XLVl] ECHINOSTROBUS, ETC. 311 



records of Conifers closely allied to Juniperus, and the same remark 

 applies to Juniperites eocenica described by Ettingshausen 1 from 

 Haring in the Tyrol. A single male flower figured by Goeppert 

 and Menge 2 from the Baltic amber as Juniperus Hartmannianus 

 may be correctly referred to that genus though other recent genera 

 are not excluded. 



Echinostrobus Schimper. 



Proposed in the first instance by Schimper 3 for Unger's Athro- 

 taxites lycopodioides, this term was adopted for several sterile 

 shoots such as those named by Brongniart Thuytes expansus, 

 characterised by the possession of decussate leaves like those of 

 Thuya and Cupressus with others agreeing more closely with 

 Brackyphyttum. As the name has reference to the spinous nature 

 of the cone-scales, and as it is now agreed that Unger's earlier name 

 Athrotaxites may be appropriately employed, Echinostrobus is dis- 

 carded. 



Pkyllostrobus Saporta. 



This generic name was given by Saporta 4 to an Upper Jurassic 

 fertile shoot with whorled leaves of the Thuites form bearing a 

 single cone compared with those of Libocedrus. The impression 

 conveyed by Saporta's figures is that the preservation of the cone 

 is too imperfect to warrant the institution of a new generic term. 



* 



Condylites Thiselton-Dyer. 



This name applied to specimens from the Solenhofen slates 5 

 has reference to the elbow-like insertion of lateral branches : the 

 foliage is like that of Brachyphyllum, and the cones, which are 

 imperfectly preserved, are compared with those of Thuya. As in 

 the case of Saporta's Phyllostrobus the cones are too obscure to 

 admit of any satisfactory description. 



Athrotaxites Unger. 



This name was proposed by Unger 6 for a branched cone-bearing 

 shoot from Solenhofen agreeing in vegetative characters with 



1 Ettingshausen (55) PL v. fig. 6. 



2 Goeppert and Menge (83) A. p. 39, PL xiv. figs. 156, 157. 



3 Schimper (72) A. p. 330. 4 Saporta (84) p. 635. 



5 Thiselton-Dyer (72). 6 Unger (49) PL v. figs. 1, 2. 



