NOTES ON CALAMOPITYs. 215 
the pith, shows totally different characters. I think it most probable that 
the Halle specimen was rightly named by Solms-Laubach and that it repre- 
sents an advanced stage of a small branch, with the structure somewhat 
modified as compared with that of the main stems. In spite of the 
peculiarities mentioned, the general character of the tissues suggests Calamo- 
pitys annularis and no other plant. 
The special features which require to be emphasized in the species 
C. annularis are: 1. The continuous or almost continuous zone of primary 
xylem (already pointed out by Solms-Laubach). 
2. The eccentrically mesarch structure of the xylem-strands, with a 
corresponding reduction of the centrifugal portion. 
3. The probable presence of tracheides embedded in the pith. 
4. The secondary thickening all round the leaf-trace strand on its exit 
from the wood. 
In all these points C. annularis agrees with C. americana. 
The division of the leaf-trace into two has not been observed in C. annularis; 
there can be no doubt that it takes place, but we do not know in what part 
of the course of the trace the division oceurs. The narrow medullary rays of 
the Halle specimen, assuming, as seems to be justified, that it is rightly 
referred to C. annularis, are interesting, for comparison with other species. 
CALAMOPITYS SATURNI, Unger. 
This species is well known, from the full and admirable account given in 
1896 by Solms-Laubach. It has also been examined by Dr. Zalessky (1911). 
Solms-Laubach describes the primary wood in this species as “an irregular 
tracheal zone, perhaps interrupted here and there, which swells out in places 
into expanded nests, projecting into the pith-parenchyma” (1896, p. 65). 
In C. annularis it seemed to him that the primary wood was * more strongly 
developed, forming a quite or almost closed ring" (l.c. p. 74). Judging 
from the one transverse section of C. Saturni now in my hands, I am inclined 
to think that the distinction between the two species is more marked than 
Solms-Laubach realized. This section (Pl. 8. Phots. 21, 22) is from the 
specimen Berlin, 76, and is among those described by Solms-Laubach (l.c. 
p. 71), but not figured *. 
Two excellent photographs from another section of the specimen are, 
however, given by Dr. Zalessky (1911, Pl. 3. figs. 1, 2). The specimen 
(stele only) was 1 em. in diameter ; the section here figured is incomplete, 
* I have one transverse and one radial section. The former is labelled: “ Cal. Sat. Q. 
Berl. 76. Culm Saalfeld. Berlin Landes Anst. Coll. Solms 422." 
The radial section is apparently not from the same specimen, for the inscription is: “29K, 
Cal. Sat. ? r. Culm Saalfeld. Berlin Ldesanst. Coll. Solms n. 423.” The? makes the value 
of this section doubtful, though it was sent to me by Count Solms as an example of the species 
C. Saturni and a tangential section of no. 29 is figured by Dr. Zalessky under that name. 
