84 THE CANADIAN NATURALIST. [March 



" the leaves of Calamites." This will be new to most Paloeo- 

 botanists, more especially when they turn to plate xv. and find a 

 plant figured as " Asferophyllites longi/olia" which appears, if 

 correctly represented, to be an Annularia, not far removed from, 

 if not identical with Annularia longifolia, a plant usually regard, 

 ed as distinct from Asterophyllites. Now it is true that Brong- 

 niart has suggested that Asterophyllites may be branches of 

 Calamodendron, and it is possible that this may be the case, as 

 the leaves of Calamodendron are not certainly known, but the 

 leaves of Calamites are well known, and have been figured by 

 Lindley and Hutton, by Geinitz and by the writer, and they may 

 be easily distinguished by very simple characters from those of 

 Asterophyllites and Annularia, which they resemble merely in 

 their verticillate arrangement. The leaves of the ypecies C. 

 Cistii and C. Suckovii and C. Nodosus, all of which the writer 

 has seen, are aculeate, thick and apparently triangular in cross 

 section, and finely striate without any distinct rib. Those of 

 Asterophyllites and Annularia are flat, and with a conspicuous 

 median nerve. Badly preserved specimens of leaves of such 

 species as Asterophyllites longifolia might be mistaken for 

 Calamite leaves, but the characters of the genera are sufl&ciently 

 distinct, and in so far as the writer's experience has extended, 

 there is little evidence even of the association of Calamites and 

 Asterophyllites in the same localities. 



We had intended to make some remark ©n the curious state- 

 ment at page 15, as to fossilization, in connection with Professor 

 Graham's discovery of Dialysis, which seems to ignore the fact 

 that this whole subject has been again and again illustrated most 

 fully both microscopically and chemically. We may, however, 

 content ourselves with remarking in general, on this and some 

 similar statements, that they are not so much matters of blame to 

 Mr. Binney personally, as evidences of the remarkable neglect in 

 England of the scientific pursuit of fossil botany. Though we 

 cannot admit that Mr. Binney has in his monograph added mnch 

 that is new to our knowledge of Calamites and Calamondendron, 

 yet he has figured well several curious specimens of stems and 

 some remarkable strobiles, the interpretation of which will come 

 in due time; and for that we have good reason to thank him. 

 More especially have we reason to do so, in view of the almost 

 incredible fact that this is the first time the Palaeontographical 

 Society, in the twenty-one years in which it has flourished, has 



