178 Reviews — R. Kidston's Catalogue, Fossil Plants. 



scientific journals on palasobotanical subjects, he was entrusted in 

 1883 with the task of naming and cataloguing the Palaeozoic 

 plants in the Geological Department. 



The present work, which was only completed at the end of 1885, 

 is the result. 



The plants catalogued are divided into Permian, Carboniferous, 

 Devonian, and Silurian, of which the Carboniferous form by far the 

 largest group. 



The Permian contains 39 species. 



,, Carboniferous contains 21 8 ,, 



,, Devonian ,, 38 ,, 



,, Silurian ,, 10 ,, 



The total number of recognized species represented in the Collection being 305. 



It is probable that this number might be greatly increased, and 

 that it does not represent more than a quarter of the total number of 

 fossil plants described from the Palaeozoic rocks of the whole world. 



The method adopted by the author has been to give a complete 

 bibliography of each species ; this has entailed an enormous amount 

 of labour, and largely serves to increase the bulk of the present 

 catalogue. Should a new Edition be prepared, we would recommend 

 the author to eliminate all but the important and essential references, 

 and so thereby to greatly reduce the number of pages, whilst largely 

 increasing the real usefulness of the work for purposes of reference. 



Another feature of this work consists in the critical remarks, often 

 extending to essays of from one to five pages in length, on questions 

 bearing upon the structure or interpretation put by various authors 

 on the fossil plant-remains recorded in the Catalogue. 



Here is an example of one of Mr. Kidston's dissertations taken at 

 random from the Catalogue : — 



Lepidophloios, Sternberg, 1825. 



Versuch eines geognostisch-botanischen Darstellung der Flora der Vorwelt, vol. i. 



fasc. iv. p. 13. 

 Lepidophloios laricinus, Sternberg. 



Lepidophloios laricinus. 



Boulay, Terr. Houil. du Nord de la France, p. 38. 



[Here follow 41 references to works by various authors in' which 

 this genus is quoted. These we omit.] 

 (?) Ulodendron tumidum. 

 Carruthers, Monthly Micro. Journ. p. 154, pi. xliii. figs. 5, 6, 7, 1870. 



Remarks. — It has been shown by Feistmantel, in his Steinkohlen-Flora von 

 Kralup in Bohmen, 1 that Halonia, Lindley and Hutton, is only a fruiting branch of 

 Lepidophloios laricinus, Sternberg, and later the same relationship of Halonia to 

 Lepidophloios has been further explained by Dr. Macfarlane (Trans. Bot. Soc. 

 Edinb. vol. xiv. p. 181, pis. vii. and viii. 2 ). These figures alone, one would think, 

 were sufficient to place the affinities of Halonia outside the circle of discussion, but 

 notwithstanding the conclusive evidence they afford on this point, the view held by 

 these writers has not been universally accepted. 3 



1 Abhandl. der k. Bohm. Gesellschaft der "Wissensch. vi. Folge, vol. v. 1871. 



2 Dr. Macfarlane's Lepidophloios is not L. laricinus, Sternberg, but a new species 

 for which I propose the name of Lepidophloios Scoticus. 



3 See Benauit, Cours d. Bot. Foss. p. 53, 1882. 



