304 CUPEESSINEAE 



[CH. 



in a wider sense. Bowerbank^ adopted the form Cupressinites 

 for some fossil cones from the London Clay in order to avoid the 

 implication of affinity only to Cupressus which is suggested by 

 Cupressites. This generic name would be convenient for Cupres- 

 sineous branches had it not been restricted in the first instance to 

 cones : to avoid the revival of a term and its employment in a new 

 sense it is proposed to adopt the name Cupressinocladus for vege- 

 tative shoots agreeing in the habit of branching and in the predomi- 

 nance of a decussate arrangement of appressed leaves with recent 

 Cupressineae such as Cupressus, Thuya, Libocedrus and similar 

 types. When cones are present which throw any light on generic 

 affinity some other term should be adopted. It will, however, be 

 found in practice that the choice of the most appropriate name is 

 exceedingly difficult; and no sharp line can be drawn between- 

 certain specimens which conform in part to Cupressinocladus and 

 in part to the characters of Brachyphyllum. 



PaJaeocyparis Saporta. 



The published illustrations of Conifers included by Saporta^ in 

 this genus afford examples of the inconstancy of leaf-arrangement 

 , in a single type and demonstrate the impossibility of drawing any 

 definite distinction between this genus and Thuytes as used by 

 Saporta. With one exception all the specimens from Jurassic 

 rocks referred by Saporta to his genus are sterile and in habit 

 agree with several recent genera of the Cupressineae particularly 

 Cupressus, Chamaecyparis, and Thuya. In Palaeocyparis are in- 

 cluded species previously referred to Echinostrobus, Thuytes, and 

 Athrotaxites. The branching is in one plane ; the leaves are stated 

 to be usually though not invariably decussate, more or less tri- 

 angular, appressed, and imbricate, rarely free at the apex of the 

 lamina. The supposed cone described in the case of Palaeocyparis 

 elegans^, a species from Upper Jurassic beds in France, is only 7 

 by 9 mm. and it is not clear whether it is a true cone or a vegetative 

 bud or perhaps a male flower. The genus is practically founded 

 on vegetative characters only. An objection to the retention of 

 Saporta' s term is that several of the specimens may legitimately 

 be included in a previously established genus Brachyphyllum. 



1 Bowerbank (40) p. 51. ^ gaporta (84) p. 574, Pis. 202 et seq. 



3 Ibid. PI. 214. 



