o/" Ulodendron to Lepidodeiidroii, &g. 255 



plate is too indifferently preserved to speak of with any cer- 

 tainty. Neither can any definite identification be made of 

 Ulodendron Lindleyana^ Rohl (^.c.),p. 138, pi. xxiii. figs. 1,2. 

 Nor can one speak with more certainty as to the specific de- 

 signation of Ulodendron Schlegelu, Eichwald, ' Lethsea Ros- 

 sica,' vol. i. p. 138, and ' Urwelt Russlands/ Heft i. p. 81, 

 pi. iii. fig. 4. 



Ulodendron transversum^ Carruthers {I. c.) (not Eichwald) 

 (which does not, in the few characters that the fossil shows, 

 appear to differ from Ulodendron Schlegelii and Ulodendrovi 

 Conyheariij Buckland), is also probably to be referred to 

 Sigillaria discopliora. Of course, in discussing the nature of 

 Ulodendron^ absolutely nothing for the elucidation of its true 

 afiinities can be learnt from such examples as those just men- 

 tioned, though, if at all possible, one is naturally anxious to 

 correlate them with the species of which they are decorticated 

 examples. 



The small figure which Buckland gives of his Ulodendron 

 Lucasii is not all that could be desired for a satisfactory de- 

 termination ; but from the form of the few leaf-scars, as 

 shown in his figure, there is little reason to doubt that this 

 species should also be placed under Sigillaria discophora. 



I am unable to discover any point by which Ulodendron 

 pumiluinj Carruthers, can be distinguished from Sigillaria 

 discopJioru. The specimen from which Mr. Carruthers's figure 

 is taken is in the collection of the British Museum, and shows 

 very well the Sigillarian form of the leaf-scars. This fossil 

 is somewhat smaller in all its parts than Konig's example^ 

 but this difference is entirely dependent on age. A figure 

 agreeing in all essentials with that of Mr. Carruthers, and 

 which I also refer to Sigillaria discophora^ had previously 

 been published by Dawson in his ' Acadian Geology,' 2nd ed. 

 fig. 170 G, p. 455 (1868), under the name of Lepidophloios 

 'parvus. What I believe to be only an older state of Lepido- 

 phloios parvus is the Lepidophloios tetragonus^ also figured by 

 Dawson on p. 455 of the same work, and in the Quart. Journ. 

 Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. pi. x. fig. 49 (see PL VII. fig. 13 a*). 



Halonia disticha^ Morris {I. c), must also be united with 

 Sigillaria discophora. Specimens preserved " in the round," 

 similar to his figure, are by no means uncommon. The pre- 

 sence of only two rows of large scars on his fossil is sufficient 

 to remove it from Halonia {=^ Lepidophloios^^ and the other 

 characters of the specimen show its true place to be here. 



Geinitz, in his Verst. d. Steinkf. in Sachsen, p. 38, appears 



to have misunderstood the true nature of Lindley and Mutton's 



* See also ante, p. 178. 



