96 SCIENCE 
As a contribution to morphological botany 
nothing approaching the present book from the 
paleontological side has ever been produced 
and I am not surprised that Scott! is enthus- 
jastic about it. I would expect Professor 
Coulter to be equally enthusiastic. As a text- 
book of fossil plants intended for geological 
students as its subtitle indicates, or as an ex- 
position of the geological history of fossil 
plants it is very inadequate, and I regard this 
as a serious defect since the great majority of 
students who will use the book, while they 
will gain a much wider morphological outlook, 
will scarcely learn that fossil plants have at- 
tributes other than anatomical, or if they do 
they will conclude that such attributes are 
worthless anyway. Nor will they gather the 
impression that fossil plants are found much 
anywhere except in the Carboniferous, Jurassic 
and Wealden. 
The proofreading of volume 3 is not as good 
as in the preceding volumes and some of the 
illustrations are very poor; nor is the bibliog- 
raphy as complete as it might well have been 
made. A paper by White is credited to 
Knowlton, Vignier should be Viguier. Kram- 
mera (page 277 and elsewhere) should be 
Krannera. The statement on page 276 that 
there is no proof of Cordaites in the Arctic 
may be a statement of opinion—it is hardly 
a fact. The statement on page 276 that “it is 
by no means certain that Cordaites flourished 
before the Carboniferous” is also misleading. 
Apparently Seward wishes to restrict the Cor- 
daitales in their earlier manifestations and ex- 
tend them in their later manifestations as in 
the case of Noeggerathiopsis and similar re- 
mains. Surely Callixylon Oweni described by 
Elkins & Wieland from the Devonian of In- 
diana? is ample evidence for the presence of 
Cordaites in pre-Carboniferous rocks. It may 
be seriously doubted if the two types repre- 
sented by Cycadeoidea and Williamsonia were 
not much more divergent than is indicated, or 
if the former were the Mesozoic lords of crea- 
1Secott, D. H., New Phytologist, Vol. 16, Nos. 8, 
9, 1917. 
2 Elkins, M. G., and Wieland, G. R., Am. Jour. 
Sci. (IV.), Vol. 38, pp. 65-78, 1914. 
[N. 8S. Von. XLVIITI. No. 1230 
tion of the vegetable world that is assumed. 
Despite the similarities in the fructifications 
in these two lines, the reviewer would regard 
the former as a specialized sideline without 
issue and probably never more abundant or 
important than are cycads in the existing flora, 
while the latter constituted a more dominant 
and progressive line, more intimately con- 
nected with the Paleozoic pteridosperms and 
having points of contact with possibly the 
Ginkgoales or the Coniferophytes. The bulk 
of the frond genera were probably borne by 
plants of the Williamsonia rather than of the 
Cycadeoidea type. It may be noted that the 
American Oycadellas come from the Lower 
Cretaceous and not the Jurassic. The author 
is hardly justified in doubting the bisexual 
character of the so-called flowers of Cyca- 
deoidea Gibsoniana, nor is it easy to follow him 
in his explanation of the corona of Wzlliam- 
sonia gigas as morphologically a whorl of con- 
nate stamens in a central terminal position. 
When it is remembered that throughout all 
of the Cycadeoidea species already investi- 
gated the megasporophylls become more or less 
sterile distad and that im some species, as 
Wieland has demonstrated, these, together 
with the prolonged interseminal scales, are 
modified to form a mop-like tuft at the apex 
‘of the receptacle, and also having in mind the 
ears or wings of the microsporophylls that 
formed a canopy over the apex of the recep- 
tacle in C'ycadeoidea colossalis, it is quite pos- 
sible to explain Seward’s figures 546 and 547 
in a variety of ways without recourse to the 
improbable hypothesis that we have terminal 
microsporophylls. In fact, there is no evi- 
dence that the so-called microsporophylls of 
Williamsonia gigas described on page 435 be- 
long to that species. Fig. 549 no doubt repre- 
sents a synangia-bearing disk of a Wolliam- 
sonia, but there is not the slightest evidence 
, that it belonged to Williamsonia gigas or that 
it should be placed on the end of a William- 
sonia carpellary receptacle. Similarly the 
sterile disks or infundibuliform organs have 
not been demonstrated to have been borne on 
the apex of the receptacle. 
On page 89 some poorly preserved Myeloxylon 
