426 BENNETTITALBS [CH. 



collections oS plants from the Yorkshire coast; the surface- 

 features are of the type shown in fig. 576, rhomboidal or lozenge- 

 shaped bases of petioles as described under the genus Bucklandia^. 

 The stem reproduced in fig. 541, about 5 cm. broad, is imperfectly 

 preserved and the leaf-bases are not clearly seen. Saporta's 

 figure^ conveys but a poor idea of the actual specimen. To one 

 side of the stem, 5 cm. from the lower, broken, end, are attached 

 the petioles of two clearly preserved fronds of Zamites gigas, and 

 above these is part of a third frond apparently in its original 

 position. The main axis is prolonged obhquely upwards to the 

 left as a branch, a, 3 cm. broad and 14 cm. long, covered with 

 hairy bracts and bearing distally several narrow, Knear-lanceolate, 

 scale-leaves. This branch is undoubtedly a fertile shoot or 

 peduncle. A specimen figured (from a drawing) by Saporta* 

 as a peduncle of a Williamsonia flower and reproduced in fig. 542 

 is, in surface-features, identical with the branch a shown in 

 fig. 541, but at the apex it bears a bud covered with linear bracts 

 identical with those of Williamsonia gigas. This bud is almost 

 certainly a young flower. Similar peduncles are described by 

 Williamson, and he speaks of one which is bifurcated : this specimen 

 is probably that reproduced in fig. 543 and now in the Leeds 

 Museum : at the base the axis is 3-5 cm. in diameter ; the two 

 divergent arms bear numerous bracts identical with those of 

 Williamsonia gigas and in addition are a few shorter ovate scales 

 recalhng those figured by Nathorst as probably belonging to 

 Williamsonia pecten. The Leeds specimen is from the Lower 

 sandstone and shale near Scarborough. Similar branched 

 peduncles are represented in the Whitby Museum and in the 

 National Collection. Wieland* has also figured a peduncle bearing 

 a 'typical fruit bud' of Williamsonia gigas similar to that repro- 

 duced in fig. 542. These specimens fully justify Williamson's 

 restoration pubhshed in his paper of 1870. 



In a former account of this species^ the opinion was expressed 

 that the flowers described by Wilhamson as male were ovulate 

 and constructed on the plan of those of Bennettites Gibsonianus 



' Williamson (70) PL Liii. fig. 5; Seward (97*). 



2 Saporta (75) A. PI. xi. fig. 1. 3 Ibid. PI. xv. 



* Wieland (11) p. 448, fig. 6. ^ Seward (95) A. p. 146. 



