340 



CALAMARIEAE. 



which maybe made use of for or against such a division of Calamariae 

 into Calamitae and Calamodendrae, as is desired by the school of 

 Brongniart. I may say at once that it cannot in fact be strictly proved 

 that all forms of Calamariae belong to one another in the sense of Wil- 

 liamson, Stur and Weiss, but that on the other hand the reasons of the 

 French authors for separating them into two quite different series are in 

 my opinion far from sufficient for that purpose. It will be best therefore, 

 till stronger proofs can be alleged in support of the latter theory, to keep to 

 the more simple view of the English and German authors, treating the 

 whole matter at the same time as an open question. 



Of the arguments which must be urged against Brongniart and 

 Renault, there are two of great and special importance. First it must 

 be asked which of the Calamitae are supposed to have borne gymno- 

 spermous fructifications, since we find archegoniate fruiting spikes on stems 

 and branches of very various kinds, on Stylocalamitae (Palaeostachya 

 arborescens), on Calamitinae (Calamostachys Solmsi), on Eucalamitae 

 (Calamostachys ramosa) and also on Annulariae (Calamostachys tubercu- 

 lata and C. calathifera). It is true that Renault has recently endeavoured 

 to meet this difficulty by turning the spikes into male flowers. But this 

 does not seem to me to have been a happy idea ; it does not appear why 

 this interpretation should not be extended to all spikes, and thus we should 

 have all the Calamariae united into one group, only under a different set 

 of assumptions and with a different terminology. 



On the other side it is to be observed that all known stems of this 

 group were capable of growth in thickness. If there were other Calamitae 

 which had no such power of growth, it must certainly seem very strange 

 that they should never have been found in a state of petrifaction. Grand' 

 Eury himself cannot help expressing his astonishment at this. He says l : 

 ' It is, to say the least, surprising that no one has yet met with a Calamite 

 with the structure preserved.' The objection, that they may have all 

 perished owing to the more delicate nature of their tissue, cannot be 

 regarded as sufficient, for in that case the young and slender branches of 

 Calamariae could not well have been preserved, whether we suppose them 

 to have belonged to Calamitae or to Calamodendrae. But such branches 

 have been more than once, though not very often, described and figured by 

 Williamson 2 . They show the well-preserved parenchymatous pith, sur- 

 rounded by a circle of conspicuous primary bundles with large lacunae. 

 It may indeed be replied, that in point of fact remains of stems of Calamitae 

 have been found with the structure of Equisetae and with no secondary 

 growth, and the famous specimens from the Plauensche Grund near 



1 Grand' Eury (1), p. 30. a Williamson (1\ ix, t. 19, ff. 8-n. 



