LEPIDOSTROBUS. 



61 



When we consider how common a fossil a Lepidostrobus is, met with in abundance in 

 all our Coal-measures, and described in nearly every work on Carboniferous fossils, it is 

 very remarkable how few of the specimens afford us much evidence of the true nature of 

 their organs of fructification. 



Until the description of Lepidostrobus Babadiamis was given by M. Brongniart and 

 Professor Schimper, we were ignorant of a fossil Cone with Sporangia full of Microspores 

 in its upper part, and Macrospores in its lower part ; and even this valuable specimen 

 was found in drifted deposits, so we cannot be quite certain as to its having originally 

 come from the Coal-measures. True it is that both Dr. Robert Brown and Dr. Hooker 

 adduced evidence of Cones with Sporangia containing Microspores ; but those distin- 

 guished authors never stated that such Cones might also have contained Macrospores in 

 their lower portions. 



In addition to Lepidostrobus Babadiamis two more Cones, namely, Lepidostrobus 

 levidensis and Lepidostrobus IFuenscJdanus, and probably a third, L. latus (all from 

 undoubted Carboniferous Strata) have to be added to the list of Cones with both Micro- 

 spores and Macrospores ; whilst seven other Cones, also from the Coal-formations, have 

 been described, which, so far as they can be examined, afford evidence of Macrospores 

 alone. 



The Cone first described in this Monograph (No. 17) might, as far as its external 

 characters are concerned, be taken for Lepidostrobus ornatus ; and it contains 

 Microspores in a most beautiful state of preservation, not to be distinguished from those 

 found in Dr. Brown's Cone and in Lepidostrobus Babadiamis. On the other hand, in 

 my Cone, No. 26 {Lepidostrobus Ilibbertianus), which would also pass for a good 

 example of L. ornatus, we cannot see the Sporangia in its upper portion, owing to the 

 Scales, but where the interior of the lower part is exposed we meet with Sporangia 

 containing Macrospores, like those in L. Babadiamis. This leads us to conclude that 

 similar Cones, well preserved, on being subjected to careful examination, will afford the 

 two kinds of spores, in the upper and lower portions respectively. 



In nearly the smallest Cone described (No. 28, L. Jplienschiamcs) the largest Macro- 

 spores were found ; thus showing that the size of the Cone had nothing to do with pro- 

 ducing a large Macrospore. 



The Cones No. 23 and No. 27 have been classed under Lepidostrobus with considerable 

 doubt, as there is not sufficient evidence, especially as regards No. 23, to place them with 

 Calamostachys. They are evidently fragments, and the lower portions only of two Cones ; 

 they may, therefore, have had Microspores in their upper parts. The last-described Cone 

 (No. 30) has been referred to a new genus {Boivmanites), as it differs from Calamostachys 

 in its organs of fructification. An important feature in these three Cones is that they 

 appear to have had a verticillate arrangement of Scales, with whorled Leaves on their 

 Stems, and that in their lower portions they have yielded Macrospores. 



9 



