1892. ] NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 145 
a concise specific description of the species, with additional illustra- 
tions, pl. viii, figs. 82-84, stated that the plant was rare in the Gaspé 
sandstones, and that the St. John specimens were of Middle De- 
vonian age. 
Carruthers, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol xxviii, 1872, p. 351, re- 
ferred Dawson’s figures of this species, as well as Leptophlaum 
rhombicum Dn., to Lepidodendron nothum Ung. nec Salter. On p. 
353 it was stated that ‘‘Dr. Dawson’s figure leaves no doubt as to 
the identity of the Canadian and Australian plants, as far as the 
small fragments found in Canada enable one to come to a positive 
decision; and the same may be said of Unger’s specimen from 
Germany.” 
Dawson, ibid., vol. xxix, 1873, p. 369, states that he considers 
Lepidodendron gaspianum and L. nothum as specifically distinct, 
although allied species, but that between LZ. nothum and Lepto- 
phleum rhombicum there is not even a generic connection, This 
opinion was reaffirmed, with additional evidence in its support, by 
Dawson in 1878 and 1882 (Canadian Nat., vol. viii, pp. 379, 380; 
Fos. Plants Erian (Dev.) and Up. Sil. Canada, Pt. II, p.107). In 
the discussion on Dr. Dawson’s note Mr. Carruthers admits that 
his opinion was based on ‘‘ published observations and drawings ;” 
and in the same way comparing specimens of Lepidodendron qas- 
pian um with figures of L. nothum Ung. seems to justify Dr. Daw- 
son’s position; while Mr. Kidston says “The plant figured and 
described as Lepidodendron nothum by Mr. Carruthers (which, 
however, is not Unger’s species of that name) appears to be indis- 
tinzuishable from Lepidodendr on australe McCoy (Cat. Paleozoic 
Plants, 1886, p. 231). 
Newberry, Rept. Geol. Surv. Ohio, vol. i, Geol. and Pal., Pt. I, 
Geology, 1873, p. 147, states that a specimen of Lepidodendron 
found in the Corniferous limestone at Sandusky, Ohio, is apparently 
identical with Z. gaspianum. Later the Professor figured a speci- 
men from the Corniferous limestone of Delaware, Ohio (Jour. Cin. 
Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xii, 1889, p. 56, pl. vi, fig. 2), under the name 
of L. gaspianum Dn., which he stated ‘is evidently a branch of 
Lepidodendron, and undistinguishable from Sir William Dawson’s 
species. It would, however, be unwarranted to assert that it is the 
same, since the material for comparison is so meagre ; but it is evi- 
dent that, if not the same, it is a closely allied species.” 
Fontaine, Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. vii, 1874, p. 578, reported 
this species from the Lewis Tunnel on the Chesapeake and Ohio R. 
R., near the boundary between Virginia and West Virginia, in 
what he then called Catskill rocks. but later changed to Vespertine 
(Pocono). But in his list of the Vespertine flora (2d Geol. Surv. 
Penna., P?, 1880, p. 6) the species is not mentioned, although this 
locality i is stated to yield ‘the greatest variety of plants” of any 
of the Vespertine localities. 
Crépin, Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique, vol. xiv, 1875, p. 218, pl. 
i-y, identified specimens from the Lower Devonian of Fooz-Wépion, 
