230 Palaeontologie. 



for a teraperate flora, concluding "there is no such thing as a native 

 plant in Br itain," all that we now have, having come from time 

 to time as chance introduction. M. C. Stopes (London). 



Scott, D. H„ On a Palaeozoic Fern, the Zygopteris Grayi of 

 William so n. (Ann. Bot. XXVI. p. 39-69. pls. I— V. 1 textfig. 

 1912.) 



The paper describes new specimens of Williamson's species 

 from a fresh locality, Shore, Littleborough; and also gives a 

 general account of the species and a discussion of the relation of 

 the different specimens of the "species" to the several genera into 

 which Zygopteris has been broken up by Bertrand's recent work. The 

 details of the new specimens are described at length and illustrated. 

 It was obtained from a "seam-nodule", i.e. a typical coal ball, while 

 Williamson's original type specimen was from a "roof-nodule". This 

 may raise a doubt as to whether all the specimens are of the same 

 actual species in a modern sense of the word. The main points of 

 interest which are brought out by this detailed account of the plant 

 are: that the protoxylem of the stem is situated in the internal rays 

 of the xylem arms, and the protoxylem of the axillary stele is con- 

 tinuous with that of the internal rays of the main stele. The 

 branching is rightly described as axillary, and not dichotomous. 

 There is no evidence of the existence ofa true pith, internal tracheids 

 are always present in every member of the Zygopterideae. The 

 Aphlebiae are abundant on stem and leaf base, and are modified basal 

 pinnae of the leaf, their Strands are given off from the leaf traces, 

 and branch in the free Aphlebia. The vascular System is regarded 

 as a highly elaborated protostele, and not a Condensed pofystelic 

 structure. 



The systematic conclusion is that Zygopteris Grayi is a mem- 

 ber of the genus Ankyropteris, as re-defined by Bertrand, which 

 genus shows a close affinity with Asterochlaena. 



The union with Ankyropteris is specially indicated by the pre- 

 sence of periferal loops on the leaf trace, the existence of which 

 show the apparent resemblance to Zygopteris (Etapteris) di-npsilon 

 to be illusory. M. C. Stopes (London). 



Scott, D. H., President! al Address, on the Older Work 

 on the Structure of fossil Plants. (Proc. Linn. Soc. London. 

 123e sess. 1910—11. p. 17-29. 1911.) 



The period referred to is that round the year 1830, which was 

 practically a pre-evolution period, and one also, before the great 

 controversies had Sprung up. While some ideas were crude, many 

 were surprisingly modern, and Brongniart's introduction in 1828 

 is quoted to illustrate this, as well as other writers at that time 

 who had realised the importance of the anatom}^ of fossil plants. 

 As regards Classification, Brongniart was in advance of his times 

 in his treatment of the Gymnosperme, and is also emphatic on the 

 Lycopod affinities of Lepidodendron, about which others had some 

 confusion of ideas. The author then discusses Cotta's work on 

 petrifactions, which was less in accord with modern ideas. Henry 

 Witham is considered as the founder of modern structural fossil 

 botany, as he was the first to use thin sections mounted on glases. 

 He studied the early Gymnosperm stems and noted the elusive 



