Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Getty Research Institute 
 
 https://archive.org/details/illustrationsoffOOnort 
 

 w 
 
 f%jA rw^ #iwiw»^ 
 
 $V'»<s l**-^ s?f©*^vi v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VM#i 
 
 . 
 
 
 

 

ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 FOSSIL PLANTS: 
 
 BEING 
 
 AN AUTOTYPE REPRODUCTION OF SELECTED DRAWINGS. 
 
 PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OE THE DATE 
 
 DR. LINDLEY AND MR. W. HUTTON, 
 
 BETWEEN THE YEARS 1835 AND 1840, AND NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE NORTH OF ENGLAND INSTITUTE OF MINING AND 
 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. 
 
 EDITED BY G. A. LEBOUE, 
 
 Member of the Institute, F.G.S. London and Belgium, F.R.G.S., Corr. Mem. of the Soo. 
 Geol. du Nord, and Lecturer in Geological Surveying in the University 
 of Durham College of Physical Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
 
 Hewcastle-upim-Tjjne: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE INSTITUTE BY A. REID, PRINTING COURT BUILDINGS. 
 LONDON: LONGMANS AND COMPANY. 
 
 1877 . ! 
 
 [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.] 
 
N EWCASTLE-UPOV-TYN E • 
 
 PUBLISH^ FOR THE INSTITUTE BV ANDREW REID, PRINTING COURT BUILDING: 
 
 AKENSIDF HILL. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. 
 
 Me. Hubert Laws, a Member of the Council of the North 
 of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers, 
 haying presented to that body a large collection of original 
 drawings and papers which had belonged to the late Mr. 
 William Hutton, the Council caused them to be examined 
 and reported on. 
 
 The collection was found to consist of a great 
 number of the original drawings, from which had been 
 taken the engravings illustrating Lindley and Hutton’s 
 “ Fossil Flora,” and a large number which had not been 
 published, but which, from pencil notes on them, had 
 evidently been prepared under their supervision and with 
 the intention of forming a continuation of that work. 
 
 These drawings represent important and sometimes 
 unique specimens; it was therefore resolved by the 
 Council to publish sixtjipur of them, which were thought 
 most likely to prove of value to students of Fossil Botany; 
 and the task of editing the work was entrusted to Mr. 
 G. A. Lebour, who is solely responsible for the views 
 expressed in his descriptions accompanying the plates. 
 
 Mr. Leboue was at the same time entrusted with 
 editing the Catalogue of the specimens in the Hutton 
 Collection of Fossil Plants, which is the “Catalogue” 
 referred to in the present work. 
 
As the Hutton Collection of Fossils, from which these 
 drawings were made, is the property of the Institute, the 
 presentation by Mr. Laws of the original drawings is 
 considered by the Institute as a most valuable acquisition. 
 The Council hopes that the missing drawings may be 
 found, and also presented to the Institute. 
 
 The Fossils themselves have for some years been 
 deposited by the Council in the Museum of the Natural 
 History Society of Newcastle for exhibition The original 
 drawings will remain in the Library of the Institute. 
 
 The portrait of Hutton, which forms the frontispiece, 
 is a copy of the original by Carrick, in the possession of 
 the Institute. 
 
 Newcastle, December, 1877. 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 The Sixty-four Plates now published by the North of 
 England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers, 
 are a selection from a much larger number, which were 
 prepared under the direction of Dr. Lindley and Mr. 
 Hutton, at a time when they still had the intention of 
 continuing the publication of their “ Fossil Flora.” In 
 the task of selection, the Editor has received much kindly 
 help from Professor W. C. Williamson, F.R.S., who was 
 himself one of the chief contributors to the “ Fossil Flora.” 
 Those Plates have been chosen which represent apparently 
 undescribed, rare, beautiful, or problematical specimens— 
 such specimens, in fact, as would, if brought together, form 
 the chief attractions of a collection. In the brief remarks 
 which accompany the Plates, the Editor has made as much 
 use as he could of the notes referring to them left by the 
 authors of the “Fossil Flora” or their correspondents. 
 He has followed, as far as he could, from indications of 
 date, etc., the order in which Hutton evidently intended 
 to publish the Plates, and hence their present somewhat 
 unsystematic arrangement. The manuscripts left by 
 Hutton comprise not only notes by himself and Lindley, 
 but interesting letters from Professors Phillips and W. C. 
 Williamson, Sir Roderick I. Murchison, and Messrs. Bean, 
 Witham, Conway, Murray, etc., of which a small selection 
 
will be found printed in the Appendix. The drawings 
 have for the most part an artistic value of their own, 
 apart from their scientific importance, and the Autotype 
 process by which they have been reproduced is such as 
 to leave nothing to be desired as to perfect accuracy. 
 Special attention may perhaps be directed to the Plates 
 by Prior, whilst others are from the hands of eminent 
 naturalists, such as the late Professor Phillips, Professor 
 Williamson, the late Mr. Denny, etc. 
 
 G. A. LEBOUE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introductory Notice ... . 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 . iii 
 
 Editor’s Preface ... 
 
 V 
 
 Descriptions of Plates. (See Index of Species.) ... 
 
 1-123 
 
 Appendix... 
 
 ... 125-135 
 
 Letters from : The late Professor John Phillips 
 
 125-128 
 
 The late Sir R. I. Murchison, Bart. 
 
 128 
 
 Professor W. C. Williamson 
 
 129-133 
 
 John Dunn, Esq. .. 
 
 134 
 
 Rev. W. T. Bree . 
 
 134-135 
 
Page 53, line 5 from top, for “ oxtjphilla ” read “oxyphijlla. 
 Page 128, line 5 from bottom, for “Sphenopteris” read “ 
 
Plats 1 
 
FOSSIL PLANTS. 
 
 PLATE I. 
 
 Calamites cannseformis, 
 
 SCHLOTH. 
 
 The very beautiful specimen represented in this Plate 
 comes from, the shale lying immediately above the Ben- 
 sham coal-seam, in Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 Owing to the fact that towards their base the stems 
 and branches of Calamites are very similar in several of 
 the so-called species allied to Calamites cannceformis. abso¬ 
 lute certainty cannot be claimed for the present reference. 
 It is, however, that adopted by both Bindley and Hutton, 
 in speaking of this specimen, and that likewise followed 
 in the u Catalogue,” p. 6. 
 
 Unfortunately, beyond mere mention, the Hutton 
 papers do not contain any details respecting this, in 
 some respects, unique fossil. 
 
 It is from a structural point of view that it derives 
 importance, since it shows us in a most clear and precise 
 manner the mode of attachment of branches to stem, or 
 branchlets to branch—for it is, of course, impossible to 
 say whether the central column be the main stem of a 
 somewhat slender plant, or the branch of a larger in¬ 
 dividual, although the latter alternative is probably the 
 right one. 
 
 We have here, then, a horizontal section of a Calamitean 
 stem or branch, from seven points of the circumference 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 of which spring seven leaf-bearing branches or branchlets 
 in a regular verticillate or candelabra-like arrangement, 
 upon which we look vertically, either from above, or, 
 more probably, from below. 
 
 Perhaps nothing is shown more conclusively in this 
 specimen than the very variable manner in which the 
 gradual lengthening of the internodes from the base up¬ 
 wards takes place in different branches, even belonging 
 to the same whorl. Clearly specific characters based 
 upon this point alone (as they have more than once been 
 based) must be of very small value. In the present case 
 two species of this kind could obviously be claimed 
 growing on the same stem. 
 
 At the point of junction between the branches and the 
 stem a more or less confused mass of carbonized matter, 
 rather better shown in the fossil than in the Plate, re¬ 
 presents the outer bark and sub-jacent vascular zone 
 uniting the members to the parent trunk. 
 
 The Plate is slightly reduced from the original drawing 
 by Mr. T. Johnson, which is itself about half the size of 
 the specimen. 
 
J’htfe 2 
 
 JbdfJTaturv/ Size 
 
3 
 
 PLATE II. 
 
 Calamites nodosus. 
 
 SCHLOTH. 
 
 At Plate XV. of the “ Fossil Flora” a specimen very 
 similar to the present one is figured. Each lacks 
 something possessed by the other. In the former a 
 branchlet, with attached Asterophyllitic leaf-whorls, is 
 seen apparently in place with regard to the Calamitean 
 stem by its side, but the actual junction, if it ever were 
 there, is not visible. On the other hand, our drawing 
 shows the embranchment very clearly, but the leaf-whorls 
 are missing. 
 
 Referring to their figure the authors of the “ Fossil 
 Flora” remark:—“Although we have examined a fine 
 series of specimens of this fossil [Calamites], where the 
 leaf-bearing branch is always associated with the stem, 
 yet, as in no instance they have been found actually in 
 conjunction, Fig. 1, Tab. 15, being the nearest approach 
 to it that we have seen, we pause before we finally 
 decide [that the leaves are really those of Calamites].” 
 (“ Fossil Flora,” Vol. I., p. 54; see also “ Catalogue,” 
 p. 9.) 
 
 Hutton, in naming his collection, seems to have had 
 no doubt as to the propriety of referring all the foliaged 
 specimens like the one described above to Calamites 
 nodosus. There is no reason to doubt the specific identity 
 of his and our figured fossils, and the only question open 
 to discussion is the larger one : “ Do the stems in question 
 
1 
 

 PLATE III. 
 
 Catamites nodosus. 
 
 LmDL. AND Hutt. 
 
 The name given is that in the 11 Fossil Flora.” This 
 specimen could with equal authority he referred to 
 Asteropliyllites, or to Schimper’s provisional, convenient, 
 but compromising genus Calamocladus. So far as 
 external characters are concerned (and of these alone 
 we can judge here), it is a Calamarian or Astero- 
 phyllitic stem, with attached Asterophyllitic foliage. It 
 is not the Catamites nodosus of Sternberg, but forms 
 one of that large group of leaf-covered branches which 
 Schimper has brought together under the name Calamo¬ 
 cladus longifolius. This Plate forms an instructive 
 supplement to the preceding one. # 
 
 u The Newcastle coal-field” is the only locality given. 
 The original specimen and drawing (by Prior) are 
 twice the size of the Plate. 
 

PLATE IV. 
 
 Asterophyllites. Sp. 
 
 This specimen is in many respects very like an 
 Equisetites, especially in the sheath-like processes which 
 are discernible at some of the nodes. The very delicate 
 foliage distinguishes it from any of the figured Astero¬ 
 phyllites with which we are acquainted. The name 
 under which it is here placed is that given by Hutton. 
 It resembles Brongniart’s Asterophyllites pygrace a , of 
 which there is, however, no description extant. 
 
 This elegant fossil was discovered in light brown 
 shale, at Low Moor, Yorkshire. 
 
 The figure is very slightly reduced from the original 
 drawing by Prior. 
 
 

 
 
 
1*1 an j 
 
 T' y7?A rt.fjsz 
 
11 
 
 * 
 
 PLATE Y. 
 
 Asterophyllites tuberculata. 
 
 Sternb. Sp. (?). 
 
 Although no locality is given with the original draw¬ 
 ing, it is probable that the specimen represented came 
 from the rich plant-shale above the Bensham seam, at 
 J arrow. 
 
 It is an Asteropliyllitic stem, in which the nodes are 
 obscurely marked, except on one side, by the leaf-bearing 
 branchlets (as Bindley and Hutton considered them to 
 be), or fructification spikes (according to GIeinitz and 
 Schimper). It closely resembles the Annularia latifolia of 
 Professor Schimper, but according to our rule we have 
 placed it under the Lindleyan name. 
 
 The drawing, by T. Johnson, is, like the Plate, pro¬ 
 bably of the size of nature, but we have no means of 
 being certain of this. 
 

 » 
 
PI ate S 
 
 jSfctural y/je 
 
13 
 
 PLATE VI. 
 
 Asterophyllites. Sp. 
 
 The terminal extremity of a leaf-bearing Asteropbyllitic 
 branchlet. In its fragmentary state it would be useless 
 to attempt to refer it with certainty to any particular 
 species. Although apparently allied to Asterophyllites 
 longifolia , yet it seems to be distinct from it, as its leaves 
 are shorter and more numerous. 
 
 The manner in which the terminal whorls are turned 
 upwards and squeezed together in this specimen is one 
 common in the remains of this group of plants. 
 
 Referring to this fossil, Hutton remarks, in sending it 
 to Hr. Lindley : “ Rather an unsatisfactory specimen. 
 
 . . . I already possess fragments from which, when 
 
 we get properly to understand it, I have no doubt you 
 will be able to make out several species of this interesting 
 genus.” (Hutton MSS.) 
 
 The horizon is the shale above the Bensham coal-seam, 
 and the locality, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 Natural size, by Prior. 
 

 

 P(aU \ 
 
15 
 
 PLATE VII. 
 
 Asterophyllites. Sp. 
 
 A very beautiful specimen from tbe roof of the Bensham 
 seam, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 The original drawing, by Prior, is of the natural size, 
 the reproduction in this Plate being reduced one-third. 
 The remarks made respecting the Asterophyllite in 
 Plate VI. apply equally well in this case. The leaves in 
 both cases are much more numerous and shorter than in 
 Asterophyllites longifolia , although, as a whole, the plants 
 are nearly allied to that elastic species. 
 
 The most important feature in this specimen is the 
 central stem, the form of the base of which is well 
 shown. The leaf-bearing branches belong to two 
 whorls. 
 

 
i’Uitett 
 
 
 
 /// . 
 
 
17 
 
 PLATE VIII. 
 
 Asterophyllites Huttonii. N. sp. 
 
 This extremely elegant fragment appears to belong to 
 an undescribed species of Asterophyllites. Its most salient 
 characters (so far as a mere leaf-bearing branchlet can 
 enable one to determine them) are the distinctly ribbed 
 stem with slightly prominent nodes, the leaves very 
 nearly or quite as long as the internodes, broad, lan¬ 
 ceolate, and arranged in whorls of four. 
 
 No description of this graceful species from the hand 
 of either Hutton or Lindley, to whom the specimen was 
 communicated in November, 1835, can now be found. 
 
 In the meanwhile, perhaps the name Asterophyllites 
 Huttonii may not be thought unsuitable to it. 
 
 The fossil comes, like so many others, from the shale 
 forming the roof of the Bensham coal-seam, at Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 
 The figure is of the natural size, and is one of Prior’s 
 most graceful delineations. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
t 
 

 
 \ y 
 
 i 
 
 
23 
 
 PLATE XI. 
 
 Cyclopteris (Nephropteris) obliqua. 
 
 Brong. 
 
 These two pinnules differ from those commonly met 
 with under the name Cyclopteris in being still adherent 
 to the rachis of what would probably be a species of 
 Neuropteris , possibly Neuropteris auriculata. The frond 
 of which these pinnules formed part must have been of 
 very great size. 
 
 The name Nephropteris has been conveniently attached 
 by Brongniart to a very varied assemblage of detached 
 pinnae or pinnules of this character, the true genus 
 Cyclopteris containing only a few foreign species estab¬ 
 lishing a passage between the Splienopterids and the 
 Neuropterids. 
 
 It would in the present instance be quite proper, no 
 doubt, to denote the specimen figured as Neuropteris sp., 
 but the Huttonian name (with the qualifying Nephropteris ) 
 has again been preferred. 
 
 The specimen figured is of the size represented, and 
 was found in the Bensham shale, at Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior. The Plate is reduced one- 
 third. 
 
J'/ale 
 
25 
 
 PLATE XII. 
 
 Neuropteris tenuifolia. 
 
 (SCHLOTEt.) BrONG. (?) 
 
 This specimen, one-third larger than in the Plate, is 
 one of the few British representatives of this species, if it 
 really belong to it. It is more probably a variety of 
 that or some closely allied form. 
 
 Beyond a note to the effect that it comes from Jarrow, 
 nothing is known of this handsome example. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior. 
 
 c 
 

PLATE XIII. 
 
 Neuropteris heterophylla. 
 
 Stkrnb. 
 
 Fronds so variable as those belonging to this specific 
 group need more frequent figuring than others. The 
 present example is the more normal form, and closely 
 resembles that figured in Plate 200 of the “Fossil 
 Flora.” The venation is, however, better shown in the 
 latter specimen than in ours. 
 
 Schimper inclines to look upon this species, together 
 with Neuropteris tenuifolia and Neuropteris Soretii, as 
 forming a single group, the passage between each type 
 of which is imperceptible. They are undoubtedly 
 nearly allied forms. All were large, handsome, perhaps 
 arborescent ferns, of which we now rarely find any but 
 small detached fragments. (“ Paleontologie Yegetale,” 
 t. i., p. 439.) 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, and the Plate, are of the 
 natural size. 
 
 The specimen is from the Bensham shale, Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 

Hate l‘h 
 
29 
 
 PLATE XIY. 
 
 Neuroptens heterophylla. 
 
 Sternb. 
 
 Another, but more uncommon, form of this species. 
 The size of specimen is very slightly reduced in the 
 Plate, which is from a drawing by Pexok. 
 
 This handsome fragment comes from the shale roof of 
 the Bensham coal-seam, Jarrow Colliery. 
 

31 
 
 PLATE XV. 
 
 Fragment of Neuroptericl-Frond (?). 
 
 Deferring to the drawing, of which this Plate is a 
 faithful copy, Hutton wrote to Dr. Lindley as follows, 
 in a note dated the 15th November, 1835 :— u A beau¬ 
 tiful fern, from the roof of the Bensham coal-seam, in 
 Jarrow Colliery, of which this fragment is the only in¬ 
 dication I have seen. The impression is on a coarse 
 micaceous schistus, which has not preserved any other 
 marks of the veining than the drawing represents.” 
 (Hutton MSS.) 
 
 The drawing is by Prior. 
 

33 
 
 PLATE XVI. 
 
 Pecopteris (Alethopteris) aquilina. 
 
 (SCHLOTH.) GOEPP. 
 
 It is with some diffidence that, in the absence of the 
 specimen itself, this figure is named thus. In general 
 form it closely resembles the species as figured by 
 Schimper (“ Paleontologie Vegetale,” Atlas, Plate 30, 
 fig. 8), but the details of venation, so far as they can be 
 made out in our drawing, are somewhat different. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior, and on its margin is a pencil 
 note in Lindley’s handwriting which illustrates the mode 
 of working followed by the authors of the “Fossil 
 Flora,” and which, had it been more closely adhered to 
 by Lindley and Hutton, would have much enhanced 
 the value of these Plates. It runs thus:—“As to Ferns 
 in general—pray compare them carefully with what is 
 figured in Brongniart and the F. F. [‘Fossil Flora’]. 
 Send me only such as are well preserved, and state to 
 what you conceive them nearest to approach. Pray also 
 write the notes upon the drawings, or on paper stuck to 
 the drawings.” 
 

 \ 
 
l>lat* 17 
 
35 
 
 PLATE XVII. 
 
 Pecopteris (Alethopteris) marginata. 
 
 GrOEPP. 
 
 This Plate aptly supplements Plate 213 of the “Fossil 
 Flora.” In the latter a specimen is represented under 
 the name Pecopteris marginata , the pinnules of which 
 “seem to have been drawn a little together before the 
 plant was fixed in the matrix” (“ Fossil Flora,” Vol. III., 
 p. 165). In the present case the plant-fragment is pre¬ 
 served in its natural position, and bears therefore but 
 little resemblance in general form to that previously 
 figured. 
 
 There is no locality attached to this specimen, but the 
 species is recorded from the shale lying immediately 
 above the Bensham seam at Jarrow, whence this example 
 probably came. 
 
 Both drawing (by Prior) and Plate are of natural size. 
 

 
 
I’lubelH 
 
37 
 
 PLATE XVIII. 
 
 Pecopteris. Sp. 
 
 The drawing from which this Plate is taken is marked 
 u Pecopteris abbreviata ” in Hutton’s handwriting. This 
 fern very probably belongs to the very variable group 
 comprising the species Pecopteris polymorpha and Pecop¬ 
 teris Miltoni , of which also the type Pecopteris abbreviata 
 forms part. The latter variety has never, to our know¬ 
 ledge, been found in the Northern coal-field, but Pecop¬ 
 teris (or Cyatlieites ) Miltoni is recorded from the High 
 Main shale whence the present specimen was obtained at 
 the Felling Colliery. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior, and is, like the Plate, of the. 
 size of nature. 
 
 Referring to this example is a note by Dr. Lindley:—- 
 “ Too vague for determination.” (Hutton MSS.) 
 

 
 - 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
39 
 
 PLATE XIX. 
 
 Sphemopteris macilenta. 
 
 Lindl. and Hutt. Yar. 
 
 This fragment seems to approach nearest to this species, 
 which is, however, a rare one in the North of England. 
 
 The locality is Jarrow, and the horizon is the shale 
 above the Bensham seam. 
 
 From the notes which have been preserved it appears 
 that the authors of the u Fossil Flora” intended to attach 
 a new name to this example. 
 
 Natural size, original drawing by Prior. 
 
I*Lale 20 
 
41 
 
 PLATE XX. 
 
 Pecopteris (Cyatheides) arborescens. 
 
 Bronx:. 
 
 To this specific group, variable and elastic as it is, we 
 refer this interesting specimen, which illustrates in a 
 peculiarly obvious manner the great uncertainty which 
 must always attend any serious attempt to follow a truly 
 natural classification with regard to mere detached frag¬ 
 ments of fern-fronds. PXere we have fortunately pre¬ 
 served for us a sudden modification of pinnules which 
 gives rise in the same plant to a diversity which, in less 
 happily conditioned remains, would inevitably lead to 
 the assumption that we had two species to deal with. 
 
 With all but some very marked and constant species, 
 nothing can be done beyond reference to some group of 
 forms, with which a more or less close alliance can be 
 claimed. 
 
 The Pecopterids are perhaps more open to remarks of 
 this kind than other Orders. “ The natural classification 
 of these fossils,” says Schimpee, “ often so imperfect, pre¬ 
 sents difficulties against which all endeavours in this 
 direction have hitherto failed.” (“ Paleontologie 
 Vegetale,” Vol. X., p. 498). 
 
 The drawing is by Prioe, and is of the size of nature. 
 
 The specimen comes from the shale roof of the 
 Bensham coal-seam, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 D 
 

 
 
 
 
 
J'Late 21 
 
 
43 
 
 PLATE XXI. 
 
 Pecopteris (Cyatheides) oreopteridia. 
 
 Brong. 
 
 This small fragment of a frond of great size differs 
 in some respects from the typical form of this species, 
 with which, however, it agrees in essential particulars. 
 It was found in the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 The Plate and drawing (by Price) are of the natural 
 size. 
 


45 
 
 PLATE XXII. 
 
 Pecopteris (Alethopteris) serra(?). 
 
 Lindl. and Hutt. 
 
 This elegant fern seems to hold a position midway 
 between the type above named and Pecopteris Serin 
 (Brong.) The group which embraces these types is a 
 sufficiently distinct one in itself, but the forms compos¬ 
 ing it are very difficult to separate, since they pass almost 
 imperceptibly from one to the other by very minute gra¬ 
 dations. In this specimen the number of lobes is much 
 smaller than on the pinnules of the Pecopteris serra figured 
 in the “Fossil Flora,” and the lobes are marginally 
 entire. 
 
 The fossil was found in the shale associated with the 
 High Main coal in Felling Colliery. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior, and is, as well as the Plate, 
 of the natural size. 
 
 
J‘l ate 23 
 
 
47 
 
 PLATE XXIII. 
 
 Pecopteris serra(?), 
 
 Lindl. and Hutt. 
 
 This example belongs to the same group as the last 
 (Plate XXII.) from which it differs in more closely 
 appoximating to the Pecopteris serra type. The lobes are 
 more strongly serrated than in the figured specimen 
 already referred to (“ Fossil Flora,” Plate 107). 
 
 The original drawing is inscribed in pencil (by 
 Hutton?) “ Pecopteris Silesiaca the narrow rachis, how¬ 
 ever, sufficiently separates it from that form, to which 
 otherwise it bears considerable resemblance. 
 
 The specimen comes from the shale above the Bensham 
 seam, Jarrow Collierv. 
 
 Drawing (by Prior) and Plate are of the natural size. 
 
49 
 
 PLATE XXIV. 
 
 Pecopteris (Alethopteris) Ionchitidis. 
 
 Sterne. 
 
 (Pecopteris heterophylla.) 
 
 Lindl. and Htjtt. 
 
 A remarkably fine specimen of this elegant fern. Here 
 the ordinary characters of the species (which is a very 
 common one) are found at the extremity of the pinna 
 only. The rest presents many points of similarity with 
 Pecopteris dentata although the lobes of the pinnules are 
 quite entire. The species should be compared also with 
 Pecopteris GlocJceri (Goepp.) and with Pecopteris Serlii, 
 through which it is allied to the group referred to in con¬ 
 nexion with Plates XXII. and XXIII. 
 
 The autotype is about two-thirds of the original draw¬ 
 ing (by Prior) which is of the natural size. 
 
 This beautiful fossil came from the shale roof of the 
 Bensham seam, Jarrow Colliery. 
 

 
Flair 25 
 
 
 V\UU 
 y fytf y 
 
51 
 
 PLATE XXV. 
 
 Pecopteris pennaeformis. 
 
 Brong. 
 
 Another species of the same general character as the 
 three last. Closely allied to Pecopteris dentata this form 
 appears to differ from it, as the authors of the “ Fossil 
 Flora ” remark, solely almost in the absence of crenelling 
 of the lobes. 
 
 This specimen is also from the Bensliam shale in 
 Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 The drawing (by Prior) and the Plate are both of the 
 natural size. 
 
53 
 
 PLATE XXVI. 
 
 Pecopteris Silesiaca. 
 
 Goepp. Yar. 
 
 This specimen is nearly akin to the type-form of this 
 species, from which it differs principally in the spacing 
 of the lobes, which is greater than in Goeppert’s figure 
 (“ Sytema Filicum Fossilium,” Plate 27). It is also 
 allied, but more distantly, to Pecopteris oxyphilla of the 
 same author. 
 
 The fern, of which this is a mere fragment, must have 
 been of very large size, since the drawing (by Prior) is 
 one-half the size of nature, whilst the figure in the Plate 
 is one-third smaller than in the drawing. 
 
 N.B.—-The words “ half r natural size” in the Plate 
 apply to the original drawing only. 
 
 The fossil comes from the Bensham shale, Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 

 
Plate 2j 
 
 
 ■ verity. <•«./. 
 
55 
 
 PLATE XXVII. 
 
 Neuropteris, Sp. 
 
 Unfortunately no notes are to be found by means of 
 which the history of this very beautiful specimen can be 
 traced. It is called Pecopteris on the original drawing, 
 but the manner in which the lobes are attached to the mid¬ 
 rib, and the angles at which the nervures spring from it, 
 give the frond an essentially Neuropterid character. The 
 heterophyllous nature of the plant is remarkably well 
 shown. 
 
 The locality and horizon are both unknown. 
 


 Plate 28 
 
 
 'v a (^/j r c at. 
 
57 
 
 PLATE XXVIII. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 A most elegant Sphenopterid fern, allied to, but quite 
 distinct from, Sphenopteris obovata. The specimen is, 
 unfortunately, not to be found. It probably came from 
 the Scarborough Oolites. 
 
 The drawing is by T. Johnson. 
 
 The extreme difficulty of specific determination with 
 regard to the beautiful fronds which form the so-called 
 genus Sphenopteris , is too generally admitted to need 
 enlarging on here. The almost endless variety of forms, 
 which there is yet good reason to believe belong to 
 identical groups within the genus, affords a too ample 
 field to the nomenclator, and commands caution in pro¬ 
 posing new specific names. 
 
 K 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-P/ate 29 
 
 
 
 
 Ji1a(fnc/u y (/ 
 
59 
 
 PLATE XXIX. 
 
 Pecopteris Saciniata. 
 
 Linde. and ITutt. 
 
 (Pecopteris [Alethopteris] muricata.) 
 
 Goepp. 
 
 In many respects this fern is strikingly Sphenop- 
 teridian in form, a fact winch may account for the name 
 attached to the original drawing —Sphenopteris macilenta. 
 The venation is well seen in this specimen, an important 
 character which was entirely absent in that figured in the 
 u Fossil Flora,” Plate 122. The unusually acute angle 
 at which the veins spring from the mid-ribs of the lobes 
 is particularly well-shown here. 
 
 This fossil was found in the Bensham shale in Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 
 Drawing (by Pkiok) and Plate are both of the natural 
 
 size. 
 

 
Hate 30 
 
 
 One 77'irtl Sty 
 
61 
 
 PLATE XXX. 
 
 Sphenopteris iatifolia. 
 
 Brong. Var. 
 
 A handsome form of this variable species. 
 
 The specimen comes from the Bensham shale in Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, is one-third of the natural 
 size, as marked in our Plate, which is two-nintlis of the 
 natural size. 
 

 
 
 
Plate, 31 
 
63 
 
 PLATE XXXI. 
 
 Sphenopteris latifolia. 
 
 Brong. Yar. 
 
 Another, but very different variety of this species. In 
 the absence of venation little need be said respecting this 
 specimen, which, like the last, comes from the shale roof 
 of the Bensham seam, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 The drawing is by Pkior, and is, like our figure, of the 
 natural size. 
 
 The Pecopteridian affinities (as to form) of this variety 
 will be readily observed. 
 
Tlate 32 
 
65 
 
 PLATE XXXII. 
 
 Sphenopteris linearis. 
 
 Sterne. Var. 
 
 This pretty fern appears to hold an intermediate posi¬ 
 tion between the typical form of this species and the 
 Sphenopteris obovata of the “Fossil Flora,” Plate 109 
 (= Adiantides microphyllus (Groepp.), a Cyclopterid form). 
 The lobes are, in the present case, in nowise wedge- 
 shaped, but the absence of the details of venation pre¬ 
 cludes detailed description. 
 
 The drawing (by Prior) and the Plate are of the 
 natural size. 
 
 The specimen comes from the Bensham shale, Jarrow 
 Colliery. 
 
PlaU$ 
 
67 
 
 PLATE XXXIII. 
 
 Sphenopteris (Eremopteris) artemisisefolia (?). 
 
 (Sternb.) Sch. Yar. 
 
 It is with much doubt that this remarkable specimen 
 is referred to this group—one which includes forms so 
 delicate as Sphenopteris crithmifolia of Lindley and 
 Hutton, and others, more like the present one, such as 
 Sphenopteris stricta of Sternberg. 
 
 One of the authors of the u Fossil Flora,” in a pencil 
 note, seems tc hint that this may possibly be the im¬ 
 pression of an alga. 
 
 This and the three following Plates are from drawings 
 by Mr. T. W. Embleton. The specimens represented 
 came from the shale forming the roof of the High Main 
 at Fawdon Colliery. 
 
c PlaP34< 
 
69 
 
 PLATE XXXIY. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 This fossil also came from Fawdon Colliery, and from 
 the same horizon as the last. 
 
 The Plate is reduced one-third from the original 
 drawing by Mr. Embleton. 
 
FI ate 35 
 
71 
 
 PLATE XXXV. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 Probably the same as the last. (See remarks in the 
 description of Plate XXXIII.) 
 
 Both Plate and drawing are of the same size, and the 
 latter is signed with Mr. Embleton’s monogram. 
 
 Also from Fawdon Colliery. 
 

Tlate 36 
 
73 
 
 PLATE XXXVI. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 This plant is as curious and as unsatisfactory as the 
 three last. (See the remarks made with reference to 
 Plate XXXIII.) 
 
 From Fawdon Colliery. 
 
 Drawing and Plate are of the same size; the former is 
 by Mr. Embleton. 
 
 F 
 
/'late , 3 / 
 
75 
 
 PLATE XXXVII. 
 
 Sphenopteris alciphylla. 
 
 Prill. MS. 
 
 Nothing need he added to the following letter of the 
 late Professor John Phillips, the first part of which 
 relates to this fossil. The rest will he welcome, it is 
 thought, to all connected with Newcastle-on-Tyne, or 
 interested in the British Association:— 
 
 York, 26 th April, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Hutton, 
 
 I think it probable that the little favourite fossil plant, of 
 which I send a drawing and enlargement [our Plate is a fac-simile of this 
 original drawing by Professor Phillips], will win your affection, and 
 cause Lindley no trouble. The specimen was found in sinking a Pit on 
 the North-w r est side of the Diver Lune, near Oughton, in the series of 
 Millstone Grit Docks, near a thin bed of coal, worked to some considerable 
 extent, on the Diver Lune. With this Coal, which corresponds to that 
 of Tan Hill, Pea Hill, Colsterdale, Penyghent, &c., as described in 
 my work on the geology of Yorkshire, Yol. 2, occur Lepidodendron, 
 Stigmaria, traces of ferns, Calamites, etc. At some distance above it are 
 Goniatites, Posidoniae, and many other marine shells, some Crinoids, 
 Corals, etc. 
 
 The plant lies in a sandy laminated rock, here called Shiver (sandy 
 shale) ; its substance is coal; the state of Conservation admirable. Its 
 structure, etc., will be fully apparent to you from the drawing, which is 
 of the natural size, and the enlargements. I never like to cause em- 
 barassment on the subject of names, else I might propose for the plant 
 the specific name of Alciphylla, from the odd resemblance to an elk’s horn 
 which the leaf exhibits. It is in the possession of Mr. Webster, of 
 Lancaster, who made the experiments for coal, and is kept by him as a 
 specimen of the Docks sunk through, else I should have been allowed to 
 transfer it to York. 
 
76 
 
 I think the Newcastle Institutions have an excellent chance of per¬ 
 suading the Association [Professor Phillips was one of the founders and 
 the General Secretary of the British Association for the Advancement of 
 Science] to visit the Tyne, either next year or very soon, because of the 
 excellent spirit in which the deputations from the Lit. and N. H. Society 
 [Literary and Philosophical and Natural History Societies] have urged 
 and withdrawn their invitations—urged respectfully and withdrawn very 
 generously, to save awkward discussions. I think you must be on the 
 alert, to gain the next visit. You must assure the Committee, at Liver¬ 
 pool, of the good extent of your apartments, their contiguity, etc. As 
 many as seven sectional rooms, holding in seats from 150 to 450 members 
 each, seven committee rooms adjacent, general evening conversation 
 parties, the General Committee, Council, reception rooms, etc., must be 
 also provided for (at least twenty in all). 
 
 As to money, I hope the expenses of the visits may be gradually 
 reduced to the compass of a philosopher’s wishes. At present it is a 
 serious cost to the town which entertains; but on this, if you want any 
 hints, I will send to you further. The apartments are the essential 
 desiderata. 
 
 Ever yours most truly, 
 
 (Signed) JOHN PHILLIPS. 
 
 (Hutton MSS.) 
 
 One of the magnified portions shows the exterior of 
 the dorsal face of the rachis wrinkled and longitudinally 
 striated, whilst the larger of the magnified lobes shows 
 the striae of neuration on the anterior face. 
 
 The specimen was found at a depth of twenty yards 
 in the Wegber Pit, in the locality above mentioned. 
 

-Plate 39 
 
79 
 
 PLATE XXXIX. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 A variety belonging to the elegant group of linear 
 ferns, of which Sphenopteris affinis and Sphenopteris linearis 
 may be regarded as the type. It is in some respects 
 not unlike Sphenopteris arguta (“Fossil Flora,” Plate 
 CLXVIXI.) We have unfortunately no information of 
 any kind respecting this beautiful specimen. 
 
 Probably from Yorkshire. 
 
 The Plate is reduced one-fourth of the original drawing. 
 

 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
-t*l'ate bO 
 
 
PLATE XL. 
 
 Pecopteris. Sp. 
 
 We have no information respecting this specimen. 
 
 The original drawing by Prior (presumably of the 
 natural size) is twice the size of our Plate. 
 
 A pencil note on the back of the drawing gives the 
 generic name Steffensia. This is an obvious mistake, 
 however. The fronds figured are in some respects very 
 like Pecopteris obtusifolia, Murray (“Fossil Flora,” Plate 
 CLVUL) 
 
 G 
 
JPlcLta- M 
 
83 
 
 PLATE XLI. 
 
 Sphenopteris. Sp. 
 
 We much regret having no information concerning 
 this interesting specimen. It is apparently a most ab¬ 
 normal form of Sphenopterid in many respects resembling 
 the linear ferns which form so important a group of that 
 assemblage, but in others it seems to claim relationship 
 with Stenopteris. In general form, again, it can claim 
 alliance with the Moravian Kulm fern, the Pecopteris 
 divaricata of Gceppeet. 
 
 The drawing is by T. Johnson. 
 

 
 

85 
 
 PLATES XLII. and XLIII. 
 
 Rhacophyllum (?) 
 
 These are two renderings of one specimen, one by 
 Johnson and the other by Prior, slightly reduced in 
 Plate XLIII. They differ so materially that, in the 
 absence of the specimen itself, it has been thought best 
 to autotype both. Judging by the almost perfect 
 and unfailing accuracy in essentials which characterizes 
 Prior’s drawings in general, we prefer to base our 
 remarks on Plate XLIII. The portion of Calamite stem 
 which is omitted in the other Plate need not be enlarged 
 upon, unless, as is possible, it formed the surface on 
 which the supposed parasitic Rhacophyllum grew. It is 
 with the utmost diffidence that any name is assigned to 
 the plant-remains here represented, chiefly to call atten¬ 
 tion to the likeness which the upper left-hand portion 
 at least bears to Rhacophyllum flabellatum of Sternberg. 
 

 Tla te l 
 
 
87 
 
 PLATE XLIV. 
 
 (?) 
 
 Another very vague specimen which Lindley declined 
 to name, his memorandum respecting it being:—“too 
 imperfect.” The drawing was, nevertheless, intended 
 for publication. It came from the Bensham coal-seam 
 horizon, Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 Our figure is slightly reduced from that of the original 
 drawing by Prior. 
 
Fh(t& H) 
 
 
 
 
91 
 
 PLATE XLVI. 
 
 Spiropteris. 
 
 SCHIMPER. 
 
 Another beautiful specimen of circinate vernation, this 
 time probably in a Pecopterid fern. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior, but no further information 
 beyond the fact that the specimen comes from the 
 Bensham seam horizon, at Jarrow Colliery, is to be 
 found respecting it. 
 
i\ T (tfturi/ -S/y 
 
 Tlaie 
 
93 
 
 PLATE XL VII. 
 
 Spiropteris (?) 
 
 SCHIMPER. 
 
 A very puzzling specimen. Probably another form of 
 circinate vernation, but the impression is too imperfect 
 as to details to enable anything but the general aspect of 
 the plant being seen. Hutton himself could assign it no 
 name, and sent one side of the fossil to Dr. Lindley, 
 together with the drawing, “that you may have a better 
 guess what this is.” Lindley, however, returned the 
 drawing marked, with a query. 
 
 The specimen is an impression “ in shale from Jarrow 
 Colliery.” 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, is of the natural size, and so 
 is the Plate. 
 
J°late }<8 
 
95 
 
 PLATE XLVIII. 
 
 Fern Stem. 
 
 Probably the basal portion, or root extremity, of a 
 fern. 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, is taken from a .specimen 
 found in the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery. Our 
 figure is of the natural size. 
 

97 
 
 PLATE X LIX. 
 
 Fern Stem. 
 
 This stem has a very Sigillarian appearance, but it 
 is more probably a fern stem somewhat allied to the 
 smoother forms of the Triassic pseudo-genus Chelepteris 
 of Corda. The spiral arrangement of the scars is well 
 known. 
 
 Our Plate is reduced one-fourth from Prior’s drawing. 
 
 The locality is not known. 
 
 H 
 

/’la te JO 
 
99 
 
 PLATE L. 
 
 Sigillaria reniformis. 
 
 Brong. Yar. 
 
 The drawing of which our Plate is a slight reduction 
 is named thus, in pencil, by Hutton ; but although the 
 specimen (an unbarked one) bears much resemblance in 
 some respects to that species, yet, in the form of the 
 scars and in their much more marked alternation, it 
 differs obviously from the types figured in the “ Fossil 
 Flora” (Plates LYII. and LXXI.) 
 
 The following note is all the information we have with 
 regard to this specimen :— u Scars in relief—Bolton.” 
 
 The drawing is by Pkiok. 
 
Plate, 51 
 
101 
 
 PLATE LI. 
 
 Sigillaria. Sp. 
 
 The figure is about one-eighth of the natural size, and 
 shows a good example of the casts of Sigillarian trees, 
 which are common in the Carboniferous Sandstones of 
 the North, of England. 
 
 The locality of this particular specimen is not given. 
 
 The original drawing (one-fifth of the natural size) is 
 by Prior. 
 

 4 
 
 
103 
 
 PLATE L11. 
 
 Lepidophyllum binerve. 
 
 Hutton MS. 
 
 An undescribed leaf of Lepidodendron, well defined 
 and easily distinguished from Lepidophyllum majus , 
 intermedium , and acuminatum (= Lepidophyllum trinerve 
 Lindley and Hutton, “ Fossil Flora,” Plate CLII.) by 
 the two broad longitudinal nervures and the indistinct¬ 
 ness or apparent absence of midrib. 
 
 This fossil is especially interesting, since it approaches 
 very near to certain Sigillarian leaves. Compare, for 
 instance, with the leaves of Sigillaria, figured in Plate 
 XLIII. of the u Fossil Flora” (Figs. 1 and 2), under the 
 name Cyperites licarinata. 
 
 The specimen represented came from Bolton. 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, and our figure, are of the 
 natural size. 
 

 
 
 
 
JPlaU S3 
 
 
105 
 
 PLATE LIII. 
 
 Lepidophyilum lanceoiatum. 
 
 Lindl. and Hutt. 
 
 A large specimen of this so-called species, nearly allied 
 to Lepidophyilum majus of Brongniart. 
 
 The specimen (of the size represented) came from the 
 Bensham coal shale, Jarrow Colliery. 
 

Plate 56 
 
107 
 
 PLATES LIV., LV., and LYI. 
 
 Lepidodendroid strobili. 
 
 The three cones or Lepidostrobi figured in these Plates 
 form part of a series illustrated by the late Mr. H. Denny, 
 a well-known Yorkshire naturalist. Beyond these drawings 
 we have no information respecting the specimens, but as 
 we have hope of finding the notes which evidently accom¬ 
 panied the drawings (they are numbered for reference) 
 among some more of the late Mr. Hutton’s papers, we 
 will withhold any remarks on these fossils for the present. 
 

Plate 57 
 
109 
 
 PLATE LVII. 
 
 Cryptomerites divaricatus, 
 
 Phill. 
 
 This specimen is thus referred to by Professor W. C. 
 Williamson, F.R.S.:— 
 
 April 21 th , 1887. 
 
 No. 1 [the upper figure] is a very peculiar little plant of which I 
 have only had two specimens: it appears to have been of a semi-succulent 
 nature, but being preserved in a gray granular ironstone its more minute 
 characters are ill-defined. At first sight it resembles Lycopodites, but 
 its more regular pinnated form and the thick and distinct stem and rachis 
 distinguish it. The central stem has evidently not been smooth, but a 
 scaly character, though from the change the plant has undergone these 
 scales present no distinct form. The small pinnules branch irregularly 
 from the rachis, sometimes opposite or sometimes alternating, but the 
 little leaflets are generally alternate, and these are arranged in a similar 
 manner though less distinctly on either side of the rachis. They are from 
 a seam of ironstone in the Upper Sandstone of Phillips, a few miles north 
 of Scarborough. No. 2 [the lower figure] is a magnified pinnule. 
 
 (Hutton MSS.) 
 

 
Plate JS 
 
Ill 
 
 PLATE L V111. 
 
 A Cycad. 
 
 This Plate is a reproduction of another drawing by 
 Mr. Denny, and forms part of the series mentioned 
 with reference to Plates LIY., LV., and LVII. The 
 observations there made apply equally to this figure. 
 
J^lccte 59 
 
113 
 
 PLATE L I X. 
 
 Rootlets. 
 
 In this Plate and the three following ones we have 
 excellent examples of some of those numerous ambiguous 
 plant-remains which have afforded such a wide field for 
 the ingenuity of describers. Whether they be roots or 
 rootlets, and if so of what plants, or whether they be 
 algoid growths, are questions which, in the fragmentary 
 state of most of the specimens of the kind, and in the 
 absence of any details of structure, cannot be decided. 
 
 In the present case there is little reason to doubt that 
 we have rootlets to deal with. 
 
 The drawing, by Prior, and our figure, are of the 
 natural size. 
 
 The specimen comes from the Bensham coal shale, in 
 Jarrow Colliery. 
 
 I 
 

 Pla te 60 
 
115 
 
 PLATE LX. 
 
 Rootlets. 
 
 A much more delicately ramified specimen than the 
 last. Something very like it is to be seen at the lower 
 left hand corner of the slab figured in Plate XLIII., and 
 indeed examples of this kind are frequently met with in 
 coal shales, although seldom so perfect as this one. 
 
 The drawing and the Plate are both of the natural 
 size ; the former is by Prior. 
 
 This fossil was found in the shale above the High 
 Main coal, in Felling Colliery. 
 
flate 61 
 
117 
 
 PLATE L XI. 
 
 Root (?) 
 
 A very obscure specimen, from the Bensham coal 
 shale, at Jarrow Colliery. Probably of the same nature 
 as the two last. 
 
 The original drawing, by Prior, is of the natural size, 
 and slightly larger than our figure. 
 
JPlccte 62 
 
119 
 
 PLATE L X11. 
 
 Root. 
 
 This closely resembles the Myriophyllites gracilis of 
 Artis, which is figured in Plate CX. of the “ Fossil 
 Flora” as “ a fossil aquatic root.” Nothing need he 
 added to the description there given of these prob¬ 
 lematical remains. (“ Fossil Flora,” Vol. II., p. 77, etc.) 
 
 Like the specimen above referred to, this one comes 
 from the Low Main horizon of Felling Colliery. 
 
 Plate and drawing are of the natural size, the latter is 
 by Prior. 
 

 
 
Plate, 63 
 
121 
 
 PLATE L X111. 
 
 Root (?) 
 
 If this be indeed a root, as Hutton supposed, it is 
 certainly of a very different character from either of 
 the three last figured specimens. There is a certain 
 symmetry about the embranchments, and a certain 
 leaf-like form about the filaments, that might make one 
 doubt the reference. On the other hand, it is difficult to 
 say to what other department of vegetable organization 
 it may belong, especially as no signs of structure are 
 visible. 
 
 The figure is about one-tliird smaller than the original 
 drawing by Prior, which was of the natural size. 
 
 k ‘ The Newcastle coal-field” is all the locality given. 
 
TLa,t& 6$ 
 
123 
 
 PLATE LXIY. 
 
 Calamites. 
 
 A remarkable confused mass of broken calamarian 
 stems, being a small portion of a continuous bed or band of 
 the same nature. It affords an excellent insight into the 
 profuse occurrence of these plants, and the manner in 
 which they assisted in the formation of coal—probably 
 more than any other plants. 
 
 An instructive specimen, twice the size of our figure, 
 from the Newcastle coal-field. 
 
 The drawing is by Prior. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The following is a selection from a number of letters 
 forming part of the “ Hutton MSS.” Some of them 
 referring to drawings or specimens which are not to be 
 found may be to some extent unintelligible, but they are 
 printed here in the hope that their publication may cause 
 the discovery of such missing drawings or fossils. 
 
 Letters from the late Prof. John Phillips, F.R.S., etc. 
 
 I. 
 
 (No date.) 
 
 My dear Hutton, —As to these Stone Plants (fossilized Hazle), I 
 have intended to send you another bit, and will do so if yon write to 
 say again and want it. Pray let this little vegetable beauty, from Wray, 
 in Lancashire, out of shale full of Posidonia, G-oniates, etc., be figured; 
 and if Lindley can prove it to be distinct from a young broom, or some¬ 
 thing of that sort, let it be so. I think it to be the greatest curiosity I 
 ever saw from, the Millstone Grit series. Pray return it very safely. Why 
 do you talk of ending your Possil Plants ? Johnston is going else I 
 would add more. 
 
 Ever yours, etc., 
 
 (Signed) John Phillips. 
 
 II. 
 
 Remarks on Five Drawings of Fossil Plants, by John 
 Phillips, F.R.S., etc. 
 
 (No date.) 
 
 1.—These are all drawn by myself from specimens which I have ex¬ 
 amined carefully, in the collections of my friends or in my own cabinet. 
 The drawings are all of the natural size. 
 
 J 
 
126 
 
 A. —This is the plaster cast of a fossil stem from Camerton Colliery, 
 in Somersetshire, where the specimen was, I believe, found in the year 
 1800. It was, I think, in the possession of the late C. J. Harford, Esq., 
 a friend of the late Rev. J. Townsend, of Pewsey (author of a well-known 
 geological work embodying many of Mr. ¥m. Smith’s early views), and 
 
 of the late Rev. — Benjamin, of Farley, in whose collection. 
 
 It was given to me by . . . . [A large portion of the letter is here 
 
 cut out, and no drawing corresponding to this description can be found.] 
 
 B. —Also from the Somersetshire coal-field. I have never seen another 
 specimen. This is in the collection of Thomas Meade, Esq., of Chatley 
 Lodge, near Bath. The plant lies in the centre of a large flattened 
 round module of ironstone, and is represented as to substance by a thin 
 scaly bituminous coal. The structure was copied faithfully, but it is sup¬ 
 posed that more of the fine venation of the leaves might have been dis¬ 
 covered by longer examination. Each leaf has a midrib of great regularity 
 and parallel fine veins. The leaves appear to have been verticillate in two 
 rows, like a double flower, and to have supported in the centre a tumid 
 portion, giving the notion of a convex receptacle, of which the surface is 
 granulated, or rather marked with many curved lines. [The drawing 
 thus described is fortunately preserved. Here the portion of the letter 
 already mentioned as being cut out again interferes with the sequence.] 
 
 C. —Is the internal portion, rather flattened, with articulations at un¬ 
 equal distances, furrows of slight depth, the intervening spaces slightly 
 convex, and no ramuscular impressions. The verticillar belt of cicatrices 
 of branches presents oblong approximate concave impressions, with some 
 dubious traces of central structure. 
 
 D. —Is the external impression, with the cicatrices of branches convex, 
 and the longitudinal sulci, less distinct, near them. [C and D refer to 
 Calamites verticillatus, the drawing marked C being figured as Plate 
 CXXXIX. of the “ Fossil Flora,” at p. 159 (Yol. II.), of which will be 
 found quoted the missing passage in this letter. The drawing D is pre¬ 
 served, but has not been published. It is dated April 13, 1828.] 
 
 I may take this opportunity of noticing that the occurrence of Cala¬ 
 mites, Sigillaria, and Lepidodendra in sandstone rocks is common in the 
 Yorkshire coal-field, through most parts of the series; that is to say, 
 through a thickness of 1,000 yards. It does not appear at present that 
 the different species can be assigned to different parts of the series, but 
 on this subject we have much to learn. Some of the species occur in the 
 sedimentary rocks associated with the Mountain Limestone, as do also 
 Stigmaria, Sternbergia, and several Lepidodendra. 
 
127 
 
 E.—The structure in this specimen appears to me better exhibited 
 than in any which I have ever seen. It is from Somersetshire, and is in 
 my cabinet. [This drawing is missing.] 
 
 (Signed) J. Phillips. 
 
 As a P.S. comes the following :— 
 
 Dear Hutton, — I have written as you wished my remarks on my 
 drawings, and hope they may be of use. But I have scrawled (currente 
 calamo as befits one who writes concerning Calamites), and you must 
 round sentences or rub them out as you may find most convenient. I 
 have some other odd tilings in your line at home. 
 
 J. P. 
 
 III. 
 
 The following letter is endorsed “unintelligible,” by 
 
 Hutton :— 
 
 Buxton, 27 th June, 1836. 
 
 My dear Hutton, — I have found, or rather my sister, to-day in the 
 midst of the great mass of Derbyshire Limestone—-which corresponds to 
 the lower portion of the Mountain Limestone series of Yorkshire—some 
 interesting specimens of marine plants which, perhaps, may be worthy of 
 notice in one of the forthcoming parts of the “Fossil Flora.” You know I 
 have been always on the look out for marine plants, because this is pre¬ 
 cisely the part of fossil botany which appears to me the least explored. 
 And it is probable that we shall find yet a considerable number of them 
 in the marine calcareous strata, which yield so few land plants. I there¬ 
 fore make no apology for sending you very careful drawings of the best 
 portions, with some remarks. [Here come full detailed references 
 which it would be useless to print without the drawing. The latter is 
 carefully preserved. He goes on :]—The plants I suppose to be marine, 
 notwithstanding the aspect of [Nos.] five and six. They lie in smoky, 
 laminated limestone, holding Producta Martini, and in the midst of 
 much more massive beds of light grey, compact limestone, only partially 
 crinoidal and shelly. 
 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 (Signed) J. Phillips. 
 
 Here follows a P.S. on personal matters which we omit. 
 
128 
 
 IV. 
 
 This letter will be found printed in full at p. 75, in 
 the reference to Plate XXXVII. 
 
 The next is a note from the late Sir Roderick I. 
 Murchison, Bart., etc.:— 
 
 Nursted House, Petersfield, 
 
 March 30 th, 1837. 
 
 Dear Lindley, —My chapter on the Clee Hills coal-field is going to the 
 press, and among the plants cited on your authority are three species of 
 Sphenopteris, S. crenata, S. zamioides, S. furcata, which I state are to le 
 figured by you (1834 your MSS.), and yet I cannot find them in the 
 “ Fossil Flora.” 
 
 You certainly so named the plants, for I have your letter to that 
 effect. Is it that they have been mislaid or forgotten ? 
 
 Yours ever, 
 
 (Signed) Rod. I. Murchison. 
 
 The rest follows as a P.S. 
 
 I intended to have gone to Worcester this week, and I therefore 
 requested that the plants of the New Red might not be sent until I saw 
 them and selected from them. 
 
 Having, however, given up my journey for the present, intending to 
 go at Whitsuntide, I shall order them up to town. 
 
 If there is any one of the species alluded [to] not figured I would re¬ 
 quest you to name it Sphenopteris Lewisii, after Mr. Lewis, in whose 
 coal-field of Knowlbury they were all found. 
 
 Whenever you publish a list of errata, permit me to send you some 
 essential corrections of spelling (Knowlbury among others). 
 
 Whose name is Lepidodendron tetragonum ? Is it Sternberg’s ? 
 
 I further observe that in this Knowlbury basin, in the Clee Hills, 
 there are two unpublished Sigillariae, besides the Sphenopteris Murchisoni 
 —either of these might be named after Mr. Lewis. 
 
 If there has been any mistake the original specimens are at the Geo¬ 
 logical Society. 
 
 I shall be in town on Wednesday next. 
 
129 
 
 Sphenopteris furcata is figured at Plate CLXXXL, and 
 Sphenopteris crenata at Plate XXXIX. of the “Fossil 
 Flora.” The suggestion of the new specific name Lewisii 
 came too late to be acted on, as the issue of the “ Fossil 
 Flora” was brought to a close in 1837. 
 
 Letters from Professor W. C. Williamson, F.R.S.:— 
 
 I. 
 
 Scarborough, November 28th, 1832. 
 
 Sir, — I liaye at length been able to complete the promised drawings, 
 which I hope will be of use to the “British Flora,” as they are on a sub¬ 
 ject rather different to any you have yet described—the following part of 
 the vegetable kingdom 
 
 No. 1 is copied from a fragment of a large stem which, when perfect, 
 measured about three feet in length, but owing to its being compressed so 
 flat and thin, and to the hard nature of the rock where it was embedded, 
 it could not be got out entire. At its top it w T as about three and a quarter 
 inches in diameter : it is grooved or sulcated longitudinally, the grooves 
 becoming more indistinct as they approach the lower end, which increased 
 to about three and a half inches in width. It is divided into joints from 
 four to five inches long at the upper part, but they become shorter as they 
 are nearer the root. The leaves, of one of which there is a small frag¬ 
 ment shown in the drawing No. 1, are found crushed and broken in 
 immense quantities by the side of the stem, but never attached. My 
 father [the late Mr. Williamson, of Scarborough, who died on the 15th 
 July, 1877, at the age of ninety-three] has seen them upwards of two 
 feet long and neither of the ends perfect. How much longer they may 
 have been we cannot say. The Petiole is deeply sulcated longitudinally, 
 and is nearly half an inch in width ; it is frequently decomposed, and the 
 residuum is a white powder which falls out when exposed to the air. The 
 Folioles are long and pointed, strongly sulcated in the same manner as 
 the Petiole to which they are attached by the whole of their base. 
 
 The Flower, Fig. 2, is round and bulky. The petals are long, 
 smooth, and lanceolate, curling outwards towards the stalk. From the 
 base of the petals to the edge of where the receptacle has been, is deeply 
 and irregularly striated. There is a perforation through the stem where 
 
130 
 
 the stalk has been, which fell out in the form of the white powder before 
 mentioned. In the centre is a large cavity formed by the decay of the 
 receptacle or calyx. 
 
 Fig. 3 is an outline of the specimen, Fig. 1, about the natural size as 
 it lay in the rock when found. The stem, as I mentioned before, was 
 nearly an equal thickness its whole length, convex at the top whence ran 
 out three small stalks from the centre, with a perfect flower at the end of 
 each, all which are now in our Museum. They only differ from the one 
 I have figured in being much smaller, and have the cavity of the re¬ 
 ceptacle filled up with nothing in which any character can be observed. 
 
 In all the specimens I have examined I can find no traces of scars or 
 cicatrices. That it has been hollow there is no doubt about, for the 
 impression is so thin, and the stone in the interior is exactly the same as 
 the rock in which it is embedded. These plants differ from the Palmae 
 (Lindley’s Introduction to Natural History of Botany) in having the flower 
 composed of many petals, and having no scars. From Filiees in their 
 bearing flowers, and though I have taken all the pains in my power, 
 I cannot find any other genus to refer them to, but must leave it to your 
 superior judgment. 
 
 This singular Plant was found in an Ironstone bed, forming the base 
 of the Lower Sandstone and Shale near Runswick, which frequently falls 
 down in immense masses, containing the vegetables. 
 
 I remain, deal 1 Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 (Signed) Wji. "Williamson. 
 
 The above letter is probably one of the earliest contri¬ 
 butions of Professor Williamson, to a branch of science 
 which he has since made so thoroughly his own. The 
 drawing is wanting, but the fossils referred to are no 
 doubt still to be found in the Scarborough Museum. 
 
 II. 
 
 Scarborough, Feb. 21th, 1835. 
 
 My Dear Sir, —I have again sent you a small assortment of descrip¬ 
 tions of our interesting fossil vegetables, of which the most important are 
 what I suppose are parts of Cycadean fructification. These singular 
 
131 
 
 remains were some time ago partially brought under your notice, when I 
 sent you a drawing of a collar, or annular assemblage of petal-like scales, 
 with a stem and leaves. The stem, I think you decided, was that of a 
 calamite, and of the other parts you wished for further illustrations. 
 Since then my father and I went to Whitby, expressly to examine the 
 locality, and our examination was in some measure crowned with success. 
 The first new object we met with was the beautiful impression of a stem, 
 with large, smooth, oval cicatrices, regularly disposed, and the intervening 
 spaces filled up with rough ridges, evidently impressions of the fissures in 
 the cortical integuments.* Fearful of not being able to obtain it entire, 
 as it was only a hollow impression, and in a dreadfully hard, irony rock, 
 I took the drawing, a copy of which I have sent you (No. 1.) The 
 upper part was strongly marked with the cortical fissures, as well as the 
 bottom; but from my endeavours to take a faithful representation of the 
 one, I had not time to complete the other, as we had a considerable distance 
 to travel to our destination for the night. It appears to have been a part 
 from the centre of a large stem, as there was little or no difference in the 
 diameter at the respective ends. 
 
 As I foresaw, the most careful efforts of my father’s practised chisel 
 were only able to preserve some fragments of the cicatrices, which are now 
 in the Museum. 
 
 No. 2 is a small collar, which we more frequently find than the large 
 ones. They differ in having, as far as I can discover in the specimens 
 found, no perforation passing through them, and have not the striated 
 interior sent some time ago. 
 
 No. 3 is an impression of part of a collar, the scales and stalk of which 
 have been destroyed by exposure to the atmosphere and sea. It shows 
 that the form under which we find the collars has not been the perfect one, 
 but that the cavity, where the stamens and pistil ought to have been had 
 it been a flower, has been filled up with a continuous stalk. The impres¬ 
 sion of the scales are rather narrow, and closely attached to one another 
 at the base. 
 
 No. 4 is a similar impression of scales, but here they have been older, 
 become broader and more widely separated from one another. 
 
 No. 5 is a fragment of a frond of immense size, which I think you will 
 find to be a more accurate drawing than the one before sent. The leaflets 
 are long and lanceolate, broadest at the middle, or rather towards the 
 
 * Round each of the scars there is an irregular strong line, forming a kind of 
 circle. Some smaller ones range transversely and the others longitudinally. 
 
132 
 
 base, which is convex. Apex, sharp-pointed. The nerves are numerous, 
 regular, simple, and like most of the Monocotyledons, the greater part of 
 them terminate at the narrow apex, though some few of them have 
 formed their little orifices at the margin of the leaflets. The leaflets are 
 attached to the upper surface of the stalk, which being partly broken, and 
 the interior exposed to view, appears to have been furnished with little 
 protuberances, to which the leaflets has been fixed. These fronds we 
 have seen of considerable length, sometimes exceeding three feet. 
 
 Such, then, are the fragments from which we have to draw our con¬ 
 clusions concerning this interesting species. The perforation, which 
 passes through the centre of the large “ Collar,” is of the following form 
 [pen and ink sketch given] when cut transversely. Its widening at both 
 extremities evidently shows that there have been other appendages above 
 as well as below 7 the collar, and that both have been thicker than the 
 centre of the perforation, whilst No. 3 shows that the collar has been 
 sometimes erect, and not alw r ays with the points of the scales turned 
 inwards; and No. 4 leads us to the same conclusion. That the scaly 
 collar, fronds, and stem have all belonged to the same plant, I think 
 little doubt remains, but the most difficult question is how they have been 
 situate^ with regard to one another, as we have not been able to detect 
 anything resembling the portion that has been above the collar. 
 
 I think that the opinion advanced by M. Brongniart, that they have 
 been collars round the base of a spike of fructification in some of the 
 Cycads, appears the most probable, resembling those figured in Vol. I., 
 Plates XXI., XX., and XXIII., but I have not been able to see that 
 work, and consequently cannot give an opinion, but hope that you will 
 be able to come to some conclusion on the subject. 
 
 The rest of this interesting letter is, unfortunately, 
 mutilated. The drawings referred to are not all to be 
 found, but No. 5 is the one re-produced in Plate CLXV. 
 of the “ Fossil Flora,” under the name Zamia gigas. 
 
 III. 
 
 Natural Histort Society's Hall, 
 
 Manchester, April 27 th , 1837. 
 
 Dear Sir, —I herewith send you drawings of what I suppose to be 
 new species of Plants. I know not whether they will reach you in time 
 for the next number of the “ Flora.” In your last letter you express a 
 
133 
 
 strong desire to retain the drawings I have supplied you with, since the 
 commencement of the work. This I shall have no objection to allow, if 
 you have any loose sheets of such of them as have been engraved, which 
 you can send me, in which case you can retain the originals in your col¬ 
 lection. [This arrangement was, we understand, never carried out on 
 Mr. Hutton’s side.] 
 
 No. 1 is a very peculiar little Plant .... etc. . . [This 
 
 paragraph is given in fall in the reference to our Plate LVII., page 109. 
 This Plate is a reproduction of the drawing described. The next 
 paragraph, describing Drawing No. 3, is in a similar manner given in 
 the reference to our Plate representing it, Plate XXXVIII., page 77.] 
 
 No. 5 is a specimen found whilst pursuing my researches amongst 
 the limestones of the Upper Coal Measures. The long leaf is Neu- 
 ropteris cordata, which you have figured from Buckland’s specimen 
 [“ Fosil Flora,” Plate XLI.] The other I suppose to be a Cyclopteris, 
 different from anything I have seen before. The Neuropteris cordata, 
 from Leebotwood, is found in connection with some fresh water lime¬ 
 stones, of which Bowman, of Wrexham, has given me specimens, 
 containing minute fresh water shells, and also in the same neighbourhood 
 they have, I believe, Megalichthys and other remains of fish. My 
 specimen I found under similar circumstances. At the top of our 
 Coal Measures we have a group of fresh water shales and limestones, 
 containing Planorbes, Unios, Entomostraca, apparently a Cypris, 
 Megalichthys Hibberti, Palseoniscus, Coprolites, and other remains of 
 a larger fish; and between two of the main seams of limestone was 
 a thin shale containing the above specimen, together with Lepido- 
 dendron Sternbergii, Stigmaria ficoides. Catamites, and several other 
 coal plants. The shale is very soft, and about the colour I have given 
 it in the drawing. See Phil. Magazine, August and September, 1836. 
 The geological position of the Leebotwood limestone is nearly the same 
 as ours, showing something like a connection between our Lancashire 
 and the Shrewsbury coal-field. 
 
 I suppose you have not met with any of the fish at Ferry Hill [in the 
 Permian Marl Slate there] I wrote to you about. My friend Professor 
 Johnstone, of Durham, told me the other day that the workmen are 
 
 destroying numbers of them. 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 W. C. Williamson. 
 
 K 
 
 (Signed) 
 
134 
 
 From Mr. John Dunn (Vice-President of the Scar¬ 
 borough Philosophical Society). 
 
 Scarborough, September Zrd, 1832. 
 
 Dear Sir, —The Plant most resembling No. 1 is called by Phillips, 
 Plate VIII., Fig. 8, Pecopteris longifolia, and at page 148 it is 
 denominated Pecopteris paucifolia, where it says, “ the leaves are never 
 attached.” These leaves are attached by a pedicle in the form of an 
 umbelle to the stem. The midrib very obvious and lateral nerves 
 branching from it ending in dichotomous subdivisions. The leaf is by 
 no means so narrow in the centre as Phillips’, nor so long in proportion 
 to its width. The two extremities of the leaf are nearly equal. 
 
 No. 2 is also attached to the stem, which is thicker than the last. 
 The nerves also proceed from a central rib in a similar manner. The 
 shape of the leaf is very different, being twice the length and, except at 
 the extremities, of a more uniform size all the way through. 
 
 No. 3 explains pretty nearly itself. The nerves are fine, parallel, 
 longitudinal, about ten or twelve in number. The leaf forms a sort of 
 leafy stalk at the insertion of the stem. They are not opposite. Two here 
 and there are comprised together. 
 
 The specimen belongs to Mr. Beau, and the drawings were taken 
 by my friend and patient, Miss Helen Thornhill, a lady of high family 
 from Derbyshire, now staying here, etc. 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) John Dunn. 
 
 The drawings referred to in the above letter are those 
 reproduced in Plate LXIII. of the “ Fossil Flora” under 
 the name Glossopteris Phillipsii. 
 
 This small selection will be concluded with a letter from 
 the Rev. W. T. Bree, describing the Allesley Fossil Tree : 
 
 Allesley Rectory, near Coventry, 
 
 April 25 th, 1840. 
 
 Dear Sir, —Herewith I have the pleasure of sending you a lithograph 
 of the Allesley Fossil Tree, the entire production of a self-taught genius, 
 our Village Carpenter. You will understand that the tree extended some 
 yards further towards the spectator; these portions were removed when 
 
135 
 
 the ground was lowered, on which occasion the tree was discovered. The , 
 specimen you received from Mrs. Corrie was not from this tree, but from 
 similar ones, which were found a few hundred yards distant in making a 
 new turnpike road, and which extended more than the breadth of the road. 
 
 Dr. Buckland made notes on the spot, when he was here a few years 
 ago, with a view to publish some account of the fossil in the Geo. Trans. 
 [See Buckland “ On the occurrence of silicified trunks of trees in the New 
 Bed Sandstone at Allesley” (1836), Geol. Soc. Proceedings, Vol. II., 1838, 
 p. 439.] I have not seen his description, but no doubt it is accurate. 
 Besides these fossil trees imbedded in the sandstone, numbers of fragments 
 are occasionally found in getting gravel, etc., and these latter are for the 
 most part of a much firmer and closer texture than the fossil trees; and 
 accordingly better adapted to the purpose of polishing, I apprehend too, 
 that they exhibit the structure of the wood more perfectly. At the same 
 time, much as our fossil wood varies in colour and external appearance, I 
 believe that it is all of the, same kind. 
 
 If specimens of the lithographed tree, or any others, are worth 
 your having, I shall be very happy to send them, if you will point out 
 the best mode of conveyance. I have also many thin sections on glass 
 (and amongst them some from the lithographed tree) which show the 
 structure very satisfactorily; these I should be happy to lend you, should 
 they be of use. [What has become of these ?] 
 
 I am collecting fossil woods with some considerable energy; and besides 
 a large collection from this parish, I have numerous fine specimens from 
 the West Indies. Should you at any time have any duplicates to spare, 
 from other quarters, I should be greatly obliged to you for them. 
 
 Believe me, dear Sir, 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) W. T. Bree. 
 
 To W. Hutton, Esq. 
 
INDEX OF SPECIES. 
 
 The names of species figured in this work are printed in ordinary type, all others 
 (including synonyms) are in italics. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Adiantides microphyllus ... 
 
 . 65 
 
 Alethopteris ... 
 
 . 33, 35, 45, 49, 59 
 
 Annularia latifolia 
 
 . 11 
 
 Asterophyllites Huttonii (Plate VIII.) 
 
 . 17 
 
 A. longifolia ... ... . 
 
 . ... 13, 15 
 
 A. pygmcea ... . 
 
 . 9 
 
 A. sp. (Plates IV., VI., VII., IX.) 
 
 . 9, 13, 15, 19 
 
 A. tuberculata (Plate V.) . 
 
 . 11 
 
 Calamites cannaeformis (Plate I.) 
 
 . 1 
 
 C. nodosus (Plates II., III.). 
 
 . 3, 7 
 
 C. sp. (Plate LXIV.) . 
 
 . 123 
 
 G. verticillatus 
 
 . 126 
 
 Calamocladus longifolius ... 
 
 . 7 
 
 Chelepteris 
 
 . 97 
 
 Cryptomerites divaricatus (Plate LVII.) 
 
 . 109 
 
 Cyatheites 
 
 . 37 
 
 Cyatheides . . 
 
 . 41, 43 
 
 Cyclopteris obliqua (Plate XI.) 
 
 . 23 
 
 Cyperites licarinata . 
 
 . 103 
 
 Eremopteris ... 
 
 . 67 
 
 Fern stems (Plates XLVIII., XLIX.) ... 
 
 . 95, 97 
 
 GlossopAeris PTiillipsii 
 
 . 134 
 
 Lepidodendron Sternlergii 
 
 . 133 
 
 L. tetragonum ... . 
 
 . 128 
 
 Lepidophyllum acuminatum 
 
 . 103 
 
 L. binerve (Plate LII.) . 
 
 . 103 
 
 L. intermedium ... 
 
 . 103 
 
 L. lanceolatum (Plate LIII.) 
 
 . 105 
 
138 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Lepidophyllum majus ... ... ... ... ... ... 103 105 
 
 L. trinervc ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 103 
 
 Lepidostrobus sp. (Plates LIV.-LVI.). 107 
 
 Myriophyllites gracilis ... ... ... ... ... 119 
 
 Nephropteris ... ... ... ... . 23 
 
 Neuropteris auriculata ... ... ... ... ... 23 
 
 N. heteropkylla (Plates XIII. and XIV.) ... ... ... 27, 29 
 
 N. Soretii ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 27 
 
 N. sp. (Plates XY., XXYII.) . 31, 55 
 
 N. tenuifolia (Plate XII.) ... ... ... ... ... 25,27 
 
 Pecopteris allreviata ... ... ... ... ... ... 37 
 
 P. aquilina (Plate XYI.) ... ... ... ... ... 33 
 
 P. arborescens (Plate XX.) ... ... ... ... ... 41 
 
 P. dentata ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 49 , 51 
 
 P. clivaricata ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 83 
 
 P. Glockeri ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 49 
 
 P. heterophylla ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 49 
 
 P. laciniata (Plate XXIX.) ... ... ... ... ... 59 
 
 P. lonchitidis (Plate XXIY.) ... ... ... ... ... 49 
 
 P. longifolia ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 134 
 
 P. marginata (Plate XYII.) ... ... ... ... ... 35 
 
 P. Milloni ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 37 
 
 P. muricata ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 59 
 
 P. oMusifolia . 81 
 
 P. oreopteridia (Plate XXI.) ... ... ... ... ... 43 
 
 P. oxyphylla ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 53 
 
 P.paucifolia ... ... ... ... . ... 134 
 
 P. peunteformis (Plate XXV.) ... ... ... ... 51 
 
 P.polymorplm ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 37 
 
 P. Serlii . 45, 49 
 
 P. serra (Plates XXII., XXIII., X.) . 45, 47 
 
 P. Silesiaca (Plate XXYI.). 47, 53 
 
 P. sp. (Plates XVIII., XL.) ... ... ... ... ... 37, 81 
 
 Rhacophyllum (?) flabellatum (Plates XLII., XLIII.) ... 85 
 
 Roots and rootlets (Plates X., LIX.-LXIII.), 21 , 111 , 113, 115, 117, 
 
 119, 121 
 
 Sigillarict Murchisoni ... ... ... ... . 128 
 
 S. reniformis (Plate L.) ... ... ... ... ... 99 
 
 S. sp. (Plate LI.). 101 
 
 Sphenopteris affinis ... ... ... ... ... ... 79 
 
139 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Sphenopteris alciphylla (Plate XXXV.) 
 
 . 75 
 
 Sph. arguta ... . 
 
 . 79 
 
 Sph. artemisiEefolia (Plate XXXIII.). 
 
 . 67 
 
 Sph. crenata ... . 
 
 . 128 
 
 Sph. crithmifolia ... 
 
 . 67 
 
 Sph.furcata ... 
 
 . 128 
 
 Sph. latifolia (Plates XXX., XXXI.) ... 
 
 . 61, 63 
 
 Sph. linearis (Plate XXXII.) 
 
 . 65, 79 
 
 Sph. Leivisii 
 
 . 128 
 
 Sph. macilenta (Plate XIX.) . 
 
 . 39, 59 
 
 Sph. obovata ... . 
 
 . 57, 65 
 
 Sph. quinqueloba (Plate XXXVIII.) 
 
 . 77 
 
 Sph. sp. (Plates XXVIII., XXXIV., XXXVI., 
 
 XXXIX., XLI.), 57, 
 61, 71, 73, 79, 83 
 
 Sph. stricta 
 
 . 67 
 
 Sph. zamioides 
 
 . 128 
 
 Spiropteris (Plates XLV., XLVII.) . 
 
 89, 91, 93 
 
 Sfeffensia 
 
 . 81 
 
 Stenopteris ... . 
 
 . 83 
 
 Stigmaria ficoides 
 
 . 133 
 
 Zamia gig as ... .. 
 
 . 132 
 
 NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE: A. REID, PRINTING COURT BUILDINGS, AKENSIDE HILL. 
 


 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
 
 Bound by 
 {drew R^id. 
 wmstkonlym. 
 
 3 3125 00984 0246