CALAMARIEAE. 323 



of different forms of this group are found in Grand' Eury 1 , O. Feistmantel 2 , 

 Schimper 3 , Zeiller 4 , Weiss 5 , and Ettingshausen 6 . These Asterophyllitae 

 differ much in the mode and copiousness of their branching and generally in 

 their whole habit. Stur 7 has recently asserted that some of the forms 

 hitherto unhesitatingly referred to this group had their leaves once dicho- 

 tomously divided, and he distinguishes them as Volkmannia, Stbg ; but 

 this name has in the course of time been applied to so many different 

 things that it would be better to abandon it altogether. 



Similar statements are made by Schenk 8 on the strength of a leaf- 

 whorl from St. Ingbert in the collection at Munich. The branches, also 

 with dichotomously divided leaves, which are placed by Grand' Eury 9 

 with Arthropitys and are named Bryon, have an entirely different habit 

 and require further study. Stur distinctly claims Volkmannia gracilis 10 and 

 also AsterophylHtes capillaceus u for his genus Volkmannia. Numerous 

 specimens collected by myself from the Skalley mine at Dudweiler near 

 Saarbriicken, which agreed perfectly with the figure of the first of the two 

 species, did not satisfy me as regards this particular character. 



We have then gradually become accustomed to look upon Astero- 

 phyllitae as branches and branch-systems of Calamitae. Schimper 12 indeed 

 frankly named the genus Calamocladus. The Annulariae on the contrary 

 have always passed for independent herbaceous water-plants. It would be 

 in vain, however, to seek for distinct proofs of either view in the older litera- 

 ture, if we are not prepared to allow the branch-members of some Astero- 

 phyllitae which resemble Calamitae to pass for Calamitae ; nor can we 

 derive any help from the anatomy, for no leaf-bearing branch of the group 

 showing structure has yet been found. Grand' Eury 13 indeed has dis- 

 covered an indubitable Calamitina with Asterophyllitae attached. Renault 14 , 

 to whom we are indebted for a figure of the piece as it really looks, has 

 therefore transferred the name AsterophylHtes to stems of Calamitinae also, 

 and Williamson 15 does the same. But since this specimen does not justify us 

 in assuming that all Asterophyllitae were borne by Calamitinae, I can only 

 see in this nomenclature a change for the worse. If all stems of Calamitae 

 had the foliage which was described above and which is quite different from 

 that of AsterophylHtes, Grand' Eury's observation would prove that there 

 was an interesting heterophylly in the different axes of these plants. Weiss 16 

 has shown that Calamitae were not all alike in this respect. He found 



1 Grand' Eury (1), t. 32, ff. 2, 3. " O. Feistmantel (3), t. 10. 3 Schimper (1), tt. 22, 26. 



* Zeiller (3), t. 159. 5 Weiss (1), t. 12. 6 von Ettingshausen (3). 7 Stur (5), p. 133. 



8 Schenk (2), p. 235 ; t. 37, f. 2. Saporta et Marion (2), p. 46. 10 Steinberg, Graf von, Heft 

 5-8, t. 15, f. i. " Weiss (6), p. 61 ; t. 11, f. i. 12 Schimper (1). 13 Grand' Eury (1), t. 4 

 (figure diagrammatically represented). u Renault (2), vol. ii, t. 17, f. I. 15 Williamson (1), v. 

 14 Weiss (5), p. 99. 



Y 2 



