42 T. G. HALLE, MESOZOIC DEPOSITS AND FLORAS OF PATAGONIA AND TIERRA DEL FUEGO. 
of the new genus JHchinostrobus, naming it, with the neglect of the older specific 
names usual at the time, ZE. Sternbergii. To the same genus he refers some other 
species, all of which, however, are founded on vegetative shoots. The single cone- 
bearing specimen already figured by UNGER as Årthrotaxites lycopodioides is thus the 
type also of the genus Hchinostrobus of SCcHIMPER, who refigures the specimen (l. c., 
pl. 75, fig. 21) and gives a description of it. SCHIMPER remarks that the cones do 
not show the close agreement with those of the recent genus Arthrotaxis supposed by 
UNGER. In UNGER'S figure the cones are rather indistincetly, and apparently incor- 
rectly, drawn. SCHIMPER'S illustration, also drawn after the type-specimen, is rather 
different in regard to the cones, and since it agrees well, in this respect, with the 
figure later given by NSAPORTA (1884, pl. 71), it may be presumed to be correct. 
Not even in SCcHIMPER'S figure can the individual cone-scales be made out, but they 
are seen to terminate in projecting acumina. These are, according to SCHIMPER, 
hard and spiny, representing a character that is not found in Arthrotaxis, but which 
is a conspicuous feature of the cones of the Thuyae, especially Thuyopsis. It was 
this difference that led SCcHIMPER to create a new generic name not suggestive of 
any relation to AÅrthrotaxis. Nince that time the species has usually been referred 
to under the generic name of Echwnostrobus. To the same genus have been referred, 
both by SCcHIMPER, and by SAPORTA, and also by others, a number of sterile speci- 
mens agreeing in respect to the habit of the shoots with the cone-bearing type- 
specimen. In the opinion of the present writer it would be better to reserve the 
genus for cone-bearing forms only, and to refer sterile shoots of a similar habit to 
some other genus. It appears that for such sterile specimens the genus Brachyphyl- 
lum would afford a convenient place. SAPORTA remarks, it is true, to some extent 
upon the differences between the Echinostrobus- and Brachyphyllum-types of vegeta- 
tive shoots. The distinctions given by him are rather vague, however, and there are 
often referred to Brachyphyllum forms with imperfectly adnate leaves very like those 
of the Echinostrobus-shoots. The cones reported to occur in connection with species 
of Brachyphyllum are mostly doubtful or otherwise not well characterized; and as the 
genus was originally instituted for a certain type of sterile shoots, it seems better 
to keep it only for such and to create, if necessary, new names for such cone-bearing 
forms as may be found to have the same kind of leaves. 
There cannot be much doubt that the present species should be referred to 
the same genus as the cone-bearing form now generally known as Echinostrobus Stern- 
bergiti. The pointed projection of the cone-scales, which is the only character of 
importance that can be perceived in the cones of the latter species, recalls very 
strongly the corresponding acumen described as characteristic of the present scales. 
It is true that the latter does not give the impression of having been spiny, but 
this difference need not be of any great importance and may be due to the pre- 
servation. In regard to the vegetative characters there is a great resemblance, too, 
both species presenting the same type of shoot, with closely applied spirally arranged 
leaves of rhombic aspect. The differences existing in respect to both the cones and 
the vegetative parts, however, especially the much greater stoutness of the branches 
