Linnarsson — On the Eophyton Sandstone. 401 



specimens tlie following ought to be especially noticed. At e a 

 short but large fragment is observed. Its posterior section shows 

 some small cavities disposed obliquely one above the other at nearly 

 regular distances, which may, perhaps, be interpreted as traces of 

 the inner structure. To the right lies a longer and narrower frag- 

 ment (/) which has possibly cohered with another {g), of which 

 only a small portion is preserved, in the very margin. Both are 

 there bent, as if they had been united outside the j)resent margin of 

 the slab. — By the side of these lies a specimen (h) with deep fur- 

 rows and sharp ribs. In this, as in some others, the furrows some- 

 times show a slight trace of a transverse articulation, as if each fur- 

 row had consisted of a row of small excavations, but this may have 

 arisen from the weathering of the slab. — At i a fragment is seen, 

 which is remarkable for its great convexity and distinctly angular 

 shape. — An irregular raised body (Jc), marked by two parallel rows 

 of tubercles, is probably of organic origin, and is suggestive perhaps 

 of the presence of terrestrial animal life. 



Several other slabs not figured contain specimens of Eophyton 

 Linnoeanum ; they give, however, but little information. One of 

 them has almost the whole surface covered with fragments of stems, 

 some of which are branched, but the weathering has made them too 

 obscure to be described. 



It seems premature to speculate on the affinities of this fossil, 

 which bears so little resemblance to forms previously known, and 

 ampler materials are no doubt required in order to come to any cer- 

 tain results in this respect. Its organic origin cannot reasonably be 

 qixestioned, and hardly any doubt can exist as to its belonging to 

 the vegetable kingdom. If it were not of vegetable origin, it could 

 not be interpreted otherwise than as the track of an animal. Such a 

 supposition is contradicted especially by its being branched ; a track 

 cannot be supposed to have taken such a form as that shown for 

 instance in PL XI. Fig. 4. And even apart from the branching, this 

 interpretation can hardly be maintained if the characteristic furrows 

 be considered, at least I have never seen a description of any tracks 

 with which this fossil could be compared. If the vegetable nature 

 of Eophyton be granted, the difficulty of deciding to which group it 

 is to be referred still remains. This difficulty is augmented by the 

 scarcity of fossil plants in the oldest deposits, that might enable us 

 to draw a comparison. From the whole Cambrian and the greater 

 part of the Silurian system no remains of other plants than AlgaB 

 have hitherto been obtained. That the Eophyton cannot be referred 

 to that class is however evident. Several eminent algalogists have 

 examined the fossil and they have all unanimously and with the 

 greatest certainty declared that it cannot have any affinity with 

 the AlgEe. It is then among the vascular Cryptogams and Mono- 

 cotyledons, that the relations of Eophyton are to be looked for. 

 Professor Torell refers it to the latter, and though its phanero- 

 gamous nature be not yet fully ascertained, its general habit 

 in many respects reminds us of them. He suggests, however, 

 a near relation to Cordaites, a genus referred by several authors 



VOL. VI. — NO. LXIII. 26 



