1892.] NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 145 



a concise specific description of the species, with additional illustra- 

 tions, pi. viii, fi^s. 82-84, stated that the plant was rare in the Gasp^ 

 sandstones, and that the St. John specimens were of Middle De- 

 vonian age. 



Carruthers, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc, vol xxviii, 18*72, p. 351, re- 

 ferred Dawson's figures of this species, as well as Leptophloeum 

 rhombicum Dn., to Lepidodendroyi nothum Ung. nee Salter. On p. 

 353 it was stated that "Dr. Dawson's figure leaves no doubt as to 

 the identity of the Canadian and Australian plants, as far as the 

 small fragments found in Canada enable one to come to a positive 

 decision ; and the same may be said of Unger's specimen from 

 Germany." 



Dawson, ibid., vol. xxix, 1873, p. 369, states that he considers 

 Lepidodendron gaspianum and L. nothum as specifically distinct, 

 although allied species, but that between L. nothum and Lepto- 

 phlcBum rhombicum there is not even a generic connection. This 

 opinion was reaffirmed, with additional evidence in its support, by 

 Dawson in 1878 and 1882 (Canadian Nat., vol. viii, pp. 379, 380; 

 Fos. Plants Brian (Dev.) and Up. Sil. Canada, Pt. II, p. 107). In 

 the discussion on Dr, Dawson's note Mr. Carruthers admits that 

 his opinion was based on "published observations and drawings;" 

 and in the same way comparing specimens of Lepidodendron gas- 

 pianum with figures of L. nothum Ung. seems to justify Dr. Daw- 

 son's position ; while Mr. Kidston says " The plant figui'ed and 

 described as Lepidodendi-on nothum by Mr. Carruthers (which, 

 however, is not Unger's species of that name) appears to bti indis- 

 tinguishable from Lepidodendron australe McCoy (Cat. Palaeozoic 

 Plants, 1886, p. 231). 



Newberry, Rept. Geol. Surv. Ohio, vol. i, Geol. and Pal., Pt. I, 

 Geology, 1873, p. 147, states that a specimen of Lepidodendron 

 found in the Corniferous limestone at Sandusky, Ohio, is apparently 

 identical with L. gaspianum. Later the Professor figured a speci- 

 men from the Corniferous limestone of Delaware, Ohio (Jour. Cin. 

 Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xii, 1889, p. 56, pi. vi, fig. 2), under the name 

 of L. gaspianum Dn., which he stated "is evidently a branch of 

 Lepidodendron, and undistinguishable from Sir William Dawson's 

 species. It would, however, be unwarranted to assert that it is the 

 same, since the material for comparison is so meagre ; but it is evi- 

 dent that, if not the same, it is a closely allied species." 



Fontaine, Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. vii, 1874, p. 578, reported 

 this species from the Lewis Tunnel on the Chesapeake and Ohio R. 

 R., near the boundary between Virginia and West Virginia, in 

 what he then called Catskill rocks, but later changed to Vesi>ertine 

 (Pocono). But in his list of the Vespertine flora (2d Geol. Surv. 

 Penna., P**, 1880, p. 6) the species is not mentioned, although this 

 locality is stated to yield " the greatest variety of plants" of any 

 of the Vespertine localities. 



Crdpin, Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique, vol. xiv, 1875, p. 218, pi. 

 i-v, identified specimens from the Lower Devonian of Fooz-W^pion, 



