126 DOLEROPHYLLUM, CANNOPHYLL1TES, EPHEDRITES, 



Renault was good enough to demonstrate to me, have convinced me that 

 we have here to do with correctly described and highly remarkable remains. 

 At the same time also it is the opinion of this author that no surer grounds 

 can be obtained at present for the determination of the plant to which they 

 belong, and the lively imagination of Saporta and Marion l is required to 

 enable us to conceive how they can write as follows : ' we see the close 

 connection between the Dolerophylleae and the progymnospermic stage, 

 but this connection appears still closer when we examine the reproductive 

 organs of these plants, which thanks to the perspicacity of M. Renault and 

 the researches of M. Grand' Eury may be considered to be sufficiently well 

 known.' Then the remains of the female flower, which offer but little that is 

 characteristic, are figured on page 76. A roundish scale-like leaf, destroyed 

 by maceration on one side up to the vascular bundles, is supposed to have 

 borne in a depression on the middle line near the base an ovoid seed 

 pointed at the upper end and showing striae-like fibres on the outside. 

 Seed and leaf are figured but not in connection with one afiother, and the 

 point of insertion on the leaf is not to be recognised. Saporta himself, 

 who, as has been often shown, is not too particular about proofs of con- 

 nection, is induced on this occasion to make the following remark : ' We 

 give a figure of this curious organ, though it is still of somewhat doubt- 

 ful character.' All this shows how little certainty there is at present 

 with regard to the genus Dolerophyllum. The anatomy of the leaf is as 

 yet the only thing that can be made use of to determine its position and 

 affinities, and it seems to me to be very doubtful whether we are justified 

 on this ground only in introducing it into the alliance of Cordaitae and 

 Gymnosperms. 



On occasion of discussing their Progymnosperms Saporta and Marion 2 

 write as follows : ' Near the Dolerophylleae we should place a less-known 

 but perhaps still more curious type, that of the Cannophylliteae of 

 Brongniart (Megalopteris, Daws.). The Cannophylliteae appear to be to 

 the Dolerophylleae what the modern Stangeriae are to other Cycadeae.' 

 Then portions of a leaf of Cannophyllites Virleti, Brongn. 3 , are represented 

 on page 79 4 . These fragments appear to me, notwithstanding the assertions 

 just quoted, to be ordinary remains of fern-leaves with the nervation of 

 Neuropteris, and Megalopteris Dawsoni, Hartt., from the Devonian beds 

 of New Brunswick, figured by Dawson 5 , may very well belong to the same 

 group. Both Dawson and Lesquereux 6 consider these remains to be 

 nothing more than leaves of Ferns. 



No remains of the class of Gnetaceae have yet been determined with 

 perfect certainty. Fragments of variously striated branches of Tertiary 



1 Saporta et Marion (2), p. 74. " Saporta et Marion (2), p. 77. ? Brongniart (7), p. 129. 

 * Saporta et Marion (2), p. 79. 5 Dawson (1), t. 17. Lesqnereux (1), t. 24. 



