221 
ON APHYLLOSTACHYS, A NEW GENUS OF FOSSIL 
PLANTS OF THE CALAMITES GROUP, AND ON THE 
RELATIONS OF THE FOSSIL FLORA TO DARWIN'S . 
THEORY OF TRANSMUTATION. 
By Prof. H. R. Gopeert. 
(Translated from the ' Nova Acta' of the Imperial German Academy Natures 
Curiosorum.) 
(Plate LXVIIL) 
About eighteen years ago, Dr. Jugeler, of Hanover, sent rue a fossil 
plaut from the neighbourhood of Engern, which he and ray colleague, 
Dr. F. Komer, thought probably belonged to the Lias-beds of that dis- 
trict. Examination convinced me that it was of great interest, 
but its relations to any fossil or living species appeared to me obscure, 
and I again and again put it aside in hopes that time would throw 
further light upon it. But, as these hopes have not yet been realized 
I at last publish it, trusting that others may explain its relationship 
better than I am able to do. 
All my investigations led to the same result, viz. that it occupies 
an isolated position ; and this surprised me the more, seeing that it . 
belonged to so modern a formation. It has recently engaged anew 
m y attention, such forms having a new interest because of the discus- 
sions raised by Darwin's theory of transmutation. No one lias looked 
«• fossil plants in their relation to this theory, with the exception of 
*te Hooker, who makes a passing remark on them in the Introduction 
to his 'Tasmanian Flora.' He holds that, regarded from the classifi- 
catory point of view, the geological history of plants is not so favour- 
able to the theory of progressive development as that of animals, 
because the earliest ascertained types are of such high and complex 
Or ganization, and because there are no known fossil plants which we 
Cau certainly assume to belong to a non-existing class, or even family, 
V^ M **v~. ~_ 
ai *d none that are ascertained to be intermediate in affinity between 
r eeent classes or families. 
In another part, the absence of genuine Monocotyledons is alluded 
to by him, as it was previously by Brongniart and Geinitz, and shown 
t0 be not in favour of that theory. But it is evident from his disscrta- 
tlon that, on the whole, he regards these unfavourable points rather as 
V ° L - v. [august 1, 1807.] 
R 
