Bihliographical Notice. 139 



he illustrates a specimen which agrees with his description in 

 the work quoted. This figure and Boulay's Rhytidodendron 

 minutifoUum are justly placed in one genus by Zeiller ; but 

 my friend has evidently mistaken the true character of Lindley 

 and Hutton's genus Bothrodendron. It is true that Lindley 

 and Hutton, in the description of the two plates of Bothro- 

 dendron pimctat am (Fo^?>. Flora, pis. Ixxx., Ixxxi.), head their 

 description to pi. Ixxx. as " corticated," and, no doubt, this has 

 misled Zeiller in the identification of the fossil he has named 

 B. punctatum ; still, in the description Lindley and Hutton say, 

 " Upon the surface of the stem are discoverable a considerable 

 number of minute dots, arranged in quincuncial manner, some- 

 thing less than half an inch apart, and it is probable that these 

 may be the scars of leaves; hut at 'present there is nothing to prove 

 that they were soT It has since been proved that the little 

 " dots " which Lindley and Hutton thought might prove to be 

 leaf-scars, only mark the channels, on decorticated specimens, 

 through which the foliar vascular bundles passed to the leaves. 

 The types of Bothrodendron are now lost, but in the " Hutton 

 collection " are several specimens of the so-called Bothro- 

 dendron^ all of which are undoubtedly decorticated specimens 

 of their Ulodendron majus or U. minus. Zeiller's Bothro- 

 dendron punctatum must therefore be placed in Boulay's 

 genus Rhytidodendron^ and not Rhytidodendron united with 

 Bothrodendron^ L. & H. 



1882. Renault. Cours de botanique fossile, deuxifeme 

 annee, p. 51. — Bothrodendron is here also classed as a true 

 genus, and Renault embodies, in fact, the description given of 

 it by Zeiller. But Renault also treats Rhytidodendron^ Boulay, 

 as a distinct genus, and places it after Bothrodendron. I 

 am quite of opinion that Rhytidodendron must be retained 

 as a distinct genus, and in it must be placed Bothrodendron^ 

 Zeiller, but not Bothrodendron^ Lindley and Hutton. 

 [To be continued.] 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. 

 Year-Book of the Scientific and Learned Societies of Great Britain 

 and Ireland ; comprising Lists of the Papers read during 1884 

 before Societies engaged in fourteen Departments of Research, with 

 the Names of the Authors. Compiled from Official Sources, 

 Second Annual Issue. 8vo. London: Charles Griffin & Co., 

 1885. 



The number of Societies dealing with scientific matters, and espe- 

 cially with subjects of jS"atural History, has of late years become so 

 great, and so many of the smaller ones, among a number of articles 



