KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 5l|. N:O 7. 13 
Among known reproductive organs that described by LRUTHARDT (1903, p. 7; 
pl. 7) as the male flower of Baiera furcata HR. will present the closest analogy. With 
reference to these, the writer just mentioned says that ”Gruppen von Pollensäcken 
alternierend zu 10 bis 15 um eine gemeinsame Achse sich lagern. — — — An der 
Hauptspindel entspringen ein 3 mm. langes Filament, das sich flächenartig erweitert. 
Von dieser Staubblattfläche aus strahlen in regelmässigen Abständen vier Antheren- 
gruppen zu je drei Pollensäcken aus. Jede Gruppe steht auf einem besonderen Stiele.” 
To this description should be added that the organs regarded as pollen-sacks stand 
right out, and constitute a direct continuation of the sporophyll without being set off 
against it in any manner, 
Accordingly, the difference between the two male organs in question is, as far 
as is known, principally to be found in the position and the number of the pollen- 
-sacks as well as in their shape. The existing resemblance between them is in all 
probability due rather to an agreement in function than to any close relationship. 
LEUTHARDT does not hesitate to take for granted the identity of his flower 
and of the fronds described as Batiera furcata. But substantial evidence is, I think, 
necessary to prove this, for the agreement with the male flower of Ginkgo -biloba 
may be far from being so great, as he is inclined to suppose. 
As for the systematical position and the relationship of Antholites Zeilleri 
NATHORST expresses himself with the greatest caution. He points out the possibility 
of its belonging to a Ginkgophyte; but on the other hand he does not consider it 
impossible that it is a case of a Cycadophyte. Later on he observed some corre- 
spondences to Lepidopteris Ottonis, and now considers it, as he has kindly told me, 
rather possible that it constitutes the male organ corresponding to this frond. This 
supposed relationship cannot be fully proved with the material at disposal; but the 
fact that there is much which speaks for it, should be clear from the discussion of 
the matter which I will now give. 
In trying to find out to which frond Antholithus Zeilleri corresponded, the first 
questions must be: do we know this frond, or do we not? which is more likely? 
It is, of course, not possible to be perfectly certain that it is known, but the 
scale weighs heavily in the balance, when one considers how infinitely much more 
readily these small organs are lost and escape the attention than fronds, which must 
be far more numerous, and further in this case must be of a very firm consistence 
— the scale weighs, however, so decidedly in favour of this, that it seems to be 
rather a reasonable supposition. In this connection it is worthy of remark that ÅA. 
Zeilleri 18 known from four localities, and in one of them it is not a very great rarity. 
As NATHORST brought forward the supposition of A. Zeilleri possibly being the 
flower of a Ginkgophyte, I will first discuss this possibility. 
There are a number of Ginkgophytes known from Scania, but several are rare, 
and others are out of the question, because they do not occur in the same layers 
as ÅA. Zelleri. Thus, there are only two Baiera-species, which — at Billesholm 
— occur in association with this. And Baiera is in all probability the only genus 
which can come in question. 
