N6 



these had been well figured and described by Salter, and had 

 been identified with L. notliam of Unger, a species evidently 

 distinct from mine, as was also that figured and described by 

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

 I had for the first time an opportunity to study Scottish speci- 

 mens in the collection of Mr. Peach ; and on the evidence thus 

 afforded I stated confidently that these specimens represented a 

 species distinct from L. Gnnpiannm, perhaps even generically 

 so.* It diff"ers from L. Gaaputimm in its habit of growth 

 by developing small lateral brunches instead of bifurcating, and 

 in its foliage by the absence or obsolete character of the leaf- 

 bases and the closely placed and somewhat appressea leaves. If 

 an appearance of Hwelling at the end of a lateral brr.nch 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. 

 Gaspianam. The Lepidodendron from the Devonian of Belgium 

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

 identification, and would soem to prove that this spi!cies 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. Guspin num.1 

 In the earliest description of Psilophjjtoa I recognized its 

 probable generic affinity with Miller's ' dichotomous plants,' with 

 Salter's 'rootlets,' and with Goeppert's Ilaliserites Dechenumns, 

 and stated that I had " little doubt that materials exist in the 

 Old Rod Sandstone 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 fucoids, and Goeppert's 

 Haliscrltes was a name applicable only to fucoids, and since the 

 structure and fruit of my plants placed them near to Lycopods, 

 I was under the necessity of giving them a special generic name, 

 nor could I with certainty affirm their specific identity with any 

 European species. The comparison of the Scottish specimens 

 with woody "ootlets, though incorrect, is in one respect creditable 

 to the acumen of Salter, as in almost any state of preservation 

 an experienced eye can readily perceive that branchlets of 



* Report on Devonian Plants of Canada, 1871 . 



t Observations sur qnclques Plaiites Fossiles cles depots Devonieus. 



t Proceedings Ueological Society of London, March 1871. 



>^/ 



*/3ro 



f 



