194 Professor Dyer — On Oolitic Coniferce. 



to point to the cones having consisted of sub-peltifonn imbricated 

 scales swollen below, with a flat acute apex above, and not, as 

 Schimper supposes, a spiniform appendix from their back. Now this 

 is exactly the structure which is possessed by Athrotaxis cupressoides, 

 Don,^ and it appears to me, therefore, that we are quite justified in re- 

 taining Unger's original determination. Athrotaxites lycopodioides is 

 the only one of the several species, possibly congeneric, from 

 the Solenhofen Oolite of which the fructification is known ; but 

 it seems for the present the most convenient provisional course 

 to retain them all as species of Athrotaxites. Their general facies is 

 sufficiently congruous, although it must be admitted that this is a 

 negative qualification, since their foliage would equally well suit 

 some Cupressineous genera. 



After an examination of the large series of specimens in the 

 Haberlein collection, I venture to propose the following revision of 

 the species.^ 



1. A. princeps, Ung., Pal. ii., p. 253, tt. 31, 32. 



Echinostrobus Sternbergii, Schimp., Tr. d. Pal. Veg. ii., p. 333, t. 75 ff. 22, 23. 



Caulerpites princeps, Sternb., Fl. d. Vorw. ii., t. 6, f. 2. 



C. laxus, Sternb., I.e., t. 5, f. 1. 



C. sertularia, Sternb., I.e., t. 6, f. 2. 



This is probably the commonest form ; it is well characterized by the pinnate 

 arrangement of the lateral branchlets, and the abbreviated and crowded ultimate 

 ramification (PI. V., Fig. 2). 



2. A. Frisclimanni, Ung., Pal. iv., p. 41, t. 8, ff. 4, 5, 9. 



Echinostrobus Frischmanni, Schimp., I.e., p. 333. 

 Caulerpites cohibrinus, Sternb., I.e., t. 4, f. 4. 

 C. elegans, Sternb., I.e., t. 3, f. 3. 



In the arrangement of the leaves, this species is probably hardly different 

 from A. priiiceps. The less crowded ramification and more elongated branchlets 

 produce, however, a marked distinction in habit (PI. V., Fig. 3). Nevertheless, 

 a still more decided difference of precisely the same kind exists between Mota 

 orientalis and what is held to be a seminal variety of it, B. pendula. It 

 cannot indeed be too strongly remembered, in dealing with fossil plant-remains, 

 that there is no definite correlation between the character of a plant's foliage 

 and the structure of its fruit and flowers. The educated eye of a botanist will 

 often from mere tact derive assistance from the facies of vegetative organs, but 

 he knows, nevertheless, that the closest resemblance in the characters of leaf 

 and stem may conceal widely different affinities. On the other hand, where the 

 structural affinities of the reproductive organs are clear, he has no hesitation in 

 disregarding the most marked distinctions in mere habit or foliar form. 

 3. A. lycopodioides, Ung., Bot. Zeit., 1849, p. 345, t. v., ff. 1, 2. 

 (PL v., Fig. 4). 

 A. Buliostichus, Ung., Pal. iv., p. 40, t. 8, ff. 1, 2, 3. 

 Baliostichus ornaftis, Sternb., Lc, t. 25, f. 3. 

 Echinostrobus Sternbergii,'^ Schimp., i.e.. Explication des Planches, p. 27, t. 75, 



ff. 21, 24. 

 E. lycopodioides, Schimp., I.e., ii., p. j333. 



This is chai'acterized by the minute imbricated leaves in numerous rows. In 

 Baliostichus these appear to be merely represented by the marks of their attach- 

 ment to the stem. A peculiarity in this species is a tendency to forked 



^ See Hooker's Icones Plantarum, t. 559. 



^ After removing the Solenhofen plants from the genus Echinostrobus, the only re- 

 maining species are E. robustus, Sap., and E. expunsus {Thuites expansus, Sternb.). Of 

 the last iSchimper appears not to have seen cones ; had he done so, he could not, I 

 think, have retained it in its ptesent position. 



3 E. lycopodioides was the name no doubt intended to be used here. The same 

 specimen could hardly be referred to two distinct names in the same enumeration. 



