NATURAL SCIENCES OP PHILADELPHIA. 441 



P. d entata, Br. 



1 spec. " P. dentata." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 136. 

 ? 2 spec. Br. Ins. Coll. Nos. 135 and 174. 



P. cyathea. 



3 spec. " P. cyathea." Br. Ins. Coll. Nos. 148 and 152. 



1 spec. "P. villosa." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 149. 



P. a r b o r e s c e n 8, Br. 



2 spec. "P. arborescens." Br. Ins. Coll. Nos. 132 and 133. 



P. ra u r i c a t a, Br. 

 7 spec. Pembrokeshire. Br. Ins. Coll. Nos. 131-160. 



Ord. LEPIDODENDILE. 



Lepidodendron, Sternb. 



L. obovatum, St. 



? spec. "L. elegans." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 190. 

 1 spec. "Phytolithus cancellatus." York. Mr. J. P. Wetherill. 



L. die ho to mum, Sternb.??? 



We label these specimens thus, solely on account of their being so labelled 

 in England. Sternberg first described the plant with the name of Lycopodites 

 dichotomum, giving an exceedingly indefinite figure and a worse description. 

 Brongniart, in his prodrome, placed it in its proper genus, changing its specific 

 name to S t e r n b e r g i i. In his Vers. ii. Sternb. again figured it, nnder the name 

 of Lep. dichotomum. To this work we have not been able to gain access. 

 But Unger, in his Genera and Species of Fossil Plants, has given a description, 

 drawn, we suppose, from it. It is worthy of remark that this description 

 does not agree, with the figure first published by Sternberg! Nor does either 

 of the two figures in the Fossil Flora, which also differ one from another! ! In 

 such a chaos, we are unable to decide what are the specific characters, or even 

 whether there are any. If the two figures published by Lindley & Hutton 

 belong to the same plant, we see no character by which L. d i 1 a t a t u m, of the 

 same authors, can be separated from them. From some unknown cause, Unger 

 does not notice L. dil atatu m, neither as a good species, nor yet as a synonym. 



4 spec. "L. Sternbergii." England. T. B. Wilson, M. D. 

 2 spec. " L. dilatatum." England. T. B. Wilson, M. D. 



L. 



L. imbricatum, Sternb.? 



1 spec. " L. allied to veltheimianus." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 18?. 



L. caelatum, Sternb. 



Sagenaria caelata, Br., Phytolithus cancellatus of Steinhauer, Phil. Trans., 

 vol. i. (new series,) pi. 6, fig. 2, 1818; but not Phyt. cancellatus of 

 Martin, Petrefacta D e r b i e n s a , pi. 13, fig. 1, 1809, nor Phyt. iuibricatus 

 of same author, to which Steinhauer refers as identical with his Phyt. can- 

 cellatus, nor either of the two species referred to by Steinhauer, in Par- 

 kinson, Organic remains, pi. 1, fig. 6, pi. 2, fig. 4. We have not been 

 able to find the description or names for these in Parkinson's Org. Rem. But 

 as there are no descriptions of, or names to the plates, and also no index 

 to the work, they may be named somewhere incidentally ; which, in siich a 

 mass of text, we have not been able to find. Never having seen either 

 Sowerby's British Mineralogy, or Volkman, Siles. Subterr., we can not say- 

 as to the identity of Phyt. cancellatus of those authors. But we have 

 scarcely a doubt that they also differ, specifically, from all others, and amongst 



I860.] 



