176 FOSSIL PLANTS. 



Dawson, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 164. 

 Canadian Nat. vol. viii. p. 453. 

 Foss. Plants Lower Garb. Canada, p. 37. 



Lepidodendron salebrosum 



Wood, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. vol. xiii. p. 345, pi. viii. fig. 6. 



Halonia disticha. 



Morris, Trans. Geol. Soc. 2nd ser. vol. v. p. 489, pi. xxxviii. fig. 1. 



Sigillaria Preuiana. 

 Romer, Palaeontographica, vol. ix. p. 42, pi. xii. fig. 7, 1862. 



Sigillaria perplexa. 



Wood, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. vol. xiii. p. 345, pi. viii. fig. 7. 



Sigillaria Menardi. 



Lesquereux, Keport, Geol. Survey of Illinois, vol. ii. p. 450, pi. xliii. 



Remarks. In the notes appended to Lepidodendron Veltheimianum, Sternb., 

 my reasons are stated fully for regarding certain species of Ulodendron as 

 Sigillaria. The two species of Ulodendron (as far as specimens in the Collection 

 are concerned) which fall to be placed in Sigillaria are Lepidodendron 

 discophorum, Konig ( = Ulodendron majus, L. and H.), and Ulodendron 

 Taylori, Carruthers. At present my remarks will apply chiefly to Sigillaria 

 discophora, Konig, sp. 



This species was first figured as a Lepidodendron, without any description, 

 by Konig, about 1825. As far as I am aware, Bronn is the only author who 

 takes any notice of Kb'nig's plate, which is very characteristic of the species. 

 His figure, of which there is a plaster cast in the Collection, represents a 

 specimen 6| inches long and 3 inches wide, bearing two perfect Ulodendroid- 

 scars and a portion of a third. These are about 2 inches in diameter. The 

 rhomboidal leaf -scars are seen on the figure, and a separate drawing of them 

 is also given, but they show no trace of the vascular bundle " dots." Lindley 

 and Button's Ulodendron majus agrees in all respects with this figure, which 

 evidently must have beeu unknown to the authors of the Fossil Flora, as they 

 make no reference to it. In regard to Lindley and Hutton's plate, the leaf- 

 scars appear to be a little roughly drawn, their upper angle being too acute, 

 and the boundary lines of the lower portion of the leaf-scar too convex. Their 

 reference to Rhode's plate must be excluded, as Rhode's figure belongs to 

 Lepidodendron Veltheimianum, and not to their Ulodendron majus. 



From the examination of numerous specimens, many of which were in 

 exquisite preservation, I can entertain no doubt that Ulodendron minus, 

 L. and H., is only a slightly younger stem of Ulodendron majus, L. and H. 

 The reference they give to Allan's plate of a Ulodendron from Craigleith 

 Quarry as synonymous with their Ulodendron minus must also be cancelled, 

 as Allan's plant is likewise Lepidodendron Vdtheimianum. I have carefully 

 examined the counterpart of the type of Ulodendron minus, L. and H., which 

 is now all that is known to exist of the fossil, and am assured by the shape of 

 the leaf -scars that it is Sigillarian, they being, in fact, of the same form as 

 that described by Romer as Sigillaria Preuiana, but this point will be more 

 fully discussed presently. 



The figure of Ulodendron minus, given by Lesquereux in the Coal Flora of 

 Pennsylvania, and which appears to be inverted, is not very satisfactory, but 



is probably Lindley and Hutton's plant. 

 The same author gives 



es an excellent figure of Sigillaria discophora, Konig., 

 sp. (Report, Geol. Survey of Illinois, vol. ii. p. 450, pi. xliii.), under the 

 name of Sigillaria Menardi, where the character of the leaf-scar is clearly 

 shown. The specimen he figures is a comparatively old stem, and is very 

 characteristic of the species. In fact, Lesquereux here notices the Sigil- 

 larian nature of his fossil, and places it in the correct genus, but perhaps not 

 under the right species, though I am by no means sure that Sigillaria 



