84 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



1865.^ He here proposes the genus Flemingites for the cone 

 he describes. This genus he defines as " each scale of the cone 

 supporting a double series of roundish sporangia" in distinction 

 to the old genus Lepidostrohus, which he describes as " each 

 scale of the cone supporting a single ohlong sporangium." 



The genus Flemingites has unfortunately been founded 

 upon an inaccurate conception of the structure of the cone on 

 which it was based — what are regarded by Mr Carruthers 

 as "rounded sporangia" being macrospores (similar in general 

 structure to some about to be described), and not sporangia. 

 His enlarged drawing (I.e., PL XII., Fig. A 3) shows between 

 the bracts two rows of the bodies Mr Carruthers describes as 

 sporangia, but which are the macrospores contained in a 

 sporangium attached to the upper surface of the bract. The 

 sporangium wall is not seen in his figure, but has been 

 demonstrated by Binney and others. In fact, the cones sub- 

 sequently described by Binney in the Palseontographical 

 Society for 1871 as Lepidostrohus Bussellianus,^ seem iden- 

 tical with Mr Carruthers' Flemingites gracilis. The triradiate 

 ridge on the upper surface of the macrospores is produced by 

 their mutual pressure on each other while contained in the 

 mother-cell, and does not indicate their point of attachment 

 to the bract, as supposed by Mr Carruthers.^ 



Schimper was the first to describe a cone showing both 

 macro- and microspores in situ.^ Unfortunately, this 



1 On an Uudescribed Cone from the Carboniferous Beds of Airdrie— Geol. 

 Mag., vol. ii., Oct. 1865, p. 483, PI. XII. 



2 P. 51, PI. IX., Figs. 1, 2. 



'^ The restored figure of Flemingites, given by Mr Carruthers {I.e., PI. XII., 

 Figs. A 1, and A 2) is not borne out by the drawing of the specimen, or by 

 those figures given by Mr Binney. In Mr Carruthers' figure A 3, which is a 

 good representation of the fossil, the macrospores ( = sporangia, Carr. ), when 

 seen in vertical section, are shown to occupy two horizontal rows, one placed 

 above the other ; whereas in the restoration of the same view, the two rows 

 of so-called sporangia are placed side by side, and attached to the bract by a 

 little pedicel, and not placed above one another. If the so-called sporangia, 

 as seen in Figure A 3, are really sporangia, to what was the upper row 

 attached ? When it is further known that the triradiate ridges of the macro- 

 spores are produced by mutual pressure on each other during development, 

 and do not indicate any point of attachment, it is clear that these two 

 restored figures are not a correct representation of the structure of the cone. 



4 Traite d. paleont. veget, vol. ii., p. 69, PI. LXXIL, Figs. 1-12, 1870. 



