CONITES. 113 



Genus CONITES, Sternberg. 

 [Flor. Vorwelt, fasc. iii. p. 36, 1823.] 



Several writers have called attention to the close resemblance 

 between the cones of certain Conifer a and those of some species 

 of cycacls. In attempting to determine the true nature of a fossil 

 cone, of which the internal structure is either very imperfect or 

 entirely wanting, we are met by the great difficulty of clearly 

 discriminating between the female flowers of these two groups of 

 plants. Carruthers 1 has mentioned certain distinctive characters 

 of cycadean cones which, he considers, should enable us to 

 distinguish them from the corresponding structures of conifers, 

 but the main differences which he notes are such as can only 

 be recognized by the help of internal structure ; he writes : 

 "Any difficulty in determining the affinity of a cone by its 

 external characters can easily be solved, as to whether it is 

 coniferous, cycadean, or proteaceous, by a transverse section, 

 which would show, if the structure is even a little preserved, 

 the form of the scale and the position of the seed." 2 Unless 

 the structure is fairly well preserved there is often no little 

 difficulty in deciding in favour of one or other of the two 

 orders of plants, Coniferce and Cycadacea. 



In view of the generally recognized difficulty of clearly 

 separating the cones of these plants, and of distinguishing some 

 cones from small cycadean stems, there must be a certain amount 

 of hesitation in choosing the most suitable generic term for cone- 

 like fossils of doubtful affinity. 



Endlicher 3 proposed the name Zamiostrolus for a cone originally 

 figured by Lindley and Hutton as Zamia macrocephala 4 ; but 

 Carruthers has since shown that the original reference of this 

 fossil to the Cycadacece cannot be accepted, and it is now known 



1 Carmthers (4), p. 535. 



2 Ibid. p. 536. 



3 p. 72 (No. 707). 



4 Fossil Flora, pi. cxxxvi. 



