166 FLORA OF LOWER COAL MEASURES OF MISSOURL 



the axis and the arrangement of the parts of the cone are not A'isible, the 

 fossil as a whole strikingly resembles the Macrostachya Hauchecornei of 

 Weiss. ^ 



Locality. — Hobbs's bank, U. S. Nat. Mus., 6452. 



CTCLOCLADIA Lindley and Huttou, 1834. 



1834. Gyoloclcdia Lindley and Hutton, Fossil Flora Gr. Brit., vol. ii, p. 137, pi. esxx. 



1868. Gyclocladia L. and H., K. Feistmantel, Abhandl. k. bohm. Gesell., (6) vol. ii, no. 6, 



p. 5, pi. i. 

 1874. Gyclocladia L. and H., O. Feistmantel, Verst. bohm. Kohlen-Abl., vol. i, p. 95, i>l. i, 



fig. 8. 

 1855. Uquisetites (in part) of authors, Geinitz, Verst. Stein kohlenform. Sachseu, p. 3, 



pi. X, iig. 5. 



1869. Macrostachya Schimper, Traite paleont. veg., vol. i, p. 333 (pars). 

 1876. Galamitina Weiss, Steinkohlen-Calamarien, vol. i, p. 126. 



The stems referred by various authors to Macrostachya or Galamitina 

 appear to furnish an excellent illustration of the similiarity of the trunks in 

 several Calamarian types as compared with the diversity of foliate forms 

 and organs of reproduction. A comparison of the figures and descriptions 

 given by Bronn, Stur, Geinitz, and others under the names JEquisetum, 

 JEquisetites, Cycloclaclia, Macrostachya, Galamitina, and Calaniites, in some of 

 which the fertile spikes are represented as found still in association Avith the 

 parent stem, shows well the difficulty in distinguishing from the superficial 

 characters of the trunks the numerous species founded on tlie structure or 

 arrangement of the parts of the strobili, and vice versa. It is hard to avoid 

 the conclusion either that the number of species founded on the spikes is too 

 greatly multiplied or that it is practically impossible in many cases, except 

 from abundant material, to distinguish species of this genus by means of 

 the superficial aspect of fragments of the stems. 



It is perhaps better to follow the practice of some authors in this group; 

 and of many authors in other groups, of employing diiferent generic names 

 for stems and for cones than to countenance so often the probability of both 

 members of the same plant resting under difi"erent specific names in the 

 same genus, or, what is no better, the inclusion of the stem of one plant 

 with the cone of another species ruider the same specific name. Accord- 

 ingly it may be advantageous to use the terms 3£acrostachi/a and Huttonia in 

 the sense in which they were employed by Bronn, Brongniart, and Germar 



' Steinkohlen-Calamarien, vol. ii, 1884, p. 176, pi. xix, figs. i-ia. 



