212 LEPIDODENDREAE. 



in Lomatophloios. Corda had previously drawn an Artisia-pith for his 

 form ; but this stem does not show the characteristic outer surface, and 

 might very well have belonged to a Cordaites which had been referred here 

 by mistake. And the remark applies also to Goldenberg, who seems to 

 rest in this case on Corda's authority, and is so convinced of the correctness 

 of his views, that on the strength merely of the discovery of Artisiae near 

 Schwalbach (the Ottweiler beds) he thinks himself justified in asserting 

 that Lomatophloios occurs there 1 . After what has now been said, and 

 notwithstanding all Dawson's 2 assertions, I believe that the connection of 

 these medullary cylinders with the genera which we are considering is 

 highly questionable. In any case it is clear that we cannot turn them to 

 account for diagnostic purposes. Goldenberg says that the leaves in Lepi- 

 dophloios are three-nerved, in Lomatophloios one-nerved. These leaves, 

 which were on several occasions found attached to their bases 3 , are linear- 

 lanceolate ; their transverse sections, which have been figured by Corda, 

 show a thick keel which has been squeezed in a great 

 variety of ways, and a narrow lateral wing. The 

 varying effect of pressure may very easily cause the 

 appearance of a nervation which is different in different 

 cases, so that no great importance is to be attached 

 to statements on this point. If it thus appears that 

 there is no reason for separating the two genera, still 

 ' there remains the question of the position of the 

 leaf-cushions. Weiss comes to the conclusion that 

 the F aVmour S 7 e iea C r{, e a:sesTf the bases of the leaves pointed backwards, and 

 ^ffl^te^Aft? refers in proof of this to the branched stems which 

 don da ' have been found, and which though few in number 



necessarily supply in their branches the means of 



settling the question. He has himself had the opportunity of examining 

 a forked stem, but he appeals chiefly to the specimen figured by 

 Goldenberg 5 , which indeed leaves little room for further doubt. Here three 

 of the four rows of scars can be seen, and the two lateral rows which lie in 

 the plane of the stratification still have the members attached to them in 

 the form of lateral branches ; the scars of the middle row have lost their 

 members. The branches stand out squarrosely from the stem, but some at 

 least are so strongly inclined that there can be no question respecting the 

 direction of the piece, and it appears that all the cushions point backwards 

 towards the main stem. This figure reappears in Renault in a distorted 

 form, all the leaf-cushions being drawn in reversed, the stem in the upright 

 position. The author is scarcely justified in saying in the explanation of 



1 Weiss (1), p. 156. Dawson (9). 3 Goldenberg (1), t. 14, f. 12, and Corda (1), t. 4. 



4 Corda (1). * Goldenberg a), t. 16, f. 6. Renault (2), vol. ii, t. 9, f. i. 



