D. G. Liltie—Fossil Flora, Bristol Coal-field. 63 
pinnules of 2. cherophylloides are more sinuate and much less con- 
tracted at the base than in our specimens. &. schatzlarensis (Stur) 
‘is less like these specimens than 2. charophylloides. The pinnules 
of this species are much more deeply lobed than in our specimens, 
giving the appearance of a much less massive frond, whereas 
S. ovatifolia is less massive than &. cherophyllordes. 
Lepiroprnpron cf. L. Guincanum, Eichwald.’ (Pl. VII, Figs. 1-3; 
Text-figs. 4 and 5.) 
Deseription.—Impressions of stems, 15 X 5 cm., showing two states 
of preservation. The more external impression is probably the 
external surface very slightly decorticated (as seen at @ in Figs, 1 
and 3, Pl. VII, and in Text-fig. 4). The leaf-bases are small, very 
elongate, fusiform in shape, each leaf-base being joined to the one 
above and below by a narrow ridge. Taking the middle points of 
these ridges as the limits of the individual leaf-bases, each leaf-base 
is 1-4cm. long by 1mm. broad across the greatest width. The 
cushion is 6mm. long. ‘The lateral angles are rounded. The leaf- 
scar is not preserved. There is no ridge, or only a slight indication of 
a ridge, on the cushion. There is a well-marked narrow ridge between 
each cushion, which is continuous with the prolongations of the 
cushions above and below as mentioned above. 
if 
Fie. 4. Lepidodendron cf. ZL. Glin- Fic. 5. Lepidodendron ct. L. Glin- 
canum, Kichw. More external surface. canum, HKichw. More decorticated 
5 Bo tee surface. x 3. 
The more decorticated surface (seen at 6 in Pl. VII, Figs. 1 and 3, 
and Text-fig. 5), shows shorter fusiform areas between well-marked 
flat-topped bands 1 mm. in width. 
Attribution of the Specimens.—Though these specimens are not ill 
preserved, yet they do not show the leaf-scar. Consequently they 
1 Nos. 2068, 2080, 2081, Carb. Plant Coll. Sedgwick Mus., Cambridge. 
