BRANCH OF LEPIDOPHLOIOS FULIGINOSUS. 221 
recognized by Williamson. Their state of preservation is unfortunately not perfect, 
the actual leaf-scar not being distinguishable. In this specimen the tubercles are 
arranged in two distinct rows at the end of the greater diameter of the branch, and 
two tubercles are borne on each side. We have therefore here another ease of an 
halonial branch of Lepidophloios with two rows of tubercles. 
Unfortunately in this case, too, the interior of the branch is not well preserved, but 
has become impregnated with pyrites, so that we cannot say whether the tissues of this 
specimen agreed with those of Lepidophlotos fuliginosus or not. l 
Evidence of Lepidophloios possessing fruiting-branches with only two rows of 
tubercles, based upon specimens not showing the external marking of the leaf-bases, but 
exhibiting well-preserved internal structure, will be found in Williamson’s ‘ Memoirs.’ 
Thus in Part rr. (p. 209) he describes a small specimen of Ulodendron received from 
Mr. Neild of Oldham, and states that the structure of its central axis is identical with 
that of the Lepidodendron of the fuliginosum type (then called by him Harcourtii). 
Although the figures of this specimen are not very good, the identification of its 
structure with that of Lepidodendron fuliginosum is correct, and we have therefore a 
specimen with the internal structure of Lepidodendron fuliginosum (now Lepidophloios) 
and bearing the two rows of “ circular areol:e of Ulodendron." That the specimen is a 
Lepidophloios is ascertainable not only from the central axis of the fuliginosum type, 
but also from the leaf-bases seen in transverse section in fig. 28 of Williamson’s memoir, 
and in longitudinal section fig. 27. Solms (1892), who is rightly rather sceptical about 
this specimen being referred to Ulodendron and considers that it is probably Lepido- 
phloios, regrets that Williamson did not figure the surface-view so as to show the 
“circular areolee of Ulodendron arranged in two vertical rows" (p. 232). "Though this 
was no doubt a pity, yet in the light of the specimens referred to above, and on the 
strength of others to be mentioned below, we cannot now doubt that two such rows of 
scars were present, and the importance of this specimen becomes apparent. 
In Part xix. Williamson (1893) figures another halonial branch with its tubercles in 
two rows (fig. 22); but as this specimen shows no external markings of leaf-bases, and as 
Williamson does not figure its internal structure, it yields no evidence in support of the 
views I seek to maintain. 
In the same memoir (Part xIx.) is described and figured (fig. 30) a transverse section 
of a branch of Lepidephloios which bears large “ bilateral fructigerous tubercles.” 
This specimen was collected by Mr. George Wilde from the Hough Hill Colliery of 
Stalybridge, the same locality from which the specimen now under consideration was 
obtained. In his description of this earlier specimen, Williamson says (p. 20): “The 
specimen was one in which the large halonial protuberances had been in two lateral 
series, three of these protuberances being preserved. Its leaves show that it belonged 
to the lepidophloioid group, and present every appearance of identity with the plant 
which is described and figured in my Memoir, Part 11. (figs. 24-28)." 
This statement is fully borne out by Williamson's figures as well as by an examina- 
tion of some transverse and longitudinal sections of this specimen in the Wilde Collection 
in the Manchester Museum. What remains of the original specimen after the sections 
