404 Palaeontoloffie. 



&' 



lised in situ. The flora of the shales accompanying the seams 

 (which is preserved as impressions) shows much in common with 

 the flora of the "roof-nodules", and the conclusion is drawn that 

 both these floras are drift-floras derived from common or similar 

 sources. It is thus a mistake to suppose that the impressions of the 

 roof shales give any clue to the nature of the plants which formed 

 the coal itself. 



The paper concludes with a graphic account of the Operation of 

 the various factors concerned in the preservation of the different 

 types of coal measure fossils. J. W. Oliver. 



Reid, Elleanop M., On a Method of Disintegrating Peat and 

 other Deposits containing Fossil Seeds. (Journ. Linn. Soc. 

 Lond. Bot. Vol. XXXVIII. 268. p. 454-457. 1908.) 



This paper gives an account of a simple method by which the 

 examination of peat becomes as easy and thorough as that of loam. 

 Even the most recalcitrant peats, which had resisted nitric acid 

 treatment yielded to this new method, and the seeds and other plant- 

 remains washed out unharmed. The author has tried the method on 

 several kinds of peat with success. The sample of peat is boiled in 

 about one third its volume of dehydrated soda. After this, a little 

 crumbling with ihe fingers and washing with water is all that is 

 necessary to separate the plant remains. Even such minute and deli- 

 cate seeds as those of Juncus and Epüohium are quite unharmed, 

 and were obtained perfect from a sample of peat which before boiling 

 had to be broken with a hammer and chisel. M. C. Stopes. 



Watson, D. M., S. On the Ulodendroid Scar. (Mem. and Proc. 

 of the Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc. Vol. LH. 1. 4. p. 1—11. 

 plates 1 and 2. Textfig. 1. 1908.) 



This paper Supports the view that the Ulodendroid scar is that 

 of a branch, and not of a cone. 



"A specimen is brought forward which is interpreted as shewing 

 the wood and leaf-traces of the base of the branch." 



"It is pointed out that certain Lepidodendra (L. vasciilare Binney 

 and L. Hickii Watson) certainly bore branches in two opposite rows. 

 The most important specimens adduced in support of the cone theory 

 are shewn to be explicable on the branch theory." M. C. Stopes. 



Watson, D. M. S., The Cone of Bothrodendron inundiini (Will,). 



(Mem. and Proc. of the Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc. LIL 1. 3. 



p. 1 — 15. plate. l. Textfig. 1 and 2. 1908.) 



This paper gives a description of a little known type of Lepi- 

 dodendroid cone, from specimens in the author's coUection and in 

 the Manchester Museum. This is followed by a discussion of the 

 relationship of this cone to Bothrodendron and other Lycopods, in 

 which the author brings forward facts in support of his view that 

 the cone is that of Bothrodendron niundiim. He further remarks on 

 the confusion that has sometimes existed between the sporophylls 

 of this cone and those of Miadesntia, and clearly tabulates the 

 points of distinction between them. 



The cone described is a small, hermaphrodite one with short 

 sporophylls and a large ligule, but generally conforming to the 

 Lepidostroboid type. M. C. Stopes. 



