o/'Ulodendron to Lepidodendron^ dsc. 137 



forms, of which the one corresponds to Lejndodendron Vel- 

 iheimianum^ the other to Lepidophloios laricinus, and that 

 because of their foliar cicatrices. We also separate for the 

 same reasons the following species — Ulodendron commutatum^ 

 Schimper." . . . . " For our own part we regard Ulo. com- 

 mutatum as identical with the strobiliferous trunks of Lepido- 

 dendron Veltheimianum of Stur, and as not requiring to be 

 distinguished from it." .... 



Renault appears to be mistaken in the views he holds 

 of the relationships of Leindodendron Veltheimianum and 

 Lejyidophloios laricinus to each other. Had he examined 

 well-preserved specimens of Lepidodendron Veltheimianum 

 in the Ulodendroid condition it seems impossible to imagine 

 how Renault could have given such a figure of a " stem of 

 Lepidophloios restored in part " as that shown at fig. 1 of his 

 pi. xi. He says of this figure that it " represents a fragment 

 of a trunk from the Coal-measures of Eschweiler and shows 

 on its surface the characteristic cicatrices of Lepidophloios 

 laricinus, but a little smaller." This description, I am afraid, 

 is drawn up from the " figure in part restored " and not from 

 the specimen. In the copy of Goldenberg's figure oi Lepido- 

 phloios laricinus given by Renault on pi, ix. fig. 1, the 

 articulating surface of the leaf is represented at the upper end 

 of the cushion, its position being reversed from that repre- 

 sented bv Goldenberg. This alteration in the figure on the 

 part of Renault is erroneous, for most undoubtedly Golden- 

 berg has drawn his plant correctly, and the same arrangement 

 — a downward imbricating of the leaf-cushions — occurs also 

 iu Lepidophloios scoticus, KidsttDn*. 



But to enable one to accept the view that two forms of 

 leaf-scars occur in Lepidodendron Veltheimianum, one of the 

 normal form and the other having a Lepidophloios-Vike leaf- 

 scar, if Goldenberg's figure of Lepidophloios laricinus is to 

 give any support to this opinion, it must be presumed that 

 fig. 1, pi. xvi. of the ' Flora Sarsepontana fossilis ' represents 

 the leaf-scars turned upside down. This is, however, not the 

 casef. In fact, in the Ulodendroid condition of Lepidoden- 

 dron Veltheimianum there do not exist two types of leaf- 

 scars, but only the ordinaxy Lepidodendroid type ; the ap- 

 pearance which has given rise to this mistaken view in regard 

 to the Ulodendroid condition of Lepidodendron Veltheimia- 

 num will be referred to again more fully J. Suffice it to say 



* See figure of this plant given under name of Lepidophloios laricinus 

 by Dr. Macfarlane (Trans. Edinb. Bot. See. vol. xiv. pi. vii.). 

 f See Weiss, Foss. Flora d. jiing. Stk. u. d. Rothl. p. 154. 

 j S,ee the following part of this article. 



