OF LOWER GHEENSAND PLANTS. 135 



Pinostrobus oblongus (Lindley & Hutton), comb. nov. 

 [Text-fig. 34.] 



1835. Abies oblonya, Lindley Hutton, Fossil Flora Gr. Brit., vol. 2, 



p. 137, pi. cxxxvii, figs. 1, 2. 



1845. Elate oblonya, Unger, Synop. Plantarum foss., p. 199. 

 1847. Pinites oblonyus, Endlicher, Synop. Conif. Foss. p. 20. 

 1850. Pinites oblanyus, linger, Gener. Spec. Plantarum Foss., p. 358. 

 1850. Abietites oblonyus, Goeppert, Foss. Coniferen, p. 207. 



1866. Pinites oblonyus, Carruthers, Geol. Mag., vol. 3, p. 541. 



1867. Pinites oblongus, Cavruthers, Journ. Bot., vol. 5, p. 12. 



1886. Abietites oblonyus, Gardner, Rep. Brit. Assoc., 1885, p. 246, 

 and Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. 3, p. 499. 



1887. Pinites oblongus, Williamson, Mem. Manchester Lit. & Phil. 

 Soc., ser. 3, vol. 10, pp. 189-194, pi. ix, figs. 1-2. 



Diagnosis. None is given by the original describers, but 

 Goeppert (1850) diagnosed the species as follows : " Abietites 

 strobilo cylindrico, utrinque obtuso, squarnis dense imbricatis, 

 late ovatis, margine repandis." A short diagnosis is given by 

 Carruthers (1866 n) : "Cone cylindrical; scales broad and thin 

 at the apex, with the seeds very near the base ; axis slender." 

 To this should be added that the cone is about 6*5 cm. long, but 

 incomplete, and 3 cm. in diameter at its thickest part. There 

 is composing the cone a relatively small number of overlapping 

 scales, each apparently about 2 cm. in tangential extent and 

 about 1 cm., more or less, in vertical extent, but they are 

 rather variable. 



HOKIZON. Thought by Dr. Buckland to be washed out of 

 the Greensand. 



LOCALITY. Lyme Regis, on the shore of about 1850. 



TYPE. University Museum, Oxford. 



The cone is illustrated by Lindley & Hutton (1835), and 

 their figures are reproduced in text-fig. 34. A comparison of 

 this with the species P. Leclcenbyi of Carruthers will suffice to 

 show their differences. While the present species may be allied 

 to the living Cedrus, it is much less like it than is P. Leclcenbyi. 

 In 1887, Williamson described further some of the details of its 

 internal anatomy from a second specimen of this species, also 

 washed out on the shore and supposed to be of Lower Greensand 

 age. It is, however, to my mind, not quite clear that the 



