114 CONITES. 



as Pinites macrocephala (L. and H.). 1 Owing to the erroneous 

 inclusion of this specimen in the genus Zamiostrolus, and the 

 unwarranted application of the name to cones which, are clearly 

 not cycadean, Carruthers proposed the generic name Cycadeostrobus 

 as a more suitable designation for what are " supposed to be fruits 

 of Cycadece." In speaking of the cones figured by Carruthers 

 under this genus, Solms-Laubach 2 reasonably suggests that possibly 

 several of the fossils may be either small stems or true cones. The 

 only certain cone he considers to be that figured as Cycadeostrobus 

 Brunonis, Carr., but this, he adds, "looks more like a cone of 

 Araucaria than of Cyca&etB." Having had an opportunity of 

 examining Carruthers' type specimens, I must confess to a con- 

 siderable amount of scepticism in accepting them as well-authenti- 

 cated examples of cycadean flowers. 



In cases where it seems impossible to express oneself with any 

 degree of certainty as to whether a specimen is a small stem or 

 cone, the better plan is probably to give expression to the doubtful 

 affinity by leaving the fossil unnamed, or by prefixing a query to 

 any name which it may have already received. The practice of 

 replacing some of the older and more indefinite names of the older 

 palaeobotanists by newer terms more expressive of definite botanical 

 affinity, has not always marked an advance in accurate knowledge. 

 Such a name as Conites does not, indeed, convey any particular 

 information to the mind of botanists as to the nature of the 

 fossils so designated, but, on the other hand, Zamiostrolus or 

 Cycadeostrobus both definitely suggest either the male or female 

 flowers of some form of cycad. 



In the first volume of this Catalogue the term Algites* was 

 proposed as a useful generic designation for doubtful forms of 

 fossil Alga, in preference to the more committal and frequently 

 misleading names often made use of. Although such a course 

 as this is, in one sense, rather retrogressive than progressive, 

 yet it would at all events minimise the chances of possible error 

 if we adopted the old name Conites for several of the cones 

 previously referred to the Cycadacecv on what appears to be too 



1 Carruthers (4), p. 538. 



2 Loc. cit. p. 92. 



3 Seward (2), p. 2. 



