Royal Society, London. 235* 



bed. „If so," he adds, „it has been part of the axis of a somewhat 

 larger strobilus than those described." *) 



A detailed examination of the structure of this specimen 

 convinced rae that it is essentially different from any Lepidodendroid 

 axis, and is, certainly, a new type of stein. 2 ) 



As it was the examination of this fragment of stem which first 

 put me on to the track of the new cone, it may be well shortly 

 to describe its chief characteristics, reserving all details, both as 

 regards this specimen and that of the actual fructification for a 

 future paper. 



The specimen, which is about 7 mm in diameter, bears the 

 bases only of somewhat crowded leaves, the arrangement of which r 

 though not quite clear, was most probably verticillate, with from 

 nine to twelve leaves in a whorl, those of successive whorls being 

 superposed. Each leaf-base consists of a superior and an inferior 

 lobe, and each lobe is palmately subdivided into two or three- 

 segments. 



The leaf-traces, which are single bundles where they leave- 

 the central cylinder, subdivide in both planes on their way through 

 the cortex, to supply the lobes and Segments of the leaf; 



The central cylinder is polyarch, the Strand of wood having 

 from nine to twelve prominent angles, with phloem occupying the 

 furrows between them. With the exception of the spiral protoxylem 

 elements at the angles, the tracheae have multiseriate bordered 

 pits, thus ditfering conspicuously from the scalariform tracheae of 

 Lepidodendreae. The interior of the stele is occupied by 

 tracheae intermingled with conjunctive parenchima. There is a 

 well-marked formation of secondai-y tissues by means of a normal 

 cambium. 8 ) 



The Strobilus. 



Mr. R. Kidston, F.G.S., kindly informed me that he had in 

 his possession section of a fossil cone from Burntisland having 

 certain points in common with the William son specimen. On 

 inspecting the sections with Mr. Kids ton 1 was soon convinced 



') William son, „Organisation of the fossil plants of the coal-measures." 

 Part III. („Phil. Trans." 1872. p. 297.) 



2 ) A short account of this specimen was giveu by me before the Botanical 

 Section of the British Association at the Liverpool meeting, 1896. 



8 ) The general structure of this axis, including the course of the bundles 

 and the subdivision of the bracts, is correctly described by William son, 

 loc. cit., p. 297. As regards the latter point, he says „peripherally the bark 

 breaks up into main or primary bracts, which again subdivide, as in the 

 transverse section, into secondary ones, demonstrating that each primary bract : 

 does not merely dichotomize, but subdivides, both horizontally and vertically, 

 into a Cluster of bracts — a condition corresponding whit what 1 have already 

 observed in the smaller strobili described." These smaller strobili are those of 

 the Burntisland Lepidostrobus, to which, by a stränge coincidence, Williams on, 

 loc. cit., p. 295, erroneously attributed the same character, aa regards subdivision 

 of the bracts, which actually exists in the new cone. The only explanation 

 appears to be, that William son interpreted the structure of the Lepidostrobus 

 in the light of that of the peduncle, which, as we shall see, really belonged tc 

 a totally different fructification. 



