234 FOSSIL PLANTS. 



of the Eocks, and the Asterolepis of Stromness, as Fucoids and Vegetable 

 impressions, and which were subsequently named Lycopodites Milleri, Lepido- 

 dendron nothum ? Unger, and " Rootlets" by Mr. Salter, are all to be referred 

 to Psilophyton Dechenianus, Goppert, sp. 



About two years ago, Dr. A. Geikie. Director-General of the Geological 

 Survey of Great Britain, submitted to me for examination some specimens of 

 Psilophyton from Perthshire. These examples, which showed the fructification, 

 further confirmed my opinion that Psilophyton robustius, Dawson, was 

 nothing else than the plants identified by Mr. Carruthers as Psilophyton 

 (Haliserites) Dechenianm, Goppert, sp. 



It has been thought by some that Lepidodendron Gaspianum, Dawson, 

 might be referable to Psilophyton Dechenianus, but if Sir J. W. Dawson is 

 correct in interpreting his specimen (Foss. Plants, Devon, and Upper Sil. 

 Form, of Canada, pi. viii. fig. 84) as the fruit of his Lepidodendron Gaspianum, 

 this plant cannot be the same as his Psilophyton robustius. But whatever 

 may be the nature of Dawson's Lepidodendron Gaspianum, it is evident that 

 pis. iii., iv., and v. of Lepidodendron Gaspianum, O6pin* (? not Dawson), 

 are the Psilophyton Dechenianus, Goppert, sp. As to those specimens which 

 he figures on pis. i. and ii. I cannot express an opinion, as I have not seen 

 any similar Lepidodendron-like fossils (especially like that figured on his 

 pi. i. fig. 1) occurring with the Scotch plants, though to his tig. 2, pi. i., 

 specimens bearing some resemblance have been collected in Scotland.! It is, 

 however, quite possible that Cr6pin is correct in placing all his plants under 

 one name. 



The entire agreement of Crepin's pis. iii., iv., and v. with the figures 

 given by Hugh Miller and Mr. Carruthers, proves conclusively that all these 

 specimens belong to one species the Psilophyton Dechenianus, Goppert, sp., 

 as interpreted by Mr. Carruthers. 



There is also little room for doubt that the plants figured by Gilkinet 

 as Lepidodendron Burnotense are identical with Psilophyton Dechenianus, 

 Goppert, sp., and consequently with Lepidodendron Gaspianum (pis. iii.-v.) 

 of Cr6pin. Gilkinet's figures might have been drawn from Scotch examples, 

 they so thoroughly agree with them. It must, however, be noted that the 

 larger fossil which occupies the centre of his fig. 5 does not appear to be 

 the same as those fossils figured by Crepin under the name of Lepidodendron 

 Gaspianum (pi. i. figs. 1 and 3, and pi. ii.) ; in fact, is perhaps not vegetable, 

 but more probably a fragment of a large Pterygotus, similar to those which 

 are associated with Psilophyton in the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland. $ The 

 small branches across which this Pterygotus-like fossil lies are however to be 

 referred to Psilophyton Dechenianus. 



Stur, in his " Silur.-Flora der Etage H-h, in Bohmen," under the name of 

 Hostinella hostinensis, figures what is unquestionably only the Psilophyton 

 Dechenianus (Carruthers), Goppert, sp. He unites with it Fucoides hostinensis, 

 Barr., Haliserites zonarioides, Krejci, and Protopteridium hostinense, Krejci. 

 The figures given by Stur (pi. iv. 1-6) are similar in all respects to the 

 Scotch plants, and Stur's description further confirms their identity. His 

 figures (pi. iv. figs. 7, 8) show a much less common condition of the same 

 species, but the Museum of Science and Art, Edinburgh, possesses a like 

 example. These plants are regarded by Stur as Algse, and placed in the 

 order _ Gigartinea; ; but that they occupy a much higher position in the 

 botanical scale has been shown by Dawson, who, as already mentioned, has 

 been enabled to describe the structure of these plants, which is undoubtedly 

 Lycopodiaceous. 



* Cr6pin, Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. de Belgique, vol. sir. 

 t See Salter, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. yol. xv. p. 408, fig. 14i. 

 I B. N. Peach, Proceed. Roy. Phys. Soc. vol. vii. p. 343, 1883. 

 Krejci, Sitzungsberichte d. k.k.Bohm. Gesell. d. Wissensch. in Prae, Jahreane 

 1879, p. 201 1880 ; ibid., Jahrgang 1881, p. 68, 1882. 



