296 DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE 



structure of the trunks, of which the anatomy is almost un- 

 known. As the nomenclature has heen frequently considered 

 at length (see Berry 1911, Wieland 1908, 1906, Seward 1895, 

 Solms-Laubach in Capellini & Solms 1892, Carruthers 1870, 

 etc.), there is no need to recapitulate the discussions. At 

 present it suffices to say that of all the proposed names only 

 two remain important, namely Bennettites and Cycadeoidea. 

 The latter name was proposed hy Auckland, and in his de- 

 scription of the two fossils which are the types of the genus, 

 he was dealing with vegetative stmctures only. In his account, 

 as in his figures, there is no indication of the fructifications of 

 these " cycad-like" plants. 



In 1870, Carruthers demonstrated the unique aud peculiar 

 fructifications of certain fossils of a different geological age, 

 but of rather similar external appearance. The differences 

 between these fructifications and those of any previously 

 known fossil were ordinal ; and Carruthers named his new 

 fossils Benntttites, placing them in a tribe named the Bennet- 

 titese. Since that date, British botanists have called the 

 fossils with this peculiar type of fructification Bennettites 

 (Scott 1909), but the Americans have assumed the identity 

 of this type with the original Cycadeoidea of Buckland 

 (Ward 1894 B, Wieland 1906, 1908, Berry 1911, etc.)- 

 an assumption which the present work demonstrates is un- 

 warranted, as Buckland's type has anatomical features whicli 

 are not found in Benntltites. That being the case, the two 

 names, Cycadeoidea and Bennettites, may both be used, but they 

 stand for different things. 



It is unfortunate that both the type-specimens of the two 

 species on which Buckland founded his genus Cycadr&idea aro 

 lost. It is said that they formed part of the original Sowcrby 

 collection. Most of this collection was purchased by the 

 Museum, but neither of these types is among the specimens. 

 Buckland's descriptions (1828 A), also, are not sufficiently pre- 

 cise regarding points about which information is most desirable ; 

 nevertheless, both in his plate 49, figs. 1 & 2, and in his 

 description, he makes it clear that his C. tnicropJii/lla had two 

 distinct secondary woods, and not a single wood-ring as in 

 Bennettites. 



He says (p. 398): " The trunk i.s longer in proportion to its 



