4 



belong to Catamites at all?" Professor Schimper, of 

 Strasburg, would merge the species nodosus into cannce- 

 f or mis. Professor W. C. Williamson would as certainly 

 place both stem and foliage under Aster ophyttites, on the 

 ground of his very beautiful investigations on the detailed 

 internal structure of Asterophyllitic specimens in which 

 that structure is visible. Principal Dawson, of Canada, 

 another great authority, entirely agrees with Professor 

 Williamson, in admitting no connexion between foliage 

 such as is shown in the " Fossil Flora" specimen, and 

 true Calamitean stems. 



In the fossils now in question, however, no internal 

 structure can be studied, and we have thought it more in 

 accordance with the object of this publication to retain, 

 as far as possible, the names which the authors of the 

 " Flora" undoubtedly intended to associate with the 

 drawings which are now reproduced. 



Dr. Lindley writes thus to Hutton respecting this 

 plant : — u This, I suppose, must be called Catamites 

 nodosus (see Plates XV. and XVI.), but it appears to me a 

 little between that fossil and Asterophytlites tuhercutata, 

 Plate XIV. . . ." (Hutton MSS.) 



The specimen comes from a light-brown shale at 

 Low Moor, in Yorkshire, a locality from which, many 

 of Hutton's finest and most interesting specimens were 

 derived. 



The drawing, by Mr. T. A. Prior, is, like the Plate, 

 one-half the natural size. 



(For a thorough discussion of the Catamites- Astero- 

 phyttites question, see the papers of Williamson, in the 

 publications of the Royal Society ; those of Carruthers, 

 in the Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh ; 

 Dawson's " Report on Fossil Plants of the Lower Car- 



