196 THE LATE DR. NEWELL ARBER: CRITICAL STUDIES 
off, especially in the neighbourhood of the leaf sear. The keel in this 
instance is rather faint, except just below the leaf scar, but the ornamentation 
can be recognised. 
No. 1986. Enlarged leaf bases of another example from the same field are 
seen on Pl. 12. fig. 19 (x 3). Here the leaf bases are 11 mm. long. The 
keel is also faint, but the ornamentation is clear. 
No. 2507. Leaf bases of an example from a lower horizon, Transition Coal 
Measures in the Wyre Forest, are shown enlarged on Pl. 12. fig. 20. They 
measure 8 mm. in length. The keel is faintly recognisable in some cases, 
but hardly at all in others. 
No. 2066. On fig. 21, Pl. 12, a few leaf bases are shown, natural size, 
from an example from the Upper Coal Measures of the Bristol coalfield. 
The leaf bases here are very elongate in proportion to their breadth, 
measuring 13:5 mm. long and 3 mm. broad. No keel or ornamentation can 
be recognised. In other specimens with similar leaf bases 10 mm. long, the 
shoots are branched and still leafy in places. 
No. 1625. This is a specimen of a more slender branch with some leaves still 
attached. The leaf bases are shown on Pl. 12. fig. 22, enlarged three times. 
They measure 7 mm. in length by 3 mm. across. The keel is very faint, if 
present, but the ornamentation is clear. This example is derived from the 
Upper Coal Measures of the Forest of Dean. Otherwise it agrees with 
the specimens of L. lycopodioides from lower horizons, already described. 
I may further add that I now think that the specimen from the Transition 
Coal Measures of South Staffordshire recently figured by me (2. p. 145, and 
text-fig. 3) as Lepidodendron sp. is probably an old age stage of L. lycopodioides. 
Figured Examples incorrectly or doubtfully identified with 
L. Iycopodioides. 
I turn now to criticise certain specimens attributed to L. lycopodioides, 
incorrectly as it appears to me, or in some cases doubtfully. 
The synonymy given by Schimper (25. ii. p. 19) seems to me to be a 
confusion between L. lycopodioides and L. ophiurus and yet other species, 
and is thus best ignored. The specimens figured on plate 51 of that author’s 
‘Traité’ alone appear to belong to the former species. This imperfect 
synonymy is no doubt the initial cause of the confusion which has since 
arisen with regard to these fossils. 
List of synonyins of this species have been published by Zeiller (27. p. 464) 
and Kidston (16. p. 795). | 
With regard to the former’s list I should omit the references to Renault 
and Brongniart's figures as relating to L. ophiurus. The other examples, 
including those then figured by Zeiller, really do represent the true 
L. lycopodioides. 
