338 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



appear to be among the Rhytidolepis and favularian species. 

 Taking into account the importance of leaf scar characters it 

 is probable that the Naples tree is more closely bound to the 

 former (Rhytidolepis) which seems also to have been geolog- 

 ically the earlier to appear. With this and Bothrodendron 

 (Cyclostigma) it would seem to be nearly equally allied, its 

 connection with the latter being possibly the more intimate. 



When living the tree was probably nearly a foot in diameter 

 at the enlarged base. From this it rose straight, tapering fast 

 at first, and then very gradually. It has already been noted 

 that no branches were present up to the end of the fossil at 

 a hight of 5 meters where it measured but 7 centimeters in 

 w T idth. It seems probable, therefore, that branching was rare. 

 We may conceive of the tree as gently tapering and finally 

 dichotomizing in slender, arching, and very distinctly forked, 

 gracefully drooping branches to which the open, short, per- 

 sistent leaves imparted a plumose aspect. It is possible, how- 

 ever, that the branches may have been clambering or sprawling, 

 rather than pendent in habit. 



Unfortunately neither the specimen in the Museum nor its 

 associates have afforded any petrified portions by which satis- 

 factorily to ascertain the features of their internal anatomy. 

 We may, however, I believe, conclude that a periderm situated 

 in the outer cortex and capable of permitting a growth of 

 exogenous bark was present. If there was any development of 

 an exogenous or secondary growth of wood in the trunk, as 

 seems possible, it was probably confined to the region of the 

 dilated base. 



Systematic position and name of the fossil 



Fragments of the impression or of the counterpart of the 

 fossil trunk were sent by Dr Clarke, the State Paleontologist, 

 to Sir William Dawson, by whom they were identified as belong- 

 ing to the species described by Rogers 1 from the Devonic of 

 Pennsylvania as Lepidodendron primaevum. As 

 to the specific identity of the two plants there is little doubt, 

 and the specific term, primaevum, should be attached to 

 the New York fossil, though it can not be retained in the 

 genus Lepidodendron. 



The Naples tree differs generically, as we have seen, from 

 all the Carbonic Lycopod groups by the peculiar combination 



iGeol. of Pa. 1858. v.n, pt 2, p. 828, fig. 675- 



