600 MR ROBERT KIDSTON ON 



plates i.-ii., and restrict my observations to the plant figured on his plate iii., and to 

 which Brongniart gave the name of Lepidodendron longifolium. 



In any discussion of the claims of Lepidodendron longifolium to rank as a distinct 

 species, it must be at once conceded that neither the original figure nor description afford 

 sufficient data on which to found a satisfactorily characterised species. Of the several 

 characters necessary for the satisfactory foundation of a species, we have in the present 

 case little more than that the leaves are very long and extremely narrow. The form of 

 the leaves do, however, afford a valuable character ; and though other species of Lepido- 

 dendron, such as Lepidodendron obovatum* have long narrow leaves, still the leaves of 

 these species appear to be broader than those of the plant I regard as the Lepido- 

 dendron longifolium, Brongniart. 



Notes on Figured Specimens. 



Lepidodendron longifolium, L. and H., pi. clxi. (I.e.). 



I have carefully examined this specimen, which is preserved in the Hutton Collection, 

 Newcastle-on-Tyne, but it is so imperfectly preserved that it is impossible to determine 

 whether this fossil should be referred to a Lepidodendron or a long-leaved SigillariaA 



Sagenaria dichotoma, Geinitz, pi. iii. fig. 1. (I.e.). 



This, though probably embraced by Sternberg's Lepidodendron dichotomum (pis. 

 i.-iii.), cannot be placed with certainty in Brongniart's Lepidodendron Stembergii 

 (Sternberg's pis. i.-ii., and it is only these two plates that Geinitz includes in his reference). 

 It may be similar to the plant on Sternberg's pi. iii., but without expressing any definite 

 opinion, it appears to me, as far as one can judge from the figure, that it is equally 

 possible that the specimen may be a portion of a long-leaved Sigillaria. 



Lepidodendron Stembergii, Ett. (not Brongt.) I.e., pis. xxvi. figs. 1-2, pi. xxvii., 

 and pi. xxviii. 



Schimper (I.e.) places these, and I believe with probable justice, under Lepidodendron 

 longifolium, Brongt.; but it is an error on Ettingshausen's part to refer his sj)ecimens to 

 Lepidodendron Stembergii " L. and H.," from which they are certainly distinct. It is 

 much to be regretted that Ettingshausen has not given enlarged drawings of the leal 

 cushion andjacar, for it seems to me quite possible that Zeiller's Lepidodendron dicho- 

 tomum (not Sternb. ?) J may be referable to this species, — but this point can only be 

 determined by an examination of Ettingshausen's original specimens. 



* Zeiller, Flore foss. d. bassin houil. d. Valen., p. 442, pi. lxvi. fig. 1. I have had the pleasure of seeing this specimen, 

 of which the figure only shows a small portion, and the nature of its foliage is very different from that of the South 

 Wales Lepidodendron which I here place under L. longifolium. 



t Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc, vol. x. p. 375, 1891. 



J See ante, p. 598. 



