248 Mr. R. Kidston on the Relationship 



nymous with their TJlodendron minus ; but this is a mistake, 

 for Allan's specimen shows the Lepidodendroid leaf-scar, 

 whereas Lindley and Hutton's plant belongs to the Sigillarian 

 section of TJlodendron. The plate of TJlodendron minus ^ L. 

 & H., would not at first lead one to this view ; but from an 

 examination of the counterpart of their fossil, all that is 

 now preserved of their type*, I have been led to this con- 

 clusion. TJlodendron 7na.jus^ L. & H,, is only an older and 

 larger example of their TJlodendron minus ; hence its supposed 

 identity with Rhode's pi. iii. fig. 1 is also erroneous. Lepi- 

 dodendron ornatissiynum and Rhode^s pi. iii. figs, 1-8 are 

 both referable to Lepidodendron Veltheimianum. Here must 

 likewise be placed Eichwald's figures of TJlodendron ellipticum^ 

 which all appear to represent more or less imperfectly- 

 preserved specimens of Lepidodendron Veltheimianum ; his 

 pi. X. fig. 6 t) in addition to exhibiting the leaf-scars of this 

 Lepidodendron^ shows also on other parts of the same fossil 

 scars so preserved that they might be named with all pro- 

 priety ^''Knorriar It is questionable whether most of the other 

 figures which by different authors have been referred to TJlo- 

 dendron elliiAicum really belong to this plant. 



TJlodendron transversum^ Eichwald t, ph i^. fig- 8, is 

 another example, and a very interesting one, of the Uloden- 

 droid condition of Lepidodendron Veltheimianum. In this 

 figure are seen the characteristic leaf- scars, a Knorria con- 

 dition, a decorticated state of the stem, and, finally, the large 

 Ulodendroid scar, Eichwald's fig. 13, pi. vi,, also probably 

 belongs to this species, but the actual proof that it does so is not 

 shown in the figure, which represents merely a Knorria con- 

 dition of Lepidodendron. 



Similar remarks to those just made on Eichwald's fig. 8, 

 pi. ix., may also be applied to his TJlodendron pumilum |, 

 pi. X. fig. 5. The large Ulodendroid scar appears to have 

 been partly covered by the matrix, and consequently looks 

 smaller than in some other examples, but does not seem to be 

 specifically distinct from them. It is identical with his TJlo- 

 dendron transversum, with which the leaf-scars agree in all 

 particulars. 



It is probable that the Ptychopteyns microdiscus of the same 

 author is only a badly-preserved specimen of Lepidodendron 

 Veltheimianum. There is little evidence to support the view 

 that this fossil is a fern- stem. 



* In the " Huttou Collectiou," Newcastle-on-Tyne, 

 t For full reference see synonyms to Lep. Veltheimiamim, p. 245. 

 X This is not the same species as that subsequently named U. pumilum 

 by Mr. Carruthers. 



