FROM THE SECONDARY ROCKS OF BRITAIN. 9 
markably resembles the fossil cone. The form of the cone and its in- 
ternal structure is, however, very different, and the fossil is unlike all 
recent Abietineous cones with which I am acquainted, in having the 
basal scales larger than those of the body. The basal scales are barren, 
and the apophyses rise from their whole surface ; in the series immedi- 
diately above them there is a short flat body to the scale, but the 
greater portion of the scale is covered with the apophysis ; the third 
series are fertile, and have a longer and more ascending body. The 
outer surface of the apex or apophysis of the scale is destroyed in the 
specimens I have examined. The Bovverbank fragment is the most 
perfect in this respect. In it the apex is three-eighths of an inch thick, 
and the surface of each scale is slightly convex on the centre of its 
upper portion. Henslow made a diagram of the phyllotaxis of the 
cone, and he considers that the arrangement of the scales is represented 
by the fraction j^. This is an anomalous arrangement, and does not 
belong to the recognised series. In Mr. Powker's cone there are three 
spirals to the left and eight to the right, so that this cone belongs to 
the eight-ranked arrangement, represented by f . Each scale supports 
two seeds in the hollowed superior surface near its base. The seeds 
are oval, nearly half an inch long, and are apparently wingless. 
Having explained, at length, the difference between the Cycadean 
and Coniferous cones, the description I have just given sufficiently es- 
tablishes that this fossil is a Coniferous fruit. The thickened apophyses 
woidd indicate its affinities to the Pinus vera section of the genus, but 
it is remarkably different, as I have pointed out in the large size of the 
basal scales. The longitudinal section of a portion of P. Pinaster, 
Sol. (Plate LIX. Fig. 8), shows how nearly the internal arrangement of 
the parts of the recent cone agree with the fossil as figured by its 
side (Fig. 5). 
This fossil was originally figured and described by Henslow in the 
" Fossil Flora." He referred it to the genus Zamia, and in estimating 
its relations to modern plants he said it differed from the figure of 
Zamia in Richard's ■ Memoires sur les Coniferes et les Cycadees,' t. 26, 
in its more slender axis, longer scales, and the inclination of the seeds 
consequent on the form and upward direction of the scales. He inserts 
in the text, a diagrammatic longitudinal section of the cone, making 
each scale support the seeds pendent from a little below the middle of 
the upper surface, somewhat after the manner of a Cycadeau fruit. In 
