50^ 



portion would most likely be a cone, — the form of fruit exhi- 

 bited by recent Cycadese, it becomes probable that one of the 

 above specimens is really the terminal portion wanted to com- 

 plete the restoration of this part of our plant. Indeed as the 

 Cycadeee are diseceous, and as a considerable difference often 

 exists between the male and female inflorescence, the males 

 being in the form of cones, whilst the females may be either in 

 the form of cones, or of a group of contracted or undeveloped 

 leaves, it becomes possible that my specimen may be the male 

 and the Scarboro' example, the female fruit or inflorescence of 

 the same plant. This, however, is as yet uncertain. 



Mr. Yates considers that the bracteated pedicle which sup- 

 ports each collar has been branched. His restoration represents 

 three such branches, each being terminated by a fruit. This 

 appearance I have never seen, and must confess myself to be 

 very sceptical as to the probability of its correctness. The 

 pedicles, which have come under my notice, have been quite 

 straight; and I am too well aware, from long experience 

 amongst fossil plants, of the danger arising from assuming con- 

 nection, where there really may be only accidental juxta-position. 

 One of the earliest specimens, found by my father at Runswick 

 Bay, exhibited three of these heads, apparently having some 

 connection with each other, branching from a central stem, and 

 that stem a catamite ! 



I have here attempted a general re-construction of the plant 

 according to the above views, (see fig. 4.) That it was not a short 

 low plant, like the recent Cycas revoluta, and Zamia horrida, 

 or the fossil Mantellise, from the Portland Dirt-bed, is appa- 

 rently proved by a specimen which came into the hands of Mr. 

 Yates, and which shews it to have been a plant of lax habit, 

 instead of having crowded leaves. In all probability it has 

 resembled in this respect the recent Cycas circinalis. Conse- 

 quently, I am again obliged to differ from my esteemed friend, 

 Mr. Yates, who thinks that " the whole plant probably did not 

 exceed three feet in height ;" whereas, I think it more probable, 

 that like the recent species with which I have compared it, it 

 may have been nearer thirty feet. I have measured portions 

 of leaves only, which have been three feet long. 



