150 BENNET1ITES. 







for the supposed connection between the fronds of Zamites gigas, 

 the cycadean stem, and the floral structures ; the last-mentioned he 

 prefers to regard as some primitive form of a monocotyledonous 

 inflorescence, probably a pandanaceous type, analogous to Yuccites, 

 Podocarya, Eolirion, etc. 



In the Palaontologica Indica there have been described by 

 Oldham and Morris, 1 and afterwards by Feistmantel, 2 various 

 specimens of Williamsonia. The latter author figures certain 

 cycad-like stems found in association with the Williamsonia 

 fossils as belonging to the plant which bore the Williamsonia 

 inflorescence. Further additions to our knowledge of the 

 distribution of this fructification were made by Nathorst in 1880, 3 

 and he put forward the opinion that Williamsonia should be 

 placed with the Balanophorece. This idea he afterwards abandoned, 

 and in a later paper 4 upholds the view that Williamsonia was 

 the inflorescence of a plant bearing cycadean fronds. He gives 

 a restoration of Anomozamites minor (Brong.) bearing in the 

 forks of a branched stem large flowers of the type Williamsonia 

 angustifolia, Nath. The restored species presents an appearance 

 certainly more suggestive of some extinct form of plant than of 

 anything at present in existence. 5 Nathorst associates his other 

 species, W. Leckenbyi, with Anomozamites Lindleyanus, Schimp., 

 and connects W. gigas, Carr., with Zamites gigas, L. and H., 

 adding that possibly Braun's Weltrichia may be regarded as the 

 inflorescence of Otozamites. In another place 6 the same writer 

 refers to the likelihood of a connection or identity of Bennettites 

 and Williamsonia. 



In Zigno's second volume of the Flora fossilis formationis 

 Oolithicee,' 1 certain specimens from Italian rocks are described 

 under the new generic name of Blastolepis ; the figures of the 

 two species of this genus, B. otozamitis and B. falcata, Zig., are 

 strikingly suggestive of Carruther's genus. There can be little 

 doubt that these specimens should be assigned to the genus 

 Williamsonia. 



1 Oldham and Morris (A), p. 32, pi. xxxii. fig. 12. 



2 Feistmantel (2). a Nathorst (3). 4 Ibid. (4). 



5 Since this was written, I have had an opportunity of examining Nathorst's 

 specimens, and can hear testimony to the accuracy of his description. 



6 Ibid. (1), p. 97. 



7 Zigno (1), p. 173, pi. xlii. figs. 9-11. 



