300 CONIFEBAIES INCBETAE SEDIS l^^- 



ALBERTIA. Schimper. 



This generic name was given by Schimper to vegetative 

 branches from the Bunter of the Vosges agreeing in habit with 

 shoots of some species of Agaihis but differing in the broader 

 insertion of the lamina. For Albertia Endlicher^ substituted 

 Haidingera. Schimper and Mougeot^ figure reconstructions of 

 both male and female cones and a single cone-scale bearing a 

 median seed. Schenk^, who examined the original specimens, 

 states that the supposed male cone is a young megastrobilus of 

 Voltzia, and Solms-Laubach*, who also examined the material in 

 the Strassburg Museum, considers that Schimper's statement that 

 the seed-scale and cones belong to Albertia is ' altogether arbitrary 

 and unsupported.' There would seem to be no reason*for connect- 

 ing the cones figured by Schimper and Mougeot with the shoots 

 referred by those authors to four species of Albertia^. Albertia lati- 

 folia is founded on branches bearing fairly large (2-5 x 1 cm.), 

 obovate, slightly decurrent leaves wit'li numerous longitudinal stria- 

 tions. The branches described as A. elliptica are not distinguishable 

 by any clearly marked feature from A. latifolia. Albertia Braunii 

 has larger obovate leaves and A. speciosa has broadly linear leaves 

 reaching a length of 4-5 cm. There is a very close resemblance 

 between the shoots from the Bunter beds and those of some forms 

 of Ulhnannia especially U. frumentaria (Schlot.)^, and it is doubt- 

 ful whether any useful purpose is served by the retention of the 

 designation Albertia : the descriptions of the reproductive shoots 

 are misleading and rest on no substantial basis and the sterile 

 branches exhibit no characters by which they can be generically 

 separated from Ullmannia. The important point is that there are 

 no grounds for regarding the specimens usually referred to Albertia 

 as Araucarian other than the uncertain and untrustworthy evidence 

 afforded by a similarity to Agathis. The fragmentary impression 

 from the Karharbari beds of India assigned by Feistmantel' to 



1 Endlioher (47) p. 303. 



^ Schimper and Mougeot (44) A. PI. i. 



' Schenk in Schimper and Schenk (90) A. p. 284. 



« Solms-Laubach (91) A. p. 75. 



^ Schimper and Mougeot (44) A. Pis. i. — v. 



« Geinitz (80) PI. m. 



' Feistmantel (79) p. 29, PI. xxvt. fig. 2. 



