LOWER CAMBRIAN. 59 
Genus EOPHYTON Torell. 
Pls, XXXII-XXXVIII. 
Eophyton Torell, 1868. Lunds Universitets Ars-Skrift, 1867, No. XTII, pp. 36-38, P1. 
II, fig. 3; Pl. III, figs. 1-3. 
Eophyton Linnarsson, 1869. Ofversigt k. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., No. 3, pp. 3845-352, 
Pl. VII, figs. 3, 4; Pl. VIII; Pl. IX. Idem, 1869. Geol. Mag., Vol. VI., pp. 
399-403, Pl. XI, figs. 3, 4; Pl. XII; Pl XIII. Idem 1869. Reprint of the 
English translation, Stockholm, pp. 9-15, Pl. VII, figs. 3,4; Pl. VIII; Pl. IX. 
Eophyton Nicholson, 1869. Geol. Mag., Vol. VI, p. 497, Pl. XVILI, fig. C. 
Eophyton Torell 1870. Lunds Universitets, Ars-Skrift, 1869, No. VIII, p. 8. 
Eophyton Dawson, 1870. Canadian Naturalist, 2d series, Vol. V., pp. 20-22. 
Hophyton Linnarsson, 1871. Kongl. svensk. Vet..Akad. Handl., Vol. IX, No. 7, pp. 
16-18. 
Hophyton Dawson, 1873. Am. Jour, Sci., 3d series, Vol. V, p. 20. 
Eophyton Nathorst, 1874. Ofversigt k. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., 1873, No. 9, pp. 26-46. 
Eophyton Billings, 1874. Geol. Nat. Hist. Survey Canada; Pal. Fossils, Vol. II, Part 
1, pp. 65-66. 
Eophyton Dames, 1875. Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. Gesell., Vol. XX VII, pp. 244-245. 
Eophyton Nathorst, 1881. Kongl. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Vol. XVIII, No. 7, pp. 
44-46, 97-99, Pl. X, fig. 6. Idem, 1881. Loe. cit., Vol. XIX, No. 1, pp. 28-30. 
Eophyton Saporta et Marion, 1881. L’Evolution du régne végétal; Cryptogames, 
pp. $2-S3, fig. 22. - 
Hophyton Saporta, 1882. A propos des algues fossiles, Paris, p. 63, Pl. VIII, fig. 6. 
Hophyton James (J. F.), 1891. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. IT], p. 40. 
Dr. Vorell’s original description of Eophyton, under the designation 
“Hophyton linneanum,” is accompanied by several illustrations which clearly 
show the characters of the species. He considered Eophyton to be a plant 
impression, having an affinity with the monocotyledons.' He also sug- 
gested an affinity with Cordaites, on account of the resemblance to what 
he considered to be leaves of the latter. Dr. Linnarsson* adopts Dr. 
Torell’s view, although questioning the interpretation of the parts which 
the latter referred to as leaves. He regards them as portions of stems, and 
finally concludes that great uncertainty remains as to the place that EKophy- 
ton occupies in the natural system. He says, however, that ‘‘it hardly can 
be doubted that it is of a far higher organization than any plant hitherto 
known from the oldest deposits.” He considers it probable that the plant, 
1Loc. cit., p. 37. ? Loe. cit., reprint of English translation, pp. 11-12. 
