fication as a branched rachis. Scott figured (loc.cit. figure 
153) the oft-copied original of Renault which shows four 
sporangia attached to a short pedicel on a portion of a 
branch of the axis. This drawing gives a most inadequate 
conception of the plant. 
Seward (19) reproduced another of Renault’s original 
drawings which gives a somewhat better idea of the ro¬ 
bust size of the fructification, but here again, the illustra¬ 
tion represents a mere fragment of the whole. 
Renault, in 1896, figured what he considered to be 
two leaflets of Botryopteris. These fleshy pinnules appear 
to have been provided with unusually thick cross veins, 
giving a very unlife-like aspect. It is curious to observe, 
however, that the branch system which bears the spo- 
rangial aggregation of Botryopteris is strikingly similar. 
Hirmer’s (10) reproduction of Renault’s figure is proba¬ 
bly more generally available than the original. It is figure 
653 on page 535. A rather crude drawing of the specimen 
can be consulted also in Seward (19), vol. 2, p.445, fig. 
309 B. 
Renault has interpreted Botryopteris forensis as being 
heterosporous. He described spores with a triradiate scar 
as being megaspores and similar spores but with multi¬ 
cellular construction as microspores. 
Zeiller (1900, p. 74, fig. 73) refigured two of Re¬ 
nault’s drawings but questioned their heterospory. 
Most investigators since Zeiller have doubted that 
Renault really observed endosporal development and 
regard the conclusion that Botryopteris forensis was het¬ 
erosporous as unfounded. 
Two workers, however, have made interesting use of 
the possibility (Thomson (21), Benson (l)). The evidence 
derived from Botryopteris globosa , of course, cannot be 
used to challenge any conclusion based entirely upon 
observations on Botryopteris forensis , but it is significant 
[ 163 ] 
