254 Mr. R. Kidston on the Relationship 



fossil, and places it in tlie correct genus, but perliaps not 

 under the riglit species, though I am by no means sure that 

 Sigillaria Menardi^ Brongniart (Hist. d. veget. foss. pi. clviii. 

 fig. 5, not fig. 6), does not belong to Sigillaria discopliora. 



It is a little uncertain if the figure given as Ulodendron 

 mqjus by Lesquereux in his ' Coal Flora,' pi. Ixvi. figs. 3 

 & 3 a, belongs to Lindley and Hutton's plant. The expla- 

 nation of the figures is, T am afraid, inaccurate, if they belong 

 to the species under which he has placed them. He appears 

 to have had under consideration two distinct plants. Perhaps 

 his fig. 3 a is the Bothrodendron functatum^ Zeiller *, which is 

 not, however, the Botlwodendron punctatum of Lindley and 

 Huttonf. The Bothrodendron punctatum, Lindley and Hutton, 

 is only a decorticated condition of their Ulodendron majus 

 and U. minus. The plant wliich Zeiller has figured and 

 identified as Lindley and Hutton's Bothrodendron punctatum 

 is a closely allied species to Rhytidodendron minutifolium, 

 Boulay \, and it is interesting to find the large Ulodendroid 

 scars also occurring in Boulay's genus Rhytidodendron. 



Ulodendron punctatum.^ Sternberg, Vers. ii. p. 186, pi. xlv. 

 fig. 1. — As this specimen is decorticated it is impossible to 

 determine the species to which it should be referred, though, 

 from the closeness of the foliar vascular bundles to each other, 

 it probably belongs to the Sigillarian group of Ulodendron. 

 Even in decorticated conditions of the so-called Ulodendra^ 

 if the little " dots " of the foliar- vascular bundles are shown, 

 there can be made in many cases a probable determination as 

 to whether the specimen belongs to the Lepidodendroid or 

 Sigillarian group of Ulodendron .^ for on the Lepidodendroid 

 members the leaf-scars are larger than on the Sigillarian, 

 and consequently the foliar- vascular-bundle " dots " on 

 decorticated stems of Sigillarian Ulodendra stand nearer to 

 each other than they do on Lepidodendroid Ulodendra. This 

 is not, however, in all cases a secure generic test, and in no 

 case will it lead to a specific determination. When the little 

 " dots " are not shown, it is impossible even to say to which 

 genus a Ulodendroid fossil belongs, 



Ulodendron elUpticum, Sternberg, Vers. ii. p. 186, pi. xlv. 

 fig. 2, does not admit of any satisfactory allocation. Uloden- 

 dron ellipticum, Rohl (/. c), pi. xxiii. fig. 3, appears to be 

 referable to Sigillaria discophora ; but his fig. 4 of the same 



* Ann. des Scienc. nat. 6'' ser. Botan. vol. xiii. p. 218, pi. is. figs, 1-3, 

 and V6get. foss. du terr. liouil. p. 116. 



t See ante, pp. 138 and 174. 



X Boulay, Terr, houil. du uord de la France et ses veget. foss. p. 39, 

 pi. iii. figs. 1, 1 his. 



