Manchester Memoirs^ Vol. l. (1906), No. 10- 15 



7. Foliage, 



No trace of foliage can be identified in any of the 

 preparations. As the tissues preserved are those near the 

 main axis, and the size of the petioles suggests a large 

 leaf, there is a strong probability that no laminae would 

 have been developed so close to the axis. 



That the foliage was fern-like in appearance, the 

 general anatomy can leave but little doubt. As was 

 pointed out by Stenzel ('89, p. 4), in his description of the 

 allied species, petioles of such great size indicate that the 

 fronds must have been big, and were probably complex. 

 It is very possible that some of the large frond impressions 

 known generally as "tree fern" leaves, may belong to 

 these plants. In T. Sutcliffii but two of the numerous 

 petioles are seen to be branching to give off a pinnule 

 rachis, but this in no way militates against the view that 

 they were ultimately much divided. 



Unfortunately, as before mentioned, p. 6, there is no 

 characteristic feature on the cortex of either stem or 

 petiole that might indicate which of the many unassociated 

 impressions belong to this plant ; hence it is unlikely that 

 the connection of foliage impressions and structural 

 material will be established in the way in which Sphenop- 

 teris and R. aspera were recognised as being the same. The 

 probability is that until a happy chance reveals the secret 

 in other structure-specimens, the foliage will remain un- 

 known. 



The likeness in general structure between the small 

 petioles of Anachoropteris rotundata (R. gleicJie Will.) and 

 T. Sutcliffii makes it possible that some of the smaller 

 ones known to us from our coal measures as A. rotundata 

 may belong to Tubicaidis. 



Petioles of ^. rotundata of small size are now frequently 



