: i 
ON THE FOSSIL PLANTS OF THE TERTIARY AND SECONDARY BEDS. 397 
1851. The Duke of Argyll and Professor EH. Forbes described the- 
fossil leaves from Ardtun Head: nine were thought determinable. 
(‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soe.’ vol. vii. p. 103, pls. 2, 3, 4). 
1854. Prestwich & Hooker figured several plants from Reading and 
Counter Hill (‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.’ vol. x. pp. 88, 163, pl. 4). 
1856. De la Harpe described the entire British Hocene Flora, as then 
known (‘ Bull. de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles,’ 
1856). This was translated and illustrated in 1862 in the 
‘Survey Memoir on the Isle of Wight’ (pp. 109, &e., pls. 5, 6, 7). . 
About 300 specimens from various collections were brought 
together, and of species there were 43 determined from Alum Bay, 
9 from Reading, 9 from Corfe Castle, 22 from Bournemouth, and 
9 from the Upper Hocenes. In all 83 species, exclusive of those 
from Sheppey: but 23 occur in more than one locality, and the 
total number is thereby reduced to about 60. 
1862. Heer & Pengelly’s ‘ignite of Bovey Tracy’ (‘ Phil. Trans,’ 
1862, part IT.) was published 1863, when 50 species were described. 
In the same year Heer described the Hempstead Flora, 10 species 
in all (‘Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.’ vol. xviii. p. 369). - 
These comprise all the works of any importance, but a complete list 
of references is given in the ‘Introduction to the Paleontographical 
Society’s Memoir on the British Eocene Flora for the year 1879.’ Mr. 
Baily has, in addition, made several reports to this Association on the: 
Antrim plants, and I have myself written from time to time on the same 
subjects. Baron von Ettingshausen has also published two lists purport- 
ing to be complete enumerations of the species from Sheppey and from 
Alum Bay. For reasons which will be apparent, I cannot help regretting 
that these lists were compiled and published; but, nevertheless, I intend 
as far as possible to retain the names given, though they were unaccom- 
panied by descriptions. Setting these two lists apart for the present, we 
find the following as the number of species that had been more or less. 
described :— 
From the Thanet beds . . : : ; ’ é 2 : B 
_y» the Reading beds . : ; F : : : 4 . 9 
»  Sheppey ‘ “ : ; : t : : : - 108 
» Alum Bay, &c. : : , : ; é : - ED 
» Bournemouth (deducting those not peculiar) : 3 beeil 
Bovey Tracy ? 2 ‘ : : F ‘ : ‘ -. 50 
Upper Eocenes : ‘ F : ; ; ‘ : : eyes 
Mull : . : : ; : : ; ; : d : 9 
Antrim, about. j : ‘ ; : c ; : : Pind a: 
Total F ; é - 262 
making a grand total of 262 species, not a tenth part of which, I 
anticipate, will survive a rigorous examination. This was the state of 
our knowledge of the subject when, in 1878, I was asked to assist in the 
preparation of a monograph on the Eocene flora, in conjunction with 
Baron von Ettingshausen, who was to be responsible for the Palsonto- 
logical work, while I assisted in translating and otherwise. 
Our co-operation did not survive the first volume, for I speedily 
found that my views as to what were satisfactory data, not only on 
which to found new species, but to identify old ones, were at variance 
with the Baron’s. 
