— 
a cl 
b 
[217 9 
IV. A Biseriate Halonial Branch of Lepidophloios fuliginosus. By F. E. Weiss, D.Sc., 
F.L.S., Professor of Botany in the Owens College, Manchester. 
(Plates 23-26.) 
Read 3rd April, 1902. 
IN the autumn of 1898 I purchased from Mr. James Lomax an Halonia, together with 
an excellent series of transverse and longitudinal sections prepared by him from the 
same specimen and which showed the tissues to be very well preserved. From an 
examination of the latter Mr. Lomax had rightly identified the plant with that described 
by Williamson originally (1873) as Lepidodendron Harcourtii, but afterwards renamed 
Lepidodendron fuliginosum (1887). 
I was unaware at the time that Dr. Scott had exhibited a photograph of the specimen 
at the Bristol Meeting of the British Association in that year and had commented on 
certain peculiarities of its structure. On expressing my willingness to leave the further 
examination and fuller description of this specimen to him, Dr. Scott most generously 
withdrew his prior claims upon it and also allowed me to make use of some preparations 
he possessed of this plant, from one of which one of the accompanying figures is 
taken. I desire here to express my indebtedness to him, both for his generosity 
and also for his helpful criticism of several points in connection with the structure of 
this halonial branch. 
I. MORPHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
"The Halonia under consideration was contained in a large nodule weighing nearly 
2 cwt., found by Mr. George Wilde at Hough Hill, near Stalybridge. Mr. James Lomax 
was able to extract from this nodule a large piece of the halonial branch measuring 
about 7 inches in height and 31 to 32 inches in its greatest diameter by about 23 inches 
in the shorter diameter (Pl.23. fiv. 1). There were eight tubercles arranged in two rows 
of four each, alternating with each other at the two sides which form the ends of 
the greater diameter of the stem. The internal structure shows so little sign of com- 
pression, that I think in all probability this difference in thickness in the two directions 
actually existed in the living plant, though it may have become slightly increased by 
pressure during mineralization. 
There are no leaf-bases present, part of the specimen being clothed by the periderm 
formed beneath the leaf-bases and showing a slight indication of “ dictyoxylon” 
markings. At other points of the surface the periderm has been removed, and the 
SECOND SERIES.—BOTANY, VOL. VI. 21 
