64 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



of L. laricinus. The fertile branch lets, as figured by Goldenburg, are 

 also longer than in the Nova Scotia species. For these reasons I may 

 still hold that my species is distinguishable, at least as a well-marked 

 varietal form, and not improbably, when all the parts can be compared, 

 as a distinct species. 



Compared with its representative in Europe it may not have attained 

 80 large dimensions, as I have not found trunks of greater diameter than 

 one foot. Fragments, however, of the bark show flattened leaf-bases, 

 which, as we know that these were capable of enlargement in proportion 

 to the gi'owth of the trunk, may indicate larger trees than any found 

 entire or nearly so. (Plate IV.) 



The remarks already made respecting the internal structure of Le- 

 pidophloios, being based on a specimen of this species from the Albion 

 Mines, Pictou, need not be repeated here. 



Lepidophloios Cliftonensis. Dawson. 



(Figs. IX. and X.) 



Lepidodendron Cliftonense, "The Geological History of Plants," 1888, p. 452; Bul- 

 letin Geological Society of America, Vol. II., 1891, p. .533, and Plates 21, 

 Figs. 3, 4 and 22, Figs. 5 to 7. 



Sculpture of main stems and large branches resembling that of the 

 previous species, except that the leaf-bases are longer and more thoroughly 

 reflexed, in this resembling those of Ij. laricinus of Europe. In conse- 

 quence of this the leaves, which are apparently more persistent than those 

 of L. Acadianus, are horizontal or droop at their proximal ends, as seen in 

 the photograph (Plate IX.), and only rise upward toward the middle and 

 extremities. This attitude shows that they were still living when the 

 leaf-bases were quite bent downward. The stem forks into branches not 

 more than an inch in diameter (Plate X.), and on these the leaf-bases 

 are still adherent to the branch, and are transversely wrinkled in the 

 manner of Lepidodendron Wortheni of Lesquereux. In this state a frag- 

 ment of a branch might be described as a Lepidodendron, and the leaf- 

 bases are not relatively broader than in my L. decurtatum, which might 

 well be a leafless branch of this or an allied species. The leaves are 

 in all respects similar to those of L. Acadianus, but a very little narrower. 

 They extend on the trunk and thick branches to a length often inches 

 without showing the point, and were sufliiciently rigid easily to stand 

 erect. The cones are longer and narrower than in L. Acadianus, though 

 the scales are broad, as in other species of the genus, and are therefore 

 large in proportion to the breadth of the cone. The cones are supported 

 on long peduncles or fertile branchlcts, springing from the sides of the 

 branches and clothed with a few short leaves. The scars and leaf-bases 



