DESCRIPTION OF LEPIDODENDRON MURRAYANUM. 533 



Leafy branches (figures 1^ and 3) ; thickish, with leaf-bases shorter and 

 broader, being about 8 mm. long and 4 mm. broad, but similarly marked. 

 Leaf scars rounded, rhombic, with the vascular scars close together. Leaves 

 about 2 mm. wide and three inches or more in length. Some of these leaves 

 are sufficiently preserved to show under the microscope the scalariform vessels 

 of the midrib in a pyritized state. Loose leaves, probably of the same species, 

 are straight, pointed, and three to four inches in length. 



The fruit has not been seen, though there are in the beds certain flattened 

 lepidostrobi which have been long and cylindrical, and also two forms of the 

 genus Lepldophyllum of the types of L. triangular e and L. lanceolatum of 

 authors. Some of these may have belonged to the present species. 



In the coal formation of Nova Scotia there is a species which I have de- 

 scribed as L. cliftonense (figures 4 to 8, plates 21 and 22) from its locality,t 

 and of which I have found very perfect specimens. It is in some respects so 

 near to the above that I have doubted its specific distinctness, though on 

 careful comparison there seem sufficient grounds for a diflference of name. 

 I therefore figure this species also, more especially as it has not before been 

 figured and as it shows the fruit and habit of growth. 



It will be observed that this species agrees with the last in the forms of 

 the leaf-bases and iu the length of the leaves, which are, however, wider and 

 sometimes as much as five inches in length, while the leaf-bases are trans- 

 versely furrowed above as well as below the scars. The leaf-bases also are 

 somewdiat different in shape and more spirally arranged, and the leaves are 

 longer in L. cliftonense. Additional specimens might, however, show them to 

 be varieties of one species. The foliage reminds one at first sight of that of 

 L. longifolium of Sternberg, but both leaves and scars are altogether different 

 in detail. 



I would remark here that the leafy branches in figure 8 (plate 22) are not 

 a " restoration," but taken from a sketch in my note-book of a specimen ex- 

 posed on a large slab of sandstone. It is the more necessary to remark this 

 as several European paleobotauists have borrowed similar figures from 

 my papers without acknowledgemnt, and have printed them as " restora- 

 tions." It may also be remarked that though the leaf-bases of L. cliftonense 

 are smaller in the older part of the stem than those of L. inurrayanum, this 

 difference may be more apparent than real, since the specimen of the latter 

 may be from the main trunk, and that of the former from one of the larger 

 branches only. 



These plants raise several interesting points in regard to the lepidodendra. 

 As I have elsewhere pointed out, J the growth iu diameter of stems of lepido- 



* Figure 1 is unfortunately inverted in the plate. 



t Geological History of Plants, 1888, p. 164. 



X Ibid, p. 162; also Acadian Geology, 1878, p. 452. 



