590 ox TRIPLOSPORITE, 



ing to LejJidostrobiis, be really distinct from that genus ; 

 and although there are still several points of difference 

 remaining, namely, the form of the strobilus in Tryjlosporife, 

 confirmed by a second specimen presently to be noticed, 

 and in Lejndostrobus the more Hmited insertion of spo- 

 rangium, and the very remarkable difference in the form of 

 the unripe spores, hardly reconcilable with a sin)ilar origin 

 to that described in Triplosporite, I am upon the whole in- 

 clined to reduce ray fossil to Lepidndrobus until we are, from 

 still more complete specimens of that genus, better able to 

 judge of the value of these differences. The name Tri- 

 plosporites, however, is already adopted, and a correct generic 

 character given, in the second edition of Professor Unger's 

 ' Genera et Species Plantarum Fossilium,' p. 270, published 

 in 1850, who at the date of his preface in 1849 was not 

 aware of Dr. Hooker's essay on Lepidostrobun, the character 

 of which he has adopted entirely from M. Brongniart's 

 account. 



In October 1849 M. Brongniart showed me a fossil so 

 closely resembling the Triplosporite, both in form and size, 

 that at first sight I concluded it was the lower half of the 

 same strobilus. Gn examination, however, it proved to be 

 of somewhat greater diameter. It Avas nearly in the same 

 mineral state, except that the crystallizations consequent on 

 loss of substance were rather less numerous ; it differed also 

 in the central part of the axis being still more complete ; in 

 the bracteae being more distant and of a slightly different 

 474] form : but the spores in composition, form, and apparently 

 in size were identical. This specimen had then very recently 

 been received from the Strasburg Museum, but nothing was 

 known of its origin or history. 



May 5, 1851. 



