KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 51|. N:o 3. 13 
in Echinostrobus Sternbergit, seems to prevent a specific identification. The Pata- 
gonian form, though it comes no doubt nearer to the species mentioned than to any 
other, should therefore be described as a new species. — There remains the question 
of the generic name to be employed both for the present species and the one usually 
named HEchinostrobus Sternbergii. Arthrotaxites UNG. has priority in respect to the 
synonyme Hchinostrobus ScHIimP. The change of the generic name was undertaken 
by SCcHIMPER on the ground that he considered the structure of the cones to be more 
remote from that of the recent genus Arthrotaxis DON. than did UNGER. In view of 
the present principles of nomenclature, 
this fact does not appear to constitute 
a sufficient reason for the creation of a 
new name, since the ending -ites only 
implies a resemblance, not perfect agree- 
ment. And the resemblance to the re- 
cent genus, in regard to both the cones 
and the vegetative shoots, must be 
considered to be a sufficiently great one 
for paleobotanical demands. Moreover, 
it would appear as if the differences 
emphasized by NSCHIMPER were not so 
very great. This is at least the opinion 
of SAPORTA (1884, p. 539), who, after 
a reexamination of the type-specimen, 
states that it appears as if the struc- 
ture of the cones would not, after all, dif- 
fer much from that of Arthrotaxis, though 
he considers the fossil form as intermedi- 
ate between the latter genus and Crypto- 
meria. Itis further clear that the specific 
name given by UNGER should be retained, Fig. 4. Avrthrotazis cupressoides. A cone-bearing branch 
and the species should therefore be na- in natural size, and a ER in side- and surface-view, 
med ÄArthrotaxites lycopodioides UNG. AE 
The Patagonian form presents a more definite resemblance to the recent genus 
Arthrotaxis than does UNGER's species. In fact, it is the common resemblance of 
these two species to the recent genus which constitutes, in the writer's opinion, the 
strongest reason for the retention of the name Arthrotaxites. Of the three species 
referred to ÄÅrthrotaxis, I have only had opportunity to examine ÅA. cupressoides, of 
which a cone-bearing specimen and a cone-scale are shown in text-fig. 4. A comparison 
of the latter with the specimens shown in pl. 2, figs. 11—17 and pl. 3, figs. 13—20, 
will reveal a very great resemblance alike of the vegetative shoots and of the cones. 
The latter have the same shape and size in both cases, and the scales, though dif- 
fering in detail, have a similar structure. The difference consists mainly in the fact 
that both the lower petiolar portion and the apical projection are longer in the fossil 
; 
