of the Fossil Plants of the genus Sigillaria. IZ 



and that the wrinkles run in flexuose lines. With the exception of those 

 parts from which the root branches have been broken off, the whole of 

 the under surface of the root-stock mentioned in the last paragraph 

 is crowded with flexuose wrinkles, which in no respect differ from 

 those of Stigmaria.* There are certainly none of the scars so com- 

 monly seen associated with the wrinkles of Stigmaria ; but their absence 

 on the under surface of the root-stock of the North Biddick Sigillaria 

 will be readily explained by the fact, that the corresponding part of the 

 former is equally divested of scars. As bearing upon the last point, it 

 requires to be mentioned, that the Stigmaria, figured in PI. 31, fig. 2. of 



* I discovered the wrinkles on the under surface of the root of the North Bid- 

 dick Sigillaria a few days after it was deposited in the Newcastle Museum ; at 

 the same time, 1 was struck with their resemblance to those of Stigmaria : I was 

 thus led to suspect that the one plant might be the root of the other : the highly 

 problematical nature of the last fossil had also considerable share in eliciting 

 this suspicion. I was then preparing a short paper descriptive of the North 

 Biddick fossil, to be read at the next meeting of the Society ; so I resolved on 

 making this the vehicle of my suspicion, and to embody in it all the arguments I 

 was master of in support of the same. This paper was read May 17. 1841. On re- 

 ferring to it at the present moment, I find, besides the above-mentioned point of 

 agreement, that the fact of the appendages of Stigmaria having penetrated their 

 matrix was strongly insisted upon : there were also some vague allusions to the 

 convex specimen in the Museum, answering to the under surface or hollow of a 

 root : nothing was said of the analogy between the rude flutings of Stigmaria and 

 those on the base of Sigillaria, although, at that time, I was acquainted with this 

 character occurring on the former ; indeed, as remarked in the text, the rude 

 flutings formed one of ray chief arguments for maintaining that the Ouse Burn 

 fossil was a Stigmaria. When I became acquainted with the last specimen, I was 

 in possession of clearer views respecting the convex fossil, and I had also read the 

 accounts of the Killingworth specimen ; these circumstances, and the fluted charac- 

 ter of Stigmaria, strongly fortified me in my opinion. Shortly after it was settled 

 that the Ouse Burn fossil was a Stigmaria, Mr Hutton very kindly lent me his 

 copy of Brongniart's " Observations on the internal structure of Sigillaria elegans, 

 &c.," and I was delighted to find that Sigillaria and Stigmaria agreed so closely in 

 their internal structure, and that Brongniart himself, from this circumstance, and 

 the creeping habit of the lailer, had been led to suspect that the one was nothing 

 more than the root of the former. From that time to May 1842, I was more or 

 less engaged in working out this question ; and at the date just mentioned, I com- 

 menced the reading of a paper (then in a nearly finished state), substantially the 

 same as the one now in course of publication. In order, that every one should 

 have his due share of credit who has anticipated the view which is now 

 being advocated, the name of Professor Lindley must not be overlooked ; in the 

 aiticle " Ck)al Plants," of the Penny Cyclopaedia, written in 1386 or 1837, he 

 asks, " is it quite impossible that Sigillarias and Stigmarias are both the same 

 thing; the former being the stem, the latter the roots?" after which, he very 

 briefly refers to the root branch, and base of the stem of the Killingworth fossil, 

 figured in PI. 64, " Fossil Flora" so, as the reader might compare them with 

 the Stigmaria represented in PI. 31, fig. 2 (Qu. fig. 1 ?) of the same work 

 (April 1844.) 



