244 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
Figure 2, Plate VII., shows the normal form of Sigillaria 
Brardii, and towards the base of this example portions of a 
verticel of cone-scars is seen. These form an irregular girdle 
round the stem. They are inserted without order between 
the leaf-cushions, which are generally, along with the leaf- 
scars, much deformed. The cone-scars vary much in contour. 
A small portion of the stem showing them, is enlarged at 
Fig. 2b. These little cone-scars are placed on cushions like 
the leaf-scars, and are formed of a circular or subtriangular 
ring, inside of which is a smaller cireular ring. This latter 
probably represents the cicatrice of the vascular bundle. 
One of the chief distinguishing characters of Sigillaria 
spinulosa, Germar, is the presence on the bark, generally 
immediately below the leaf-scar, of one or two small circular 
stigmaria-like scars. These were supposed by Germar to be 
the scars of deciduous spines, but Schimper and Renault think 
they are more probably the scars of erial rootlets. Owing to 
all absence of lateral pressure, these little scars on Sigillaria 
spinulosa are always circular; but on the Sigillaria Brardit 
form of the plant these scars, being subject to the pressure of 
the leaf-cushions, are more or less irregular in outline. It 
appears to me from the specimens figured and described by 
Zeiller Renault,2 and others, and by that given here on 
Plate VII., Fig. 2, that these little scars undoubtedly mark 
the point from which cones—and most probably stalked 
cones—have fallen. 
Renault,? in describing a specimen of Sigillaria Brardit, to 
the cone-scars of which were still attached fragments of small 
branches 1 to 2 cm. long and 5 mm. in diameter, states that 
these spring perpendicularly from the stem, and bear small 
foliar cicatrices which are distant from each other instead of 
being contiguous, like those of the main stem. In this case, 
it is clear that the scars in question did not bear zrial root- 
lets, and the specimens figured by Zeiller and Renault, already 
referred to, and that given here by me, evidently represent 
a similar condition. It also seems to follow that the little 
1 Végét. foss. terr. houil. de la France, pl. clxxiv., fig. 1. 
2 Cours d. botan. foss., 1881, pl. xvii., fig. 1. 
% Flore foss. Bassin houil, d. Comentry, p. 540. 
