THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF SIGILLARIA ELEGANS. 537 
as the “biseriate” Halonia—in this case at least—is only the beginning of the usual 
and typical multiseriate Halonia. It is quite possible that the specimen figured by Pro- 
fessor WEIss is a fragment of a Halonial branch of Lepidophiloios, though the state of 
_ preservation of the specimen makes it quite impossible to affirm this positively ; but 
though this point cannot be settled, I am perfectly satisfied that the fossil which forms 
the subject of Professor Weiss’ figures 2, 3, pl. xxiii., does not represent the same 
species as that of which he describes the structure, and of which a figure is given, 
natural size, at fig. 1 of the same plate. The disposition of the cone scars shows this. 
The specimen also figured by Professor Wriss on his plate xxiv. fig. 5, which is con- 
tained in the Williamson Collection, British Museum, No. 19458, has very kindly been 
sent me for examination by Dr A. Smrra Woopwarp, F.R.S., Keeper of the Geological 
Department. Of this specimen Professor Wuiss says, “The leaf bases are perfectly 
distinct over the whole surface, and their broad and fimbriating nature mark them out 
as belonging to Lepidophlows, as indeed was recognised by Williamson.”* The 
characters here given as distinctive of Lepidophlovos are not those which distinguish the 
genus, and afford no data for a generic identification. They would apply equally 
to most of the other genera of the Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopods if the leaves 
were forcibly broken over at a point above their attachment to the leaf cushion, as 
they appear to have been on this specimen. 
This example, as I interpret it, is given in Professor Wetss’ figure in inverted position. 
The smaller end, which he places downwards, [ think is the upper end of the fossil. 
The outer surface bears the broken-over portions of the lower part of the leaves—not 
the persistent portion, which forms the leaf cushion on which the leaf scar occurs, but 
parts of the leaf while still attached to the cushion ; hence no leaf scars are seen on the 
specimen. ‘The fossil is too imperfectly preserved for a satisfactory determination, but 
in all the characters it shows they agree perfectly with those of Srgillaria discophora ; 
and if I am correct in thinking that Professor Wrrss has inverted the specimen in his 
figure—a view which I think his figure seems to bear out—then the “ fimbriating” leaf 
bases point upwards. As already stated, from such imperfect material as that under 
discussion, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any certain conclusion 
as to the nature of the fossil, but the fossil does not appear to me to show any of the 
characters of Lepidophloios, Sternberg. 
The reference to Professor WILLIamson’s figs. 27 and 28 of Memoir II.t throws no light 
on the point in question. WILLIaMsoNn describes his specimen as a Ulodendron, and at 
that date that was the genus into which specimens of Sigillaria discophora (= Uloden- 
dron minus, L. & H.) would be placed ; and, as far as can be learned from WILLIAMson’s 
figures and description, the specimen might as well belong to Sigillaria discophora 
as to Lepidophlowos fuliginosus, Williamson. 
Tam further indebted to Dr A. SmirH Woopwarp for specimen No. 1949a of the 
Williamson Collection, and a transverse section cut from it (slide No. 1949), to which 
* Loc. cit., pp. 220-221. + Phil. Trans., 1872, p. 209. 
