220 PROF. F. E. WEISS ON A BISERIATE HALONIAL 
restricting the term “halonial” to branches with the quincuncial arrangement of 
tubercles. That Lepidophloios is, however, not restricted to multiseriate fruiting- 
branches is borne out from an examination of the halonial branch under consideration, 
which, on the strength of its internal structure, must be identified with Lepidophloios 
fuliginosus. As, however, an identification based solely on the internal structure might 
be disputed by some, I would seek to strengthen my conclusion by evidence from 
specimens showing external markings which can be identified with Lepidophloios and 
which at the same time possess only two rows of tubercles. 
There is in the Manchester Museum a specimen, reproduced in figs. 2 and 3, which was 
found in the roof of the Four Foot Mine at Tonge, near Bolton. It was presented to the 
Museum by Mr. Dawes. It is a branch about 14 inches in length, and shows the com- 
mencement of a bifurcation at one end, an occurrence not infrequently met with in 
halonial branches. It is considerably compressed, so that its diameter in one direction is 
32 inches, while in the other it measures only 14 inch. It possesses two rows of tubercles, 
two tubercles being visible on each side of the specimen about 4 to 5 inches apart. 
The pressure has been exerted on the sides bearing the two rows of tubercles; yet 
these are still distinctly recognizable as elevations, especially on the side shown in 
fig. 2. "That this would be the case even if the leaf-cushions were present is evident from 
the thinness of the leaf-cushions where preserved. This outer layer of the leaf-cushions 
is the only carbonized portion of the plant, the central portion of the branch being 
entirely replaced by limestone. "The width of the leaf-cushions and their imbrication, 
overlapping from above downwards (see Pl. 23. fig. 4), leave no doubt in my mind that 
this is a specimen of Lepidophloios, though it is true that no actual leaf-scar is distin- 
guishable, as the specimen is nct in the best state of preservation. But it agrees very 
closely with an halonial specimen described by Carruthers (1870) as Ulodendron tumidum, 
which has since been identified by Kidston (1886) as Lepidophloios laricinus ( Sternberg). 
In this latter specimen some actual leaf-scars are preserved, but in parts these are not 
distinguishable, and there we have the closest agreement in its arrangement with the 
leaf-bases of the biserial Halonia of the Manchester Museum. In both cases the remains 
of the leaf-bases are drawn out in breadth and are ragged and torn. 
I think, therefore, we are justified in assuming that this biseriate halonial branch is 
also referable to the genus Lepidophioios. In Mr. Carruthers’s specimen the tubercles 
are rather irregularly arranged. From the name Ulodendron which he gave to this 
specimen, it is obvious that the biseriate arrangement is that which strikes the observer 
at first; but Kidston has shown that we have really more than two rows in this 
specimen. 
Another specimen of Lepidophloios bearing two rows of tubercles I discovered in the 
Williamson Collection at the British Museum (Pl. 24 fig. 5). This halonial branch 
(cabinet-number 1946 B) is not described in Williamson’s detailed and useful catalogue, 
but is merely entered as .Lepidophloios. lt is a small piece of a fruiting-branch, 
3 to 4 inches long and 3 inches by 2 in thickness, thus showing very little compression. 
The leaf-bases are perfectly distinct over the whole surface, and their broad and 
fimbriating nature mark them out as belonging to Lepidophloios, as indeed was 
