THE BRIAN OR DEVONIAN FORESTS. 



09 



from the Devonian, but these had been well fipirod nnd described 

 by Salter, imtl had boon idontifiod with L,ni)thumoi Unjjor, a species 

 evidently distinct from mine, as was also thai fif:;ured and described 

 by Suiter, whether identical or not with Unger's species. In 1870 

 I had for the first time an opportunity to study Scottish specimens 

 in the collection of Mr. Peacii ; anil on the evidence thus alfordod I 

 stated confidently that these specimens represented a species distinct 

 from L. Oaspianum, perhaps oven generically so.* It differs from 

 L, Oaspianum in its habit of growth by developing small lateral 

 branches instead of bifurcating, and in its foliage by the absence or 

 obsolete character of the leaf-bases and the closely placed and some- 

 what appressed leaves. If an ai)pearance of sw( lling at the end of a 

 lateral branch in one specimen indicates a strobile of fructification, 

 then its fruit was not dissimilar from that of the Canadian species 

 in its position and general form, though it may have differed in 

 details. On these grounds I declined to identify the Scottish species 

 with L. Gaspianum. The Lepidodondron from the Devonian of 

 Belgium described and figured by Crepin.f has a better claim to such 

 identification, and would seem to prove that this species existed in 

 Europe as well as in America. I also saw in Mr. Peach's collection 

 in 1870 some fragments which seemed to me distinct from Salter's 

 species, and possibly belonging to L. Gaspianum.X 



In the earliest description of Pmlophyton I recognised its prob- 

 able generic alTinity with Miller's " dichotomous plants," with Salter's 

 " rootlets," and with Goeppert's Haliserites Dechenianns, and stated 

 that I had " little doubt that materials exist in the Old Red Sand- 

 stone of Scotland for the reconstruction of at least one species of 

 this genus." Since, however. Miller's plants had been referred to 

 coniferous roots, and to fueoids, and Goeppert's Haliserites was a 

 name applicable only to fueoids, and since the structure and fruit 

 of my plants placed them near to Lycopods, I was under the neces- 

 sity of giving them a special generic name, nor could I with cer- 

 tainty alfirm their specific identity with any Euroi)ean species. The 

 comparison of the Scottish specimens with woody rootlets, though 

 incorrect, is in one respect creditable to the acumen of Salter, as in 

 almost any state of preservation an experienced ej e can readily per- 

 ceive that branchlets of Psilophyton must have 'oeen woody rather 



* "Report on Devonian Plants of Canada," ISVl. 



f "Observations sur quelques Plantes Fossiles des ddpots Devoni- 



ens. 



X " Proceedings of the Geological Society of London," March, 1871. 



