282 STIGMARIA. 



in the Victoria mine at Dukinfield near Manchester l at once removed 

 the doubts which still existed. It was found in the floor of the cannel-seam, 

 whence it was got out and carried to the Manchester Museum, of which it is 

 at present one of the chief ornaments. The branches of the roots, some of 

 which may be followed to their extremities, ran, bifurcating here and there, 

 in the underclay of the seam, and proved to be indubitable Stigmariae. 

 The stump of the stem, measuring fifteen inches in height and four feet in 

 circumference, shows plainly the characters of a Syringodendron. I have 

 been able to satisfy myself on all these points by personal examination. 

 When Binney on the strength of those observations gave it as his 

 decided opinion that Stigmariae are the root-stocks of Sigillariae, he was 

 met by the expression of great doubts on the part of many Continental 

 observers, though Brongniart 2 at once and Goppert 3 at a later time took 

 the part of the English botanist. The objections which were raised against 

 this connection of Stigmaria with Sigillariae are for the most part not 

 difficult to meet. They cannot taken all together hold their own against 

 the long series of stems, which have since that time been found in actual 

 union with Stigmaria-roots. For if Goldenberg 4 is of opinion that the 

 dome-shaped central stock in Lindley and Hutton's specimens shows no 

 surface of fracture, and cannot therefore be a mutilatedjbrm, the answer is 

 that this surface may very well have disappeared or become obscured by 

 lateral pressure and the formation of slickensides. The same author says 

 further on : ' As regards the observation of Binney and Hooker cited above, 

 on which so great weight has been laid, I am willing to believe that these 

 gentlemen observed scars very like the scars of Stigmariae on roots which 

 were still attached to stems of Sigillariae. Such scars are to be found on 

 all fossil plants, in which the branches of the root had root-fibres of the 

 thickness of a quill,' &c. If Goldenberg had seen the specimens at 

 Manchester he would not have written thus, for they are so characteristic 

 that every doubt disappears. We cannot of course enter upon the question 

 of the supposed fructifications mentioned on p. 265, which Goldenberg dis- 

 covered and has appealed to as an argument against Binney's view, so long 

 as their real nature is not better ascertained. Another determined and 

 formidable opponent appeared in 1870 in the person of Unger. He says 5 : 

 ' To suppose Stigmaria to be the root of Sigillariae, to which it is said to 

 have been found attached, is in a word a morphological impossibility, 

 apart from the fact that the former presents all the characters of an 

 independent plant.' He is careful indeed not to say what characters he 

 means. He rests his judgment on the appendages, which he says have not 

 the morphological characters of lateral roots. This must be admitted. 



1 Binney (6). 3 Brongniart (2). * Cftppert (3). * Goldenberg (1), 



Heft III, p. 9. 5 Unger (10). 



