xxx] SCHUTZIA 127 



the same localities associated with ScJiiitzia anomala, which he 

 names Dictijothalamus Schrollianus 1 : in habit these agree closely 

 with Schutzia but the receptacles, the reticulate appearance of 

 which suggested the generic name Dictyothalamus, bear a large 

 number of small bodies regarded as seeds. The preservation of 

 the fossils is not such as to enable us to determine their true 

 nature but it is probable that Schutzia and Dictyothalamus are 

 not generically distinct. In his description of Dictyothalamus 

 Goeppert suggests that the two associated types may be the 

 male and female shoots of one plant, but he speaks of seeds in 

 both cases. Schimper 2 , who unites Dictyothalamus with Schutzia , 

 regards the latter as female and the former as male. 



Schutzia Bennieana Kidston. 



This species, described by Kidston 3 from the Calciferous series 

 of Scotland, differs from S. anomala in its much more slender 

 axis and in the relatively narrower and less globular clusters of 

 bract-like appendages. The principal axis bears three lateral 

 branches with terminal clusters of acute and narrow linear scale- 

 leaves. No seeds were found in association with the specimens. 



^chiitzia permiensis (Renault). 



Renault founded this Permian species as Antholithus permiensis* 

 on a specimen from Lodeve; it consists of an incomplete 

 inflorescence 64 cm. long bearing four lateral branches with stalks 

 1-5 to 2 cm. long terminated by clusters of small oval bracts 5 mm. 

 long. Renault compares the fossil with the recent Conifers 

 Glyptostrobiis and Tsuga, but it exhibits a much closer resemblance 

 to Schutzia anomala. 



The genus Schutzia, originally described from Permian strata, 

 is recorded also from Westphalian strata in North Africa 5 as well 

 as from Lower Carboniferous rocks in Scotland. The data at 

 present available are insufficient to determine the morphological 

 nature of the fertile branches : the evidence adduced by Goeppert 

 in support of the occurrence of seeds is not convincing and the 



1 Goeppert (65) p. 164, Pis. xxiv v. 2 Schimper (72) A. p. 358. 



3 Kidston (84) PL v. fig. 2. 4 Renault (96) A. p. 379, fig. 73. 



5 Zeiller in Douville and Zeiller (08). 



