536 MR ROBERT KIDSTON ON 



gations have shown that the association of Halonia with Lepidodendron as its root, is 

 utterly untenable. Halonia will be dealt with more fully further on in this com- 

 munication. 



1873. Carruthers. "On Halonia, Lindley and Hutton, and Cyclocladia, 

 Goldenberg," Geol. Mag., April, p. 145. 



Mr Carruthers here figures and describes some very interesting specimens of 

 Halonia, one of which he justly names Lepidophloios laricinus/' but in regard to the 

 fossil given by him at fig. 1, he mentions it as confirming Goldenberg's opinion that a 

 Halonia branch may grow out of a Lepidodendron. The specimen on which Mr 

 Carruthers made this remark is in the collection of the British Museum, and I have 

 frequently examined it. This supposed Lepidodendron branch, which bears a Halonia, 

 is beyond all doubt a Lepidophloios,^ and to this specimen I will refer again more fully. 

 Mr Carruthers further states (p. 151), — " It seems to me not improbable that Ulodendron 

 may be the main stem of plants of which Lepidophloios and Halonia were the younger 

 portions." " I have no doubt that Halonia was a fruit-bearing branch." 



In regard to uniting Ulodendron and Lepidophloios, I have already shown that the 

 so-called Ulodendron, L. and H., contained plants belonging in part to Sigillaria and 

 Lepidodendron, but in no case to Lepidophloios. \ 



Mr Carruthers gives a figure (woodcut, p. 151) of " Halonia gracilis, L. and H." 

 This specimen is also in the collection of the British Museum, and is certainly a small 

 branch of Lepidodendron ophiurus, Brongt., which, in my Catalogue of Palceoz. Plants, 

 I united with Lepidodendron Sternbergii in error. Such unequally dichotomised 

 Lepidodendroid branches as that figured by Mr Carruthers as Halonia gracilis, 

 L. and H., though by no means common, are occasionally met with ; but, as I have 

 already suggested, in all probability the plant figured by Lindley and Hutton as 

 H. gracilis is really a Lepidodendron, and quite distinct from the other plants they 

 placed in their genus Halonia. § 



1875. Halonia, Feistmantel. Vers. d. bbhm. Kohlenab., Abth. ii. pp. 13 and 19. 



This author believes that Halonia reguiaris, L. and H., and Halonia [Bothrodendron) 

 punctatum should be referred to Lepidodendron {Lepidophloios) laricinum, and his speci- 

 mens of Halonia (pis. v. fig. 6 ; vi.; vii. figs. 1, 2 ; viii. fig. 1) show the Lepidophloios 

 leaf-scar. That these specimens belong to Lepidophloios there can be no doubt, and 

 probably to Lepidophloios laricinus, but the figures do not admit of a satisfactory specific 

 determination. His figure of Halonia punctata, however (pi. xviii. p. 20), clearly does 

 not belong to Lepidophloios laricinus, but to one of the Ulodendroid scar-bearing 

 Lycopods {Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, or Bothrodendron), but his fossil is too imperfectly 

 preserved to admit of any closer determination. 



* P. 150, pi. vii. fir;. 3. t See Kidston, Catal. Palceoz. Plants, p. 171. 



X Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. xvi., 1885. § Kidston, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc, vol. x. p: 365, 1891. 



