W. Carruthers — British Fossil Coni/ercs. 5 



reproduction were found to be similar. That genus would indeed 

 be very variable in its foliage if it included such forms as Br achy - 

 phjllum and Cunninghamites, but a wider variation is known in the 

 very natural genus Podocarpws among living GonifercB. M. Pomel 

 maintains that the organs of reproduction are the same ; but that 

 opinion rests only on the observation, as he believes, of a single 

 specimen of the connection of foliage and fruit, in one of his 33 

 species ; and in maintaining this position he is obliged to set aside 

 the observation of M. Brongniart in regard to the fruit of Taxites 

 podocarpoides, Brongn. In the numerous examples from the Stonesr 

 field slate which have passed under my observation I have not met 

 with a single specimen which would support M. Pomel's opinion. 

 If the conditions of the St. Mihiel rocks are similar to what exists 

 at Stonesfield, as appears from M. Pomel's descriptions, every one 

 acquainted with our English rock must know how easy it is to be 

 deceived in attempting to miite fragmentary fossils from mere juxta- 

 position of impressions which does not in the least testify to former 

 organic connection. 



The structure of the scales as exhibited in the better preserved 

 specimens, places it beyond doubt that M. Pomel has mistaken the 

 apex for the base of the organism. The apex of the scale is double, each 

 portion representing one of the two structures of which the Araucarian 

 scale is composed, and which can be easily distinguished in numbers 

 of the specimens. Each of these portions terminates in a short free 

 spinous process. It would be quite anomalous to have such a double 

 attachment for a single fruit. Taking, however, the interpretation 

 I propose, everything is intelligible, — the form of the scale, the 

 position of the seed, the broad membranous wings to the scale, and 

 the double apex, all agree with what occurs in the Australian species 

 of Araucaria, and with what I have shown to be the structure of 

 Araucarites sphceroearpus (Geox. Mag., Vcl. III., p. 252), And that 

 this is the true interpretation of the scales is established by the cast 

 of a fragment of a cone fromi the Kev. P. B. Brodie's collection figured 

 on Plate II., Eig. 1. 



There is a considerable variety in the size and form of the scales 

 scattered over the surface of the slate, but they all agree in bearing 

 a single seed, and in having a more or less extended membranous 

 margin to the scale. The difference in form may indicate the exist- 

 ence of more than one species, but I am rather inclined, from the 

 materials I have examined, to consider it due to the position on the 

 cone which the different scales occupied. Figures 3 and 4 represent 

 the most abundant found ; specimens occur considerably larger than 

 those figured ; Figure 2 is a form of which I have several examples. 

 Except that the scales of Araucaria excelsa, the species found on 

 Norfolk Island, are considerably larger than those of the fossil, they 

 agree remarkably in every other respect with them. 



In explanation of the occurrence of so manj?- separate scales, and 

 the rarity of cones, it deserves to be remarked that, unlike the cones 

 of our northern Abietinece, tlie scales very readily separate from the 

 axis in Araucaria, so that it is difficult to preserve them whole in 

 collections. 



