4 W. Carruthers — British Fossil Coniferce. 



Jurassic rocks of Si Mihiel and De Seyssel in France. He thus 

 describes the specimens and interprets their meaning : — " The most 

 remarkable of these organs are the ovate -lanceolate scales, which 

 thin towards their apex, and have an oblong cavity hollowed out of 

 their upper portion for the reception of an oblong somewhat com- 

 pressed seed. The similarity in the form of their impressions show 

 that they were really more or less foliaceous scales. If the apex is 

 mistaken for the base they might be taken for the detached scales of 

 an Araucaria. But in examining a number of these scales it becomes 

 evident that the enlarged end is the base, because of its concavity, 

 * et en outre elle est toujour accompagnee d' une autre empreinte en 

 portions de cercle, large mais courte et se terminant evidemment par 

 un court onglet.' The thickness of this impression indicates that 

 the fossil was a strong scale on a large spathulate leaf, upon which 

 was inserted the carpillary scale, — the whole being certainly borne 

 at the termination of a branch. This forms the whole female organ, 

 and exhibits a great analogy to the fruit of Taxinece, — to that of 

 Dacrydium for example, which is in the same way borne on a 

 terminal thickened and dilated leaf. The discovery of a fragment of 

 a branch terminating in one of these carpillary scales dispels all 

 doubt as to this interpretation of their structure. They were then 

 TaxinecB, but without drupaceous fruits, the ovule being enclosed in 

 a true and not fleshy scale. They form a small extinct family near 

 TaxinecB, which may be called Lepidocarpeoe,. The male buds are 

 ovoid, or cylindrical-oblong, and are composed of scales more or less 

 broad at the base, recurved at the apex, and loosely or compactly 

 imbricated. Traces of stamens can be detected on the scales, pro- 

 bably coriaceous and thick, but their characteristics cannot be clearly 

 determined." 



After examining the various species of Conifers of Oolitic age, 

 based as they are chiefly upon the foliage, he concludes that there 

 is no reason for placing them in separate genera, and he conse- 

 quently establishes a new genus Moreauia, rejecting all the names 

 hitherto employed, because, with a single exception, they suggest 

 false analogies, and that excepted name (Brachyphyllum) is applica- 

 ble only to a section of the whole. He describes eight new species 

 from the French Oolites, and places 25 other species in his genus, 

 most of which have been long known under the names Bracliypliyllwm, 

 Thuites, Cupressites, Araucarites, Lycopodites, Cunninghamites, Taxo- 

 dites, and Taxites. M. Pomel promises a more complete justifica- 

 tion of his views in a monograph of the genus shortly to be published, 

 but which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has not yet made 

 its appearance. 



I have quoted M. Pomel's observations at length, as they are, if 

 they can be established, most important, inasmuch as they introduce 

 to science a new and singular tribe of extinct Taxineous Coniferce. 

 Genera established upon foliage are at the best unstable, and affi- 

 nities determined only on such materials are nearly always un- 

 satisfactory. There need, then, be no insuperable barrier to the 

 union of all these various forms in a single genus, if the organs of 



