190 THE BOTANICAL MAGAZINE. [Vol. xxiy. No. 284. 



height of the medullary rays etc, associate this plant clearly 

 with members of Cryptomeriopsis. But the lack of hypoderma 

 and stomates in the upper side of the leaf, the different shape 

 of the leaf, and the many-layered hypodermic development 

 along the median line of the leaf in its lower side immediately 

 separate this plant from Cryptomeriopsis antiqua. 



Other points which distinguish this fossil are the presence 

 of stone cells* in the mesophyll and cortex, and of bast-fibres in 

 the secondary phloem, and the variability of the number and 

 arrangement of resin canals, these features being absent in 

 Cryptomeriopsis antiqua. But I believe, so far as bast-fibres 

 are concerned, the difference is due to the developmental stages. 

 For I have frequently experienced that, there was no bast-fibres 

 in the phloem of young axes of Cryptomeria, in which the 

 secondary gowth has already began, while in older axes they 

 are invariably present. Also in conifers the variability of the 

 number and arrangement of resin canals is not seldom found 

 in the leaves of twigs of the different vigor of growth. 



In the authentic description concerning the sclerised cells 

 of Cryptomeriopsis antiqua, it is stated as follows : " In the 

 fossil one or two cells were observed which might have been 

 thick walled but they were of a doubtful nature." These cells 

 of doubtful nature were probably just about to be sclerised. 



The lack of the sclerenchymatic hypoderma in the upper 

 sides of leaves of all these specimens cannot be looked on as 

 due to the younger stages in development of the shoot, when 

 compared with Cryptomeriopsis antiqua. For the development 

 of bast-fibres in the present plant indicates that this is older 

 than the authentic specimens of Cryptomeriopsis antiqua, where 

 the development of bast-fibres in these regions seems to have 

 not yet or just begun; moreover we have a leafy twig with 

 two annual rings (older than the authentic specimens of Crypto- 

 meriopsis antiqua which are one year old), having the leaves of 

 the same structure described above. 



* In some of the specimens the development of stone calls is very mea re while 

 in the other, they are well developed; and this difference seems not to be that of 

 the developmental stages. So it is not unlikely that a further investigation will 

 show that they belong to two distinct species. 



