376 



NATURE 



\August 14, 1879! 



the same Asteropliyllites bearing spikes of the type Bruck- 

 mannia, Stur, and in such relations that it can only be the offset 

 from a Calamites found lying with it, of which no definition is 

 given, but which has previously been designated C. sachsii, Stur. 

 From this Stur draws the following conclusions :— I. Spheno- 

 phyllum is V ranch of Asterophyllites. (2) Both Spheno- 

 phyllum ir , -\>terophyllites are branches of a Calamites. (3) 

 Spheno,') ilii i is not a distinct botanical genus, but the 

 Macrosp^-^ ip! orous branch of an Asterophyllites — that is of a 

 Calamites. This, if correct, would be one of the moi-t reirark- 

 able results in Pala:ophytology. A Calamites bearing not only 

 twigs, ascribed hitherto to different genera, but to such different 

 fructifications ! and besides, we have the incompatibility in the 

 anatomical structure of the stems of Calamites and Spheno- 

 phyllum, to which Williamson's remarks are directed. It is not 

 every one that can step so lightly over these difficulties in order 

 to unite the three genera into one. Some grounds, one would 

 think, are still left, not only to indicate, but to compel the 

 separation of these genera, and even to wamnt their location in 

 different families, and to call for caution in the interpretation of 

 such facts as the above. To estimate the importance of these 

 facts, we will call attention to the present state of the question. 



The widespread genus Calamites, whose structure has been 

 elucidated by Williamson and others, is now almost universally 

 associated with Equisetum in the group Calamarise, while, as is 

 known, Sphenophyllum has been repeatedly classed with Lyco- 

 podiaceoe within the last few years. Williamson insists on the 

 anatomical incompatibility between Calamites and Sphenophyllum 

 (with which he includes Asterophyllites) as brought out by his 

 own microscopical researches ; and indeed all previous investiga- 

 tions in botany would protest against the insertion of twigs with 

 the structure of Sphenophyllum on stems or branches, with the 

 structure of Calamites. They possess, in common, only the 

 external characters of the transverse segmentation of the stem, 

 and the conformity of the separate internodes ; but this con- 

 formity of segmentation is the chief ground for Stur's view, that 

 all such genera as Annularia, Asterophyllites, and now also 

 Sphenophyllum, pass into Calamites. Many stems, such as that 

 bearing StacJiannularia tuberculata (see my Carboniferous 

 Calamites in Abhandl. ziir gfohg. Specialkarte von Prcussen, 

 Band ii. Heft i., Taf. ii. Fig. i), are Calamites in his eyes, which 

 others do not recognise as such, and he will not allow of any 

 [systematic] severance of a section of the Calamarioid stems from 

 Calamites proper. Hence it is that from Calamites, Stur, most 

 divers things ramify. 



In the second point of importance, however, the close con- 

 formity of Asterophyllites and Sphenophyllum, Williamson 

 agrees vrith Stur. According to him, either the two genera have 

 altogether the same anatomical structure, or, at least, there are 

 plants resembling the former having the stem-structure of the 

 latter. Renault, on the contrary, is convinced that some of 

 Williamson's preparations really belong to Sphenophyllum, 

 agreeing with the fragments from Autun and St. Etienne in- 

 vestigated by himself. ^ The twigs which show Calamite struc- 

 ture are referred by Williamson to Calamites, and appear to be 

 those which, without a knowledge of their internal structure, 

 would be placed in Asterophyllites. These would come under 

 Calamocladus of Schimper, whilst Williamson's Asterophyllites 

 appear to be next related to Sphenophyllum. 



These two forms agree so closely in the external characters of 

 their sterile parts as to be undistinguishable without microscopic 

 investigation ; so that one is inclined to leave them together 

 under the old provisional generic name of Asterophyllites, 

 despite their probable essential difference. That section of 

 Asterophyllites which shows the same stem-structure as Spheno- 

 phyllum may be allowed to be closely allied thereto, and, in some 

 cases, even to belong to the same individual as Stur's discovery 

 would indicate. It is possible that in well preserved fossils we may 

 still find some single [external] character, which will distingxiish 

 this section of Asterophyllites from those which approach Cala- 

 mites. It would lie in the decided trimery of the leaves in the 

 verticils of the former (when regularly developed), corresponding 

 with the triangular bundle of the axis, from the angles of which 

 the vessels of the leaf spring. The difference of leaf-form as an 

 absolute character separating Asterophyllites and Sphenophyl- 

 lum must now be given up. 



From the botanist's point of view there is another very im- 



\ On this point M. Renault is mistjlkcn ; they differ in the chief features 

 which distinguish Sphenophyllum from Asterophyllites, viz., in the number 

 and shape of the leaves and in the number of the separate vascular bundles 

 given off to these leaves,— W. C. W. 



portant ordinal or generic distinction, to be found in the fructij j 

 lication. Every one must be astonished at Stur's pointing out 

 both Bruckmannia and Volkmannia spikes on his plant. By 

 the former he means Calamarioid spikes with sporangiophores 

 and sporangia between pairs of approximated verticils of Bracts 

 (Calamostachys, Auct.). By the latter, spikes with sporangio- 

 phores and the sporangia axillary (Palseostachya, Weiss.) Whether 

 these two arrangements are really present here is not yet clearly 

 shown ; at least, in answer to my inquiries, Stur gives no definite 

 inf^ rotation on that point, but refers to the forthcoming fuller 

 memoir which he promises. Hence it is still 'an open question 

 whether the arrangement is not that hitherto alone recognised as 

 that of Sphenophyllum — that is, sporangia without sporangio- 

 phores, sessile in or near the axils of the leaves. This mode of 

 attachment may certainly also be concluded from Renault's la.st 

 excellent communication (" Nouvelles Recherches sur la Structure 

 des Sphenophyllum," Ann. d. Sc. Nat. Bot., 1877), My o\(il 

 observations on a beautiful spike from Wettin, give the same 

 result. 



But it must also be borne in mind that those spikes to which 

 I have thought right to restrict the name Volkmannia, which in 

 all probability belong to twigs with the foliage of Asterophyllites, 

 have the same sessile, axillary sporangia, so far as can be 

 determined. If this be correct, however, there can be no diffi- 

 culty from this point of view in uniting these Volkmanniae (not \ 

 Sturs, which belong to Palrcostachya) with the spikes of Spheno- 

 phyllum into a single group. This is a further corroboration of 

 my formerly expressed conclusion, that the two form a group 

 which must be removed from the Calamariie. 



On summing up the results of these critical comparisons, we find 

 (what has not yet been thoroughly contradicted) that Spheno- 

 phyllum may be grouped under I.ycopodiacea;, anatomical 

 structure and fructification alike removing it from Calamariae, 

 Only it becomes more and more impossible to dispute that the 

 convenient generic names Calamites, Asterophyllites, &c., are 

 purely provisional — unfitted, it is true, to show the real relations 

 of the plants that bear them, but indispensable, in the great 

 majority of cases, where the material is insufficient for complete 

 investigation, important though it be. Plants with stems and 

 leaves of undistinguishable appearance, especially in the ordinary 

 state of preservation, but with such different fructifications as 

 Calamostachys and Palieostachya, for instance, must retain their 

 autonomy, and Sphenophyllum still more so. It is not every 

 arborescent Calamarioid stem, not every so-called Calamites that 

 belongs to this botanical genus. It has now become very evident 

 that what has been hitherto termed Asterophyllites, comprises 

 plants of several groups ; yet Cingularia and Bowmannites had 

 already been distinguished, though they both possessed the stem 

 of Asterophyllites, as regards external structure and foliation. 

 We see that the practical difficulties in the distinction and 

 nomenclature of fossils are augmented ; but this lies in the very 

 nature of the case. It is thus unnecessary to doubt the co-existence 

 of Asterophyllites and Sphenophyllum twigs on one plant, as 

 Stur has observed, without going on to admit his conclusions 

 that Asterophyllites, as a whole, is identical with Sphenophyllum, 

 and that both are Calamites. If the spikes cited are really 

 Calamostachys (Bruckmannia, Stur) and Palosostachya (Volk- 

 m.innia, Stur), this would show the distinctness of the fossils 

 regarded by him as identical. Renault has found both macro- 

 sporangia and microsporangia on the same spike of Spheno- 

 phyllum ; this tells against the view that Volkmannia, Stur (that 

 is, in this case, the Sphenophyllum spike) is the female, and 

 Bruckmannia, Stur, the male fruiting spike of one and the same 

 plant. It will be seen how desirable it is to have further cautious 

 investigation and careful publication upon the interesting find 

 on which we are to base such far-reaching conclusions as those 

 which Stur has lately drawn. 



ANTHROPOLOGICAL INQUIRY IN FRANCE 



"T^HE published reports of the proceedings of the Societe 

 -'• d' Anthropologic of Paris, for the year e ding in the autumn 

 of 1S78, testify as usual to the diligence and zeal of .1 large 

 number of its members. Limiting ourselves to the notice of 

 papers which deal with questions of French local palaeontology 

 and sociology, we will begin our resumi by drawing attention 

 to the interesting labours of M. Pruniercs, who has laid before 

 the Society the result of several years' exploration of the 

 Beaumes-Chaudes caverns in Lozere, the largest prehistoric 

 ossuary yet brought to light. Here he recovered the remains of 



