2OO 



LEPIDODENDREAE. 



right in this view, though the proof of it cannot at present be produced. 

 Carruthers l also has expressed the same opinion. Lepidodendron nothum 2 

 again from the Cypridina-schists of Saalfeld appears to be similar in char- 

 acter, as are also certain bits of stem from the Upper Devonian and Lower 

 Carboniferous strata of South Australia and Queensland, which have been 

 described as L. australe, MCoy 3 and as L. nothum, Ung. by Carruthers 4 

 and O. Feistmantel 5 (Fig. 19, C). The figures themselves show that the 

 original surface is wanting in all these specimens, and I have besides assured 

 myself of the fact from numerous specimens from Queensland which are 

 preserved in the British Museum. If indeed the remains figured by Car- 

 ruthers in the work cited below and described by him as leafy branches, 

 which unfortunately I did not see, really belong to this group, then we may 



be dealing here with a genus distinct 

 from Lepidodendron and agreeing with 

 it only in certain states of preservation. 

 Carruthers unites with his Lepidodendron 

 nothum, Ung. a Devonian fossil from 

 Canada and Maine which Dawson 7 had 

 described as Leptophloeum rhombicum, 

 and to all appearance he is right in 

 doing so ; it may differ, if at all, only 

 in the somewhat deeper position of the 

 vascular bundle-trace, for the Artisia- 

 pith which is appealed to by Dawson, 

 who protests loudly against Carruthers's 

 opinion, is more than uncertain and looks 

 in his figure merely as an indefinite cross 

 striation. Artisia-cylinders are it is true 

 claimed by Corda also as belonging to 



FIG. 20. Surface of cast of Knorria imbricata, LomatOphloiOS a genUS of 

 Stbg from the Culm of Burbach near Thann in . 



theVosges. After Schimper in Zittel's Text-book. dreae, but these CaSCS also are quite 



doubtful on other grounds; they have 



hitherto been regarded with certainty as stems and branches of Cordaiteae. 

 With regard to the genus Knorria, Stbg (Fig. 20), which must now be 

 considered, authors are much divided in opinion ; we know however that it 

 represents an inner subepidermal state of preservation of lepidodendroid 

 plants. The frequent dichotomies, which will be further noticed below, 

 prove that it cannot belong to Coniferae, as Sternberg 8 , its first describer, 

 believed. It was then regarded as a pfoper and well-characterised genus of 



1 Carruthers (12). * Unger (5). 3 O. Feistmantel (1), III, t. 13. 4 Carruthers (10), 



t. 26. 5 O. Feistmantel (1), III, tt. i, 14. Carruthers (10), t. 26, ff. i, 2. 7 Dawson 



(1), vol. i, p. 36, ff. 88, 89, and vol. ii, p. 105. 8 Sternberg, Graf von (1), Heft 1-5, t. 27. 



