ON THE HIGnER EOCENE BEDS OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT. 91 



shoots, and that even in these tlie tiny leaves are less rigid and of less sub- 

 stance in the Hamstead specimens. These annual shoots are in both cases 

 invariably simple and shed in the greatest profusion. The stouter branches 

 are in the Hamstead examples densely clothed with short, falcate, needle- 

 like leaves, whilst those of similar substance in the Bovey species are 

 covered with .scale-like leaves. The woody axis of the former is also 

 relatively much more slender, and the articulated base does not broaden 

 into a ball-like joint. In fact, tho similarity in the foliage does not 

 extend beyond the annual shoots, the permanent foliage being acicular in 

 the one case, and imbricated in the other. The comparison of the fruit 

 is more difficult owing to the fuct that the Bovey cones are compressed 

 to the thickness of millboard, the Hamstead cones are compressed to 

 about a quarter of their original diameter, and the Hordwell cones are 

 uncompressed. The Bovey cones consisted, it appears, of fewer, larger, 

 and more tender scales, and the internal structure of the cone is quite 

 different. The Bovey species may in fact be a Sequoia, while the Isle of 

 Wight species can only be an Athrotaxis. 



So far these might be considered as mere variations of one species, 

 but among the Bovey remains are somewhat comma-shaped and very flat 

 seeds, margined with stout narrow wings, which Hcer states he found 

 lying in situ under the scales of the cones. These are not only totally absent 

 at Hamstead, but their place is taken by a small, uncompressed, crusta- 

 ceous and wingless seed. I have not found them in situ, for the cones 

 are opened, but they are scattered ai'ound the cones, and even among 

 the scales, as if scarcely washed out, and appear as if they would exactly 

 fill the ovaries. The seeds of the three recent species appear all to be 

 bilaterally winged, but assuming the associated seeds in each case to 

 belong to the conifera), the difference would constitute them distinct 

 species. A cone, recently described by Ettingshausen, from the Aus- 

 tralian Tertiary, and very unnecessarily placed in the genus Sequoia, is 

 hardly distinguishable. It is scarcely necessary to allude to the danger 

 of describing Tertiary Conferre from foliage, as we have seen in former 

 reports, that this, in spite of its apparent identity, may belong to many 

 different genera ; but the transfer of this conifer from Sequoia to Athro- 

 taxis modifies considerably our former ideas of the aspect of the vegetation, 

 for we have, in place of hills clothed with trees of the imposing stature of 

 Sequoia, better known perhaps as Wellivgtonia gigantea, merely the 

 riverside bushy conifers of Tasmania. 



Further than this, the identification of the two species as one by Heer 

 had much to do Avith the equally erroneous correlation of the Bovey 

 basin with the Hamstead beds. In each deposit there are a few very 

 characteristic and easily identifiable plants, particularly certain well- 

 marked fruits. Chief among these at Bovey are the fruits known as 

 Anona, which abound at Bournemouth, and have never been seen in the 

 Hamstead beds. On the other hand, at Hamstead the chief fruits 

 are Carpolithes globulus and Cyperites Forbesii, never found at Bovey, 

 Nymphaja Doris, which I have not compared, and Carpolithes Websteri, 

 ■which is undoubtedly common to both localities. This fruit first appears 

 away from Bovey, in the Lower Headon of Hordwell. Among Bovey 

 leaves we have Osmunda lignitum, abundant at Bournemouth, but quite 

 absent from the Isle of Wight Oligocene, and Goniopteris Stiriaca absent 

 from both. Lastly, the very curious palm spines, which abound at Bovey 

 and Bournemouth, are never seen in the Hampshire Oligocenes. There 



