LOWER CAMBRIAN. 5i) 



Genus EOPHYTON Torell. 

 Pis. XXXII-XXXVIII. 



Eophyton Torell, 1S68. Lunds Universitets Ars-Skrift, 1807, No. XIII. pp. 36-38, PI. 



II, li s . 3; PI. Ill, figs. 1-3. 

 Eophyton Liniiarsson, 1869. Ofversigt k. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., Xo. 3, pp. 345-352, 



PI. VII, tigs. 3, 4; PI. VIII; PI. IX. Idem, 1869. Geol. Mag., Vol. VI., pp. 



399-403, PI. XI, tigs. 3, 4; PI. XII; PI. XIII. Idem 1809. Reprint of the 



English translation, Stockholm, pp. 9-13, PI. VII, tigs. 3, 4; PI. VIII; PI. IX. 

 Eophyton Nicholson, 1809. Geol. .Mag., Vol. VI, p. 497, PI. XVIII, fig. C. 

 Eophyton Torell 1870. Lunds Universitets, Ars-Skrift, 1809, No. VIII, p. 8. 

 Eophyton Dawson, 1S70. Canadian Naturalist, 2d series, Vol. V., pp. 20-22. 

 Eophyton Liniiarsson, 1871. Kongl. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Vol. IX, No. 7, pp. 



10-18. 

 Eophyton Dawson, 1873. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d series, Vol. V, p. 20. 

 Eophyton Nathorst, 1874. Ofversigt k. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., 1873, No. 9, pp. 26-40. 

 Eophyton Billings, 1874. Geol. Nat. Hist. Survey Canada; Pal. Fossils, Vol. II, Part 



1, pp. 05-60. 

 Eophyton Dames, 1875. Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. Gesell., Vol. XXVII, pp. 244-245. 

 Eophyton Nathorst, 1881. Kongl. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Vol. XVIII, No. 7, pp. 



44-40, 97-99, PI. X, fig. 6. Idem, 1881. Loc. cit., Vol. XIX, No. 1, pp. 28-30. 

 Eophyton Saporta et Marion, 1881. L'Evolution du regne vegetal; Cryptogames, 



pp. 82-83, tig. 22. 

 Eophyton Saporta, 1882. A propos des algues fossiles, Paris, p. 63, PI. VIII, fig. 6. 

 Eophyton James (J. F.), 1891. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. Ill, p. 40. 



Dr. Torell's original description of Eophyton, under the designation 

 "Eoplijitoit lii/iNranuni," is accompanied by several illustrations which clearly 

 show the characters of the species. He considered Eophyton to be a plant 

 impression, having an affinity with the monocotyledons. 1 He also sug- 

 gested an affinity with (Jordaites, on account of the resemblance to what 

 he considered to be leaves of the latter. Dr. Liniiarsson 2 adopts Dr. 

 Torell's view, although questioning the interpretation of the parts which 

 the latter referred to as leaves. He regards them as portions of stems, and 

 finally concludes that great uncertainty remains as to the place that Eophy- 

 ton occupies in the natural system. He says, however, that "it hardly can 

 be doubted that it is of a far higher organization than any plant hitherto 

 known from the oldest deposits." He considers it probable that the plant, 



'Loc. cit., p. 37. -Loc. cit., reprint ot English translation, pp. 11-12. 



