102 CATALOGUE OF FOSSIL PLANTS 



f. 1, representing the young branches and foliage and the sharp 

 angle of bifurcation so characteristic of this Lepidodendron . The 

 specimen from which the drawing in the F. F. Plate 12 was 

 made is undoubtedly a larger branch with branchlets of the 

 same, and is a more trusty guide than the embellished drawing. 

 It is difficult to comprehend why authors still continue to retain 

 the large leaf -scars of this plant, namely, Lep. aculeatum, Stb., 

 and Lep. rimosum, Stb., as distinct species. Those who contend 

 that they are good and well-established species ought to be able 

 to point out the branches and foliage of each of these, but such 

 an investigation as this would certainly lead to the opinion that 

 I came to long since, that they are only portions of the old stem, 

 of which Lepidodendron selaginoides are the smaller branches and 

 foliage. 



After comparing the cones figured by Hutton, F.F., Plate 10, 

 f. 1, pi. 11, with other long cones in the Collection, Nos. 197, 

 198, which are in a much younger state than those figured in 

 the F. F., I have been obliged to refer them to this species. 

 These cones appear to have been pendulous and are of great 

 length. 



ULODENDEON, Lindley et Hutton. 

 Ulodendron majus, Lindley et Hutton. 



Type — Ulodendron majus, L. etH., Foss. Flora, pi. 5. 



Ulodendron minus, L. etH., Foss. Flora, pi. 6. 



flothrodendronpunctatum,~L.et'K., ,, pis. 80, 81,218. 



Ulodendron Lindley anum, Sternb., Vers. II., pi. 45, f. 4. 



,, Stockesii, Buckland, Geol. etMin. II.,pl.56,f.5\ 



,, Conybeari, Buckland, Geol. etMin. II., pi. 56, f.6'. 



,, Lucasii, Buckland, Geol. etMin. II., pi. 56, f.4. 



199. — Ulodendron minus, L. et H. Counterpart of the Hutton Type- 

 specimen, F. F., pi. 6. 

 This counterpart has two labels on it by Hutton, the original 

 one, " Ulodendron minus, So. Shields, P. 6," and a larger label 

 on the back, written by Hutton after his return to Newcastle 

 in 1855-6. Notwithstanding the labels, it is not the actual 

 specimen figured, for in Foss. Flora, p. 6, L. et H. say, "The 



