202 THE LATE DR. NEWELL ARBER: CRITICAL STUDIES 
synonym of L. dichotomum, but, as in the course of time it has become almost 
universally used to denote this particular fossil, it is nevertheless maintained 
as the accepted name for this species. It may be also noted that the figures 
of these two plates were re-named Lepidodendron Sternbergii by Brongniart 
in 1828 (4. p. 85). This, however, is an unnecessary complication which 
may be ignored. 
The next step in the matter dates from 18 years later (1838), when Presl in 
the 7th part of the same * Versuch’ of Sternberg’s (see above synonymy) 
figured a further specimen under the same name, L. dichotomum *. This 
illustration is small and possibly not very aceurate, and considerable doubt 
has long existed as to what it really represents. My conclusions on this 
point are two-fold. Firstly, I am convinced that it is an entirely distinct 
plant from the specimens first figured as L. dichotomum. Tt is therefore 
obvious that it must receive a fresh name. Secondly, I am not satisfied that 
the specimens which Zeiller, Zalessky, and I have in more recent years 
figured under the name of L, dichotomum are the same plant as that shown 
in the later figure of Sternberg. They may be. This possibility is not ruled 
out of court, but until Sternberg’s type, if still known, has been re-examined, 
the matter must remain doubtful. In any case, some new specific name must 
be applied to the more recent specimens, since the name L. dichotomum is 
inapplicable, quite apart from the question whether Sternberg’s later figure 
does or does not represent the plant which oceurs in Britain. I therefore 
propose the new species L. loricatum to include the more recent examples 
included in the above synonymy, beginning with Zeiller’s figure. These 
specimens all appear to be a very homogeneous set and call for no further 
remarks here, 
Notes on the Specimens of L. loricatum, sp. nova, here figured. 
No, 2506. Beginning with the napiform types and those with the largest 
leaf bases, we turn to the specimen, part. of which is figured natural size on 
PI. 18. fig. 27 and enlarged twice in fig. 28. 
The leaf bases are here slightly taller than broad, measuring 6 mm. one 
way and 5 mm. the other. The upper angle of the leaf base is very rounded, 
the lower prolonged and acute. ‘The leaf scar is situated near the apex of 
the base and is prominent. It occupies about two-thirds the width of the 
base. All its angles are nearly equally acute, except the upper, which is so 
very broadly rounded as to be almost non-existent. The leaf scar prints are 
quite clear (fig. 28). The keel is faint. 
No. 2470. An enlarged figure of part of another specimen from the 
Transition Coal Measures of Kent is seen on Pl. 18. fig. 29. This is similar 
* The Presl names are all MS. and therefore are ignored. The authority is taken as 
Sternberg in all eases, since he actually published them, 
