogenites erosa, 169.

 

255

Eolirion, 150.
Equisetites, 102, 106.
Burchardti, 102, 233, 234, 236,238.
Lyelli, 226, 233, 234, 236.
. Yokoyame, 102, 234, 236.
Euphorbiacew, 121, 124.
Eury-Cycadolepis, 96, 98-101, 234.

Filicine, 4, 8, 11, 51, 57, 176, 184.
Filicites Bucklandi, 56.
Fiftonia, 98, 100, 120, 123, 128, 129,
131-134.
insignis, 1388, 172.
Rigauxi, 99.
Ruffordi, 132, 133, 234.
squamata, 99, 132, 23838.
Flores, 108-112, 146-164.
Frenela, 180.
Frenelites Reichii, 202.
Frenelopsis, 180, 181, 209.
Hoheneggeri, 180, 182, 189, 209,
210.
ramosissima, 209.
Frigia, 110.

Ginkgo, 13, 103, 178, 186, 189.

Gleichenia Hantonensis, 176.

Glossozamites brevior, 230.
oblongifolius, 65.
parvifolius, 232.
Stoliczkanus, 62.

Glyptostrobus, 202.
heterophyllus, 185.

Goniolina, 15%.

Gymnosperme, 2.

Hausmannia Forchhammeri, 231.
Hisingera Manteili, 47.
Hyleosaurus, 239.

Iguanodon, 239.
Isoetes Choffati, 280.

Juniperites Sternbergianus, 205.
Juniperus Bermudiana, 188.
Chinensis, 205.

Kaidocarpon minor, 190, 191.
Kaloxylon, 8.

Larix, 103, 186, 197.
Leckenbya, 226.
256

Leckenbya valdensis, 225, 234, 236.
Lepidodendron, 215.
Lepidofloyos, 117.
laricinus, 117.
Leptostrobus longifolius, 197.
Libocedrus decurrens, 187.
Liliacee, 121.
Lycopodites, 200, 207, 232.
curvifolius, 206, 213,
Lyginodendron, 8

Macroteniopteris marginata, 232.

Macrozamia, 3, 78, 95, 101, 123.
Denisoni, 18.

Douglasii, 99, 108.
Dyeri, 96.
heteromera, 5, 182.
Macleayi, 21, 82.
spiralis, 43.

Mantellia, 119, 120, 135.

Marattia minor, 230.

Marattiacee, 2, 7.

Matonidium Gépperti, 234-236.

Medullosa, 119.

Leuckarti, 8

Megalozamia, 98.

Microcyecas, 3.

Microdictyon Dunkeri, 234, 236.

Moreania, 211.
brevifolius, 211.

Muscites faleifolius, 201.
imbricatus, 200, 201.
Sternbergianus, 205, 207.

Myelopteris, 7.

Myeloxylon, 7, 8. 5

Nageia, 210.
Nageiopsis, 210, 211, 232.
heterophylla, 190, 211, 285, 236.
Nathorstea, 225.
valdensis, 228.
Neuropteris, 5, 16.
levigata, 183, 184.
Nilssonia, 4, 16, 28, 25, 37, 48, 50-56,
90, 183.
sequalis, 50.
Bergeri, 25.
brevis, 25, 50.
Brongniarti, 47.
elongata, 50.
Johnstrupi, 232.
pecten, 42,
pterophylloides, 232.

bygmiea, 14,
oe 53-56, 2382-284,

Saree 14,

 

ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

Noeggerathia, 11-18, 16.
Noeggerathiacex, 13.

Oleandridium tenerum, 230.
Onychiopsis elongata, 228-232, 234.
Mantelli, 198, 202, 228, 229, 232.
236, 238.
Oolithes, 107.
spheericus, 107.
Ophioglossacex, 7.
Otopteris, 56-58, 62.
lanceolata, 73.
Otozamites, 40, 56-75, 77, 94, 98, 150.
angustifolius, 72, 73.
Beanii, 58, 61, 62, 64-67, 69.
Bucklandi, 57, 58.
Bunburyanus, 58.
decorus, 63.
Géppertianus, 19, 21, 48, 70-76,
133, 234.
gramineus, 57, 59.
Klipsteinii, 18, 60-70, 89, 230,
234, 236,
lagotis, 63.
latifolius, 64.
latior, 72, 73.
marginatus, 69.
Molinianus, 62.
obtusa, 57.
Beglei, 58.
Reibeiroanus, 70, 234, 236,

Pachyphyllum, 211, 212.
crassifolium, 212.
levigata, 184.
Pachypteris, 183, 184.
Pagiophyllum, 211-213, 216, 218.
crassifolium, 190, 212, 218, 232,
235, 236.
rigidum, 232.
Paleobromelia, 224.
Paleozamia pecten, 147.
recta, 88.
Palissya, 26.
Pandanus, 147, 171.
Pecopteris Browniana, 226, 232.
decipiens, 33.
Geyleriana, 232.
linearis, 71.
virginiensis, 232.
Phyllocladus, 176, 177.
Phyllopteris acutifolia, 225,
Pinites, 193-199.
Andrei, 195, 196.
Carruthersi, 190, 193, 195, 196,
233, 235.
Coemansi, 195.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

Pinites cylindroides, 193, 194.
Dunkeri, 190, 194, 195, 233, 235.
macrocephala, 114.

Mantelli, 233.

patens, 233.

Pottoniensis, 193, 194.

Ruffordi, 190, 199, 223, 224, 235.
Solmsi, 190, 194-198, 235.
valdensis, 193-195, 233, 235.

Pinus, 103, 186, 193, 196, 223.
Coulteri, 222.
longissima, 195.

inea, 188.
abiniana, 222.
succinifera, 224.

Plagiozamites, 12.

Platylepis, 120.

Poacites, 230.

Podocarpus, 187, 210.
andina, 187.
cupressina, 188.

Podocarya, 147, 150, 151, 162.

Podozamites, 76, 77, 187, 210, 232.
distans, 94.
lanceolatus, 94, 282.
pusillus, 232.

Reinii, 64.

Poroxylon, 8.

Protopteris, 117.
ie 118.

itteana, 234, 236.

Protorrhipis Choffati, 231.

Pseudofrenelopsis, 181.

Pteridophyta, 2.

Pteris, 232.

Pterophyllum, 10-12, 18, 19, 25, 31,

aoe 43, 48-51, 71, 75, 80, 91,
2

abietinum, 42, 43.
eequale, 48.
angustifolius, 48.
blechniforme, 63.
blechnoides, 10.
Braunianum, 40.
Braunii, 36, 38, 40.
Brongniarti, 39, 47.
Buchianum, 39, 75, 79.
Carnallianum, 81.
Combrayi, 13.
Cotteanum, 10.
Dunkerianum, 32, 37, 38, 42, 44.
Fayoli, 12.
gonorrachis, 10.
Géppertianum, 44, 70.
Grand’ Euryanum, 11.
Humboldti, 80.
inconstans, 36, 38.
inflexus, 10.

Jaegeri, 18, 35, 37, 38.

 

257

Pierophyllum Lyellianum, 91.
mayjus, 50.
medianum, 36.
Nilssoni, 92.
oblongifolium, 65, 68.
pecten, 40.
Richthofeni, 49.
Saxonicum, 79, 80.
Schaumburgense, 53.
Pterozamites, 76.
Ptilophyllum, 40, 41, 51, 56, 59.
acutifolium, 18.
Cutchense, 41, 232.
oligoneurum, 49.
Ptilozamites, 52, 53, 64.
Heeri, 53.

Rachiopteris, 173.
aspera, 8.
Rhizanthee, 153.
Rhizocaulon, 230.
vetus, 230.
Ruffordia Gépperti, 228, 230, 231, 234,
235, 238.

Sagenopteris, 226.
acutifolius, 225, 234.
Mantelli, 225, 234, 236.
Saportea, 174.
Saportaia, 174.
Schizoneura, 155.
Scleropteris, 183.
levigata, 184.
Pomelii, 184.
Sequoia, 199, 200, 202.
ambigua, 206.
gracilis, 202.
Reichenbachii, 208.
sempervirens, 187.
subulata, 208.
Tournalii, 189.
Sigillaria, 117.
Brardii, 133.
Spermaphyta, 2.
Sphenolepidium, 199-208.
Kurrianum, 189, 190, 199-204,
206, 221, 283, 235, 236.
Sternbergianum, 190, 205-208,
213, 235, 236.
subulatum, 190, 208, 284.
Virginicum, 201-203.
Sphenolepis, 199.
Kurriana, 200, 201.
Sphenopteris acutidens, 229.
Brongniarti, 63.
circalensis, 230.
cuneifida, 230.
258

Sphenopteris dissectifolia, 228.
Fittoni, 227, 229, 233, 234, 236,
238.
Fontainei, 101, 178, 229, 234.
lanceolata, 183.
latiloba, 227.
Mantelli, 60, 229.
Mantelli neojurassica, 229.
marginata, 228.
microclada, 229.
minima, 229.
pedicellata, 229.
sinuata, 229.
tenuicaula, 232.
tenuifissa, 231.
trapezoidea, 229.
trifida, 229.
Sphenozamites, 57, 176.
latifolius, 176, 178.
Rochei, 11.
Spirangium Jugleri, 224.
Stangeria, 3, 4, 20, 97.
aradoxa, 16.
Stangerites, 16.
Stenzelia, 7.
Strobilites, 115, 189.

Teniopteris, 4, 16, 55.

Beyrichii, 55, 56, 230, 233, 234,

236.

Dawsoni, 234.
Taxodium distichum, 186.
Taxus, 135.

baccata, 187.

Tempskya Schimperi, 233, 234, 236.
Thinnfeldia, 183, 226.

variabilis, 225.

Thuites, 190, 209, 210.

Choffati, 201.

Germari, 200.

Hoheneggeri, 180.

Kurrianus, 200, 201.

valdensis, 209, 210, 235.
Thuja occidentalis, 187.
Thujopsis, 216.
Thyrsopteris, 232.
Titanophyllum, 13.

orreya, 189.

venusta, 232.
Trunci, 116, 169-172.
Tsuga Douglasii, 197.
Tylodendron, 130, 186.

Ulospermum, 102

Voltzia, 130, 186.
heterophylla, 189.

 

ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

Walchia, 26.

Weichselia erratica, 225.

Mantelli, 67, 225, 233, 234, 236.

Weltrichia, 150, 151.

Widdringtonia Whytei, 188.

Widdringtonites curvifolius, 205.
Haidingeri, 200, 201, 204, 205.
Kurrianus, 200.

Williamsonia 9, 96, 97, 120, 146-164.
acuminata, 155, 156, 166.
angustifolia, 150, 155.

Blanfordi, 155.

Bucklandi, 154.

cretacea, 155, 156.

elocata, 156.

Forchhammeri, 155.

Gagnierei, 154, 160.

gigas, 145, 147, 150,154, 158-160,
163

Italica, 156, 160.
Leckenbyi, 147, 150, 154, 165.
microps, 155. :
minima, 154, 155.
Moriévei, 187, 154.
asec ar 154.
ougneti, 154, 155.
recentior, 155, 156.
Riesii, 155, 156.
virginiensis, 97, 155.
Zeilleri, 154, 155.
Withamia, 173-179.
armata, 178.
Saportz, 174-179, 235.

Yatesia, 120, 165-169.
Joassiana, 165, 166.
Morrisii, 166-170, 288, 234.

Yucca, 170.

Yuccites, 150, 151.
fractifolius, 230.

Zamia, 3, 4, 20, 76, 78, 87, 112, 118,
171.

angustifolia, 20.
cycadifolia, 82.
furfuracea, 17.

gigas, 94, 146-148, 153.
globuliferus, 81.
Lindeni, 22.

Loddigesii, 118, 170, 171.
macrocephala, 113.
Mantelli, 146.

media, 81.

muricata, 5.

picta, 5, 64.

pumila, 170.

pygmea, 64.
ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 259

Zamia Skinneri, 5, 64, 118, 170, 171.

Wallisii, 5.

Zamiew, 3, 6.
Zamiophyllum, 75, 77.

Buchianum, 40, 79, 282.
Naumanni, 79, 80, 86, 90, 232.

Zamiostrobus, 118, 114.

elegans, 115.
mirabilis, 118.
ovatus, 115.
Saportanus, 14,

Zamites, 12, 32, 36, 75-90.

acutipennis, 36.
equalis, 92.
affinis, 88.
arcticus, 15.
Bechii, 76.
borealis, 36.
brevifolius, 18, 56.
Brongniarti, 47.
Buchianus, 19, 21, 79-86, 88, 90,
232, 234, 236.
Bucklandi, 56.

 

Zamites carbonarius, 11, 12.

Carruthersi, 86-89, 234.
Dunkerianus, 42.
epibius, 14.
falcatus, 56.
familiaris, 110.
gigas, 149, 150.
Gopperti, 80.
Géppertianus, 70.
gramineus, 57, 72.
lanceolatus, 147.
Lyellianus, 91.
Mandelslohi, 62.
Milleri, 79.
Montana, 94.
Montanensis, 94.
Planchardi, 12.
proximus, 37.
regularis, 12.
Schenkii, 81.
tenuinervis, 63, 65, 68, 69, 88.
tertiarius, 14.

 

PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS, HERTFORD.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES.

Azz the figured specimens are preserved in the British Museum
(Natural History), their registered numbers being quoted in
square brackets. The figures are drawn natural size, except in
a few cases where the enlargement is stated. With the excep-
tion of those represented on Plates XIII. and XIV., the figured

specimens are from the Rufford Collection.
PLATE 1.

Fig. 1. Otozamites Géppertianus (Dunk.). Portion of a frond. Page 70.
[V. 2123.]

Fig. 2. Otozamites Géppertianus (Dunk.). The lower and middle
portion of a frond. P. 70. i. [V. 2360.]

Fig. 3. Otozamites K. lipsteinté (Dunk.). Terminal portion of a frond.
P..64,. , , [V. 2336.]

Fic. 4. Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.). P. 65." [V. 27450.]
el.

Plate

BM.WEALDEN PLANTS.

 

Wert, Newman imp

GM Woodward del et lith.

Otozamites
PLATE II.

* Fig, 1. Withamia armata, gen. et sp. nov. Single detached leaf,
showing well-marked flabellate venation. P.177. [V. 2915.]

* Fic. 2. Withamia armata, gen. et sp. nov. Axis bearing recurved
spines and imperfect leaves in their axils. P.177. [V.2184.]

Fic. 3. Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gopp.). Terminal portion of a frond.
P. 46. [V. 2823.]

Fia. 4. Otozamites, sp. Cf. O. Klipste(nii (Dunk.). Basal portion of
a young frond. P. 69. [V. 2734.]

* The name Saportaia was unfortunately printed on the plate before the
previous use of Saporiea was discovered (p. 174).
Plate II.

ALDEN PLANTS

1

B.M WE

 

West,Newman irap

G.M. Woodward del.etlith.

4. Otozamites.

3. Dioonites.

=

cla

Sanort

2
Fic.

Fie. 2.

Fic.

Fic.

Fie.

Fic.

Fie.

PLATE III.

. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Page 85. [V. 2262.]

Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Apex of a single pinna. P. 83.
[V. 2363.]

. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Apex of a single pinna. P. 84,

[V. 21238¢.]

. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Portion of a large frond, showing

manner of attachment of a pinna. P. 83. [V. 2227.]

. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Apical portions of two pinnae.

P. 82. [V. 2120.]

. Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gépp.). Portion of a frond, showing

the form and manner of attachment of the pinne. P. 45.
[V. 3218.]

. Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov. Portion of a frond, showing the

venation and arrangement of the pinne. P. 34. [V. 2124a.]
BM WEALDEN PLANTS. Plate III.

 

G M Woodward delet lith

West Newman imp.

Figs.1-5. Zamites. Fig 6. Dioonites. Fig.7.Cycadites
PLATE IV.
Fic. 1. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Young frond. Page 84. [V. 2125d.]

Fie. 2. Portion of a large frond, showing the position of the pinne in
the rachis. P. 84. [V. 2125c.]

Fic. 3. Terminal portion of a very small frond. P. 84. [V. 2925.]

Fies, 4 and 5. Portions of a large frond, showing manner of attach-
ment of the pinne. P. 84. [V. 2128a.]
Platelv.

B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS

 

West, Newman imp

GM. Woodward del.etlith

Zamuites.

c
PLATE V.

Fic. 1. Withamia armata, gen. et sp. nov. Axis with strongly recurved
spines, with the basal portions of leaves in their axils. P. 178.
[V. 21342. ]

Fic. 2. Cycadolepis. Single scale. P. 99. [V. 2929.]
Platey,

N PLANTS

A

B.M.WEAI,DE

 

West, Newn an imp

Cycadolepi

GM Woodward del.et lith

Ss

Saportaia.
PLATE VI.
Fic. 1. Zamites, sp. P. 89. [V. 2743. ]

Fies. 2 and 3. Zamites Carruthers’, sp. nov. The apical and basal
portions of a pinna. P. 88. [V. 2128¢.]

Fie. 4. Zamites Carruthersi, sp. nov. Portion of a frond showing the
manner of attachment and venation of the pinne. P. 88.
[V. 2123d.]

Fias. 5 and 5a. Cycadites Saporte, sp. nov. Portion of a large frond.
In 5a part of a single pinna is slightly enlarged, showing
the apex and single vein. P. 34. [V. 2797.]

Fies. 6 and 6a. Cycadolepis. A detached scale ; in 6a the incurved
distal margin is represented. P. 99. [V. 2699.]
BM WEALDEN PLAWTS, Plate VI

 

 

 

GM Woodward del.et hth

West Newman

Pigsl4 Zamites. Figs 5&5a Cycadites Mg 6.Cyeadolepis
Fia.

Fic.

Fig.

Fig,

Fie.

Fig.

Fig.

Fic.

Fic.

PLATE VII.

1. Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.), var. longifolius. Single pinna
of the longer and narrower type. P. 68. (See also Fig. 6.)
[V. 2122.]

2. O. Klipsteinii (Dunk.), var. superbus. Single pinna of the
shorter and broader type, with lobed margin. P. 66.

[V. 2122a.]

3. Single broad and short pinna. P. 67. [2912a.]
4, Part of a frond with smaller pinne. Cf Pl. I. Fig. 4. P. 66.
[V. 2126a.]

5. Part of a frond showing smaller pinne. Cf Pl. I. Fig. 4,
and Pl, I. Fig. 3. P. 67. [V. 2745.]

6. O. Klipsteinii var. longifolius. Single longer and narrower
pinna. Cf Fig. 1. P. 68. [V. 2122.]

7. O. Klipsteinii var. superbus. Shorter pinna showing distinctly.
auriculate base. P. 67. [V. 2740.]

8. Two pinnz from a large frond. P. 66. [2126q.]

9. Large frond, probably not fully expanded; venation and
form of the pinna distinct. P. 65. [V. 2170.]
Fold out
Plate VIL.

B.MWEALDE

 

West, Newman imp.

dad

G.MWoodwar

 
PLATE VIII.

Fie. 1. Zamites Buchianus (Ett.). Large frond, from a photograph
by Mr. Gepp. One-sixth nat. size. P. 82. [V. 2120.]

Fig. 2. Cycadites Saporte, sp.nov. From a photograph by Mr. Gepp.
One-fourth nat. size. P. 33. [V. 2777.]
B. M. WrEALDEN PLANTs.

 

A. Gepp, phot.ad nat.
Fie. 1. ZAMITES. Fic. 2. CycapIrTrs.
PLATE IX.

Fie. 1. Androstrobus Nathorsti, sp. nov. Showing central axis and
flattened sporophylls. P, 111. [V. 2810.]

Fie. 2. Androstrobus Nathorsti, sp. nov. End view of sporophylls.
P. 112. [V. 2811.]

Fies. 3 and 4. Two sporophylls, slightly enlarged, showing pollen-sac
impressions. P. 110, _ [V. 2701.]

Fig. 5. Seed-like body. Cf. Oolithes, Carruthers. P.107. [V. 2796a.]

Fic. 6. Fittonia Ruffordi, sp. nov. Portion of a stem with well-
preserved petiole bases. P. 133. [V. 2238.]

Fic. 7. Conites armatus, sp. nov. Badly preserved cone, showing
the recurved spinous terminations of the scales. P. 222.
[V. 2338.]
PLANTS. Plate IX

BMWEALDEN

 

GM Woodward del etlith West, Newman imp

Figs.1-4:Androstrobus. Fig.6.Fittonia. Fig.7.Conites
PLATE X.

Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov.

Fig. 1. Unexpanded fructification showing external bracts, and in
Fig. la the reticulate lamellar projections from the inner
face of a bract. Fig. 10 represents the conical basal cavity
of the fructification. P. 157. [V. 3177.]

Fie. 2, Basal view of a slightly larger fructification. P. 159. [V. 3202.]

Fie. 3. A small fructification in longitudinal section, showing a
spherical boss at the base, and a few involucral bracts with
the thread-like interstitial organs internal to the bracts..
P. 160. [V. 21290.]

Fic. 4. The basal portion of a longer and expanded fructification, in
the centre the base of the central boss, surrounded by the
reticulately marked peripheral tissue. P. 159. [V. 3201.]

Fic. 5, Expanded bracts near the base of a fructification. P. 160.
[V. 2129¢.]
BMWEALDEN PLANTS Plate x.

 

GMWoodward del ethth West Newman irmp
Rennoa fates.
PLATE XI.

Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carruthersi, sp. nov.

Fic. 1. Large expanded bracts below the base of a fructification, the
base of the central boss, traces of interstitial organs, and
the reticulate peripheral tissue. P. 161. [V. 2793.]

Fic. 2. Bracts surrounding the conical cavity originally occupied by
the central boss of a fructification. P. 161. [V. 2129d.]

Fie. 3. Bennettites (Williamsonia) Carrutherst var. latifolius. Short
and broad bracts seen from the under-side; at a lower level
portions of the reticulations are shown. P.163. [V. 2129/]

Fic. 4, The base of the central boss, surrounded by expanded
interstitial organs, and below these, in one place, some
of the reticulations are visible; and at a still lower level
portions of short and broad bracts. P. 163. [V.2129¢.]
Plate XI.

BMWEHALDEN PLANTS

 

GM Woodward del.ethth West, Newman imp

Bennettites
PLATE XII.

Fia. 1. Araucarites (Conites), sp. Central axis of cone and imperfect

scales. P. 191. [V. 21802. ]
Fic. 2. Araucarites (Conites), sp. nov. Proximal ends of bracts.
P. 191. [V. 2180.]
Fia. 3. Nageiopsis, sp. A branched specimen with well-preserved
leaves. P, 211. [V. 3190.]
Fic. 4, Cycadean trunk. P. 171. [V. 2350.]
Fie. 5. Cycadean trunk showing branching. P. 171. [V. 3162.]

Fic. 6. Dichopteris, sp. P. 184. [V. 3145.]
BM.WERALDEN PLANT

 

Plate XII

 

GM Wocdward del.etlith West, Newman. imp
Figs.J-2,Conites. Fis.3,Nageiopsis.
Aa& A Nsaban = Pigs 4-5 Tronci

 
PLATE XIII.

Fic. 1. Macrozamia heteromera, Moore. Single branched pinna. P. 5.
(Royal Gardens, Kew.)

Fic. 2, Macrozamia heteromera. Single pinna. P. 5. (Royal Gardens,
Kew.)

Fic. 3. Encephalartos Ghellinckii, Lem. Pp. 20, 22, 29, etc. (British
Museum Herbarium.) ,

Fic. 4. Encephalartos Ghellinckii, Lem. Single pinna from the under-
side. P. 29.

Fie. 5. Encephalartos Ghellinckii, Lem. Cross section of a pinna,
showing the revolute edges. P. 29.

Fie. 6. Encephalartos cycadifolius, Lehm. Portion of frond. P. 22.
(Kew.)
BM.WEALDEN PLANTS. Plate XIII,

 

GM Woodward del et hth

West, Newman imp.

Figs.3-6,Hnecephalartos. Figs.1-2,Macrozamia.
PLATE XIV.

Fie. 1. Cf. Becklesia anomala, gen. et sp.nov. P.182. [V. 2608.]
(Beckles Coll.)

Fic. 2. Becklesia anomala, gen. et sp. nov. P. 179. [V. 2361a.]

Fig. 3. Becklesia anomala, gen. et sp. nov. P. 179. [V. 23610.]
   

BMWEALDEN PLANTS

West Newman mp

@M.Woodward delet hth
Beckle sia
PLATE XV.
Bennettites, sp.

P. 144, [V. 3177.]
Fig. 1. Surface view of stem, showing position of the inflorescences.

Fic. 2. Bracts of a single inflorescence.

Fig. 3. Involucral bracts, and the central cavity with reticulate
markings.

Fic. 4. Wax cast of Fig. 3.

Figs. 5-7. Enlarged portions of the surface shown in Fig. 3. P. 145.
Plate XV,

BMWEALDEN PLANTS

 

West, Newman. inmp

GM Woodward &J.Cameron del et hth

nnettites.

€

B
Fic. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fic. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fic. 6.

PLATE XVI.

Pagiophyllum crassifolium (Schenk). Branch with leaves well
preserved. P. 218. [V. 2803.]

Pagiophyllum crassifoliwm (Schenk). Preservation less perfect,
and leaves more indistinct than in Fig. 1. P. 213.
[V. 2142a.]

Cf. Sphenolepidium subulatwm (Heer). P. 208. [V. 2140.]

Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.). Imperfect female
cones, with expanded scales. P. 206. [V. 2311.]

Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.). Branches showing
spreading leaves. P. 207. [V. 2139a.]

Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum (Dunk.). Leaves and leaf
bases clearly shown. P. 206. [V. 2144.]
BM.WEALDEN PLANTS. Plate XVI.

 

GM Woodward &J Cameron del.et ith West Newman my

Pigs, 1=2., Pagiophyllum. Fi gs 8-6, Sphenolepidiuin.
PLATE XVII.

Fic. 1. Brachyphyllum spinosum, sp. nov. Large branched specimen
with leaves, leaf-scars, and thorn-like branches. P. 216.
[V. 2746.]

Fic. 2. ? Brachyphyllum spinosum. Leaves slightly enlarged, showing
the form and striate structure. P. 218. [V. 2296.]

Fic. 3. Brachyphyllum spinosum. Portion of a thick branch with
leaf bases. P. 218. [V. 3180.]

Fia. 4. Brachyphyllum spinosum. Portion of a decorticated axis with
three branches. P. 217. [V. 2240.]

Fies. 5 and 5a. Brachyphyllum spinosum. Branch showing decorti-
cated axis. P. 218, [V. 2750.]

Fic. 6. Brachyphyllum spinosum. One-third nat. size. Decorticated
specimen showing the spinous branches. P. 217. [V. 2135.]

Fie. 7. Sphenolepidium Kurrianwm (Schenk). Cluster of female cones.
P. 208. [V. 2316.]

Figs. 8 and 8a. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum (Schenk). Single cone
more perfectly preserved. P. 203. [V. 2213.]

Fie. 9. Brachyphyllum obesum, Heer. Small twig. P. 221. [V.3348.]
Fold out
Plate XVII.

BMWEALI

 

West,Newman imp

'

G.M._ Woedway
PLATE XVIIL.

Fie. 1. Sphenolepidiwm Kurrianwm (Schenk). Large specimen with
well-preserved leaves. P. 203. [V. 2316d.]

Fia. 2. Pinites Solmsi, sp. nov. Branches with leaf bases and long
needles. P. 197. [V. 2169.]

Fic. 3. Pinites Solmsi, sp. nov. Female cone with short branch and
narrower needles. P. 197. [V. 2255. ]
B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS. Plate XVIII.

 

GM.Woodward del et hth. West,Newman amp.

Pig.1.Sphenolepidium. Figs.2%3. Pinites
PLATE XIX.
Pinites Solmsi, sp. nov.

Fie. 1. Branch with well-preserved leaf bases, and cones with un-

expanded scales. P. 196. [V. 2146.]

Fie. 2. Branch and cone with partially expanded scales. P. 198.
[V. 2147.]

Fic. 3. Branch bearing two female cones, and in the upper portion
small indistinct structures. P. 197. [V. 2146a.]

Fic. 4. Cone with partially expanded scales. P. 197. [V. 2147a.]
B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS Plate ZIX

 

GM Woodward del.et hth

West,Newman 7 my
Fic, 1.

Fie. 2.

Fie. 3.

Fic. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fic. 6.

PLATE XX.

Brachyphyllum obesum, Heer. Twig showing manner of
branching. P. 220. : [V. 2187,]

Brachyphyllum obesum. Stouter branch with well-preserved
leaves, P. 221. [V. 2137a.]

Pagiophyllum, sp. Twig with broad leaves. P. 213. [V. 2288.]

Brachyphyllum obesum. Comparatively thick branch. P. 221.
[V. 2387.]

Pinites Carruthersi, Gard. Detached female cone. P. 195.

[V. 2611.]

Thuites valdensis, sp. nov. Twig with distinctly preserved
branches and leaves. P. 209. [V. 2138.]
B.M.WBEALDEN PLANTS.

 

GM Woodward &kJ.Cameron del et hth. West, Newman imp.

Pigs, LAA: Brachyphyllum. Fig.3. Pagiophyllum.
5. Pmites , 6. Thuites.

”
LIST OF THE CURRENT

NATURAL HISTORY PUBLICATIONS
OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE
BRITISH MUSEUM.

The following publications can be purchased through the Agency of
Messrs. Lonemans & Co., 39, Paternoster Row ; Mr. QuaRITCH,
15, Piccadilly ; Messrs. Kecan Paut, Trencp, Trisner &
Co., Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road; and Messrs.
Dutav & Co., 37, Soho Square; or at the NaruraL History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London, S.W.

Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammals, Birds,
Reptiles, and Fishes of Nepal and Tibet. Presented by B. H.
Hodgson, Esq., to the British Museum. 2nd edition. By
John Edward Gray. Pp. xii, 90. [With an account of the
Collection by Mr. Hodgson.] 1863, 12mo. 2s, 3d.

Report on the Zoological Collections made in the Indo-Pacific
Ocean during the voyage of H.M.S. “ Alert,” 1881-2. Pp.
xxv., 684. 54 Plates. 1884, 8vo.

Summary of the Voyage By Dr. R. W. Coppinger.
Mammalia - - 4, O. Thomas.
Aves - » R. B. Sharpe.
Reptilia, Batrachia, Pisces - ,, A. Giinther.
Mollusca - - ,, EH. A. Smith.
Echinodermata - 5 FJ. Bell.
Crustacea - » H. J. Miers.
Coleoptera - », C.O. Waterhouse.
Lepidoptera - - ,, A. G. Butler.
Alcyonaria and Spongiids » 9. 0. Ridley.

1d, 10s.

MAMMALS.

List of the Specimens of Mammalia in the Collection of the
British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S. Pp. xxviii.
216. [With Systematic List of the Genera of Mammalia,
Index of Donations, and Alphabetical Index.] 1843, 12mo.
2s. 6d.

List of the Osteological Specimens in the Collection of the
British Museum. By John Edward Gray. Pp. xxv., 147,
[With Systematic Index and Appendix.] 1847, 12 mo. 2s.

o 89533. 3000.—12/95, Wt. 16346. E. &S&. A
2 LIST OF PUBLIiGa sian 2.

Catalogue of the Bones of Mammalia in the Collection of the
British Museum. By Edward Gerrard. Pp. iv., 296. 1862,
8vo. 5s. a,

Catalogue of Monkeys, Lemurs, and Fruit-eating Bats in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S.,
&c. Pp. viii., 137. 21 Woodcuts. 1870, 8vo. 4s.

Catalogue of Carnivorous, Pachydermatous, and Edentate Mam-
malia in the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S.,
&ec. Pp. vii., 398. 47 Woodcuts. 1869, 8vo. 6s. 6d.

Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. By John
Edward Gray, F.R.S., &e. 2nd edition, Pp. vii, 402. 101
Woodcuts. 1866, 8vo. 8s.

Supplement. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. vi.,
103. 11 Woodcuts. 1871, 8vo. 2s. 6d. |

List of the Specimens of Cetacea in the Zooldgical Department of
the British Museum. By William Henry Flower, Li.D.,
F.R.S, &c. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.]
Pp. iv., 36. 1885, 8vo. ls. 6d.

Catalogue of Ruminant Mammalia (Pecora, Linneus) in the
British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp.
vili., 102. 4 Plates. 1872, 8vo. 3s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Marsupialia and Monotremata in the Collection
of the British Museum. By Oldfield Thomas. Pp. xiii., 401.
4 coloured and 24 plain Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1888, 8vo. 10. 8s.

 

BIRDS.

Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum :—

Vol. VI. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds
in the Collection of the British Musuem. Cichlomorphe :
Part III., containing the first portion of the family Timeliide
(Babbling Thrushes). By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xiii.
420. Woodcutsand 18 coloured Plates. [With Systematic
and Alphabetical Indexes.} 1881, 8vo. 1,

Vol. VII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes,, or Perching
Birds, in the Collection of the, British Museum. Cichlo-

.. morphe : Part IV., containing the concluding portion of
the family Timeliide (Babbling Thrushes), By R.
Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xvi. 698. Woodcuts and 15
coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1883, 8vo. 1/. 6s.

Vol. VIII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes or Perching .
Birds, in the, Collection of the British Museum. Cichlo-
motphe: Part V., containing the families Paride and
Laniide (Titmice and Shrikes) ; and Certhiomorphe
(Creepers and Nuthatches). By Hans Gadow, M.A., Ph.D.
Pp. xili., 386. Woodcuts and 9 coloured Plates. [With
Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1883, 8vo. 17s.
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). | 3

Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum —continued.

Vol. EX. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds,
in the Collection of the British Museum. Cinnyrimorphe,
containing the families Nectariniide and Meliphagide

‘Sun Birds and Honey-eaters). By Hans Gadow, M.A.,
Ph.D. Pp. xii, 310. Woodcuts and 7’ coloured Plates.
[With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1884,
8vo. 14s.

Vol. X. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds,
in the Collection of the British Museum. Fringilliformes :
Part IL, containing the families Diceide, Hirundinide,
Ampelidz, Mniotiltids, and Motacillide. By R. Bowdler
Sharpe. Pp. xiii.,682. Woodcuts and 12 coloured Plates.
[With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885,
8vo. 1d. 2s.

Vol. XI. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds,
in the Collection of the British Museum. ringilhformes :
Part II., containing the families Cerebidw, Tanagride,
und Icteride. By Philip Lutley Sclater, M.A., F.R.S.
Pp. xvii., 431. [With Systematic and Alphabetical
Indexes.] Woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. 1886,
8vo. Ll.

Vol. XII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching
Birds, in the Collection ofthe British Museum. Fringilli-
formes; Part II1., containing the family Fringillide. By
R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xv., 871. Woodcuts and 16
coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1888, 8vo. 14. 8s.

Vol. XIII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching
Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Sturnz-
formes, containing the families Artamide, Sturnide,
Ploceide, and Alaudide. Also the families Atrichiide -
and Menuride. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xvi. 701.
Woodeuts and 15 coloured Plates. ‘ [With Systematic
and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1890, 8vo., 1d. 88.

Vol. XIV. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching
Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Oligo-
myode, or the families Tyrannide, Oxyrhamphide, Pipride,
Cotingide, Phytotomide, Philepittide, Pittide, Xenicide,
and Eurylemide. By Philip Lutley Sclater, M.A.,
E.R.S. Pp. xix. 494. Woodcuts and 26 coloured Plates.
[With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1888,
8vo. 1d. 4s. eed

Vol. XV. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching -
Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Tracheo-
phone, or the families Dendrocolaptide, Formicariidx,
Conopophagide, and Pteroptochide. By Philip Lutley
Sclater, M-A., F.R.S. Pp. xvii., 371. ‘Woodcuts and 20
coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1890, 8vo. 12.

a2
4 LIST OF PUBLivaiioNs ur isn

Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum—continued.

Vol. XVI. Catalogue of the Picariz in the Collection of the
British Museum. Upupe and Trochili, by Osbert Salvin. ,
Coracia, of the families Cypselide, Caprimulgide, Podar-

ide, and Steatornithide, by Ernst Hartert. Pp. xvi.y
03. Wocdcuts and 14 coloured Plates, [With Systematic
and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1892, 8vo. 14, 16s.

Vol. XVII. Catalogue of the Picariw in the Collection of
the British Museum. Coracie (contin.) and Halcyones,
with the families Leptusomatide, Coraciide, Meropide,
Alcedinide, Momotide, Totide, and Coliida, by R. Bowdler
Sharpe. Bucerotes and Trogones, by W. BR. Ogilvie
Grant. Pp. xi., 522. Woodcuts and 17 coloured Plates.
[With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1892,
8vo. 1é. 10s.

Vol. XVIII. Catalogue of the Picariz in the Collection of
the British Museum. Scansores, containing the family
Picida. By Edward Hargitt. Pp. xv., 597. Woodcuts
and 15 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1890, 8vo. 12. 6s.

Vol. XTX. Catalogue of the Picarie in the Collection of
the British Museum. Scansores and Coccyges: contain-
ing the families Rhamphastide, Galbulide, and Bucconide,
by P. L. Sclater ; and the families Indicatoride, Capitonide,
Cuculide, and Musophagide, by G. EH. Shelley. Pp. xii,
484 : 13 coloured Plates. [With Systemutic and Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1891, 8vo. 1. 5s.

Vol. XX. Catalogue of the Psittaci, or Parrots, in the
Collection of the British Museum. By T. Salvadori.
Pp. xvii., 658: woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. [With
Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1891, 8vo. 1d. 10s.

Vol. XXI. Catalogue of the Columba, or Pigeons, in the
Collection of the British Museum. By T. Salvadori.
Pp. xvii., 676: 15 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and
Alphabetical Indexes.] 1893, 8vo. 14. 10s.

Vol. XXII. Catalogue of the Game Birds (Pterocletes,
Galline, Opisthocomi, Hemipodii) in the Collection of
the British Museum. By W. R. Ogilvie Grant. Pp. xvi.,
585: 8 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1893, 8vo. 12. 6s.

Vol. XXIII. Catalogue of the Fulicarie (Rallide and
Heliornithide) and Alectorides (Aramide, Eurypygide,
Mesitide, Rhinochetide, Gruide, Psophiide, and Otidide)
in the Collection of the British Museum. By R. Bowdler
Sharpe. Pp. xiii, 353: 9 coloured Plates. [With Syste-
matic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1894, 8vo. 20s.

List of the Specimens of Birds in the Collection of the British
Museum. By George Robert Gray :—

Part III, Section I. Ramphastide. Pp. 16. [With

Index.] 1835, 12mo. 6d.
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 5

List of Specimens of Birds in the British Museum—continued.
Part IIT, Section II. Psittacide. Pp.110. [With Index.]
1859, 12mo. 2s. :

Part III., Sections III. and IV. Capitonide and Picide.
Pp. 187. [With Index.] 1868, 12mo. 1s. 6d.

PartIV. Columbz. Pp.73. [With Index.] 1856, 12mo.
1s. 9d.

Part V. Gallinw. Pp. iv., 120. [With an Alphabetical
Index.] 1867, 12mo. 1s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Birds of the Tropical Islands of the Pacific
Ocean in the Coilection of the British Museum. By George
Robert Gray, F.L.S. &. Pp. 72. [With an Alphabetical
Index.] 1859, 8vo. 1s. 6d.

REPTILES.

Catalogue of the Tortoises, Crocodiles, and Amphisbenians in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray,
F.R.S., &c. Pp. viii, 80. [With an Alphabetical Index.]
1844, 12mo. Is.

Catalogue of Shield Reptiles in the Collection of the British
Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &c. :—
Appendix. Pp. 28. 1872, 4to. 2s. 6d.

Part II. Emydosaurians, Rhynchocephalia, and Amphis-
benians. Pp. vi, +1. 25 Woodeuts. 1872, 4to. 3s. 6d.

Hand-List of the Specimens of Shield Reptiles in the British
Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.RS., F.L.S., &. Pp. iv.,
124. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1873, 8vo. 4s.

Catalogue of the Chelonians, Rhynchocephalians, and Crocodiles
in the British Museum (Natural History). New Edition. By
George Albert Boulenger. Pp. x., 311. 73 Woodcuts and 6
Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1889,
8vo. 15s.

Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the
British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &. Pp. xxviii.,
289. [With Geographic, Systematic, and Alphabetical Indexes. |
1845, 12mo. 3s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Lizards in the British “Museum (Natural His-
tory). Second Edition. By George Albert Boulenger :—
Vol.I. Geckonide, Kublepharide, Uroplatide, Pygopodide,
mide. Pp. xii, 436. 32 Plates. [With Systematic
and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885, 8vo. 20s.

Vol. II. Iguanide, Xenosauride, Zonurida, Anguide,
Anniellidz, Helodermatidez, Varanide, Xantusiide, Teiide,
Amphisbenide. Pp. xiii, 497. 24 Plates. [With
Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885, 8vo0. 20s.
6 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE

Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum—continued.

Vol. III. Lacertide, Gerrhosauride, Scincide, _ Anely tro-
pide, Dibamide, Chameleontide. Pp. xii, 575. 40
“Plates. [With a Systematic Index and an Alphabetical
Index to the three volumes.] 1887, 8vo. 11. 6s.

Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History),
By George Albert Boulenger, F.R.S. :—

Vol. I, containing’ the families Typhlopide, Glauconiide,
Boide, Ilysiide, Uropeltide, Xenopeltide, and Colubride
aglyphe, part. Pp..xiii., 445:,.26 .,Woodcuts and 28
‘Plates. [With Systematic and. Alphabetical Indexes. ]
1893, 8vo. 12. 1s.

Vol. II., containing the conclusion of the Colubride aglyphe.
Pp. xi. 382: 25 Woodcuts and 20 Plates. [With
Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1894, 8vo. 17s. 6d.

Catalogue of Colubrine Snakes in the Collection of the British
Museum. By Dr. Albett Gimther. Pp, xvi, 281. [With
Cee) Systema, and ae ae 1858,
12mo.: ie 7 ‘

BATRACHIANS.

Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the: Geisetion of the
British Museum. By Dr. Albert Giinther. Pp. xvi, 160. 12
Plates. [With Systematic, Crnemnins, aud Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1858, 8vo. 6s.

Catalogue of the Batrachia Gradientia, s. Caudata, and Batrachia
Apoda in the Collection of the British Museum. Second
Edition. By George Albert: Boulenger. Pp. viii, 127. 9
Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1882,
8vo. 9s. 3

FISHES.

Catalogue of the Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum,
By Pr. Albert Giinther, F.R.S., d&c. :—

Vol. VII. Physostomi (Heterophygii,, Cyprinide, Gono-
rnynchide, Hyodontide, Osteoglosside, Clupeide, Chiro-
centride, Alepocephalida, Notopteridx, Halosauride).
Pp. xx., 512. Woodeuts. [With Systematic and Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1868, 8vo. 8s.

Vol. VIII. Physostomi (Gymnotide, Symbranchide, Mure-
nidx, Pegaside), Lophobranchii, Plectognathi, Dipnoi,
Ganoidei, Chondropterygii, _Cyclostomata, Leptocardii.

‘Pp. =zxv., 549. [With Systematic and Alphabetical
_ Indexes.] 1870, 8yo, 8s.6d,

 
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 7

Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Second edition.
Vol. I. ‘Catalogue of the Perciform Fishes in the, British
Museum. Vol. I. containing the Centrarchide, Percide, and

“ Serranide (part), By George Albert Boulenger, F.R.S. » Pp.
xix., 894. Woodcuts and 15 plates. [With Systematic and
Alphabetical Indexes.] 1895, 8vo. 15s. ,

List of the Specimens of Fish in the Collection of the British
Museum. Part]. Chondropterygii. By J.E. Gray.. Pp.x.,
160. 2 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. ]
1851, 12mo. 3s.

Catalogue of Fish collected and described by Laurence Theodore
Gronow, now in the British Museum. Pp. vit., 196. [With a
Systematic Index.] 1854, 12mo. ds. 6d.

Catalogue of Lophobranchiate Fish in the Collection of the British
Museum. By J. J. Kaup, Ph.D., &c. Pp, iv., 80. 4 Plates,
[ With an Alphabetical Index.] | 1856, 12mo. 2s. 18)

MOLLUSCA.

Guide to the Systematic Distribution of Mollusca in the British
Museum. Part I. By John Edward Gray, Ph.D., F.R.S.,
&e. Pp. xii, 230. 121 Woodcuts. 1857, 8vo. 5s.

List of the Shells of the Canaries in the Collection of the British
Museum, collected’ by MM. Webb and Berthelot. Described
and figured by Prof.,Alcide D’Orbigny ‘in the’ “ Histoire
Naturelle des Iles Canaries.” Pp. 32. 1854, 12mo. 1s.

List of the Shells of Cuba in the Collection of the British Museum,
collected by M. Ramon de la Sagra. Described by Prof. Alcide
@Orbigny in the “ Histoire de ?Ile de Cuba.” Pp. 48. 1854,
12mo. ls.

List of the Shells of South America in the Collection of the British
Museum. Collected and described by M. Alcide D’Orbigny in
the “ Voyage dans PAmériqne Méridionale.” Pp. 89, 1854,
{2ino. 2s. et

Catalogue of the Collection of Mazatlan Shells in the British
Museum, collected by Frederick Reigen. Described by Philip
P. Carpenter. Pp. xvi., 552. 1857, 12mo. 8s.

List of Mollusca and Shells in the Collection of the British
Museum, collected and described by MM. Eydoux and Souleyet
in the “ Voyage autour du Monde, exécuté pendant les années
“ 1836 et 1837, sur la Corvette ‘La Bonite,’” and in the
« Plistoire naturelle des Mollnsques Ptéropodes.” Par MM.
p. C. A. L. Rang et Souleyet. Pp. iv., 27. 1855, 12mo. 8d.

Catalogue of the Phaneropneumona, or Terrestrial Operculated
Mollusca, in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. L.
Pfeiffer. Pp. 324. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1852,
j12mo, 5s, ’ ; 5 7
38 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF ‘Taus

Nomenclature of Molluscous Animals and Shells in the Collection |
’ of the British Museum. PartI. Cyclophoride. Pp. 69. [With
an Index.] 1850, 12mo. Is. 6d.

Catalogue of Pulmonata, or Air Breathigg Mollusca, in the Col-’
lection of the British Museum. PartI. Ey Dr. Louis Pfeiffer.
Pp. iv., 192. Woodcuts. 1855, 12mo. 2s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Auriculidz, Proserpinidx, and Truncatellide in
the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Louis Pfeiffer.
Pp. iv., 150. Woodcuts. 1857, 12mo. 1s. 9d.

List of the Mollusca in the Collection of the British Museum. By
John Edward Gray, Ph.D., F.R.S., &e.
Part I. Volutide. Pp. 28. 1855, 12mo. 6d.
Part II. Olivide. Pp. 41. 1865, 12mo. 1s.

Catalogue of the Conchifera, or Bivalve Shells, in the Collection
of the British Museum. By M. Deshayes :—
Part I. Veneride, Cyprinide, Glauconomide, and Petri-
colada. Pp. iv., 216. 1853, 12mo. 3s.
Part If. Petricolade (concluded); Corbiculadea, Pp.
217-292. [With an Alphabetical Index to the two
parts.] 1854, 12mo. 6d.

BRACHIOPODA.

Catalogue of Brachiopoda Ancylopoda or Lamp Shells in the
Collection of the British Museum. [Jssued as “ Catalogue of
the Mollusca, Part IV.”] Pp. iv.,128& 25 Woodcuts. [With
an Alphabetical Index.] 1853, 12mo. 3s,

POLYZOA.

Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa in the Collection of the British
Museum. Part III. Cyclostomata. By George Busk, F.R.S.
Pp. vili., 39. 38 Plates. [With a Systematic Index.] 1875,
8vo. 5s.

CRUSTACEA.

Catalogue of Crustacea in the Collection of the British Museum.
Part I. Leucosiade. By Thomas Bell, V.P.R.S., Pres. L.S.,
&e. Pp. iv., 24. 1855, 8vo. 6d.

Catalogue of the Specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the
Collection of the British Museum. By C. Spence Bate, F.R.S.,
&c, Po, iv., 399. 58 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index. |
1862, 8vc, 14. 5s. es :
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 9

ARACHNIDA.

Descriptive Catalogue of the Spiders of Burma, based upon the
Collection made by Eugene W. Oates and preserved in the
British Museum. By T. Thorell. Pp. xxxvi, 406. [With
Systematic List and Alphabetical Index.] 1895, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

MYRIOPODA.

Catalogue of the Myriapoda in the Collection of the British
Musum. By George Newport, F.R.S., P.E.S., &c. Part I.
Chilopoda. Pp. iv., 96. [With an Alphabetical Index.]
1856, 12mo. 1s. 9d. ;

INSECTS.
Coleopterous Insects.

Nomenclature of Coleopterous Insects in the Collection of the
British Museum :—

Part, IV. Cleride. By Adam White. Pp. 68. [With
Index.] 1849, 12mo. 1s. 8d.

Part V. Cucujide, &e. By Frederick Smith. [Also issued
as * List of the Coleopterous Insects. Part ].”] Pp. 25.
1851, 12mo. 6d.

Part VI. Passalide. By Frederick Smith. Pp. iv., 23.

1 Plate [With Index.] 1852, 12mo. 8d.

Part VII. Longicornia, I. By Adam While. Pp. iv., 174.
4 Plates. 1853, 12mo. 2s. 6d.

Part VIII. Longicornia, II. By Adam White. Pp. 237,
6 Plates. 1855, 12mo. 3s. 6d.

Part IX. Cassidide. By Charles H. Boheman, Professor of
Natural History, Stockholm. Pp, 225. [With Index.]
1856, 12mo. 3s.

Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Coleoptera in the Collection
of the British Museum. Part I. Lycide. By Charles Owen
Waterhouse. Pp. x., 83. 18 coloured Plates. [With Syste-
matic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1879, 8vo. 16s.

Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of Madeira in the Collection
of the British Museum. By T. Vernon Wollaston, M.A., F.L.S.
Pp. xvi., 254: 1 Plate. [With a Topographical Catalogue and
an Alphabetical Index.] 1857, 8vo. 3s.

Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of the Canaries in the Collec-
tion of the British Museum. By T. Vernon Wollaston, M.A.,
F.LS. Pp. xisi., 648. [With ‘Topographical nnd Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1864, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Catalogue of Halticide in the Collection of the British Museum,
By the Rev. Hamlet Clark, M.A., F.L.S. Physapodes and
CEidipodes. Part I. Pp. xii, 8301. Frontispiece and 9 Plates,
1860, 8vo. 7s.
10 LIST OF PUBLIvALiUND Ur aie

Catalogue of Hispide in the Collection: of the British Museum.
By Joseph S. Baly, M-E.S., &. Part I. Pp.-x., 172. 9
Plates,. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 8vo. 6s.

Hymenopterous Insects.

List of the Specimens of Hymenopterous Insects in the Collecticn
of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S. :—

Part II. Chalcidites. Additional Species. Appendix.

Pp. iv., 99-237. 1848, 12mo. 2s. :

Catalogue of Hymenopterous Insects in the Collection of the
British Museum. By Frederick Smith. 12mo. :—

Part I. Andrenide and Apide. Pp. 197. 6 Plates... 1853,
2s. 6d.

Part II. Apide. Pp. 199-465. 6 Plates. [With an
Alphabetical Index.] 1854, 6s... +,

Part III. Mutillide and Pompilide Pp. 206. 6 Plates.

~ 1855, 6s.

Part IV. Sphegide, Larride, ‘and Gesirontdes Pp. 207-
497. 6 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1856,
6s.

Part V. Vespide. Pp. 147. 6 Plates. [With an Alpha-
betical Index.] 1857, 6s. : ;

Part VI. Formicide. Pp. 216. 14 Plates. [With an
Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 6s.

Part VII. Dorylide and Thynnide. Pp. 76. 3 Plates.
[With an Alphabetical Index.] 1859, 2s.

Descriptions of New Species of Hymenoptera in the Collection.

of the British Museum. By Frederick Smith. Pp. xxi., 240.
[ With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1879, 8vo. 10s.

List of Hymenoptera, with descriptions and figures of the Typical
Specimens in the British Museum. Vol. I, Tenthredinide and
Siricide. By W.F. Kirby. Pp. xxviii, 450. 16 Coloured
Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1882,
8vo. 1d. 18s.

Dipterous Tigata:

List. of the Specimens of Dipterous Insects in the Collection of
the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S. 12mo, :—
Part IV. Pp. 689-1172. [With an Index to the four parts,
and an Index of Donors.]: 1849. 6s.
Part VII. Supplement III. Asilide. Pp. ii, 507-775,
1855, 3s, Gd.

Lepi dopterous Insects.

Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera i in
the Collection of the British Museum :—.

Part. III. ‘By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xviii, 82.
41-60 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index.]
1879, 4to. 22. 10s.
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 11

Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Lepidoptera ibistericens
—continued.
Part V. ‘By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xii, 74.
78-100 Oslonred’ ‘Plates. [With a Systematic Index.]
1881, 4to. 22. 10s.

Part VI. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xv., 89.
101-120 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index.]
1886, 4to. 2/. 4s.

Part VII. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. iv., 124.
121-138 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic List.]
1889, 4to. 2.

Part VIII. The Lepidoptera Heterocera of the Nilgiri
District. By George Francis Hampson. Pp. iv., 144.
139-156 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic List. ]
1891, 4to. 20.

Part IX. The Macrolepidoptera Heterocera of Ceylon. By
George Francis Hampson. Pp. v., 182. 157-176.
Coloured Plates. [With a General Systematic List of
Species collected in, or recorded from, Ceylon.} 1898,
Ato. 21, 2s.

Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera of the family Satyride in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Arthur Gardiner Butler,
F.LS., &e. Pp. vi, 211. 5 Plates. [With an Alphabetical _
Index.] 1868, 8vo. 5s. 6d.

Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Arthur Gardiner Butler,
F.LS., &. Pp. iv., 303. 3 Plates. 1869, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Specimen of a Catalogue of Lycenide in the British Museum. By
W.C. Hewitson. Pp.15. 8 Coloured Plates, 1862, 4to. 12. 1s.

List of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British
Museum. Part I. Papilionide. By G. R. Gray, F.L.S..
Pp. 106. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1856, 12mo. 2s.

List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection
of the British Museum. By Francis Walker. 12mo.:—-

Part VI. Lepidoptera Heterocera. Pp. 1258-1507. 1855,

3s. 6d. :
Part X. Noctuide. Pp. 253-491. 1856, 3s. 6d.

Part XII. ———— Pp. 765-982. 1857, 3s. 6d,

Part XIII. ————— Pp. 983-1286. 1857, 3s. 6d.

Part XIV. ————— Pp. 1237-1519. 1858, 4s. 6d.

Part XV. ———— Pp. 1520-1888. [With an Alpha-
betical Index to Parts IX.-XV.] 1858, 4s. 6d.

Part XVI. Deltoides. Pp. 253. 1858, 3s. 6d.

Part XIX. Pyralides. Pp. 799-1036. [With an Alpha-
betical Index to Parts XVI.-XIX.] 1859, 3s. 6d.

Part XXI. Geometrites. Pp. 277-498. 1860, 3s.

Part XXII. Pp. 499-755. 1861, 3s, 6d.

Part XXIII. ——-——_ Pp. 756-1020. 1861, 3s. 6d,

 

 
12 LIST OF PUBLIvanivns vr ine

List of Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects—continued.
Part XXIV. —— Pp. 1021-1280. 1862, 3s. 6d.
Part XXV. — Pp. 1281-1477. 1862, 3s.

Part XXVI. ——————_ Pp. __ 1478-1796. [With an
Alphabetical Index to Parts XX--XXVI.] 1862, 4s. 6d.

Part XXVII. Crambites and Tortricites. Pp. 1-286.
1863, 4s.

Part XXVIII. Tortricites and Tineites. Pp. 287-561.
1863, 4s.

Part XXIX. Tineites. Pp. 562-835. 1864, ts.

Part XXX. Pp. 836-1096. [With an Alpha-
betical Index to Parts XXVII-XXX.] 1864, 4s.

Part XXXI. Supplement. Pp. 1-321. 1864, 5s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part XXXII. Part 2, Pp. 322-706. 1865,
Pant KXXIL, Part 3, Pp. 707-1120. 1865,
Part XXXIV. Part 4, Pp. 1121-1533, 1865,
Part RXKV. —— Part 5. Pp. 1534-2040. [ With

an Alphabetical Index to Parts XXXI-XXXV.] 1866,
Ts.

Neuropterous Insects.

Catalogue of the Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the Collec-
tion of the British Museum. By Francis Walker. 12mo. :—
Part I. Phryganides—Perlides. Pp. iv., 192. 1852, 2s. 6d.
Part 1I. Sialide—Nemopterides. Pp. ii, 193-476. 1853,
3s. 6d.
Part If. Termitide—Ephemeridse. Pp. ii., 477-585. 1853,
1s. 6d, “
Catalogue of the Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the Col-
lection of the British Museum, By Dr. H. Hagen. Part I.
Termitina. Pp. 34. 1858, 12mo. 6d. ‘

Orthopterous Insects.

Catalogue of Orthopterous Insects in the Collection of the British
Museum. Part 1. Phasmide. By Jobn Obadiah Westwood,
F.LS., &. Pp. 195. 48 Plates. [With an Alphabetical
Index.] 1859, 4to. 32. ia

Catalogue of the Specimens of Blattariz in the Collection of the
British Museum. . By Francis Walker, F.L.S., &c. Pp. 239.
[With an Alphabetical Index.] 1868, 8vo. 5s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria [Part I.]
and Supplement to the Blattariz in the Collection of the British
Museum. Gryllide. Blattarie. Locustida. By Francis
Walker, F.L.S., &c. Pp. 224. [With an Alphabetical Index.]
1869, &vo. 5s.
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 13

Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker,
E.L.S., &e.—

Part II. Locustide (continued). Pp. 225-423. [With an
Alphabetical Index.] 1869, 8vo. 4s. 6d.

Part ITI. Locustide (continued).—Acridide. Pp. 425-604.
[With an Alphabetical Index.| 1870, 8vo. 4s.

Part IV. Acridide (continued). Pp. 605-809, [With an
Alphabetical Index.] 1870, 8vo. 6s.

Part V. Tettigide—Supplement to the Catalogue of Blat-
tarie.—Supplement to the Catalogue of Dermaptera
Saltatoria (with remarks on the Geographical Distribution
of Dermaptera). ,Pp. 811-850; 43; 116. [With Alpha-
betical Indexes.] 1870, 8vo. 6s.

Hemipterous Insects.

List of the Specimens of Hemipterous Insects in the Collection of
the British Museum. By W. S. Dallas, F.L.S. Part IT. Pp.
369-590. Plates 12-15. 1852, 12mo. 4s.

Catalogue of the Specimens of Heteropterous Hemiptera in the
Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S.,
&e, 8vo.:—

Part I. Scutata. Pp. 240. 1867. 5s.

Part II. Scutata (continued). Pp. 241-417. 1867. 4s.

Part III. Pp. 418-599. [With an Alphabetical Index to
Parts I., IT., III, and a Summary of Geographical
Distribution of the Species mentioned.] 1868. 4s. 6d.

Part IV. Pp. 211. [Alphabetical Index.] 1871. 6s.

Part V. Pp. 202. —_- 1872. 5s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part VI. Pp. 210. ——— 1873. 5s.
Part VII, Pp. 218.. ——-————— 1873. 6s.
Part VIII. Pp. 220. ——-—-——— 1872. 6s. 6d.

Homopterous Insects.

List of the Specimens of Homopterous Iusects in the Collection of
the British Museum. By Francis Walker. Supplement. Pp.
ii, 369. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 12mo. 4s. 6d.

VERMES.

Catalogue of the Species of Entozoa, or Intestinal Worms, con-
tained in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Baird.
Pp. iv., 182. 2 Plates. [With an Index of the Animbls in
whieh the Entozoa mentioned in the Catalogue are found; and
an Index of Genera and Species.] 1853, 12mo. 2s,

ANTHOZOA.

Catalogue of Sea-pens or Pennatulariidw in the Collection of the
British Museum. By J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &e. Pp. iv., 40.
2, Woodeuts. 1870, 8vo. ls. 6d,
 

14 ..  LISt OF PUB:

Catalogue of Lithophytes or Stony Corals in the Collection of the
British Museum. By J. E: Gray, F.R. S., &e. ‘Pp. iv., 51.
14 Woodcuts. 1870, 8vo. 3s.

Catalogue of the Madreporarian Corals in the British Museum
(Natural History). Vol. I. The Genus Madrepora. By
George Brook. Pp. xi. 212. 35 Collotype Plates. [With
Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes, Explanation of Plates,
and a Preface by Dr. Giinther.] 1893, 4to. 1/..4s.. ©

%

BRITISH ANIMALS.
t +
Catalogue of British Birds in the Collection of the British
Museum. By George Robert Gray, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. Pp.
xii, 248. [With a List of Speciés.] 1863, 8vo. 3s. 6d.

Catalogue of British Hymenoptera in the Collection of the British
Museum. Second edition. Part I. Andrenide and Apide.
By Frederick Smith, M.E.S. New Issue. Pp. xi, 2386. 11
Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1891,
8vo. 6s. ,

Catalogue of British Fossorial Hymenoptera, Formicide, and
Vespide in the Collection of the British Museum. By Frederick
Smith, V.P.E.S. Pp. 236. 6 Plates. [With an Alphabetical
Index.] 1858, 12mo. 6s. “

A Catalogue of the British Non-parasitical Worms in the Collec-
tion of the British Museum. By George Johnston, M. D., Edin.,
F.R.C.L. Ed., Li.D. Marischal Coll. Aberdeen, &c. ’ “Bp. 365.
Woodeuts and 24 Plates. {With an Alphabetical  Index.]
1865, 8vo. 7s.

Catalogue of the British Echinoderms in the British Museum
(Natural History). By F. Jeffrey Bell, M.A. Pp. xvii, 202.
Woodcuts and 16 Plates (2 coloured). [With, Tuble of Con-
tents, Tables of Distribution, Alphabetical Index, Description
of the Plates, &c.j . 1892, 8vo. 12s. 6d.

List of the Specimens, of British Animals in the Collection of the
British Museum; with Synonyma and References to figures.
12mo. :—

Part I. Centronie or Radiated Mots, By Dr. J. E.
Gray. Pp. xiii., 1738. 1848, 4s.

Part IV. Crustacea.’ By A: White. Pp. iv., 141. (With

, a0 Index.) 1850, 2s. 6d.

Part V. Lepidoptera. By J. F. Stephens. 2nd Edition.
By H. T. Stainton and E.Shepherd. Pp. iv., 224. 1856,
Is. 9d.

Part VI. Hymenoptera. By F. Smith. Pp. 184. 1851,
2s.

Part VIL. Mollusca, ‘Acephala, and Brachiopoda, By Dr,
J.E. Gray. Pp. iv., 167.. 1851, 8s. 6d.

 
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY), 15

List of the Specimens of British Animals—continued.
Part ‘VIII. Fish. By Adam White. Pp. xxiii, 164.
(With Index and List of Donors.), 1851, 3s. 6d.

Part IX. Eggs of Br. itish Birds. By George Robert Gray.
Pp. 148. 1852, 2s. 6d.

Part XI. Anoplura or Parasitic Insects. By H. ‘Denny.
Pp. iv. 51. 1852, 1s.

Part XII. Lepidoptera (continued.) By James F. Stephens.
Pp. iv., 54. 1852, 9d.

Part XIII. Nomenclature of Hymenoptera, By Frederick
Smith. Pp. iv., 74. 1853, ls. 4d,

Part X1V. Nomenclature of Neuroptera. By Adam White.
Pp. iv., 16. 1853, 6d.

Part Xv. Nomenclature of Pinel I. By Adam White.
Pp. iv., 42. 1853, ls.

Part XVI. Lepidoptera (completed). By H. T. Stainton.
Pp. 199. [With an Index.] 1854, 8s.

Part XVII. Nomenclature of Anoplura, Euplexoptera, and
Orthoptera. By Adam White. Pp. iv.,17. 1855, 6d.

PLANTS.

A Monograph of Lichens found in Britain: being a Descriptive
Catalogue of the Species in the Herbarium “of the British
Museum. By the Rev. James M. Crombie, M.A., F.LS.,
F.G.8S., &¢. Part I. Pp. viii, 519: 74 ‘Woodeuts. [With
Glossary, Synopsis, Tabular Conspectus, and Tndex.] 1894, 8vo.
16s.

A Monograph of the Mycetozoa: being a Descriptive Catalogue

’ of the Species in the Herbarium of the British Museum. By
Arthur Lister, F.L.S. Pp. 224. 78 Plates and 51 Woodcuts.
[With Synopsis of Genera aud List of Species, and Index.]
1894, 8vo. 15s.

List of British Diatomacez in fie Collestion ofthe British Museum.
By the Rev. W. Smith, F.L.S., &e, Pp.iv.,55. 1859, 12mo. 1s.

FOSSILS.

Catalogue of the Fossil Mammalia in the British Museum (Natural
History). By Richard Lydekker, B.A., F.G.S. :—

Part I. Containing the Orders Primates, Chiroptera, Insec-
tivora, Carnivora, and Rodentia. Pp. xxx., 268. 33
Woodcuts. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. ]
1885, 8vo. 5s.

Part II. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborder Artio-
dactyla. Pp. xxii., 324. 39 Woodcuts. [Wich Systematic
and Alphabetical Indexes. ] 1885, 8vo. 6s.

Part III. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborders Peris-
sodactyla, Toxodontia, Condylarthra, and Amblypoda. Pp.
16 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE

Catalogue of the Fossil Mammalia—continued.
xvi. 186. 380 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and
Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including
Synonyms.| 1886, 8vo. 4s.

Part IV. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborder Probos-
cidea, Pp. xxiv., 235. 32 Woodcuts. [With Systematic
Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species,
including Synonyms.] 1886, 8vo. 5s.

Part V. Containing the Group Tillodontia, the Orders Si-
renia, Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Monotremata, and
Supplement. Pp. xxxv., 345. 55 Woodcuts. [With
Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and
Species, including Synonyms.] 1887, 8vo. 6s.

Catalogue of the Fossil Birds in the British Museum (Natural
History). By Richard Lydekker, B.A. Pp. xxvii., 368. 75
Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of
Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1891, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Catalcgue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British
, Museum (Natural History), By Richard Lydekker, B.A.,
F.G.S, :—

Part I. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia,
Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria.
Pp. xxviii, 309. 69 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index,
and Alphabetical Index of Genera and, Species, including
Synonyms.] 1888, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Part II. Containing the Orders Ichthyopterygia and Sau-
ropterygia. Pp. xxi., 307. 85 Woodcuts. [With Syste-
matic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and
Species, including Synonyms.] 1889, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Part III. Containing the Order Chelonia, Pp. xviii, 239.
53 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical
Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1889,
8vo. 7s. 6d.

Part IV. Containing the Orders Anomodontia, Ecaudata,
Caudata, and Labyrinthodontia; and Supplement. Pp.
xxiii, 295. 66 Woedeuts. [With Systematic Index,
Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including
Synonyms, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species
to the entire work.] 1890, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural
Histery). By Arthur Smith Woodward, F.G.S., F.Z.S. :—=.
Part I. Containing the Elasmobrauchii. Pp. xlvii, 474. 18:
Woodcuts and 17 Plates. [With Alphabetical Index, and
Systematic Index of Genera and Species.] 1889, 8vo. 21s.
Part II. Containing the Elasmobranchii (Acanthodii), Holo-
cephali, Ichthyodorulites, Ostracodermi, Dipnoi, and Teleo-
stomi (Crossopterygii and Chondrostean Actinopterygii),
Pp. xliv., 567. 58 “Woodeuts and 16 Plates. [ With
Alphabetical Index, and Systematic Index of Genera and
Species.] 1891, 8vo. 21s.
BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISYORY). 17

Catalogue of the lossil Fishes—continued. .

Part JII. Containing the Actinopterygian Teleostomi of
the Orders Chondrostei (concluded), Protospondyli,
Aetheospondyli, and Isospondyli (in part). Pp. xlii., 544.
45 Woodcuts and 18 Plates. [With Alphabetical Index,
oh Systematic Index of Genera and Species.] 1895, 8vo

s.

Systematic List of the Edwards Collection of British Oligocene and
Eocene Mullusca in the British Museum (Natural History),
with references to the type-specimens from similar horizons
contained in other collections belonging to the Geological
Department of the Museum. By Richard Bullen Newton,
F.G.S. Pp..xxviii., 365. [With table of Families and Genera,
Bibliography, Correlation-table, Appendix, and Alphabetical
Index.| 1891, 8vo. 6s.

Catalogue of the Fossil Cephalopoda in the British Museum
(Natural History). By Arthur H. Foord, F.G.S. :—

Part I. Containing part of the Suborder Nautiloidea, con-
sisting of the families Orthoceratide, Endoceratide, Actino-
ceratide, Gomphoceratide, Ascoceratide, Poterioceratide,
Cyrtoceratide, and Supplement. Pp. xxxi, 344. 51
Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical
Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.]
1888, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Part II. Containing the remainder of the Suborder Nauti-
loidea, consisting of the families Lituitide, Trochoceratide,
Nautilide, and Supplement. Pp. xxviii, 407. 86 Wood-
cuts: [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index
of Genera and Species, including Synonyms. | 1891, 8vo. 15s.

A Catalogue of British Fossil Crustacea, with their Synonyms and
the Range in Time of each Genus and Order. By Henry
Woodward, F.R.S. Pp. xii, 185. [With an Alphabetical
Index.] 1877, 8vo. 5s.

Catalogue of the Blastoidea in the Geological Department of the
British Museum (Natural History), with an account of the
morphology and systematic position of the group, and a revision
of the genera and species. By Robert Etheridge, jun., of the
Departmert of Geology, British Museum (Natural History),
and P. Herbert Carpenter, D.Sc,, F.R.S., F..S. (of Eton
College). [With Preface by Dr. H. Woodward, Tabie of
Contents, General Index, Explanations of the Plates, &c.] Pp.
xv., 822. 20 Plates. 1886, 4 to. 25s. °

Catalogue of the Fossil Sponges in the Geological Department of
the British Museum (Natural History). With descriptions of
new and little known species. By George Jennings Hinde,
Ph.D., F.G.S. Pp. viii, 248. 38 Plates. [With a Tabular
List of Species, arranged in Zoological and Stratigraphical
sequence, and an Alphabetical Index.] 1883, 4to. 14. 10s.

o 89533 B
18 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE

Catalogue of the Fossil Foraminifera in the British Museum
(Natural History). By Professor T. Rupert Jones, F.R.S.,
&e. Pp. xxiv. 100. [With Geographical and Alphabetical
Indexes.] 1882, 8vo. &s.

Catalogue of the Palwozoic Plants in the Department of Geology
and Palxontology, British Museum (Natural History). By
Robert Kidston, F.G.S. Pp. viii, 288. [With a list of works
quoted, and an Index.] 1886, 8vo. 5s.

Catalogue of the Mesozoic Plants in the Department of Geology,
British Museum (Natural History). The Wealden Flora.
By A. C. Seward, M.A., F.G.S., University Lecturer in
Botany, Cambridge.

Part I. Thallophyta—Pteridophyta. Pp. xxxviii., 179: 17
Woodcuts and 11 Plates, [With Preface by Dr. Woodward,
Alphabetical Index of Genera, Species, &c., Explanations
of the Plates, &c.] 1894, 8vo, 10s. ;

Part II. Gymnosperme. Pp. viii, 259. 9 Woodcuts and
20 Plates. [With Alphabetical Index, Explanations of the

Plates, &c.] 1895, 8vo. 15s.

GUIDE-BOOKS.
(To be obtained only at the Museum.)

A General Guide to the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London, 8.W. [By W.H. Flower.] With 2
Plans, 2 views of the building, and an illustrated cover. Pp. 80.
1895, 8vo. 3d. :

Guide to the Galleries of Mammalia (Mammalian, Osteological,
Cetacean) in the Department of Zoology of ‘the British Museum
(Natural History). [By A.Giinther.] 5th Edition. Pp. 126.
57 Woodcuts and 2 Plans. Index. 1894, 8vo. 6d.

Guide to the Galleries of Reptiles and Fishes:in the Department of
Zoology of the British Museum (Natural History). [By A.
Giinther.] 38rd Edition. Pp. iv., 119. ‘101 Woodcuts and 1
Plan. Index. 1893, 8vo. 6d.

Guide to the Shell and Starfish Galleries (Mollusca, Echinoder-
mata, Vermes), inthe Department of Zoology of the British
Museum (Natural History). [By A. Giinther.] 2nd Edition.
Pp. iv., 74. 51 Woodeuts and 1 Plan. 1888, 8vo. 4d.

A Guide to the Exhibition Galleries of the Department of Geology
and Paleontology in the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London, S.W. [New Edition. By Henry
Woodward. |—

Part I. Fossil Mammals and Birds. Pp. xii., 103. 119
Woodcuts and 1 Plan. 1890, 8vo. 6d.

Part II. Fossil Reptiles, Fishes, and Invertebrates. Pp.
xii, 109. 94 Woodcuts and 1 Plan. 1890, 8vo, 6d,
BRITISH: MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 19

“Guide to the Collection of Fossil Fishes in the Department of
Geology and Paleontology, British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, South Kensington. [By Henry Woodward. ]
2nd Edition. Pp. 51. 81 Woodcuts. Index. 1888 8vo. 4d.

‘Guide to Sowerby’s Models of British Fungi in the Department of
Botany, British Museum (Natural History). By Worthington
G. Smith, F.L.S. Pp. 82. 93 Woodcuts. With Table of
Diagnostic Characters and Index. 1893, 8vo. 4d.

‘Guide to the British Mycetozoa exhibited in the Department of
Botany, British Museum (Natural History). By Arthur Lister,
F.L.S. Pp. 42. 44 Woodcuts. Index. 1895, 8vo. 3d.

-A Guide to the Mineral Gallery of the British Museum (Natural
History). [By L. Fletcher.] Pp 32. Plan. 1895, 8vo. ld.

An Introduction to the Study of Minerals, with a Guide to the
Mineral Gallery of the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, S.W. By L. Fletcher. Pp. 120. With
numerous Diagrams, 4 Plan of the Mineral Gallery, and an
Index. 1895, 8vo. 6d.

“The Student’s Index to the Collection of Minerals, British Museum
(Natural History). [New Edition.] Pp. 33. Witha Plan of
the Mineral Gallery. 1895, 8vo. 2d.

-An Introduction to the Study of Meteorites, with a List of the
Meteorites represented in the Collection. [By L. Fletcher. ]
Pp. 94. [Witha Plan of the Mineral Gallery, and an Index to
the Meteorites represented in the Collection.] 1894, 8vo. 6d.

.An Introduction to the Study of Rocks. [By L. Fletcher.] Pp.
118. [With plan of the Mineral Gallery, table of Contents,
and Index.] 1895, 8vo. Gd.

W. H. FLOWER,
Director.
British Museum
(Natural History),
Cromwell Road,
London, S.W,

-December 1st, 1895,
 

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

    

CE TENE
Rh
a

 
      
  
         
    
    
  
     

  

Wy
a i TON
f Aesth)
ea a Lan nie
aye Mt area ea i
nape

wee m9 ea i ‘i
i t a

: “ x

   

  
   
   
  

x
Pee en a ,
yaa ae
— “ ne
iy a“ My
nana
aN m
.

 
  
   
   
  

: i
SS ‘
; SRN x

 
     
    
     
   
      

 

  
  
 
   
 

   
    
 
 
 

   
 

 
 

          

 
  

 

p we \
ay a
EAN hata RAN
aS Rea is
CARR :
eae PENN a 4 \
See
uhhh ahha thee ta a it
eh ME a
AU SAR
: mh a SRS NN wh a AN
ve PUNTA TAU et PY Ni
We h MN nN NY ul
ky iin) Lae evs ound th Ny
| Ka hek a

EW RG NCEREN