THE ERIAK OR DEVONIAN FORESTS. 101 



rests only on mere juxtaposition of fragments, and on the slight resem- 

 blance of the decorticated ends of the branches of the latter plants 

 to Psilophyton. It is contradicted by the obtuse ends of the 

 branches of the Lepidodendron and Lycopodites, and by the appar- 

 ently strobUaceous termination of some of them. 



Salter's description of his Lepidodendron nothum is quite defi- 

 nite, and accords with specimens placed in my hands by Mr. Peach : 

 " Stems half an inch broad, tapering little, branches short ; set on at 

 an acute angle, blunt at their terminations. Leaves in seven to ten 

 rows, very short, not a line long, and rather spreading than closely 

 imbricate." These characters, however, in so far as they go, are 

 rather those of the genus I/ycopodites than of Lepidodendron, from 

 which this plant differs in wanting any distinct leaf-bases, and in its 

 short, crowded leaves. It is to be observed that they apply also to 

 Salter's Lyc(ypodites Milleri, and that the difference of the foliage 

 of that species may be a result merely of different state dt preser- 

 vation. For these reasons I am disposed to place these two sup- 

 posed species together, and to retain for the species the name 

 I/ycopodites Milleri. It may be characterised by the description 

 above given, with merely the modification that the leaves are some- 

 times nearly one-third of an inch long and secund (Fig. 17, swpra, 

 lower figure). 



Decorticated branches of the above species may no doubt be mis- 

 taken for Psilophyton, but are nevertheless quite distinct from it, and 

 the slender branching dichotomous stems, with terminations which, 

 as Miller graphically states, are " like the tendrils of a pea," are too 

 characteristic to be easily mistaken, even when neither fruit nor 

 leaves appear. With reference to fructification, the form of L. 

 Milleri renders it certain that it must have borne strobiles at the 

 ends of its branchlets, or some substitute for these, and not naked 

 spore-eases like those of Psilophyton. 



The remarkable fragment communicated by Sir Philip Egerton 

 to Mr. Carruthers,* belongs to a third group, and has, I think, been 

 quite misunderstood. I am enabled to make this statement with 

 some confidence, from the fact that the reverse or counterpart of Sir 

 Philip's specimen was in the collection of Sir WyviUe Thomson, and 

 was placed by him in my hands in 1870. It was noticed in my 

 paper on " New Devonian Plants," in the " Journal of the Geologi- 

 cal Society of London," and referred to my genus Ptilophyton, as 

 stated above under Section II., page 86 et seq. 



* "Journal of Botany," 1873. 



