THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF SIGILLARIA ELEGANS. 539° 
fuliginosus of Wituramson. If I am correct in my opinion that the specimen 
described by Professor Werss belongs to Sigidlaria discophora, the leaf traces should 
be more numerous than those given off by Lepidophloios fuliginosus, for in Sigillaria 
discophora the leaf scars are smaller, and consequently more numerous in a given 
space than those of Lepidophlows, and the close position of the leaf scars is very 
clearly seen in tangential sections of the specimen described by Professor WEIss, 
of which I possess a fine series of sections. The same character and their quad- 
rangular arrangement are also seen on the outer surface of the specimen as figured 
by Professor Weiss on plate xxii. fig. 1. 
These differences are slight, and even if they did not exist within the two 
stems the arrangement of the cone scars is sufficient to separate the Ulodendroid 
Sigillaria from Lepidophloios; and in a group containing so many closely allied 
genera as are known to exist amongst the Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopods, one 
must expect to find in the internal structure of their stems a great similarity. 
VII. In regard to the specimen under discussion, and which has been referred 
to Lepidophloios fuliginosus by Professor WEIss, it appears to me that the external 
characters of the fossil point more strongly to its belonging to Sigillaria discophora 
(=U. minus) than to Lepidophloios ; and further, that its internal structure, though 
of the same type, is not identical with that of Lepidophloios fuliginosus of WILLIAMSON. 
In concluding this criticism, I wish clearly to state that I do not say that a 
“hbiseriate Halonia”—that is, a Halonial condition of Lepidophloios, on which the 
cones are arranged in two rows, “ Ulodendroid” fashion—does not exist; but what 
I do maintain is, that if there is a Lepidophloios which bears its cones in two 
opposite and vertical rows, and in this mode alone, proof of its existence has still 
to be given. 
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIMEN. 
Sigillaria elegans of Brongniart’s Histoire des végétawx fossiles, vol. i. p. 438, pl. cxlvi. fig. 1, pl. elv., 
pl. elviii. fig. 1. 
As some botanists doubt the identity of Broneniart’s Sigillaria elegans with the 
Sigillaria (Favularia) elegans of SrernBerG,* | have adopted BRONGNIART’s name as my 
authority for the species whose structure is about to be described, as my specimen agrees 
in all respects with the descriptions and figures given in the Hist. d. végét. foss. On 
the other hand, I believe that BronenrarT was quite correct in identifying his specimen 
with Favularia elegans, Sternberg; for if SrERNBERG’s figure be inverted and so 
“brought into its natural position, and if a very slight allowance be made for the 
delinquencies of the artist, it is difficult to see how there can be any real difficulty in 
Trecognising the specific identity of BRonaNrIaRT’s and STERNBERG’S specimens. 
* STERNBERG, Essai flore monde prim., vol. i. fasc. 4, pp. xiv, 48, pl. lii. fig. 4, 1826. 
t See also ZurnuER, Flore foss. Bassin howil. d. Valenciennes, p. 582, pl. lxxxvii. figs. 1-4, Atlas 1886, Text 1888. 
