tion is Macrostachya infundibuliformis ( Brongniart, non 
Bronn) Schimper. 
The identity of Macrostachya infundibultformis is fur- 
ther complicated by the dual interpretation of Renault”. 
Renault figured an elongate strobilus with a typical in- 
curved pedicle (pl. 18. fig. 2) but the detail is too poor 
to show any structure. He also figured and described 
(pl. 19. fig. 6, 7, 8) a specimen from Autun, France as 
Macrostachya infundibuliformis?, This specimen was sili- 
cified and suitable for the grinding of thin sections. From 
rather poor preparations he deduced that the verticils 
were composed of 20 bracts which are distantly placed— 
as much as 5 mm.—and that numerous large ‘‘macro- 
spores’’ were present. Renault also included in this spe- 
cies numerous impressions from Permian and Upper 
Carboniferous deposits. There is little evidence to dem- 
onstrate that Renault’s figured specimens were identical. 
Renault” also studied carbonized cones of a Macro- 
stachya found with Calamites stems in Autun. With un- 
satisfactory methods, he was able to show that the cone 
was heterosporous, with both microsporangia and mega- 
sporangia in the same strobilus. Renault’s description 
and interpretation is not clear. Calamostachys Binney- 
ana, uthough homosporous, sometimes shows abortive 
or undernourished spores, and may give the appearance 
or being heterosporous. Calamostachys Casheana on the 
other hand, is heterosporous, but even in this species the 
same abortion of spores occurs. A similar sacrifice of cer- 
tain spores is to be observed in Macrostachya Thompsonu. 
The occurrence of large spores in Macrostachya 
Thompsoniti may indicate that the plant was heterospo- 
rous, but that the microsporangia and megasporangia 
” Renault: Cours de Bot. foss., p. 121. 1882. 
“Renault: Notice sur les Calamariées, pt. III. 1898. 
[ 56 | 
