BENNETTITES. 151 



In a recent volume of the Plantes Jitrassiques, Saporta * gives 

 a full account of the Williamsonia question, and discusses at 

 length such views as have been advanced as to the nature of the 

 genus. Several of the Yates' specimens, now in the Paris 

 Museum (Jardin des Plantes), and many others are figured in 

 Saporta's monograph. Some of these figures were originally 

 drawn for Brongniart, 2 whose intention it was to publish a 

 memoir on the subject. In addition to this very important 

 contribution by Saporta, reference should be made to a paper 

 by him in conjunction with Marion in the Comptes Rendus for 

 1881, 3 and also to the account by the same authors in IS Evolution 

 du regne vegetal. 4 ' The genus Williamsonia, with Yuccites, 

 Goniolina, Weltrichia, and others, is included in the special class 

 of " Types proangiospermiques." " Ces types sont appeles par 

 nous des Proangiospermes, parce, qu'ayant en realite precede dans 

 1'ordre des temps les Angiospermes veritables et ne pouvant etre 

 classes methodiquement parmi ces dernieres, ils se distinguent 

 pourtant tres nettement de tous les vegetaux passes en revue 

 jusqu'ici, et qu'ils s'ecartent a la fois et des Cryptogames et 

 des Gymnospermes, n'ayant d'ailleurs de points de contact 

 appreciables ni avec les Cycadees, ni avec les Salisburiees, encore 

 moins avec les Coniferes." 5 As an introduction to the examination 

 of the genus, Saporta writes : 6 " Avec les Williamsonia nous 

 abordons un des problemes les plus difficiles, un des sujets les 

 plus controverses, mais aussi les plus curieux, peut-etre rnerne 

 le plus remarquable de tous ceux que nous offre 1' ensemble des 

 plantes jurassiques." He agrees with Brongniart that Williamsonia 

 is probably generically identical with Buckland's Podocarya. 

 Some of Williamson's conclusions he does not accept ; the 

 " carpellary disk " of that author, Saporta regards as a terminal 

 expansion of the male spadix. One important point to note 

 in reference to Saporta's conclusions is his interpretation of two 

 forms of specimens; that figured by Williamson in his pi. lii. 



1 Pal. FranQ. vol. iv. 1891. 



2 Ibid. p. 90 (footnote). 



3 Saporta and Marion (1). 



4 Ibid. (2), Les Phanerogames, vol. i. p. 235. 

 6 Saporta, Pal. Fran9. vol. iv. p. 63. 



6 Ibid. p. 89. 



